This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PMK1 (talk | contribs) at 08:34, 29 April 2009 (→Policy cannot be made on the backs of local editors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to add SQRT5P1D2 as a party

1) We have had an editor who states that he has done a number of edits to wikipedia as an IP and who recently created an account, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs), request to be added as a party to this arbitration. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

? Where does he say he edited a lot as an IP? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, see it now below in a new stmt by him..."Although I contributed to many Misplaced Pages entries before, this was the perfect time to register an account in order to keep track of the case. " — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to resolve the injunction (below) first, as user:SQRT5P1D2 was created after the case. If the injunction is not passed, I dont think there is any point in listing the user as a party. If the injunction is passed, SQRT5P1D2 is not able to participate, in which case they also cant be a party. Then this motion becomes a formal way of indicating that SQRT5P1D2 is allowed to participate in spite of the injunction. I'm not convinced that we are in need of parties to this case; they are plentiful already. John Vandenberg 02:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Personally, I have received the impression that the editor in question has been a contributor to wikipedia as an IP. I indicated to him that I would be willing to see him added as a party, and he indicated he wanted to be. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Greek nationalist canvassing off-wiki for the conversation. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't have any particular problem with this user, the question is where do we stop since everybody can claim "I've been editing as IP, let me in" this would not work well with the other proposal where it has been requested that participation be "limited to Misplaced Pages editors whose accounts were created prior to the opening of the case". Do you have any solution to keep this in line with the other proposal? man with one red shoe 21:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, yes, I hope so anyway. I get the impression that, for better or worse, this one individual might be involved with bringing many of the others in. I could see how we would benefit from having someone represent the number of editors who want to be involved, and having someone like him, who apparently does have some weight with that community involved, might give anyone else who wants to make a statement a person they can contact and, I hope, trust, who could make any statements they might care to make for them. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good point, if new users need to present crucial evidence or arguments they can pass them down to people who are already part of the case, there's no need for any special representation. man with one red shoe 21:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Weakly support to add party, on the grounds of #3 of the WP:5P. However one exception should not mean others too. This user is the only outsider that so far has shown interest in participating in the case here, when others just spam the talk pages. We should respect that. Shadowmorph (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Attest to that: there should be no cabals: principle #2 of User:Jimmy Wales. Shadowmorph (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also stipulate that this party be the only newcomer allowed to join. However, having him here would give some of those who read his blog a chance to have someone they can trust to add information for them. I tend to think most if not all of them are less familiar with the rest of us, and might not be quite so willing or able to trust us than him. And, at least as opposed to me, he seems fluent in at least one of the local languages there. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While this newcomer has personally shown restraint in his comments, I oppose adding him. The principal reason is that he, inadvertently or not, initiated a wave of new one-topic users who bring nothing useful to Misplaced Pages, but only clog the talk page of the single article they were directed by SQRT to comment on. He did not direct them to be open-minded and consensus-building productive editors, but to express their nationalistic views (although warning them not to be too nationalistic with an indirect reference to sarissas) and oppose the naming of the article. I find recruiting one-topic editor warriors to be distasteful. The two sides in this arbitration are about equally balanced as it is. There is no need for the "masses" to have more voice than they already have. I have read the comments by the new editors at Talk:Macedonia and they are uniformly repetitive, uninformed on the Misplaced Pages issue, not helpful, and not willing to engage in consensus-building. Even SQRT's arguments have been made before. I see that his input has already been placed on the Evidence page. Shouldn't the evidence page be restricted to the named participants? (Taivo (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually "Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page". --Avg (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That remark is from the top of the Evidence page. Also, on that same page, "/Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators." On the top of this page, the second sentence says, "The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments." And, although Taivo is free to have whatever opinions he wants, I cannot see how having a balanced number of editors on both sides is at all relevant. ArbCom generally wants all the information it can get more than it wants to have a balance of voices talking to them. As someone who's been here before, trust me, they read the comments for facts and conclusions more than they do for the number of "votes" per side. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Taivo's comment illustrates perfectly the state of mind of the other side (other than "the Greeks" ChrisO listed) as being just anti-Greek. Beside the Greek side is more accurately the pro-UN until a resolution side. It's one thing attacking editors based on their edits. It's worse to judge newcomers in only racial (he is Greek) grounds. Taivo and ChrisO didn't read the "Anyone, whether directly involved or not" sentence. Besides the "masses" coming here only illustrates the validity of asseting the havoc and chaotic disruption ChrisO's move has initiated. Furthermore why should the "two sides" be balanced when ChrisO based his move on unbalanced statistics (ignoring the pro-UN side of English speakers)? Shadowmorph (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to read my comment and the reason why I personally oppose his addition. "I find recruiting one-topic editor warriors to be distasteful." Whether intended or not, he is the source of a group of one-topic editors swarming the Talk:Macedonia page responding to his call to come specifically and make their voices be heard at Misplaced Pages. His page was written in Greek, so you do the math about who he was summoning. He was not recruiting Misplaced Pages editors for the project as a whole, he was recruiting respondents for one specific article, one specific poll, one specific POV. That's what I object to. If he had not done that, I would have no objections to adding him. It is the "call to arms" mentality evidenced by summoning non-editors to make their uninformed mark on Misplaced Pages that offends me. (I would be just as opposed to adding a Macedonian who had done the same thing.) (Taivo (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

I did read your comment. You think the new user had wrongdoing outside the wiki, it's your opinion. Would you propose to him inaction and acceptance better? Anyhow,enough said, I was referring to your state of mind. My proof is your above explanation still having to resort to using the word "Greek". Shadowmorph (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• (ecx2) Support I wish to applaud John's tireless efforts to be open-minded and fair. What a breath of fresh air. But I think just saying thanks to John, doesn't do enough justice to the civility and fairness that he brought to this, often acrimonious, debate. By assuming good faith of SQRT, IMO, he is acting in the best traditions of Misplaced Pages and he is being sensibly inclusive. I respect that. Also thanks for the valuable insights on how Arbcom works. Dr.K. logos 23:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Despite reading that "any user may edit this workshop page", I wouldn't do that while I'm being proposed to be added to the list: it's a matter of principle. However, I would like to clarify a few things because certain users like Taivo, seemingly supportive of ChrisO's questionable actions, repeatedly spread false information. A few days ago, after I came back from holidays, I saw a message in my mailbox about the current issue regarding Macedonia's Misplaced Pages entry. Although I contributed to many Misplaced Pages entries before, this was the perfect time to register an account in order to keep track of the case. I also posted in grk.forthnet.users (note: this is a newsgroup) a message, in case anyone else was interested in voicing his opinions. This newsgroup is also indexed by Google; someone took it from there and posted in several blogs/fora. Others also took it and repeated the same procedure, sometimes leaving the message intact, sometimes not. Some Wikipedians found this message in a certain blog and their poor command of the greek language led them to believe that a) this is my blog and b) I'm calling for waves of nationalists to flood Misplaced Pages. How odd is that! I do not claim to represent anyone, but since the english version of Misplaced Pages isn't very popular within the greek-speaking community, I believe that my voice would be a useful addition to the ongoing dialogue. This is the translation of the original newsgroup message (check the timestamp) and this is where I stand on the issue. Last but not least, I'm not aware of any rules that restrict the participation of users based on their nationality; I also don't see any other Wikipedians expressing interest in joining the list. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get why it would make sense to add someone who, in terms of information we can verify, has had nothing to do with the dispute until the past few hours. If we get some sort of evidence that the user has in fact made IP contributions, maybe then. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept SQRT's description of his involvement here and his posting in the spirit of WP:AGF. It is, however, a very clear example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. I still find distasteful the idea of asking people outside Misplaced Pages to come here just to voice their opinions. If he were recruiting editors with an eye for long-term contributions across a spectrum of articles, that is one thing. But calling for people to join Misplaced Pages just to comment on one specific issue is not within the spirit of the project. SQRT seems to have a good command of the historical literature relevant to Greece (at least) and his future contributions will be welcome. But "recruiting" to Misplaced Pages any Tom, Dick or Harry who has an opinion on Macedonia is not going to add quality editors for the long-term and will not really add any enlightenment to the issue. This is all I'm going to say on this matter. (Taivo (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure why everybody is treating this issue as if being a participant in this case was a desirable privilege. This is not about whether this person is going to be granted the right to use these pages for his grandstanding (which is what he is apparently hoping to achieve). "Participants" in this case are those of us who have some concrete past involvement with the dispute, and who are putting our own past behaviour up for scrutiny by the committee. Basically, making yourself a "participant" here means stepping forward as a candidate to have your head chopped off. Why would anybody want to do that if they can avoid it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks. I've been part of the dispute, since I've edited entries related to Macedonia in the past, before registering an account. This is not something that can be proved, but it can't be disproved either. Assume good faith. Now, I did not propose myself to be added to the list. I want to be added to the list, but it was my belief that someone else should propose me, if he feels that way. Another administrator did and I accepted. That should tell something about your speculation ("hoping to achieve", "grandstanding"). Who am I, the Queen (cue Seinfeld: "not that there is anything wrong with that")? I even hesitated to post here (see previous comments), as a matter of principle! Unfortunately, since some users distort the reality, I have to. This whole discussion is about one (1) user, proposed by others to be added to the list, with no other Wikipedians lining for a position. I see no reason to be afraid of a newbie: I won't bite. As for my head: count me in; I'll bring the soda. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, even more nationalists, do we need it? No. chandler ··· 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - (again, sorry for posting in this section) Thank you. I respect people showing confidence in their own savoir-faire. However, you might find these useful: a) "Translation of the original newsgroup posting about Macedonia", b) Yet More Analysis 1.0 RC and c) WP:CIV. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fut.Perf. is requested to offer a full and unreserved apology to Avg

2) Fut.Perf. alleged I have something to do with this post (translation) on a certain blog. I categorically say I have nothing to do with this post and I consider this a straightforward effort from his part to throw mud at me. Unfortunately, although I specifically requested twice his apology, he's not offering one and he resorts to irony and personal attacks. I kindly ask the Arbitrators to enforce this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Avg (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is: No. I didn't "allege", I said I "suspected". Which is true. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is really appalling. I honestly do not know how I can protect myself from this. Again, I deny any relationship with this post and challenge you to prove your claims. Do whatever you think fit. I simply have not written this post so I really have nothing to fear. You're throwing mud at me all the time, but this has gone beyond any imagination. --Avg (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't fault Future Perfect in this instance. I asked him if the language sounded like that of anyone he knew, so that if there were an obvious suspect that party might be persuaded to admit their involvement. He indicated that the language and tone reminded him of Avg. He did not say that he thought it was Avg, he just named the party that first came to mind, saying that his statement was less than conclusive. I can't take that statement as an accusation. Avg has since denied in the strongest possible terms that the party who wrote it is him. I have no reason to question that statement. On that basis, the previous speculation on Future Perfect's part, prompted by my request, has to be seen as being just that, speculation. If anyone is to be blamed for this conversation, it is me for my initial leading question. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the exchange and it is exactly as John Carter characterizes it. There was no "accusation", just a simple qualified response to a question about whether the Greek text sounded like anyone Future Perfect knew. Future Perfect was very clear that he was not accusing Avg of writing the blog itself, but just that the tone and language sounded like something Avg might write. At no point did Future Perfect accuse Avg of actually having written it and at no other point in this discussion does he make such an accusation. (Taivo (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

I do not want my name to be hanging in the air for something that I have not done and I do not condone. I had no other means to clear my name than to request Fut.Perf. to apologise publicly and fully for throwing mud at me. Instead I get irony and insults. He did write my name and he now has to apologise. In real life, if you say on a public forum, say on television that you "suspect" someone of being a criminal, does it matter if you then say that well, it was just a suspicion? There is a significant amount of damage already done and the mud cannot be taken off easily. Everybody will be looking at the other person as a potential criminal. In our Wiki-world everybody will now say, but of course, Avg would be one of the prime suspects for these practices. The profiling worked, again. Anyway, I still demand that apology. If Fut.Perf. offers it, I will consider this incident closed.--Avg (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion: Let's do less navel gazing. man with one red shoe 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous; the arbitrators cannot possibly force someone to apologize, any more than your parents can make you be sorry for taking cookies without permission. If you propose something, make an actual sanction, something the committee can actually enforce. This sort of tit-for-tat bickering is not what the workshop page is for, and I ask the clerks to remove this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a line which has been crossed. He could have said "I suspect someone, but I don't have proof". If he says a name in the open, then it automatically becomes an allegation. It is plainly false, so I demand an apology. Obviously he should also cease and desist from making such false allegations against me or other editors in the future. --Avg (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Demand away, but the ArbCom cannot enforce such a thing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Participation by newly registered editors

1) Participation in this arbitration, including the posting of evidence and comments on workshop pages and the associated talk pages, shall be limited to Misplaced Pages editors whose accounts were created prior to the opening of the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this is necessary, otherwise these pages will be overwhelmed with well-meaning but useless information and discussion. If new editors have something useful to add, they should contact existing editors or clerks. John Vandenberg 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a wise idea. I can think of many other places that are much healthier for a new editor to start with than arbitration. As noted by John V and others, if newer editors have something pertinent and helpful to add, it can be handled through others. --Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I've been made aware that Greek nationalist blogs are apparently urging readers to come to Misplaced Pages and campaign on the Macedonia article move (see and for more. New single-purpose accounts like SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs) are already appearing and posting reams of "evidence" to the arbitration case . To avoid coordinated off-wiki disruption of this case, I propose that participation in it should be limited to established Wikipedians. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Blogs? This is nothing. This has been reported even by news channels in the Republic of Macedonia. So, while I agree with the proposal, I would advise you ChrisO to once again refrain from your one-sided rhetoric.--Avg (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly support. Lord knows we don't want the whole bloody country posting here. We've got news shows telling people in the ROM/FYROM/whatever about this?! John Carter (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The headline is along the lines of "Macedonians succeed in changing the reference FYROM to Macedonia, but only virtually". (I don't speak Macedonian, but Google's Bulgarian translator can give you a basic gist of the story.) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the news channel report, so thanks for letting us know about that. You'll note that the proposal would apply equally to both sides. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur with this. One of the "new people" added their name to the participant list just an hour ago. He has been removed. Semi-protection of this arbitration that limits it to accounts already in existence a week ago is completely warranted. Since this applies to both sides equally and since there were about equal numbers of named participants on both sides, this is a fair and reasonable request. (Taivo (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

I agree, it's common sense, however having a whole country posting here in outrage would probably clarify once and for all that this a POV/COI issue and it has to be dealt as such. man with one red shoe 19:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what this actually is? The best proof of the level of disruption that ChrisO's move caused. If we get armies of nationalist IPs attacking or defending this controversial move, then I would at least entertain the thought that it was the move itself that brought them here in the first place? --Avg (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got news for you - we already have armies of nationalist IPs waging war across Misplaced Pages on the Macedonia issue, the vast majority of them promoting a Greek POV and many tracing to IPs in Greece or Cyprus (see ). That's always been the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is the occasional IP vandal, but there is a direct causal relationship between the blog posts, the news reports and your very move. And I'll mention again, as I will every time you use this filter, that it specifically excludes admins (and hence the dozens of reverts you and Future have done).--Avg (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up question - Would there be any value to trying to protect from new editors the various relevant mainspace article and talk pages as well? If and when certain people see themselves removed from these posts, I can easily see them vandalizing elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia itself is already semi-protected (and has been for a long time), but there may be some value in semi-protecting Talk:Macedonia. People are specifically being directed there by the blog postings of SQRT5P1D2, which are being reposted on other Greek blogs. I'd suggest keeping an eye on it to see how bad it gets. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ChrisO remarks. It is wrong to attack and WP:BITE new users only on the grounds of one being Greek (or Albanian or whatever). This is unacceptable, and maybe borderline racist. In Misplaced Pages Everyone should be able to edit though not in this arbitration I guess. ChrisO has been warned before about this practice of attacking new editors and of specific nationalities. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#ChrisO_warned and specifically about new editors Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#ChrisO_2. What is true is that User:SQRT5P1D2 has only used mild language and has shown nothing to attest nationalism or bad manners. Evidently User:SQRT5P1D2 is the blogger of enimerwsi-gr.blogspot.com, (just another news blog), as he himself accepts here, view it in English (automatic translation) here. This is a very sad behavior from an admin. It is in fact ChrisO unilateral move that created this Wikipedian cross-country issue, by aligning with nationalists from within the Republic of Macedonia. I have evidenced the sudden rise of google "Macedonia Misplaced Pages" searches from within RoM (the news made it in RoM TV) to Future Perfect in the talk page; I was not believed though.Shadowmorph (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC). What difference does it make that User:SQRT5P1D2 is whoever he may be? Shadowmorph (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There are good reasons for not letting new people join an arbitration case directly, for one they should familiarize first with Misplaced Pages's policies and how things work here. Even User:SQRT5P1D2 post in /Evidence shows this clearly, he doesn't help your cause by bringing all kind of facts about Macedonia naming issue that are not pertinent to policies here. Potentially spamming Misplaced Pages and this case with requests from new users that don't have any idea about Misplaced Pages policies is not something that I can support. Also, I doubt new users can bring any new evidence to the case, since 1. have not been part of the discussion (that's obvious) 2. things have been already discussed ad nauseum. man with one red shoe 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote anyways so there's no need for "stuffing the ballot", if new people really feel the need to provide crucial evidence or arguments, I'm sure they can contact some of the involved parties to pass those evidence/arguments to them. man with one red shoe 21:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification:I opposed ChrisO's remarks, not the proposed temporarily injunction. But I weakly oppose that too. Shadowmorph (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also new users shouldn't have to learn any firm rules. We'll just get him to learn WP:5P by heart :) Shadowmorph (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually WP:IAR is more useful (if you don't know the rules is easier to ignore them) ... :D man with one red shoe 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but I have to post again here. Shadowmorph and others, I've already posted about this above. I'm not the owner of any blog (unless I'm a sleepwalker) and I could not find any "evidence" pointing to that. In this universe. I just posted in a newsgroup (check timestamp) and others took my post from there. The translation is here and I believe that there is nothing wrong with asking for anyone interested to participate in a dialogue. Let's not prejudge people and remember to assume good faith. Finally, regarding my abilities, I would like to ask everybody implanted with Misplaced Pages's policies during their embryo stage, to raise their hands. I thought that this was not a private members club. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology: Please accept my sincere apologies.I'm sorry, I was mislead by the blogger who didn't specify a source. Very sorry, damn that web 2.0. I agreed with you about the "private members club" but I hope you understand the issues involved here. Don't focus on trying to prove "you are not an elephant" ;-) Try to focus on what actual evidence and suggestions you could present to the issues at hand that could be helpful to the ARBCOM (like facts, the use of policies, manners of conduct etc). A good thing to start on policies would be WP:Purpose and WP:5P the only firm rule. I hope I helped Shadowmorph (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We've got another new user showing up--Dimorsitanos--and adding himself to the involved parties list. While SQRT's innocent posting may not have been intended to open the flood gate, I fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The clerks deleted the last person who added themselves to the list, but there are still comments on the evidence page from at least two previously uninvolved parties and a whole section on this page from a previously uninvolved user. I wait eagerly for the involved users to post over the weekend (as I will be doing myself). (Taivo (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Please excuse my frustration, but we now have about one-third of the "evidence" on the evidence page presented by users who were not registered users at the time that this arbitration was filed. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable to me. Does Misplaced Pages arbitration actually allow a newly-registered user to issue a notice to join the discussion outside Misplaced Pages and then allow all those new users to contribute their "evidence" to an arbitration? (Taivo (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't see a need to request an excuse for the frustration. But, for what it's worth, just because the "evidence" is there doesn't necessarily mean that, if it doesn't say anything particularly useful, anyone will pay any attention to it. Were I an arbitrator, and I know I'm not, never have been, and probably never will be, I think all I'd do is look for any real evidence in their comments, and, if I don't see any, basically, well, ignore them. 14:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Stop the accusations/insinuations of racism now

2) It is very damaging to a discussion to bring accusations or insinuations of racism. There's not one racist comment on this page or talk:Greece or talk:Macedonia, at most there are accusations of bias caused by patriotism/nationalism. Making an intentional confusion between bias issues and racism is very damaging and I hope the arbitrators/clerks will impose a motion to stop these baseless accusations/insinuations.

In the meantime I hope editors of this page will restrain from using carelessly words like "race" and "racism".

Addition: if you have proof of racism, by all means, please bring it forth, but don't insinuate or make accusations without any hard proof.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Please analyze this request quickly. man with one red shoe 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I would like to add "nationalism" as well please.--Avg (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. These accusations are in blatant bad faith. As for Avg's comment above, nationalism is at the heart of this dispute, not race. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Avg, "nationalism" and "racism" are not the same thing. Apples and oranges. (Taivo (talk))

The United Nations uses the definition of racial discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted in 1966:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Are you suggesting that we don't talk about people who suggest distinguishing others based on national or ethnic origin? By the way, "nationalism" is a type of racism, too. It is a specific kind of philosophy associated with "ethnic discrimination", which is the same thing as racism. One thing I will agree with is that it is counter-productive to accuse people (of racism or nationalism) without substantiating these claims. If a person, however, does believe that such a thing is taking place... we shouldn't muzzle then, now, should we? --Radjenef (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. There are comments which have been made which have indicated that there may be nationalist tendencies in some editors. Frankly, I myself don't doubt there have been. The question is whether we can reasonably say specific individual editors are nationalistic. That requires a higher threshold of proof, although, if enough evidence exists to prove such a contention, I think it could be presented. But it certainly does no one any good for some to accuse others of "racism" or "nationalism" when all the people making those comments really mean is that there may be a POV issue involved for the editors being described as nationalistic. It is perfectly relevant to say that an individual may have a POV which colors their judgement, if you can produce evidence to that effect. However, without such direct, specific evidence, I would hope that everyone refrains from either alleging someone else is biased or complaining when they themselves are indicated to possibly be biased by relevant evidence. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you twist the meaning of the definition, it's racism if you distinguish between nations claiming that a nation is better than other, however that's not the case here, we (or at least I) smell bias, that's not racism. It's also associating yourself with Greek POV (that Macedonia doesn't have the right to use that name) you don't even have to be Greek to do that. Also we are not militating to reduce your "human rights and fundamental freedoms" we just note a bias problem and search for methods to eliminate it, I even mentioned that "disenfranchising" Greeks is not a solution, a solution would be to have for example a number of non-involved admins take a decision in this case. How is that reducing your rights? man with one red shoe 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

How do other-language Wikipedias handle this conflict?

(Or, if they don't have this conflict, how do they avoid having it?) --83.253.240.46 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Swedish (my native) wiki uses Makedonien, the German (second biggest wiki after English) uses Mazedonien, the French (third biggest) uses Macédoine (pays) (I can only presume that pays means country). Three examples, you can just look yourself otherwise under "Languages" on the left side, it's somewhat mixed over the different languages. The reasons (on the Swedish Misplaced Pages) stated for the naming include "sovereign country is priority", the same goes for other countries that might be controversial outside of Sweden, Irland (Ireland), Kina (China), Taiwan (Republic of China/Taiwan) chandler ··· 00:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say that I haven't actually looked into the matter myself, but here goes.

The first thing that we might want to remember is that this is by far the largest wikipedia. That means we get lots of editors from all over the world and that tends to make disagreements, even extreme ones, more likely.

Second, remember that most other wikis, with maybe exceptions in Spanish and French, tend to be limited to only a single country or a small number of countries. As a result, it is much easier and probably more likely that there will be less disagreement there, because there's more of a consensus to the best-known name.

Those are just guesses, but they are based on what I have seen in terms of other articles. Anyone with more concrete knowledge of this particular case is encouraged to add whatever direct information they might have. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Magyar (Hungarian) labels the article Macedónia, but has Macedónia Volt Jugoszláv Köztársaság as the "foreign name" bolded in the first sentence and bolded in the first sentence of the section labelled "Neve" (Name). Macedón Köztársaság (Macedonian Republic) is listed as the domestic name in the second sentence of the "Neve" section. Except in these three sentences, Macedónia is used everywhere else in the article. There is no disambiguation page listed or linked to. On the map shown at Görögország (Greece), it is labelled simply as Macedónia. I checked the history on these articles and they have been stable for a very long time. The only notable piece of relevant vandalism on the Macedónia article was the insertion of the acronym "(FYROM)" in the first sentence. Of course, "FYROM" means absolutely nothing in Magyar. (Taivo (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

There's no need to do a case by case analysis. Just go to the country article and hover over the interwiki links. The large majority of them have ROM, fewer have M and a handful of them have FYROM or Macedonia (country).--Avg (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For people interested in the general inter-wiki wide situation here it is.

Template:MultiCol

"Republic of..." 81

/Template:Country data World Spanish; República de Macedonia

/ Italian; Repubblica di Macedonia

/ Portugese; República da Macedónia

/Template:Country data World Russian; Республика Македония

Afrikaans; Republiek van Masedonië

/ Alemannic German; Republik Mazedonien

Amharic; የመቄዶንያ ሬፑብሊክ

Anglo Saxon; Cynewīse Macedonia

Aragonese; Republica de Mazedonia

Template:Country data Aromanians Aromanian; Republica ali Machedonia

Franco-Provencal/Arpitan; Rèpublica de Macèdonie

Asturian; República de Macedonia

Azeri; Makedoniya Respublikası

Min Nan; Makedonija Kiōng-hô-kok

Belarussian; Рэспубліка Македонія

Bosnian; Republika Makedonija

Breton; Republik Makedonia

Bulgarian; Република Македония

// Catalan; República de Macedònia

Chuvash; Македони Республики

Cebuano; Republika sa Macedonia

Welsh; Gweriniaeth Macedonia

Template:Country data World Esperanto; Respubliko Makedonio

Basque; Mazedoniako Errepublika

Võro; Makõdoonia Vabariik

Waray-Waray; Republika han Masedonya

Zazaki; Cumurêtê Makedonya

Faroese; Lýðveldið Makedónia

Irish; Poblacht na Macadóine

Manx; Pobblaght ny Massadoan

Hawaiian; Repupalika o Masedonia

Upper Sorbian; Republika Makedonska

/ Croatian; Republika Makedonija

Template:Country data World Ido; Republiko Macedonia

Bahasa Indonesian; Republik Makedonia

Ossetian; Республикæ Македони

Icelandic; Lýðveldið Makedónía

Javanese; Republik Makedonia

Kapampangan; Republic of Macedonia

Kazakh; Македония Республикасы

Cornish; Repoblek Makedoni

/// Swahili; Jamhuri ya Masedonia

Komi; Македония Республика

Haitian Creole; Republik d Masedoni

Kurdish; Komara Makedonyayê

/Template:Country data World Latin; Respublica Macedonica

Bahasa Malaysian; Republik Macedonia

Mongolian; Бүгд Найрамдах Македон Улс

Norfolk/Pitcairn creole; Repablik o' Masedoenya

Norwegian (Nynorsk and Bokmål); Republikken Makedonia

Occitan; Republica de Macedònia

Uzbeki; Makedoniya Respublikasi

Dutch Low Saxon; Republiek Makedonien

Crimean Tatar; Makedoniya Cumhuriyeti

/ Romanian; Republica Macedonia

Romany; Republika Makedoniya

Sakha; Македония Республиката

/ Sami; Makedonia dásseváldi

Scottish; Republic o Macedonie

/ Albanian; Republika e Maqedonisë

Sicilian; Ripùbblica di Macidonia

//Template:Country data World Simple English; Republic of Macedonia

Slovenian; Republika Makedonija

// Serbian; Република Македонија

// Serbocroatian; Republika Makedonija

Tagalog; Republika ng Masedonya

Tajik; Ҷумҳурии Мақдуния

// Turkish; Makedonya Cumhuriyeti

Udmurt; Республика Македония

Ukranian; Республіка Македонія

/ Uyghur; Makédoniye Jumhuriyiti

Venetian; Republica de Macedonia

Vietnamese; Cộng hòa Macedonia

Chinese; 馬其頓共和國

Classical Chinese; 馬其頓共和國

/ Wolof; Réewum Maseduwaan

Korean; 마케도니아 공화국

Nahuatl; Tlācatlahtocāyōtl Macedontlān

Malayalam; റിപ്പബ്ലിക് ഓഫ് മാസിഡോണിയ

/ Tamil; மாக்கடோனியக் குடியரசு

/ Assyrian Neo-Aramaic; ܩܘܛܢܝܘܬܐ ܕܡܩܕܘܢܝܐ

| class="col-break " |

"Macedonia" 37

// German; Mazedonien

Polish; Macedonia

Japanese; マケドニア共和国

Template:Country data World Arabic; مقدونيا (translit: maqaduniya)

/ Guarani; Masedoña

Česky; Makedonie

Danish; Makedonien

Lower Sorbian; Makedońska

Estonian; Makedoonia

/ Ewe; Macedonia

Farsi; مقدونیه (translit: maqeduniya)

/ Hakka; Mâ-khì-tun

Hebrew; מקדוניה

Georgian; მაკედონია

Latvian; Maķedonija

Lithuanian; Makedonija

Hungarian; Macedónia

Macedonian; Македонија

Egyptian Arabic; مقدونيا

Chechen; Македони

/ Pashto/Afghani; مقدونيه

Piedmontese; Macedònia

/// Quecha; Makidunya

Saterland Frisian; Mazedonien

Slovak; Macedónsko

Silesian; Macedůńijo

Finnish; Makedonia

Swedish; Makedonien

Template:Country data World Church Slavonic; Макєдоні́ꙗ

Telugu; మేసిడోనియా

/ Urdu; مقدونیہ

Template:Country data World Volapük; Makedoniyän

Samogitian; Makeduonėjė

Thai; ประเทศมาซิโดเนีย compared to

Nepali; म्यासेडोनिया

Armenian; Մակեդոնիա hy:Մակեդոնիա

Hindi; मैसिडोनिया

"Macedonia (country)" 4

/Template:Country data World French; Macédoine (pays)

Netherlandic/Dutch; Macedonië (land)

West Frisian; Masedoanje (lân)

Limbourgish; Macedonië (land)

"Former Yugoslav..." 2

/ Greek; Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας

/ Pontic Greek; ΠΓΔΜ

others 1

Galician; Macedonia (ARIM) - Македонија (ПЈРМ) (the second half is strangely in the Macedonian language?)

Template:EndMultiCol

Note: The top ten inter-wikis are bolded. I have tried to get the flag/country data as close as possible. Please dont cut sick at if you have a minor issue. PMK1 (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that work. So, to summarise, six of the top ten wikis use "Macedonia" by itself or with "(country)" as a disambiguator, and four use "Republic of Macedonia". Only three wikis use "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (not surprisingly, two of those are Greek wikis). I should add that many of the smaller wikis take their lead from the English wiki in terms of naming and article content, so the names of their articles may reflect this wiki more than it reflects any conscious choice on the part of the editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two very interesting observations here. First, the mk wikipedia had the name "Република Македонија" for the article since it was first created back in 2005. It changed its name to "Македонија" two days ago , just after the arbitration started. And suddenly, we hear that "Macedonia" alone is the preferred self-identification. But more on that on the evidence page.

Secondly, ChrisO just above accepts that "many of the smaller wikis take their lead from the English wiki in terms of naming". Even if I wanted to say that he was simply irresponsible in changing the name by not knowing the scale of the impact, he proves once again, that he knew the effect that en wiki has and he still did it, so it was a deliberate move.--Avg (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"So it was a deliberate move"... No can't be, I was under the impression ChrisO had moved it in his sleep... I don't really see what you're trying to achieve with your comment above. The move is not wrong, Macedonia in English == the country. chandler ··· 16:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong info should be fixed. 共和國 = 共和国 = 공화국 mean "Republic".--Caspian blue 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Avg, as for your comments doubting the influence of English Misplaced Pages over smaller ones; we will just have to see whether or not changes are made on the other wikipedias. Nobody here can predict the future; we will all have to wait. On your comments about "Republika Makedonija"; well when many Macedonians refer to simply "Makedonija" they often refer to Macedonia (region); in that type of context. It is clear that on English Wiki that is unacceptable practise, (so it should be). Anyways as Fut.Perf. predicted somewhere you have steered the conversation elsewhere. (No Offence). PMK1 (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, why then did people change the article title in mk wiki, if not to push a POV in the arbitration case? It is very well known that a large percentage of the Slav Macedonian editors are active in both wikis. And it is quite funny that you, a Slav Macedonian, admit that many Slav Macedonians refer to Macedonia in a United Macedonia context. On your last comment, you know, efforts to create a chilling effect on opposing parties probably doesn't reflect good on you, as it didn't to the original accuser, in case you missed it.--Avg (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not just English Misplaced Pages with a strong influence over the others. Take Dutch wikipedia which has "Macedonia (county)", with the two other wikipedias based primarily in Holland taking a similar stance (West Frisian/Limbourgish). The same could be said for Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian/Serbocroatian/Slovenian. Italian could also possibly affect Venetian and Sicilian Wikis. A change in Spanish wikipedia could very easily influence Aragonese/Catalan/Basque/Asturian/Quecha/Galician/Nahuatl. In turn the English Misplaced Pages could be said to have influence over Anglo Saxon/Simple English/Welsh/Hawaiian/Manx/Irish/Faroese/Cornish/Norfolk creole/Scottish/Afrikaans/Cebuano/Kapampangan. Russian also has possible influences in Belarussian/Estonian/Chuvash/Võro/Ossetian/Kazakh/Komi/Uzbeki/Crimean Tatar/Tajik/Udmurt wikipedias. One change in the Major Wiki could precipitate several changes. PMK1 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian also appears to use "Republic of Macedonia", not "former Yugoslav..." anything; at least mn:Бүгд Найрамдах Чех Улс is the Czech Republic, not any once Yugoslav state. That leaves two, both Greek-speaking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the direct inter-wiki link I would not stress if it is not 100% correct. I have restored it. PMK1 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Avg, before the move on mk wiki, I'm pretty sure Македонија was simply a redirect to Република Македонија. So the move would simply have been technical. In Macedonian, Македонија refers to the Republic of Macedonia in most cases, rather than the larger region. BalkanFever 10:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

mk:Македонија (регион) was moved to mk:Македонија on 6 Dec 2008 and back to mk:Македонија (регион) on 19 Apr 2009. Details of the article names related to Macedonia over time can be found at mk:Македонија (појаснување).  Andreas  13:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC) It is also to note that the articles el:Μακεδονία (about the wider Region) and el:Μακεδονία (διαμέρισμα) (about the Greek region) were never moved.  Andreas  13:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Has any of the Greek or Macedonian editors considered to recuse themselves when it comes to this touchy subject?

If not, how do you argue that a strong national POV (over 90%-95% of Greeks with a specific opinion as claimed by the Greek side itself, and probably the same for Macedonians) does not tantamount to a conflict of interest? man with one red shoe 03:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed the comments by User:Tasoskessaris who was strongly opposed to the ethnic profiling of users. He pulled out of the straw poll but did not pull out of the arbitration. As for Macedonian editors, I have only noticed 3 or 4 involved with this current issue. I am sure that there are many other editors some who genuinely are not interested in pushing their national POV's and Edit warring and some who have not learned of this ARB case. PMK1 (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The title should reference "Macedonian Greek and Macedonian editors ..." if it was supposed to be NPOV. The WP conflict of interest is defined for personal affiliations (like in autobiographies) or close relations (a page about someone's company). It is not about a whole group of people and their race/nationality/place of origin. The American official position about Macedonia shifted in 2003, so I could assert that if you were say American, you have a conflict of interest. If that was the case then all Americans that have edited Misplaced Pages should fall into WP:COI when they edit the pages like America, United States or even Iraq ...you get my point. My main objection was the concentration of data about ethnicities (for either group supporting or oppossin) in one page. Lists like that are a discrace. Of course the data can be retrieved if someone wan't to dig enough about it. If it was a list of Jewish editors, wouldn't that be a discrace? Besides the reasons of making this list are obvious Ad hominem. There is also the danger of this list appearing in outside wiki places. The IPs of editors have been accidentally shown in the past (Hussond recently in the talk page revealed it by not logging in) and the persons in the list might even become targets of direct real life attacks. WP:COI would be the case only for politicians or officials or spies that are actually real-life involved. Shadowmorph (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So the short answer is I will recuse when all Americans recuse in articles like Iraq or even Macedonia. Shadowmorph (talk)

Man with one red shoe. I must disagree with this. While the middle and end of Shadowmorph's comment drops into irrelevance, his concise first statement about WP:COI is accurate. The three or four Greek editors who have been involved with this case since long before it was sent to arbitration are generally honest, thoughtful, and well-meaning individuals who have a legitimate voice to add to the discussion. (Taivo (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't know, again it's not bad faith or dishonesty, is bias. And is a larger issue in my view, I mentioned in other places this example: take the Chinese, they are numerous, they have a specific POV regarding Tibet, they would be able to filibuster, edit war (but not infringe any 3RR individually -- there's no need when there are many people doing it) and vote in straw polls regarding national POV issues, they wouldn't need to be "nationalists" they would simply see themselves as "patriots", they will be able to block any change that they don't agree with. The question is, can we find some way to avoid a national bias leaking into Misplaced Pages? (not that it didn't happen, but it can get worse then simply deciding what name to pick for Macedonia). Again, the problem is not ideas that people bring forth, the problem is where the sheer number of the editors makes a difference: edit wars, filibustering, straw polls. I personally would not accept the result of a biased poll, would Greeks accept results of a poll taken mostly by Turks when it comes to Greek history, islands, Cyprus, genocide of Greeks in Anatolia? (BTW, how about the genocide of Armenians, should we ask the Turks if it was a genocide or not?) I don't accuse Turks of anything, I don't "assume bad faith", but there are different POVs that are different distributed in different nations and we have to take that into account when we examine the results of straw polls (and whether is good to use them at all in such matters). In this case I was just testing to see if people of nations that are involved directly in this naming conflict if they are willing to recuse themselves, it seems that's not the case. Just asking... move forward.... man with one red shoe 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say that I have never known many people who do clearly prove themselves non-neutral who ever readily acknowledge it. Also, particularly considering that in most cases people with an interest in a country are most likely to read material about it, in most cases they can somewhat reasonably see themselves as more "expert" than most, and will on that basis be doubly insulted by someone saying they aren't objective. I actually do wish such people would recuse themselves, but, unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath for it. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit lost with all these discussions and points going on simultaneously and I don't really know when, where and if I have to bother answering all this stuff that's flying all over the place. But this point made by the man with the one red shoe is interesting and so I will reply. So here it goes: As Greeks or Macedonians we must recuse ourselves because we have our national POV. Perfect. But how do I know what is the background of the man with the one red shoe. He is obviously not revealing his name, nationality, allegiance, country, POV he may have etc. Why should such a user be in a more privileged position than another user who chose to reveal his name, country and many more details about himself. Should secrecy be assumed to be automatically NPOV? That's absolute hogwash and confused thinking. I respect PMK1, Balkan Fever, Macedonians, Albanians, Turkish people, Mongolians, Armenians etc. etc. I do not want anyone recused. The only one maybe that may neeed to recuse himself must be the man with the red shoe because he keeps coming up with these ideas for filtering out people based on their ethnicity while at the same time he does not reveal his. The level of this debate is falling like a brick. Dr.K. logos 23:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please no more of this ethnic profiling. The fact that people are Greeks or Macedonians of any background Greek or Slav does not automatically render them brain damaged when it comes to the Macedonia naming issue. People have ideas. Judge them by their ideas not by their ethnicity, race, sexual orientation or any other identifier or slogan. If that were the case then the Israelis and the Palestinians should never have to negotiate amongst themselves because they would have to recuse themselves from such a touchy subject such as the Palestinian problem. Gays need not be consulted about same sex marriage. Forget about asking blacks about contributing to racial discrimination related articles etc. etc. This is simply ridiculous. Editor apartheid is not the solution. Dr.K. logos 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I acknowledge that there are possibly several individuals from both "sides" in this argument whose contributions are, at best, dubiously thought through and considered. I would certainly welcome seeing most if not all of them recuse themselves. The fact that even some of the remaining editors will have rather intractable positions isn't that surprising. I think I've seen that in virtually every disagreement I've seen in wikipedia. In general, in those cases, there often can be some sort of compromise at least at some level. I have no objections to seeing some of the less reasonable participants in these discussions told to not take part, because in general their comments are less than productive. But I personally would seek their removal more for their incompetence and intransigence than because of their ethnicity.

Having said that, there is the fact that there seems to be a real difference of opinion on the naming issue between the two factions here. I honestly cannot think of any way to resolve that problem, but I don't think that it makes sense to tell thoughtful editors to go away simply because of their ethnicity. John Carter (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A few more thoughts following John's comment. I see no factions. At least, I think that counting heads is counter-productive. Allow me to illustrate this. Let's ban all US editors because their president recognised this country by its constitutional name and there are hordes of them in the english branch of Misplaced Pages. And no more oranges from Florida. Let's also ban UK editors, because of their country's "special relationship" with the US. Balkan editors should be banned too and, hopefully, relocated to Mars, eating their hearts out. Germans should have no say in this, because of the Holocaust (everything has to do with the Holocaust). Soon, we'll be left with an editor from some obscure observatory in Antarctica, trying to make sense of it all. All? What all? The Jews did it! SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @John: I agree completely. It is relatively easy to detect intransigence or filibustering using logic. We don't need to employ ethnicity-based analysis for that. Editors engaging in such behaviour may be asked politely to stop. But disagreement is not a sin. I don't have to agree with everything the opposing side proposes, the same way that the so-called uninvolved or neutral editors don't agree on all points amongst themselves either. That's, after all, the reason we came to the arbcom. I am Greek, but that doesn't automatically make me a neutral party for the Palestinian-Israel related articles, because I may have a strong POV favouring one side or the other. My ethnicity has nothing to do with my neutrality on any issue. Intellectual honesty and analytical/cognitive skills are the most important parameters in any debate, not personal identifiers. But, to tell you the truth John, I am tired of making these points which I consider to be so plainly obvious. I wish we could argue about something really interesting instead of being stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of anti-intellectual ethnicity oriented debates which can only promote ignorance, editor apartheid and ethnicity-based cleansing of contributions. Dr.K. logos 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

One certain ethnicity cannot be blamed in what ever the case. People need to realise that for the past 20 years Greece has been promoting the idea that "Macedonia is Greek". I am sure that many users here (who are probably young), have been brought up believing that. I sympathize with them, they have been educated and brought up that "Macedonia is Greek" but on Misplaced Pages, Macedonia is not Greek. I think that the practise of ethnic profiling has served is purpose in this particular case and from now on is no longer necessary here. It served to provide evidence of the walled garden. PMK1 (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree PMK1 with your point that "the practise of ethnic profiling has served is purpose in this particular case". It was not only the Greeks that were profiled. Others, including even the Albanians, were also profiled as "involved ethicitities" Are you to tell me you are somehow "inferior" to the "superior" so-called "neutral" nationalities? Or are you inferior because you did not hide your ethnicity while others routinely do so and thus are considered automatically superior to you? Is a nicknamed user who hides all info about themselves an automatically flawless editor? So let's all hide our personal information so that we can reach a state of perfection. Perfection through information suppression. How zen. Or is an editor who provides no logical reason for supporting one side or the other better than someone who although Greek gave a logical argument to support their position? Or am I supposed to reject your opinion or your compatriots' opinions simply because your nation is involved in this dispute and for no other intellectual reason? Am I supposed to consider you a brainless automaton just because your nation is at odds with mine? The premise of ethnicity based analysis is offensive to the human spirit and it is a regressive step in the evolution of the intellect. Dr.K. logos 02:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think for example a Chinese would be less passionate about the name used in Misplaced Pages for Republic of Macedonia and would me more likely to pay attention to the policies and try to work some compromise than somebody who think that if we use "Macedonia" name for the republic the Universe will implode, Greeks would be evacuated from Greek Macedonia and that part of the country would be glued to the Republic of Macedonia. A Chinese or somebody from South Africa would also be less likely to support using a name like "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in Greece page alone, when all the rest of the pages use a different name. man with one red shoe 03:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree in some aspects with what Dr K and John Carter have recently said. There is no need to judge a user's neutrality simply by their membership to a certain community. But if you look at their arguments, the similarity (even repetition) of those arguments by members of the same community, the sheer numbers and activity of the members of that community when discussions about real-world disputes take place, it's different. There is a pattern. Others have gone into more depth about that and I'll leave it for them.

About the logical arguments, what we have seen is "uninvolved" (by nationality) users rebut the arguments of the one side with other (more?) logical arguments, not with "you are Greek so you are wrong". And it doesn't help that many of the arguments aren't very logical, and come from nationalist POV-pushers and trolls (I won't name individuals) rather than intelligent users (e.g. Dr K). Discussion gets flooded with off-topic rants (regarded as relevant by those who post them) and even ethnic slurs. The truth is if all editors from "involved" nationalities were to recuse themselves, we wouldn't have any morons, at the expense of some non-nationalists not participating.

Where are the (automatically involved) ethnic Macedonian editors anyway? It's basically me and PMK1, and two other Macedonians having been active at Talk:Greece or Talk:Macedonia but not at this arbitration (I'm not even a party to the case). Where are the Macedonians who have been canvassed in? Where are the Macedonians "defending national honour"? Macedonian users have had almost no influence on the recent discussions, while Greek users have made a larger impact, and this needs to be addressed in some way.

I'm not sure where else I'm going with this, so I'll wrap it up: Remove the users who rant and filibuster, address the arguments of those who actually contribute, see where it goes. That seems to have already happened though - the rants and the profiling stuff have been "noise" but legitimate arguments were nonetheless countered with other legitimate arguments. BalkanFever 03:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with some parts in your post, but what about straw polls? Do they have any meaning in case of such strong POV? man with one red shoe 03:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

They provide an insight into the problem: see Talk:Greece/Naming poll#Results summary by FP. They don't solve disputes, that's what discussion is for. BalkanFever 03:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Balkan Fever for your nice comments and I agree that polls cannot replace intelligent discussion in solving disputes. But I disagree that the results summary given by FP provides any insight into the problem, except if you count misleading claims as insight. FP's analysis is based on simplistic generalisations that ethnicity determines the POV or NPOV of an editor. But it conveniently neglects to account for the pre-existing history of the dispute which included such notable attempts at compromise as WP:MOSMAC. I did not participate in the formulation of MOSMAC and I don't know if you did but the presence of MOSMAC indicates that things cannot be simplistically attributed only to the Greek POV. There was dialogue between the various parties and there was some progress made in the form of that essay. Now FP and others abandon this effort and in a hurry they proclaim a new orthodoxy whereby MOSMAC and related efforts are replaced by slogans and ethnicity-driven allegations. It looks too manufactured to be believable. This new orthodoxy also would have us believe that the various ethnic editors who until now have been able to reach a level of accommodation with each other cannot any longer be trusted to contribute in solving the problem, since they are involved ethnicities, but everyone else on the planet can have a hand at solving the problem. As well, editors who hide their identity and other personal information are also assumed to be neutral parties as long as they are against the Greek position. Slogans such as walled gardens and nationalism replace intelligent conversation and propaganda reigns supreme. Bottom line: If the problem was so simple as the ethnic-based analysis proponents and practitioners would have us believe there would have been no MOSMAC. The mere presence of MOSMAC and the fact that many editors engaged in its development indicates that this dispute is not as simplistic as the current anti-intellectual orthodoxy would have us believe. Dr.K. logos 04:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr K., I disagree with the call for recusal (see above). I would hate to continue this discussion without your involvement, for example. I disagree with you, but I respect you. But I continually find your attempts to paint this as anything other than a nationalistic dispute to be weak, at best. This isn't ethnic profiling, which wrongly attributes negative actions to an ethnicity based on their ethnic status. Ethnic profiling is stopping a black driver on the highway when he is obeying the law just to see if he has drugs in the glove compartment. That's ethnic profiling. When there are two parties to a dispute and one party is nearly all Greek and follows the national policy of Greece right down the line, and the other party has not a single Greek, pointing out that fact is not "ethnic profiling". If this were not a national issue, then one could reasonably expect a mix of Greeks and non-Greeks on both sides of the issue. One would expect a certain number of Greek editors to see the validity of the other side as well. That is the statistical probability based on any issue that does not have nationalistic consequences. Not all Greeks think alike, are educated alike, etc. so on a straw poll for the, say, composition of Genghis Khan's inner circle, we would expect half of the involved Greeks on one side and half of the involved Greeks on the other side. We could even expect half the Mongols to align on one side and half on the other if it was an objective discussion without nationalistic implications. But the discussion of what to call Macedonia is strictly polarized. There is not one single Greek on the "Macedonia" side of the issue. Not a single one. That, without any other evidence, is enough to demonstrate that this is a nationalistic issue for the Greek editors participating in this discussion. Maybe there are Greek Misplaced Pages editors that disagree with the "Greek" position here. But they are not participating and have not uttered a peep in the discussions at either Talk:Greece or Talk:Macedonia. I have great respect for Greeks. I have shared cubicles with them at several jobs and have dated a couple of Greek women. So trying to paint me as "anti-Greek" is a mistake. But this is a nationalistic issue. The statistics of participation and choice of stance are irrefutable. (Taivo (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

In this latest chain of events, the ethnic editors from both sides are the least responsible. They understand the issue and they had worked a good compromise between them in MOSMAC and they were faithful to their word. It is a small amount of (supposedly) third party editors that caused this huge amount of disruption and policy violations. And I do not have a problem at naming ChrisO and Fut.Perf. as the two main perpetrators. I mentioned back then in the poll section and I will mention it now, Fut.Perf. ethnic profiling would automatically place an editor like ChrisO with no useful input in the debate and a history of disruption in many controversial topics in a higher ground than Dr.K. or Yannismarou, two absolutely sterling editors with no history at all of involvement in this kind of topics. And the reason being that ChrisO has simply stated that he is not Greek or ethnic Macedonian. Leaving aside the absolutely racist connotation that some ethnicities are incapable of producing intelligent discourse, let me turn the tables. How do we know where he is really living? How do we really know what is his ethnicity? What ethnicity are his parents? His wife (if he's married)? Has he a COI with the subject? Is he employed by en employer who has COI with this subject? Has any Greek or ethnic Macedonian had a conflict with him in the past? Are there a lot of Greeks or ethnic Macedonians in his neighborhood? Is he an agent? This is a very sad string of arguments and it must be stopped right now. At the beginning. We, as the community that collectively writes an encyclopedia, have to be absolutely adamant in that all editors should only be judged by their editorial merit. Any arguments based on the ethnicity of the editor should not only strongly be discouraged but be a punishable offence. In fact isn't that the case already?--Avg (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it racist to call out that there are Greeks who think they have the monopoly on the name Macedonia (which happens to be the common name in English of a neighbouring country) and they want that to be shown on Misplaced Pages. As the politically incorrect would say, a false stereotype never sticks. I've yet to see any evidence of that Macedonia is not the common name for the country, I've mostly complains about the move-process "ChrisO knew what he was doing", "The move was pre-planned", "ChrisO is a dangerous editor" from the registered editors and rants from IPs who try to argue that Macedonia referring to the country can not be verified or be neutral. chandler ··· 06:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Chandler, please go back and see in which page the country article resides in right now. It is in the disambiguation page, not in a format of say Macedonia (country), that could possibly have a remote sort of justification from being the common name. Macedonia is the common name in English for the Ancient Macedonia, for the region of Macedonia, for the Greek Macedonia and, even for Macedonia in Ohio. So your argument is simply irrelevant. And also, you know, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Policies are here for a reason. If you do not understand why they are here please go and have a second read. It doesn't need to be explained again and again that without these policies Misplaced Pages cannot function at all. These are the fundamental principles for writing a collaborative encyclopaedia. Otherwise, ChrisO, you, me and whoever else can just post their articles on their site or blog and that would be all.--Avg (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't know what common name is if you think it referrs to anything other than the country. Here's a example for you: A newspapers writes a story, "Forest fires in Macedonia", No it's not Macedonia, Ohio (which will be described as Macedonia in Ohio), its not the region (which will be described as the wider region of Macedonia or something similar) nor Greek Macedonia (which will be described as "Macedonia the greek region" or "Macedonia in Greece" etc.). It is the country. (ancient macedonia will be referred to as Ancient Macedonia, just as Ancient Greece, or Ancient Egypt is). If you do a simple news search of Macedonia on English language news websites you'll find yourself with a bit of news about the country. Here's another example, if you say "I live in Macedonia" everyone will assume you're talking about the country, because thats the common usage of the word Macedonia in the English language. You think that's wrong, we already know that, but it doesn't change it. chandler ··· 07:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No chandler, encyclopaedia articles are not judged by what a newspaper or news site writes. Or all of them for that matter. Obviously news sources report news(duh). So not much chance you'll hear news about for example Macedonia. This will consequently skew news references and google hits. And this, among others, is why the methodology ChrisO uses is highly problematic. I think you also might want to have a look at WP:RECENTISM. --Avg (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2) Taivo hi. Thank you for your nice comments. I enjoy talking to you and respect you as well, even though we do disagree on some points. I really don't see where you got the impression that I try to paint you as anti-Greek. I have never referred to you in this way at all, neither would I ever want to. I am very pleased that you dated Greek women. That's an application of ethnic profiling that I can agree with wholeheartedly. Back to the subject at hand however. The definition of Ethnic profiling states:

Racial profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a "predictable" manner.

It is this insistence that the behaviour of editors can be predicted based solely on their nationality that constitutes the profiling. There is disagreement among editors even on the definition of the term Macedonia and how confusing the term is, or what it means and what criteria should be used to define it. Couple this to the fact that the naming policies of Misplaced Pages are not completely clear and you have pedictably a big problem. That there is no Greek editor who disagreed with the use of the term "FYROM" may be due to the fact that MOSMAC was a well established and respected convention that worked in practice and was respected by most editors versed in all matters Macedonia until Future decided to abrogate it. Respecting MOSMAC became a rallying cry for the Greek editors who also became uneasy by FP's precipitous actions and persuaded them to vote along the same lines. There are Greek editors who abstained from voting. So not all Greek editors supported the "FYROM" term. Terefore there are plausible reasons for this seeming conformity among Greek editors other than slogans and ethnic profiling innuendo. It's always nice talking to you, nevertheless I'll try to end this here since I think I addressed the main points and my typing skills always try to remind me to make discusssions as brief as practicable. Take care for now. Dr.K. logos 06:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. K, no, you never called me "anti-Greek", but other, less well-mannered editors here have. I would gladly like to know of any Greek Misplaced Pages editors who have not lined up on the same side as all the involved Greek editors. Until I actually have an example of a Greek editor who disagrees with the Greek national position vis a vis this issue, however, their behavior has been 100% predictable. So far every single new self-identified or clearly Greek editor has lined up on the same side with all the other Greek editors. Please, show me a counterexample. And MOSMAC was not a "success". It clearly states that in Greek-related articles there was no consensus, but nearly everywhere else Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia was to be used. This whole arbitration did not start with ChrisO's action, but in the failure to find any kind of consensus at Greece for the use of Republic of Macedonia rather than the non-self-identification (and non-Misplaced Pages-approved) "FYROM". That's the failure of MOSMAC--it did not definitively establish a single Misplaced Pages-wide policy. This issue was already headed for arbitration with or without ChrisO's action. That nearly always goes unmentioned in the comments being made by the Greek editors on the Evidence page. ChrisO's action is only the opening act--the main show was already scheduled--"(Republic of) Macedonia" at Greece. (Taivo (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Just to explain myself, I was talking of examples like this one:
1. directly interested party - check
2. real-life POV - check
3. only reason he cares about the issue - check
(and everything is self-admitted, there are probably many editors that are not that honest and push their agenda in a hidden way)

I don't know if this is COI as defined in Misplaced Pages, I actually started to believe that it isn't, but it's at least bias and demonstrated interest in promoting a POV. I have more examples where editors show the reasons for using another name than "Macedonia" that are based on real-life POVs, I don't even have to go far, in the Evidence page of this case there are a number of arguments made why "Macedonia" name should not be used for the name of the republic, arguments that are not based on Misplaced Pages's policy, but on real-life political considerations. What we should actually discuss are things like: do we use the common English term? Do we need disambiguation? How to disambiguate if we need it? None of these things should be political, this should be relatively easy to decide, the very fact that this is a "controversy" it shows that POV from real-life is dripping into Misplaced Pages and there should be a way to limit this. My interest and effort in this case is not to promote a specific solution or to disenfranchise Greek editors, but to find some principles that can help us in such cases of strong POV and in finding ways to achieve NPOV, I personally think that's a weakness of Misplaced Pages that it depends on a "consensus" of interested parties, and thus actually gives a strong incentive to biased parities to join the discussions with bad effects for NPOV stand of Misplaced Pages. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic about the way things work here, I will try to limit my participation to this case since I feel I've wasted your time for nothing.

My question is misguided, please ignore it from now on. man with one red shoe 10:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

@Dr.K., my statement was in relation to how the ethnic profiling did reveal the existence of a walled garden. By stating "it served" (past tense); I was trying to convey the notion that it should no longer be related to this case anymore (except for the complaints about it perhaps).

Anyways, nobody was saying that "You are a Greek who voted with the Greek national POV; therefore your vote does not count". Users (most notably FP and ChrisO) were merely making the point that people from a similar background all had the same Point of Veiw on this issue. PMK1 (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Americans all have 100% same position on Osama Bin Laden (as do Greeks and me). So we should desregard that POV then? I don't get it. Of course all Greeks would be aligned, the dispute is with Greece. Just like Serbians are aligned about Kosovo and Georgians about South Ossetia. All the points I read here lead nowhere. There will always be a POV and an opposite POV. If we diregard the one, shouldn't we disregard the others? Aren't Fut.Perf, ChrisO and others aligned? Why should their ethnicity matter? I sure don't care about who they are in real life. All opinions are created equal Shadowmorph (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how we turned this discussion to Osama, but in any case is not opinions about Osama that should be presented. Misplaced Pages should present facts, and I assume it needs to present the same facts in US, Greek or any other articles with no "walled gardens" where the facts would be presented according to a national POV. In case an US article would present something that would go against anything else in Misplaced Pages, let's say many Americans would claim that his name is "Osama bin Evil" that being the American form of his name, then we'd look at that as POV suspicious and I wouldn't shy from asking admins to impose in US page the standard that's used in the rest of the articles. It's not POV and opposite-POV it's POV and NPOV. man with one red shoe 02:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is some proof, in the English speaking community, that the word "Macedonia" does not usually refer to the country?

I am interested in hearing something from the other side of the story. PMK1 (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have detailed arguments in my evidence. Temporal context of citations in books, inside Misplaced Pages, related Google searches coming from major English speaking countries, important places by Google. Add also the practices of neutral officials. Of course the pre-1992 history of use of the word, that is still used by elder English speakers.That is difficult to prove online since there was no Internet then. Prior to 1992, Republic of Macedonia was always called Yugoslavia, their inhabitants Yugoslavian (e.g. basketball players).Shadowmorph (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Inter wiki use is irrelevant as it would have depended upon the reference to the former name of the article. Also we have heard that Australia annd S. Africa still dont recognise ROM as ROM. Where is some say, reference to the English speaking community upon which this encyclopedia is based? Thanks. PMK1 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually much of Shadowmorph's evidence is worthless for determining what the most common meaning of "Macedonia" is. I have talked in my evidence posting about how meaningless Google numbers are. Since most of his argument is based on Google and not upon any real-world data, it can be ignored. His "neutral observers" are anything but. They are international organizations that have, based on pressure from the government of Greece, simply acquiesced to Greece's naming demands in order to keep Greece as a member. In order to join the organizations, Macedonia was forced to accept the naming injunctions demanded by Greece. These are not "neutral observers". Shadowmorph is unable to present actual English-language evidence that the most common usage of "Macedonia" in English is not for the country. When you look at English-language atlases, there is only one American publisher that does not use simply "Macedonia" as the name of the country. Published atlas usage is the most reliable indicator of what common usage is. Shadowmorph claims that history references more commonly use "Macedonia" for the ancient region. Of course they do, just as all news media use "Macedonia" for the modern country. But the question isn't what do history professors use, but what do common English speakers use. They look at atlases and watch the news. The vast majority of English speakers have never cracked open a history book except for the few minutes required to study for an exam in the 6th grade. This Google Books search for "Macedonia" reveals that the majority of books labelled "Macedonia" deal with the modern country and neither with the region, nor the ancient kingdom. Even the books dealing with the naming controversy simply have "Macedonia" in the title. The attempts to show that there is some great ambiguity are disingenuous and are just playing with Google numbers. Google numbers are inherently unreliable. (Taivo (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

So the bad Greeks could handle some officials by what way, threatening them? But not all like CIA?. Have you noticed I narrowed some Google searches only in English speaking countries? Ok, I get your point now, Google is broken (!) Shadowmorph (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and if one looks the first page of results in the above link by Taivo, one finds "Macedonia: 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization" and the 1950 book "Macedonia: its place in Balkan power politics" that was not referring a future sovereign country but the whole of the region (read it) and "Macedonia: From Philip II to the Roman Conquest". Even though the political ones will have much higher page rank because of present-day popularity. Shadowmorph (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC). I forgot my most important point, responding to your assertion about the English speakers education in any of the countries. So, you are saying Misplaced Pages should not teach history but focus on what? Alexander the Great (song) or Alexander (movie) rather than Alexander the Great. This is the reason we call it a -pedia you know! Shadowmorph (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by ChrisO

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Standard wording. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Conduct of editors

2) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Standard wording. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Core purpose of Misplaced Pages

3) The core purpose of the Misplaced Pages project is to create a high-quality 💕. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Principle taken from the Stefanomencarelli case. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Naming conventions

4) Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (WP:NC), a longstanding policy, provides that:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle: The names of Misplaced Pages articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Misplaced Pages determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Principle taken from the Ireland article names case. In this case, naming has generally been determined by what Greek editors deem to be politically acceptable to them rather than what is easiest for readers, and the naming has followed formal diplomatic terminology used by specialists rather than the common naming used by the rest of the population. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Use of common names

5) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view requires articles to be named "using the common English language name". WP:NC requires editors to "title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article". Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names) makes a clear distinction between the common name of a person or thing and its formal name, defining a common name as "a commonly used name, the word "common" being used in the sense of "in general use; of frequent occurrence; usual, ordinary, prevalent, frequent." (Oxford English Dictionary, common:10a)."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Documentation of English-language usage (presented here) indicates that the term "Macedonia" by itself is overwhelmingly used to refer to the country rather than to the region or the Greek province, and that the formal term "Republic of Macedonia" and the reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are infrequently used in contemporary English works. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to Fedayee: I'm not making any analogies to any other places in this proposed principle; it's a simple reiteration of what policy states. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The analogies you had posted are a little too simplistic and not adequate for this particular case. While Azerbaijan is an interesting comparison, there are still relevant differences. Azerbaijan articles direct to the republic and Azarbaijan with the a directs to the Iranian province, in fact the latter redirects to Azerbaijan (Iran) and that's how the conflict over the term Azerbaijan was settled. In this case both Macedonias are rendered the same exact way. - Fedayee (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of formal names is deprecated in article titles

6) Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names) deprecates the use of full formal names for people or things in article titles: "Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Note that "Republic of Macedonia" is a full formal name, and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not a name at all but a reference. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Use of verifiable reliable sources

7) WP:NPOV requires that common names be used "as found in verifiable reliable sources" (with reference to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability). Names that are not common and do not appear in verifiable reliable sources are therefore excluded from consideration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Note that some editors have attempted to use names such as "Republic of Skopje", "Vardarska", etc, that have no common usage and do not appear in English-language sources, except pejoratively. See evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence#Persistent vandalism and disruption. The use of unsourced names violates both WP:NPOV and WP:V. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Purpose of disambiguation

8) The purpose of disambiguation, as defined by Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation (WP:DAB), is to resolve "conflicts in Misplaced Pages article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." Disambiguation is not a means of promoting, endorsing or rejecting one party's point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're misinterpreting what this proposed principle is about (and it should be read in conjunction with #Disambiguating with primary topics immediately below. What I'm getting at here is what the purpose of disambiguation is - I've changed the section header to clarify this. Disambiguation is to resolve ambiguity. It's not meant to be used for other purposes. We only disambiguate where necessary, not as a way of making a POV point. In this case, disambiguation has been misused as a way of promoting a POV, hence this proposed principle. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It's an oversimplification in this particular case. A better use of the disambiguation page is much more viable. I see there is a map on the disambiguation page which is a good thing and this idea can be pushed a little bit further. Having two or three major columns, in one having the actual former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with its picture and the intro of its main article with smaller characters. Also having Greek and Ancient Kingdom intros with their individual columns. Each column having their maps and a text taken from their main's intro. Then the rest, less notable Macedonias at the bottom as a list. This way both will have information about their Macedonia's in the main article (which will be a better suited disambiguation page) more than the name. Obviously the solution of the disambiguation to primary topics is outside of the Arbcom mandate. - Fedayee (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguating to primary topics

9) WP:DAB mandates that "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase ... then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Determining primary topics

10) WP:DAB identifies a primary topic as one that is "much more used than any other topic covered in Misplaced Pages to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)" and provides several objective criteria for identifying a primary topic, including the number of incoming links from Special:WhatLinksHere, usage statistics from http://stats.grok.se, and searches from external sources. WP:DB also states that "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)""

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Note that WP:DAB's statement about "extended discussion" is conditional - "may be" - and does not exclude the possibility that extended discussion may be caused by external political factors, as are plainly at work in this case. It is clearly secondary to the main criterion of a topic being "much more used than any other topic". -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not at all outside the Arbcom mandate. This statement of principle is simply a reiteration of what policy states, and an invitation to the Arbcom to confirm that policy mandates a particular approach to disambiguation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Fedayee: Nothing in this arbitration is outside the Arbcom mandate. The mandate given in this particular arbitration is broad and covers the entire range of issues concerning the name of Macedonia and its reference in Misplaced Pages. (Taivo (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Outside of Arbcom mandate. - Fedayee (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Exclusion of external political factors

11) The fact that a party may object to the use of a particular term is not in itself sufficient reason to exclude Misplaced Pages's usage of that term. Standing policy and guidelines exclude consideration of partisan political considerations. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view (NPOV) refers editors to "verifiable reliable sources" to determine the usage of a name and makes no allowance for whether some party considers that name politically unacceptable. Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms#Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict (NCON), a guideline linked from WP:NPOV, disallows subjective considerations of whether an entity has a right to use a particular name.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Independence of Misplaced Pages's editorial voice

12) Misplaced Pages's "editorial voice" is its own, governed by Misplaced Pages's internal editorial policies, not by the conventions of any external agency. Misplaced Pages is not subordinate to the points of view of any state, international organisation or group. Their views or conventions do not dictate Misplaced Pages's editorial approach to an issue, other than as directed by Foundation policies concerning legal issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Usage is not endorsement

13) Using a particular term does not imply endorsement of that term. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions states that "the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles." Misplaced Pages:NPOV requires articles to be named on the basis that they use "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources." Misplaced Pages:NCON disallows any endorsement by editors of a particular name for reasons other than the criteria stated by NPOV: "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Self-identifying terms

14) Autonomous entities (groups, people, communities) customarily adopt whatever self-identifying term they prefer. Because Misplaced Pages:NPOV requires articles to "takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach", the subjective views of editors or outside parties about the appropriateness of the entity's name are not relevant criteria. Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Impartial tone requires editors to maintain an impartial tone, describing disputes rather than engaging in them. Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict explicitly excludes subjective political criteria from consideration in article naming and prioritises the use of self-identifying terms or the nearest English equivalent. It is therefore inappropriate for editors to engage in a dispute by rejecting a self-identifying term for political reasons or to seek to impose an opposing party's point of view on an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Conflicts of interest

15) Greek and Macedonian editors have clearly defined opposing ideological stakes in the dispute, and therefore have a potential conflict of interest in editing articles relating to the dispute. Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest states that "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Editorial activities that promote external causes for reasons relating to the ideology of the editor's ethnic or national group represent a conflict of interest between Misplaced Pages's objectives and nationalist ideological goals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to Fedayee, it's actually quite straightforward. If an editor's actions are intended to promote outside interests associated with that editor, and if those interests conflict with the aims of Misplaced Pages, the editor has a conflict of interest. In this case, it would indicate that Greek or Macedonian editors, subscribing to the Greek or Macedonian national viewpoints, stand in a conflict of interest if they act in a way that promotes their national group's viewpoint rather than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

That's a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's Conflict of Interest guideline and such a misunderstanding is at least troublesome. From this broad conception almost everyone can be accused of having a conflict of interest. This guideline should only be restricted to Wikipedians who have a documented case of real life advocacy and interests which contradict core policy beyond mere ethnicity. - Fedayee (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus (or lack of) does not override policy

16) Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Exceptions, a policy, states:

Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale – for instance, a local debate does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The relevance to this case is that a lack of consensus on the application of policy, or a consensus among one group of editors to act contrary to policy, does not override the applicability of policy in the first place. In this instance, a number of editors have apparently reached a consensus that the use of common terminology as mandated by WP:NPOV and WP:NC, both policies, is unacceptable to them. That does not override the applicability of the NPOV and NC policies.

Comment by others:

Consensus is not immutable

17) Misplaced Pages:Consensus, a policy, states:

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The previous naming was essentially based on a political compromise between editors - not the principles set out in WP:NC. The fact that previous discussions had resulted in an informal compromise formula is not a binding factor; the naming has to be weighed against what is required by policy, not simply what is politically acceptable to editors. (Note the principle cited in #Naming conventions - "names of Misplaced Pages articles should be optimized for readers over editors". Our individual political views are not meant to dictate what the reader sees.) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Boldness

18) Misplaced Pages:Be bold, a longstanding guideline, provides that:

"The Misplaced Pages community encourages users to be bold when updating pages ... problems are more certain to be fixed, and will probably be fixed faster, if you are bold enough to do it yourself."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This principle underlay my actions in moving the page. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Meat puppetry

19) Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry, a policy, states:

"Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Misplaced Pages articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Misplaced Pages and support your side of a debate."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is in relation to #SQRT5P1D2 has solicited meatpuppets, below. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment - "The term meatpuppet" is derogatory and should be used only with care" (WP:CIV). Civility is one of the core principles of Misplaced Pages. Additionally, messages to others are classified as friendly notices, if they meet the criteria in WP:CANVASS (limited posting, neutrality, nonpartisanship and openness), as in my case. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Outing

20) Misplaced Pages:Harassment, a policy, states:

"Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Misplaced Pages themselves."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Various false accusations of outing have been made in the course of this dispute - see #Outing has not occurred below. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) The dispute concerns the name of the country Macedonia, whose name also overlaps with an historic region and a Greek province. Greece and Macedonia have disputed the use of the name for many years, and this conflict has been reflected in disputes on Misplaced Pages over the use of the name Macedonia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Evidence is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence#Locus of the dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Persistent vandalism and disruption

2) Articles relating to or simply mentioning Macedonia have been and are being subjected to frequent vandalism and disruptive editing, invariably to promote a Greek point of view on the naming issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Evidence is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence#Persistent vandalism and disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ethnic polarisation

3) Discussions on Misplaced Pages concerning the use of the name Macedonia have been characterised by ethnic polarisation, with Greek and international editors forming opposing consensuses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Evidence is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence#Ethnic polarisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Singling out editors according to their ethnic affiliation will have dangerous precedents. - Fedayee (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a straightforward factual observation. It's not the first time we've had this kind of polarisation on Misplaced Pages articles; we can't ignore it when it happens. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Persistence of the dispute

4) Disputes on Misplaced Pages about the use of the name "Macedonia" have been ongoing since at least October 2003. The most recent straw poll on the issue took place in March-April 2009. The dispute remains unresolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The earliest discussions I can find on the issue are at and the recent straw poll is at . This illustrates well the interminable nature of the dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Treatment of other overlapping names

5) A number of other countries share names with geographical regions and provinces of neighbouring countries. These include Azerbaijan, Luxembourg and Moldova. Because there is no overlap with the names of other countries, the articles are not disambiguated. The use of disambiguation in country names is generally limited to instances of countries whose names overlap with that of another country (e.g. Democratic Republic of the Congo / Republic of the Congo, People's Republic of China / Republic of China, Dominican Republic / Dominica).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The full list of countries is given at List of sovereign states. Note that there is no overlap between the name of the country Macedonia and any other country, and that where country names overlap with that of a region (but not another country), the country is invariably prioritised as the primary topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this isn't a proposed principle; it's a finding of fact. It's an indisputable fact that we generally don't disambiguate country names simply because they may overlap with a geographical region. It may well be that we can draw a general principle from that, but for now I'm simply stating what the current situation is. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And just to clarify the above statement clearly and prominently uses weasel words. To quote "It's an indisputable fact that we generally (italics added by me) don't disambiguate country names simply because they may overlap with a geographical region." Note not only the very early usage of a blatant weasel word but also the apparent attempt to minimize anything that isn't a nation with the term "geographical region." While there is a fact buried in that comment somewhere, the fog of language makes it hard to see. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I say "generally" because I can think of one specific example where a country name has been disambiguated to distinguish from a regional name - i.e. Republic of Ireland / Ireland. I won't pretend I fully understand the reasons why that terminology has been chosen, but I note that it's (a) a heavily politicised dispute and (b) the subject of a previous arbitration case which did not resolve the naming issue. But generally, as I said, where a country shares a name with a geographical region or another country's province, the country's name has been given priority. I note you've not disputed that fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose There are other factors to consider as well, beyond those mentioned above. We would not want to set a policy/guideline/ruling which might well be problematic in a subsequent development elsewhere. Also, there are the matters of countries which are recognized only by a select few other countries to consider. I think the idea for naming expressed above is, perhaps, too simplistic to be practically useful in the long term. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. People tend to look for countries, not for regions. We could list a great many regions that share the common name of a country--Mongolia, e.g., so that our list of disambiguation pages as primary targets could grow to disagreeable lengths. Most people aren't looking for the regions, however, since most people think in terms of the world being divided up into sovereign nations, not geographic regions. The "unrecognized" or "barely recognized" countries are not a problem. They do, indeed, also have common English names and articles in Misplaced Pages--South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, to name but a few--and the target of Abkhazia is not a disambiguation page, but the country. Misplaced Pages needs simple rules for this because it is a very simple principle. No shading required. (Taivo (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Further Comment: Overuse of disambiguation pages is a danger. Simplification in Misplaced Pages is a requirement for a general audience. Thus, "Macedonia" will lead to the simplest meaning--the country. At the country page, a simple disambiguation tag will lead to the disambiguation page or to the ancient kingdom (the second most common meaning). This is exactly parallel to what happens with Rome--typing "Rome" leads to the city with a simple disambiguation tag leading to the second most common meaning (although it actually may be the more common search destination)--the ancient empire. A similar situation occurs at Mongolia, where the broader region is only accessed by a disambiguation tag at the country's article. Contemporary common English usage should override historical usage. (Taivo (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Oppose. Of course there other things involved. Some are conflict areas, some are stable ones. I have made a table of the cases that ChrisO forgot. Most of them are about a region and not about a country. If you want please expand it. I will paste it here for convienince. If it is clustering this comment, anyone feel free to delete it. There is no debate on Luxembourg no name is disputed and no regional conflicts. In all other conflict areas except Azerbaijan the main page is never about a country. Shadowmorph (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How Misplaced Pages treats other conflicts

Common name article	what it is about:	countries	provinces of countries
America	disambiguation page	United States of America
Micronesia	greater region	Federated States of Micronesia
China	cultural region	Republic of China and People's Republic of China
Taiwan	island (region)	Republic of China	Taiwan Province
Ireland	the island (region)	Republic of Ireland	Northern Ireland
Korea	a formerly unified...	Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Central Africa	core region	Central African Republic (similar name)
Nagorno-Karabakh	landlocked region	Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
Abkhazia	disputed region	Republic of Abkhazia
Azerbaijan	a country	Republic of Azerbaijan	Azerbaijan (Iran)

On America, the common name of the country would be the "United States", seeing how a consensus for that name hardly would've been possible without majority of US Americans agreeing. On China/Taiwan I personally think they should be located at China and Taiwan (this is how it's done at my native wikipedia). On Ireland, I don't know if the Republic as just "Ireland" is the common usage in English, do the Irish them self (perhaps excluding the loyalists in NIR) use Ireland for the country or the island? My experience from the UK side is they seem to use "Republic" (this experience is mostly from 5 live in a sporting sense, but also tv shows), it is very possible that in the USA "Ireland" == "Republic of Ireland", it is also very possible that to most non-native English speakers "Ireland" == "Republic of Ireland" (by just hovering over the inter-wiki links there seems to be a fair number just using translation of "Ireland", but without checking they can be redirects or faulty links etc). On Korea, well I would argue that the common name of neither of those countries is Korea, but rather South and North Korea (even though you sometimes here South Korea being called Korea, though I can't recall if this is in English I've heard that). On Central African Republic, personally I've never come across this country in English usage, but perhaps just as "Czech Republic" its just the common name. On Nagorno-Karabakh, unrecognised country so I wouldn't put them in the same category. On Abkhazia, that article is about the country. chandler ··· 08:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The constitutional and self-identifying name is Ireland (not "Republic of") or Eire in Irish and in their constitution here. But wait, Eire is an article about the word to refer to the region, even though it always refers to the country when used commonly. Central Africa and Micronesia are not less important because nobody talks about them. This is a wiki"-pedia". Nagorno-Karabakh is unrecognized; but "Republic of Macedonia" is also partially recognized with that name and partially with the UN term. You're right about Abkhazia redirecting, but the articles talks about the "disputed region governed by" not about the unrecognized republic; I think it shouldn't redirect there. In the Taiwan case the common usage rationale is broken. You are half-right about Korea; the common usage reasons don't apply there but the self-identificating name that has been such a cornerstone here is broken in that case. Off course you can't find a completely equal situation elsewhere, only analogues. Additive in our case is the issue of the 300BC's Macedonia, (which is hardly insignificant) Shadowmorph (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

on Ireland, yes I know the self-identifying name is Ireland, but I was more referring to how they actually use, for example do Irish media use "Ireland" for the country or island. I'm not saying Central African Republic or Micronesia are less important, only that I've not even heard about them in English so I don't have any knowledge on their common names in English. In the Korea case I would say I'm not half, but fully right, their common names are North and South Korea. I don't think self-identification can't always trump common name, for example "Greece" vs "Hellenic Republic" or "Switzerland" vs "Helvetic Confederation". How Abkhazia is handled seems somewhat similar to how Kosovo is handled, neither in really the best solution Imo... (I'm guessing most Greek editors would dislike that format for Macedonia, where that would mean more or less Republic of/Region/Historical Macedonia would all be in one article) chandler ··· 09:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In theory we could have consensus on Macedonia (region) being the main article at Macedonia Shadowmorph (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not governed by editors' personal preferences. When it comes to identifying the primary topic for a term, we are governed by the criteria set out in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Macedonia (region) is not the predominant focus of incoming wikilinks, nor does it have the most user traffic (5 times less than the country, in fact), nor is it the primary meaning in common English. I've noticed that our Greek editors prefer to ignore these criteria, however. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We should also not ignore WP:consensus. We shouldn't ignore WP:Naming conflict and many other policies that also apply. hits cannot be as truthful as unique visitors, especially on crucial matters. Besides the demographics of Google searches show a strong interest from users coming from within one countries. That organic traffic is substantial and transferred from Google to Misplaced Pages through clicks on the search results (see Google bomb). I wonder if you would say the same if the situation was reversed. Wikilinks on the other hand is a different case. Tell me how many times you would wikilink to a modern country in one of the many related articles. Compare that with how many times you would wikilink to the ancient kingdom in an article about ancient history. My guess, once or none. Proof to that: Aristotle, the teacher of Alexander and a person very closely related to Macedonia, doesn't contain a single wikilink to any Macedonia or even Macedon !. That is the wikilinks discrepancy or wikilinks bias. Besides I was told once here that we shouldn't focus on the use inside Misplaced Pages, but outside. It was Fut.Perf or Taivo if I remember correctly. Wikilinks is evidence but not crucial evidence.

"Greek editors" ...are you talking about me?

(outdent) There is another factor to consider in this particular case which I do not believe is necessarily relevant in any of the other cases named. That is the comparative size of the country of Macedonia to the broader area of Macedonia. The Republic of Macedonia is 25, 713 square kilometers, with a population of 2,114,500. The Greek region is larger than the independent country, both in area (34,177 - about 33% larger), and population (2,625,681 - about 20% larger). Based on that information, it could well be that, in terms of what are generally described as standard encyclopedia articles, like cities, wars, biographies, the name of the region of Greece may well be referenced more often than the name of the independent country, making the region at least in a way the more common name. And there is at least one other country in roughly the same situation, East Timor. It occupies only about 50% of the island of Timor, and has maybe about half the population. I tend to think that it might be the most directly relatable nation, and I note that it has the directional firmly embedded in its name. I tend to think on that basis that it makes sense that neither the country nor the region be given the space Macedonia, but that be used as a disambiguation for the various uses of the name. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the common name of East Timor is East Timor the common name of the region in Greece is NOT Macedonia, but rather "Macedonia the greek region" or something similar. The fact that it might be bigger or more populous has no weight on common name usage, because it still isn't referred to in English as simple Macedonia, which the country is. chandler ··· 16:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. There may be an exception when the subnational entity is a major subdivision of an English-speaking country. But I mention this pre-emptively; the exception has been disputed, and applies only in one case, which is not this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Previous attempts to reach consensus have failed

6) Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) (WP:MOSMAC) was proposed to find a common approach to this naming issue, but failed to achieve consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. For the record, I was the original proposer of WP:MOSMAC, back in May 2007, and I spent a lot of time (apparently to little effect) trying to find a consensus on the issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Outing has not occurred

7) An editor's country, language or nationality does not constitute personally identifying information as defined by WP:OUTING. If an editor has previously voluntarily self-identified his or her country, language or nationality, noting that information does not constitute outing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See #Outing above for the related principle, as stated in WP:OUTING. We have had various accusations of outing from a number of Greek editors (who, oddly enough, seem to be the only ones making such claims). I think we need to make it clear that compiling previously disclosed non-personally-identifying information as at User:Husond/Straw Poll does not constitute outing. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. I don't know who defines what is outing and I wasn't in that list for what is worth. But in support of those included without being asked, I strongly oppose. I have made it clear that my opinion is strongly against making lists of editors for whatever reason. If list-making is ok, then people might make lists of others like Jews or communism supporters etc. It is irrelevant if the info is readily found, and it is not always that case. Anything can be found with proper digging into. The lists could be dangerously copy-pasted off wiki. This is Misplaced Pages, not McCarthyism!. List-making is bad manners to say at least Shadowmorph (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. This is not even what happened here. Nationality was inferred by clues of varying level of reliability. Not all editors that were characterised as "Greeks" say so in their pages. They very well might not be Greeks at all. I'm not even getting into my very strong disagreement in principle with this practice, since it was covered by Shadowmorph.--Avg (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it one issue at a time, if you consider that the list was wrong or that it was not appropriate you can discuss that in your sections, but in this section we discuss if it was "OUTING" or not. man with one red shoe 04:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The list was compiled using exclusively public information that anyone has access to. Anyone, anywhere can read any user's contribution history and would generally come to the same conclusions that were listed here. The opposition to this finding has nothing to do with anyone's policy violations, but rather stem from an "I don't like it" mentality from those who found the information damaging to their POV. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, no WP:OUTING per evidence and logic. man with one red shoe 04:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. If an editor sends me a private email saying he's Greek, it would be outing for me to mention that. If an editor posts anything publicly on Misplaced Pages that identifies him as Greek, it is not outing for me to mention that. Anything posted on Misplaced Pages is already public information. That's not outing to reorganize and list public information. (Taivo (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Agree, no outing has occurred, again here (as in the whole dispute) it seems one side is against the "outing" because it shows how the opinions clearly line up based on nationality and they understand that it doesn't help them. chandler ··· 05:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reorganize and list public information. Isn't that what McCarthy did? And did that user with the Japanese name stated "publicly on Misplaced Pages that identifies him as Greek". Was everyone in that list asked about it and concurred to release that detail? Wasn't some digging required to out them? It was not public information for all of them. Do you think English people knew that Rizos01 "hints Greek" or that his dated 2007 edits and the speculation about them was common knowledge? I'm curious if ChrisO used some special admin tool, I don't know about, to dig out all that information. Shadowmorph (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Self-Outing? Just a question about the "other side" of the list that didn't seem to mind. Was it common knowledge that User:Heimstern was not in fact German? I think he had to out himself in that case. Shadowmorph (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Of course he was first speculated as German from what? The lhama on his page? Wouldn't it be outing if he was infact German, since he hadn't stated that himself? How about all the others in the list. Do they all concur on outing that information? Shadowmorph (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, all this information is public information. There is a difference between "publicly available" and your use of "common knowledge". There is no secret to the word for "Greek" in Japanese. It can easily be found in any Japanese-English dictionary. It may not be "common knowledge", but it is "publicly available". Husond may have had to look it up, but it was neither secret nor private. (ChrisO did not make the list, Husond did.) Outing requires the exposure of private information, such as something communicated by email between editors or over a beer. Anything that is public is, well, public. You can't "out" public information. And, no, that's not what McCarthy did. You are simply using his name as a defamatory comment because you are wrong about the outing issue and are seeking to reframe it by tying it to a name in history that carries a negative connotation. To reiterate, "outing" requires the exposure of private information, not the listing of public information. (Taivo (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Since my username and nationality seem to have come up here: Husond made a common error of thinking I might be German because of my username. By choosing that username, I invited that mistake to be made. If someone determines from my username that I am a German star who runs in a home, that is not OUTING, regardless of whether it is correct or not. Perhaps part of the reason why my nationality is hard to guess might be the fact that, unlike certain other editors here, I am not a single-purpose account: my edits exist over a fair variety of articles throughout Misplaced Pages. I'm not here to push a POV. Some others here clearly are. More on this when I post my evidence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Husond used a special admin tool. It's called a brain. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult Shadowmorph (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reaper7

8) Reaper7 (talk · contribs) has violated Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks by accusing other editors of bigotry and utilising terminology conveying ethnic hatred. ,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish, first link you provided I am referring to the Republic of Macedonia's TV station's involvement in the article here: ] Kanal 5 I believe the name is, lol. Second link is me mirroring the heading of ChrisO but for the actual TV station. ChrisO later had to edit his own title (again using the insulting term, Greek Nationalists) to include my link, this time with a more neutral here: ] This is not the first time Chris O has changed a title in haste lest I add.. Sorry to ruin the attempt, but accusing me of bigotry and ethnic hatred had to be punished by using the facts as I just did. I am sorry ChrisO, but sometimes you try far too hard to push your own nation's POV and this is why I believe the outcome of this arbitration will not suit you aims. Reaper7 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

He also accused people of ignorance , , or just implied it and he accused editors of lying: . Moreover he insists in using the "Fyromian" term which is considered offensive by many and clearly is not English. man with one red shoe 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support all points expressed above. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. (Taivo (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Support, thoroughly disruptive activities from this account. Really he's such a minor player in this affair that I wouldn't normally bother doing evidence and FoF's on him and all that, but he provides a good example of the type of everyday minor disruption we get from the run-of-the-mill drive-by POV warriors. See also evidence section for a few more diffs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

SQRT5P1D2 has solicited meatpuppets

9) SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs) has solicited meatpuppets, specifically Greek-speaking Usenet users, to support his position on Misplaced Pages . His post has been reposted on numerous Greek blogs .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A very clear breach of WP:MEAT that has already resulted in numerous IP editors and SPAs turning up to protest. Note that WP:MEAT specifically prohibits "the recruitment of new editors to Misplaced Pages for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged" and compare to SQRT5P1D2's request to uninvolved Greek people to "vote here" . -- ChrisO (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - While technically true, I believe that it is reasonable to give someone who we would have to assume has done several good edits as an IP but had not created his account until the 20th the benefit of the doubt whether he knew such an act would be contrary to wikipedia policy. To bring any sort of sanction against him on the basis of violating policies there was no good reason to know he existed, particularly regarding such an emotional issue, would I believe send a very strong, and very bad, message to anyone else who might choose to create a user account, effectively telling them that they have to toe the line of every policy from the second they create an account. Also, I have to question whether the phrasing of the above proposal seems to be blaming one party for the actions of others, which is at best a very weak argument. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

SQRT5P1D2 claims that he is an experienced editor who has "contributed to many Misplaced Pages entries before" using his IP address and he certainly seems to know his way around Misplaced Pages. It's not credible to view him as a brand new user who has no knowledge of Misplaced Pages's principles. Your comment about "sending a message" is thus something of a strawman - we do expect people who have been editing for some time to abide by policy, and by his own admission SQRT5P1D2 falls into this category. Finally, you're misreading the finding of fact - it doesn't blame SQRT5P1D2 for anybody's actions. It specifically focuses on SQRT5P1D2's own actions, which as you've acknowledged yourself are a "technically true" violation of the prohibition against canvassing. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I never even implied that I thought of him as a "brand new user who has no knowledge of Misplaced Pages's principles", as you stated. I truly regret your attempting to rephrase the statements of others. Please however know that there are several editors I know of who are likely more experienced, certainly based on their edit counts, than this user, whose understanding of policy is at best weak. Taivo has some about 6000 edits in over a year's time, and he indicates in these pages that he didn't know there was a difference between policies and guidelines in wikipedia here. To assume that this editor, who presumably has fewer edits, would necessarily know the rules when Taivo doesn't even know the fairly basic difference between policies and guidelines is I think a dubious assumption. On that basis, I think, barring a clear statement to the contrary from the party, at the very least the phrasing should be altered to include a "possibly" or "probably involuntary", to prevent the appearance of prejudicial phrasing and attempts to lead the arbitrtors. Also, as he stated he invited all comers, not just those who agreed with him, although I expect he knew most would, I find the use of the word "meatpuppets" at best dubious, because he had no way of knowing they would agree with him. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

AFAIK, assuming good faith is a core principle of Misplaced Pages and the term "meatpuppet" is derogatory and should be used only with care. All I did was informing people about the case, as I was informed by others. I did not ask them to support any position; quoting myself "whoever wants to participate". People that contributed to Macedonia-related articles in the past were celebrating Greek Easter (there are established Wikipedians like John Carter, supporting that you took advantage of the holiday season). They were informed by my original newsgroup post, while you accused me of recruiting people through my blog (!), presenting no evidence that a) I have a blog and b) I'm engaging in these actions. You shouted ""Greek nationalist canvassing off-wiki". How's that for assuming good faith and being civil? In any case, since the jury is out, you remain involved in the case. That means that your actions are also part of the scrutiny. When supporting conspiracies, you should be more careful; after all, it would be more practical to conspire using private communication means. If other Wikipedians do that, I feel sorry for them. If I have anything to say, whether I'm right or wrong, I'm not afraid to say it publicly. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO's rewording (adding the word "uninvolved"), attempts to distort my original message. I myself offered the translation, while he spread false rumours. By now, I'm used to him making this type of accusations. This public newsgroup is read by people contributing to Misplaced Pages and Macedonia-related articles. While ChrisO took advantage of the holiday season (most people are absent for ten days or more during Greek Easter) and acted the way he did, I posted a public message informing fellow Wikipedians what happened, in a civil manner. They can make up their own minds and were not instructed to act in any way. I have my own arguments, they may have theirs. That's the difference between public actions and conspiracy theories. Conspiracy requires action behind the scenes. That's what people repeatedly violating WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPOV don't seem to understand. Instead of bringing arguments and evidence to the table, they try to support their position by discrediting and ridiculing others (an example). Since this open case concerns the english branch of Misplaced Pages, somehow they try to convince others that greek-speaking editors are the root of all evil. I rest my case about this. I'm sure that those that will have the final say, don't condone such practices. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CANVASS. We disapprove of solicitation even when it is not behind the scenes; it casts doubt on the fundamental assumption of our srawpolls: that the self-selected !votes represent Misplaced Pages as a whole (except for the large portion who don't care about any given issue). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw WP:CANVASS and my post was in the green area. It was one (1) post, the wording is neutral, other editors may have their own opinions on the subject (WP:AGF). As for transparency, I couldn't be more transparent than that. 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. Or I could open another account, use proxies and so on. But I don't have anything to hide, or anything to fear, despite the intimidation attempts. Use of privileges is one thing; abuse is another. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts after reading John's comment (note: John, I've already wired the money from my ultra-secret greek-lobby account). I understand the implications after registering a user account. There are rules. Misplaced Pages has rules. Also, Misplaced Pages has to follow real-world rules, written or not, because it's not an entity isolated from the rest of the universe. I'm certainly not a know-it-all and I've already made some mistakes (for example, my contribution to the evidence section; although the arguments stand, ARBCOM needs other type of information and this will change soon). I also understand that WP:BITE should be in every administrator's handbook. Unfortunately, several members from my welcoming committee forgot theirs. At least, I always try to remember that there are people behind their monitors. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that some people are prejudiced against Greek editors? ChrisO, editing sporadically (despite the accumulation of edits) doesn't make you an expert on everything related to Misplaced Pages, as you focus on other things, like the phrasing of an entry, the quality of the sources etc. I don't know my way around Misplaced Pages. I learn my way around Misplaced Pages, since registering an account and deciding to be more involved, mostly in english language articles in arts and humanities. I knew how to hold the wheel, now I learn how to shift gears. In addition, as stated by others (also some administrators), even experienced administrators like you, were in violation of policies (for example WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:BITE). Why should I bother? I could register again under a new nickname and still participate in this mess as an editor. Instead, I'm trying to prove that I'm not an elephant. Now, about WP:CANVASS. Friendly notice = Limited posting (scale) AND Neutral (message) AND Nonpartisan (audience) AND Open (Transparency). Scale? One message. Neutral? Check. Nonpartisan audience? Check (unless if Misplaced Pages decided that WP:AGF doesn't apply to Greeks). Transparency? Public newsgroup, mentioning who I am here. Result? I'm in the green area. I'm not responsible for other people's actions. Quoting Radjenef: For it to be canvassing, it would have to be classifiable as Excessive cross-posting, Campaigning, Votestacking or Stealth canvassing. It is not "excessive cross-posting" because he didn't indiscriminately send announcements to uninvolved editors in the form of spamming; he posted on a usenet newsgroup where some interested people might read. It is not "campaigning" because he did not use a non-neutral tone (see: "be rational and leave nationalism outside of the field" in ). It is not "votestacking" because this is not a poll where editors would vote or try to reach a consensus; this is ArbCom. It is not "stealth canvassing" because he openly admitted posting it, because he translated it and because usenet is open by definition. Q.E.D. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It must be prejudice. There's no other conceivable reason experienced editors should disagree with so many temperate, calm, and neutral editors, is there? "Curses, foiled again". </irony> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been told that I want to participate here because I "hope to use this for my grandstanding" (glad to see that experienced administrators have WP:CIV and WP:AGF compatible crystal balls), with references to "head chopping", I've been told to "shut up", my contributions in the article namespace have been distorted and so on. Therefore, I don't welcome your irony although you're entitled to your opinions about Greeks. I'm not here to judge you. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

SQRT5P1D2 is a Macedonia-focused single-purposed account

10) SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account whose involvement with Misplaced Pages has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles and this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. SQRT5P1D2's contributions demonstrate this, and SQRT5P1D2 has acknowledged that his/her account was created specifically for the purpose of participating in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment - If I was another person, I would be very flattered about other administrators' repeated attempts to ridicule me, insult me and distort everything related to my account, actions and contributions. However, other people will judge this. Last week I registered my acount and I've already created a new article for the acclaimed SmartGeometry Group, which IMO is a good start, while I improved the phrasing and translated the huge discography section for an ECM artist (Savina Yannatou). In addition to these, my limited free time is spent learning policies and guidelines, while I juggle with business and family affairs in real life. Here you'll find my contributions in the article namespace. And no, I don't have anything to do with the Kennedy assassination either. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Radjenef is a Macedonia-focused single purpose account

11) Radjenef (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account whose involvement with Misplaced Pages has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles and this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Undeniably true, as Radjenef's contributions demonstrate. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a perfectly good explanation for this: "Hello? I am a newcomer!" If you look at the very logs you rely on, you will see that (prior to this arbitration) my logins have been few and far between. Of course "think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account" seems to mean nothing to ChrisO. To be honest, the only explanation that I can give to this sudden hostility, is vindictiveness for the fact that I have exposed his blatant policy violations. I believe I have a lot to offer to wikipedia; particularly in the area of categorical quantum mechanics where there is currently no article at all! Keep this attitude ChrisO and you might even succeed in scaring me away... NOT! --Radjenef (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Being a single-purpose account is not automatically a bad thing, as WP:SPA indicates. On the other hand, as an SPA who has focused mainly in this case, your understanding of Misplaced Pages - and therefore your credibility - is necessarily going to be much more limited than that of an experienced editor. That's just the way it works; no hostility is involved, just a necessary grain of salt. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you can ad hominem me all you want. That doesn't detract a bit from the validity of my arguments. In fact, experienced or not, I am still the one with an untarnished name, not you , , , , , , .

Agreed. I would also like to present his edit summary and sympathy for the sentiments of this edit. (Taivo (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

I am sorry, what you said didn't come out clearly. I take it that you agree with my decision to revert that act of vandalism, right Taivo? I also believe that everyone appreciates the fact that I responded in a courteous manner. Is there anything about my alleged "sympathy" that you would like to expand on further? --Radjenef (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism should be reverted, of course, but expressions of sympathy for the feelings of the vandal are something else entirely. The standard "rev vandalism" in the edit summary is quite "polite" enough. (Taivo (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

It is one thing to express the fact that I understand a person's frustration towards ChrisO's misconduct. It is a completely different thing to have that statement misconstrued in an apparent bad faith attempt to show that I somehow sympathize with vandals! Ever since I exposed ChrisO's latest faux pas, I have been systematically attacked by a swarm of people from the side that calls itself "unbiased". Whatever the case, I feel threatened and perceive a heightened level of hostility in these pages. Maybe I am wrong; I am confident, however, than ArbCom will factor everything into its analysis of the facts. What I cannot help wondering, is whether these people would have found an excuse of banning my account as disruptive, were this discussion taking place in a regular talk page. --Radjenef (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nick ts has edit-warred

12) Nick ts (talk · contribs) has edit-warred disruptively on 2008 Greek riots and has continued after being blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One of those unfortunate people who spend their time on Misplaced Pages repeatedly deleting references to Macedonia on the grounds that "THIS COUNTRY'S NAME IS FYROM, NOT MACEDONIA" (sic). Contributions here, block log here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I might change the comment from saying he continued to edit war after being blocked to continuing to edit war after a block ended, as it makes it clearer that he didn't continue the edit war as an IP or something. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Alfadog777 is a Macedonia-focused single purpose account who has edit-warred

13) Alfadog777 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account whose involvement with Misplaced Pages has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles and this arbitration case. He has edit-warred disruptively on List of national animals to push a Greek nationalist POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Another Macedonia name warrior (note edit summary here), who has edit-warred disruptively to replace a template with a broken, non-existent one to promote a nationalist POV. , , -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A look at this user's edit summary only shows Talk:Macedonia, Talk:Macedonia naming dispute, and this arbitration as the focus of his/her editing. (Taivo (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Radjenef

Proposed principles

Ignoring a long standing consensus without prior discussion is extremely disruptive

1) Misplaced Pages operates by consensus. If a consensus has been reached, particularly if that is a long-standing consensus, then that has happened for a reason. Consensus can change of course, but that is a gradual process that involves discussion, consensus building and dispute resolution. The editorial guideline WP:BOLD can not be used to override consensus, a binding policy, particularly if the editing is done without prior discussion. Ignoring consensus in such a way is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Problematic. "Fatigue" does not equal "consensus". Consensus is a general agreement, not just a lack of argument for a period. Items that violate Misplaced Pages policy, even a new policy, are subject to change if a true consensus has not been reached and the item is simply the result of a "ceasefire". (Taivo (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

ChrisO himself referred to the status quo ante as a consensus ; an arbitration decision also referred to it as a long-standing consensus . Besides, whatever happened to discussing changes like these before making them. --Radjenef (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are making proposals here for future policy. That is what I am commenting about--not past actions or statements. (Taivo (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Ah, ok, understood. I didn't equate fatigue with consensus though. --Radjenef (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree In my experience consensus is something elusive that is invoked by people who want to preserve a specific status quo that suits them. If at the present there's no consensus (and there isn't as most of the people agree) invoking a past consensus is useless and tiring. Besides, the policies are clear, NPOV principle trumps any "consensus". man with one red shoe 04:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ethnic profiling is counter-productive

2) It is more important to pay attention to what people are saying (i.e. the validity of their argument) as opposed to where they are from. Decisions in wikipedia were never based on the number of flags appearing on either side (WP:VOTE); they were based on the merits of each side's arguments. Attempting to ethnically profile one side in order to show that external political factors are determining its editors' positions is fallacious. The fallacy in this case being that, although ethnicity might provide a genuine interest in the subject, it is not the reason behind their position. The reason behind their position, provided you assume good faith, is in the content of their arguments (, ). Ethnic profiling is a very dangerous path to take that threatens users' privacy, civil rights and sets a precedent that could lead to a horrible slippery slope.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Some evidence can be found here . I strongly object to the ethnic or racial profiling of people's views in wikipedia. I find the practice offensive to say the least: it's degrading; it's like saying it doesn't really matter what so-and-so says because of where they were born. Furthermore, even if some users have provided information in previous edits that could link them to an ethnic group, speculating as to a user's ethnicity based on the character codes or phrases they've used is way out of line. To be honest, I think that meticulously hunting these things down in the archives, speculating and aggregating everything in an easy to access table is an unhealthy attribute for a wikipedia editor. Clearly their time could have been better spent. --Radjenef (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This principle should not be used as an umbrella to protect national POV pushers. man with one red shoe 04:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Policies supersede editorial guidelines

3) Misplaced Pages policies are binding on all cases. Editorial guidelines are not binding; they are meant to advise editors on how to proceed in cases where a policy might be unclear. In cases where a policy and a guideline suggest different methods of proceeding, the policy will always take precedence. The fact that an editorial guideline is referenced from within a policy does not automatically elevate it to the status of a binding policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. This is just trying to add layers of importance to words that are nearly synonyms in actual English usage. I seriously doubt that the multiple editors who wrote Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines were aware that their choice of vocabulary would be used in a legal sense. (Taivo (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

This is not wikilawyering; assume some good faith please! The multiple editors who wrote Misplaced Pages policies, like WP:NC, chose to put this on top:

This page documents an official English Misplaced Pages policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to it should reflect consensus. Consider discussing potential changes on the talk page first.

Shortcuts WP:NAME WP:NC WP:TITLE

Similarly, the multiple editors who wrote WP:NCON chose to put this on top:

This guideline documents an English Misplaced Pages naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

They explicitly and purposely used a more relaxed language for guidelines. The words are clearly not synonyms. --Radjenef (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Policy and guideline pages, which makes it clear that policies by definition take priority over guidelines. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, this doesn't make much sense when the policy itself says something along the lines of: use the guideline in case of disputes. man with one red shoe 04:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Policy mandates the use of the most common non-ambiguous name

4) If we look at WP:NC, WP:NCCN to be more precise, we will see: "title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. Make the title unique as described in the disambiguation guideline." This means that editors are required to use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Problematic. There is virtually no name on the planet that is not ambiguous. Athens, Greece or Athens, Georgia; Macedonia or Macedonia, Georgia; Paris, France or Paris, Texas; Moscow, Russia or Moscow, Idaho. In the vast majority of cases, the most common meaning should be the contemporary meaning of the most important element. Thus, Paris, France is a larger city and a national capital; Macedonia is an independent country; etc. This should be the primary place where a name focuses. Other secondary uses should be found on a disambiguation page. But the most important element should be the primary place where a search for that name goes. (Taivo (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

So, you are assuming that the Republic is "the most important element" just because it is a country whereas Macedonia (Greece) is a region. This sounds very arbitrary and is not referenced anywhere in wikipedia's policies. I beg to differ. --Radjenef (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an independent country is more "important" than a subordinate region because it will be the focus of much more cross-referencing and searches. For example, in the front of a typical atlas you see a list of countries, not a list of subordinate regions. You will see a list of world capitals, but not a list of regional centers or towns. Larger and more independent is always more useful than smaller and subordinate. (Taivo (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Then we disagree on our definition of "important". In this case, the "subordinate region" has a larger population, richer history, covers a larger area and has received more scholarly citations than the Republic. I don't see why countries should automatically be considered "more important" than regions with regards to naming. This isn't stipulated by any policy. In light of this, let's wait and see what ArbCom has to say about this disagreement. --Radjenef (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that, it means "use the most common name and make it unique" like in "Macedonia (country)" or "Macedonia (region)" not "use the second common name that doesn't conflict" -- this is your invention, I personally cannot deduce it from that sentence. man with one red shoe 03:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So, I take it that you disagree with ChrisO's move to trash the disambiguation. Thank you! The problem with your argument is that the burden of proof would be on you to prove that "Macedonia (country)" is more common than "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". "Macedonia (country)" is so ambiguous that there is no way of actually showing this. At least I don't think there is. If you can prove me wrong then please, by all means, do! --Radjenef (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"the burden of proof would be on you to prove that "Macedonia (country)" is more common than "Republic of Macedonia"" -- I'm sorry but this makes no sense. man with one red shoe 13:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In "Macedonia (country)", "Macedonia" would be the ambiguous base name, and "country" a disambibuating qualifier, see WP:D#Links to disambiguated topics and Help:Pipe trick.  Andreas  13:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this part "most common non-ambiguous name", the policy doesn't say that, looks to me that he introduced "non-ambiguous" to serve his POV. man with one red shoe 05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editorial guidelines advise the use of the most common non-conflicting English-language name

5) WP:NCON clearly states that when the name of a non-human entity conflicts with the name of another non-human entity, editors are advised to consider English-language equivalents and use the most common one: "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the most common English-language name."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The most common self-identification is more important than an externally-imposed name that may be offensive. "Zaire" is the most common name after "Congo" for Democratic Republic of Congo, but it is inappropriate since it is no longer the name of the country and is linked to the previous dictator. (Taivo (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Why is it offensive? Honestly, if you can find me a credible external source claiming that "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is offensive, I will name you man of the day! I also disagree with your unproven premise that "self-identification is more important". --Radjenef (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that "Republic of Macedonia" was offensive, just "former...". You are making proposals on this page, therefore I find your proposal unsatisfactory since it violates the principle of self-identification that is clearly spelled out at WP:NCON. It is for the ARBCOM to decide. (Taivo (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

I agree that this is for ArbCom to decide. It might help your case if you could find a credible external source claiming that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is offensive. You haven't done that yet. As far as "self-identification" goes, I believe I have made my argument clear in , so I won't bother repeating it here. Also, I believe that the sentence I quoted from WP:NCON in my proposal takes precedence over the "self-identification" clause. --Radjenef (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this time you got the quote right, but you still kept a misleading title, where did you get the " most common non-conflicting " part? What does "non-conflicting" actually mean, and which object gets to keep the "conflicting" name, and on which criteria? Would that be the country or it would be the Greek province? man with one red shoe 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose since this is - as usual in this dispute - an invented criterion with no basis in policy. The actual criterion that Radjenef is misquoting states simply "use the most common English-language name". No doubt Radjenef would prefer it to be otherwise, but we have to go with the policy as it is, not a fabrication that serves Radjenef's POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Return to the status quo ante is not out of line

1) ArbCom is probably not here to rule on content. However, if after these proceedings are over, an administrator decides to return things to the status quo ante by reverting ChrisO's move, then that action will not be out of line. This will reset consensus building processes and allow them to proceed tabula rasa.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, since this would be pointless if it is determined that the policy rationale behind the move is correct. It's also pointless for a different reason - consensus building failed some time ago with the abandonment of the WP:MOSMAC proposal, and consensus building since then has been impossible due to the continued obstruction, wikilawyering and overt POV-pushing of a number of editors working as a faction. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. There are no "consensus building processes". That is the point of this arbitration. The nationalist bloc of editors will continue to do what they have done at Greece and Macedonia for months--block each and every attempt at consensus-building and compliance with Misplaced Pages policies with wikilawyering, filibustering, etc. (Taivo (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Oppose -- there's no such thing as "consensus building process" in that page, returning to previous status would not help consensus and might be against the policies that ChrisO detailed. Besides, in a fight between consensus and NPOV, NPOV has priority per WP policies.

Comment by others:

ChrisO's misuse of his administrative privileges has been severely disruptive

2) Based on principle 4.2.1.1, backed by evidence in .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Far more disruptive of Misplaced Pages, and preceding any action by ChrisO, was the widespread vandalism by Greek editors across a wide spectrum of articles. This has been documented several times in this arbitration. (Taivo (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Let me get your argument straight; are you agreeing that ChrisO's actions were disruptive, yet arguing that one wrong justifies another? Also, are you accusing all Greek editors of vandalism, or are you saying that "just because some of the vandals were Greek, all Greeks probably are"? This persistent attempt of throwing everyone in one ethnic sack and accusing them collectively as if they were one is wrong. --Radjenef (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Chris's action, but "severely disruptive" goes too far, especially since it's the stonewalling nationalists who are really causing the disruption here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you arguing that ChrisO should be indemnified because other people are disruptive as well? Disruptive users exist on both sides of this dispute, as was demonstrated by evidence , but that alters nothing with respect to ChrisO's conduct. In fact, how's that for stonewalling by ChrisO himself! --Radjenef (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. He moved a page according to most common use in English, if there wouldn't be a huge POV against that name his move would not even qualify as "BOLD". man with one red shoe 05:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ChrisO and other editors have acted in a manner that is unbecoming of a wikipedia editor

3) Based on principle 4.2.1.2, along with .
Clarification: By other editors I mean User:Husond, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, as well as all editors (from either side) who have been proved to be vandalizing or otherwise blatantly disregarding wikipedia policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The stonewalling of the group of editors attached to the Greek POV at both Talk:Greece and Talk:Macedonia has been far more "unbecoming" since it blocked any form of consensus-building based solely on wikilawyering, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and all manner of other filibustering techniques to avoid actually coming to consensus or compromise. (Taivo (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

You are launching terrible accusations without citing any findings of fact. You are also taking these accusations and applying them to an entire POV, citing common ethnic background amongst many of them. I would like to see you providing evidence to substantiate your assertion that all editors disagreeing with your POV "blocked any form of consensus-building based solely on wikilawyering, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and all manner of other filibustering techniques". Finaly, I want to add that accusing others of unbecoming behaviour doesn't in any way vindicate ChrisO. Such a reasoning would be fallacious; I was expecting better from a scholarly person such as you, Taivo. --Radjenef (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"And other editors"? Names, or that part of the finding is meaningless. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was tired last night, you are right it is ambiguous the way I've phrased it. I promise I'll revise it. --Radjenef (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's some names, sure, but there's still some unnamed ones in there, apparently. This won't make a good finding. Now mind you, I disagree with your characterization of their behaviour, anyway, and I really doubt the arbs will make a finding like this, as "acted in a manner that is unbecoming of a wikipedia editor" is much to vague and scolding-like (most of their findings list specific behaviours, such as incivility, edit warring or battleground treatment). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This is based on the "Bordering OUTING" accusation. "Bordering" something is nowhere present in any policy. "Bordering crime" has no real meaning, it's a crime or it isn't. man with one red shoe 05:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ChrisO committed a serious violation of wikipedia policies by attempting to change the wording of a policy he is accused of violating

4) As is presented in the evidence page .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think this falls right into the Wikilawering definition. You know that he didn't do WP:OUTING per your own declarations here yet you still accuse him of something fuzzy that you call "bordering OUTING", whatever that means, that's not part of any policy, and now you are trying to accuse him of something not related to the subject of our discussion. You have to come out clear, you accuse him of OUTING or not, if you are not then you should drop this case here and now and maybe apologize for Wikilawering to him and to ArbCom, I don't think they look at this type of behavior very favorable. man with one red shoe 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, if another person accuses me of wikilawyering without rationalizing that claim with sound arguments, I think I am going to start giving people spelling lessons. Humour aside, however, I believe that it doesn't really matter whether I accuse ChrisO of WP:OUTING or not because he has already been accused of it by other people ! Besides, this finding of fact is not about his WP:OUTING violation but about his editing of the policy he was accused of violating. My side of the house has been repeatedly accused of wikilawyering, POV pushing, etc. You've really got to love the irony in all of this, for it is your side of the house that has (in this very arbitration) exhibited underhand tactics, personal attacks and a polemic POV against all Greeks. In fact, this arbitration is a microcosm of what has been happening in these articles for years! --Radjenef (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The change is here: clarifying "personal information" to "personally identifying information". Since the page already has a clause: unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Misplaced Pages themselves which covers all the alleged infraction, he did not violate it; he attempted to clarify a vague rule, which (if read literally) might include referring to people by their account names (that's personal information, isn't it?). "Private" would have been better, but let's be serious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, it's a trivial clarification of terminology to match legal terminology (as I understand it, "personally identifying information" is the standard legal term). It doesn't change what is covered by the policy. Really, this sort of point-scoring is just what you get when the Bad Faith Brigade is in action. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary might have said it's trivial, but that doesn't make it so, neither does your reference to "personally identifying information" in your WP:OUTING defence . In fact, User:Risker, the wikipedia administrator who reverted your edit to the policy, explicitly states this as his reasoning: "the personal information may not necessarily be identifying but just private info". This is the consensus view on that policy and you (once again) attempted to unilaterally change it. Will you claim that it was WP:BOLD again? This is getting a bit repetitive, don't you think? I believe we should just let the facts speak for themselves and let ArbCom come to it's own conclusions. --Radjenef (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To make it clear for everybody, do you still accuse ChrisO of OUTING? Because if you don't it's irrelevant what he edited and how. With or without that change it's clear that no private info was made available that was not already available for everybody. man with one red shoe 00:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To make it clear for everybody, it doesn't matter whether I accuse ChrisO of WP:OUTING because other people have accused him of the same thing already! --Radjenef (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

False accusations are false whoever makes them. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, that is for ArbCom to decide, but this finding of fact is not about that... this is about you editing the policy. --Radjenef (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering If there is no definition of this concept this example should be used to define it. WP:OUTING clearly doesn't apply in ChrisO case with or without his edits. man with one red shoe 05:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Sysop status

1) ChrisO should either be desysopped, or his administrative powers should be restricted to articles outside of this dispute. This would mean him having no administrative powers over Greek and Macedonia-related articles. Related findings of fact include: , , , ,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I feel that, because of ChrisO's partisanship, Macedonia-related articles would be better off without his administrative interference. --Radjenef (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. What Radjenef means is that it would be easier for the Greek POV to prevail in Macedonia-related articles without a strong editor standing in their way. (Taivo (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

I believe that I am the person most qualified to explain what I mean when I say something. Being as it were, Taivo is not me, so he shouldn't be telling us what I "mean" or "do not mean" to say. In short; please do not put words in my mouth. Misplaced Pages has procedures that prevent either side from hijacking articles (WP:DISPUTE). I am sure that there are many unbiased administrators who could prevent that from happening. ChrisO is not one of those people because he is partisan; the "strong" person in the middle should not be partisan! Does anyone find that hard to agree with? --Radjenef (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support "Strong editor" as used by Taivo, (sorry Taivo), is just code for an editor acting as a superhero or a Don Quixote. No need for Batman, Robin, Superman or Mad Max. We Don't Need Another Hero. Let's get real. Dr.K. logos 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether "strong editor" is the right phrase to use or not, the point is to eliminate another editor who does not align with Radjenef's POV. (Taivo (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Support desysoping. Taivo's own opposition could just as easily be seen as being to not elimiate another editor who does align with Taivo's POV. I very strongly urge that editor to address the facts and rationales, rather than continuing to raise these objections seemingly solely based on his apparent agreement with the actions of ChrisO, and maybe even actually address some of the policy and other issued raised by others. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree desysopping somebody for doing the right thing would simply limit admins' power too much (would also ignore two principles WP:BOLD and WP:IAR which both deal with doing the right thing) As I said before this was a simple page move, if there wouldn't have been such a strong POV against the name this would have passed unnoticed or at least the discussions would have been less heated. Maybe we should examine the strong POV and its pushers before we desysop somebody who used ironclad reasons to move a page. Till now I've only seen outrage that the move was against "consensus" but I haven't seen a refutation of the reasons that ChrisO detailed when he moved the page. man with one red shoe 05:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Topic ban

2) Irrespectively of what is decided with regards to administrative rights, ChrisO should be topic banned from all Greek and Macedonia-related articles for a period no less than six months. Related findings of fact: , , ,

Update: In light of 4.2.2.4, I think a longer ban would be in order. --Radjenef (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. ChrisO has engaged in no disruptive behavior. He took a bold move that was needed based on Misplaced Pages policy, but would have been impossible because of the refusal of the Greek editors to reach any consensus or to compromise on the issue of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Correction. ChrisO took a POV pushing move that was based on his new personal interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy. He did it by taking the law in his own hands, because he saw that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being able to pull this off through the regular channels of discussion and consensus: Moving the article to the name "Macedonia" wasn't even near consensus as it was opposed by people on both sides of this dispute! --Radjenef (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason for no snoball's chance in hell? Not because the move is against policy or wrong, but because of greek disrupting editors. chandler ··· 05:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What Chris did most certainly doesn't merit a topic ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Bogus reasons. ChrisO explained why he moved the page, other people don't attack his explanations, they attack his action based on technicalities. man with one red shoe 05:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strong statement against ethnic profiling by ArbCom

3) ArbCom should issue a strong statement condemning ethnic profiling. Editors should be cautioned, under the threat of sanctions, that such practices are unacceptable. People should be judged on the merits of what they have to say, not on their ethnic background.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. While this is a nice thought, in this case, the ethnic makeup of one side of the discussion was so heavily skewed in one direction that it becomes part of the discussion. It was not a random group of editors who interpreted policy differently. It was a solid wall of Greek editors who stood shoulder to shoulder with their homeland in its foreign policy. That becomes a major factor in understanding why consensus could not be reached at Greece. One part of the meaning of ethnic profiling means predicting behavior based on ethnicity. In most cases it is not accurate. But in this case it was 100% accurate--not a single Greek opposed the national position. (Taivo (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but this proposal is nothing more than rubbish. It's been demonstrated several times that the way the straw poll broke down into two opposing camps along national lines is highly relevant to the case, and the side that doesn't want that fact exposed is trying to censor it by slinging mud at those exposing the fact and now apparently trying to get sanctions on them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support this. Rubbish? Of course not. It should be of outmost importance to condemn such practices. The condemnation should also include any kind of list-making of editors in general. For the history, I wasn't in that poll but it broke down because of opposing POVs, not because of ethnic backgrounds. By the way, what is the practical position of those opposing this "rubbish"? Should we make an official blacklist of editors of Misplaced Pages that support Greece? Then what? Should all other editors first consult that list and then assume bad faith of anyone mentioned in there? Should the list become permanent and others made able to add whoever they think belongs there, for dubious reasons? The other side might have some names that could be listed in a similar list. They are just not yet scandalized enough to construct one, but they shouldn't be pushed. Doesn't it cross anyone's mind that people might have issues with lists like that? What happened to etiquette? Anyway, just read the five pillars it's all in there. And didn't Heimstern just used the word exposed?. Therefore it wasn't "public information"?

The part that I find really hard to understand is why the "supporters" of ChrisO's move find it weird that there were Greeks in that poll, and that they were aligned. It was a poll about the content of the article Greece - who did they expected to vote there and in what way? I found more interesting that the other side was equally aligned. Shadowmorph (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, I said the fact of the bloc polling was exposed, not anyone's personal information. As for your second paragraph, I admit I'm dumbfounded. You consider it normal for all members of a certain nationality to align on a matter and unusual for "the other side", consisting of a number of different nationalities, to hold the same opinion? I just don't know where we could start to have a meeting of the minds here. The point of NPOV at Misplaced Pages is that you leave your national interests, biases, whatever at the door and completely ignore them in favour of neutrality. That's clearly not happening among the pro-Greek editors. Maybe the reason "the other side" is so aligned is because we're committed to ideals having nothing to do with nationality, but rather to things like neutrality and consistent nomenclature throughout Misplaced Pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem! The moment you segregate users into ethnic groups, you immediately assert that one ethnic group acts based on national interests and biases as opposed to what they argue to be correct. That is inherently an assumption of bad faith. I can agree that many Greek editors are interested in Greece-related articles, in the same sense that you might be, but to assume that none of them leave their biases at the door just because they disagree with you is horribly unjustified and prejudiced. Let me give you an example... Among other people, many African-Americans might be interested in the article on the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968). That doesn't automatically imply that every African-American editor brings "bias" and " interests" through the door when disagreeing with your POV. Neither would it be acceptable to pin all of these editors (self-declared or otherwise) in a list, together with a note saying "these people are stonewalling the discussion". If a user wants their details (self-declared or otherwise) not included in a list, then that is a fact respected in virtually every jurisdiction in the world. --Radjenef (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern, let me ask you a hypothetical question about an area you are not indifferent about: Supposedly the rest of the world would speak some other language (say Roman, so this would be Roman Misplaced Pages). In that scenario think of the US as the only country opposing the monopolization of the name by a hypothetical country called "Republic of California". Imagine that hypothetical country was the former Mexican province of Baja California. Imagine that they initially had embraced this flag or this as their own. Then imagine that people from all over the world out of indifference started calling them just "California" and ignoring or doubting parts of the history of the US state, making allusions that it is their own. Furthermore their president was taking oaths, under a map of California that looked like this map. How would the Californians handle that case? Remember that in that scenario they would be called by everyone as "American Californians" and Californian would be reserved for the hypothetical country's residents. I'm trying to give you a taste of the realities of the Balkans in the past 20 years (not to mention the wars). Shadowmorph (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we know how they reacted for a mere advertising campaing, imagine if it was the real deal! Shadowmorph (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, please don't tell me you were planning to shock me with the thought of this Baja becoming Republic of California idea. I thought of this very scenario on my own several days ago. Was planning to write it up myself, but you beat me to it! Thanks for saving me time. :-)

Secondly, I'm afraid your argument is entirely based on emotion (specifically national/regional sentiment). If indeed Baja decided to self-identify as the Republic of California and the people started calling themselves Californians, I might be annoyed. Maybe even mad. But such feelings have no bearing on Misplaced Pages naming. If most reliable sources in English called this country "Republic of California", that would be the correct name, even if I continued to call it "Baja" myself. If English sources went so far as to call the country "California" and to rename my own state, to "American California", "Alta California" or whatever, it would be correct to have the article at California be about the independent republic, regardless of how much I resented it. Discussing which is the common English term in this Macedonia case is outside the scope of this thread, but my point is that under the scenario you name, the situation would be exactly the same as here. No one's feelings about a name bear any weight. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as a fright of course. Well, Macedonia does have a long history. Most arguments about common usage just ignore the history books (those about the period of 600BC to 1945) altogether. They even ignore other evidence (like the Google searches in my evidence) that show a much different common usage favoring Macedonia (region) (and Macedonia, Ohio in the US usage). Shadowmorph (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong support I am not going to cite any reasons because I already made many statements about this abhorrent practice. If anyone is interested they can check my contributions or ask me for a few links. Dr.K. logos 16:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as obvious and disingenous nonsense. Isn't it interesting that the only people protesting about this are all members of a clearly defined ethnic faction? This is nothing more than an attempt to discourage efforts to point out the obvious - that this is an ethnic-nationalist dispute dominated by a national faction (see also #Political influence of Greek editors). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am protesting ethnic profiling and as far as I know I am not a part of your "red channels" list. Unless you are now deducing that perhaps I belong to that ethnic faction, too? What exactly are your criteria for inclusion? "Whoever opposes me, I just throw in the sack"? We all know who attempted to alter wikipedia policies to avoid being accused of violating them, while the arbitration is underway: . So far, I have only seen underhand tactics like these from your side of the house. --Radjenef (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I restate my support. I oppose remarks by ChrisO and Fut.Perf. that this finding of fact is "disingenous" or "nonsense". He said "it is interesting that the only people protesting are all members of a clearly defined ethnic faction", again speculation with racial connotations. Besides the remarks were made about that ethnic faction, who should protest, the Iranians?. Comments by Radjenef and by John Carter elsewhere debunk that theory. Not to mention the people from Romania and Sweden that were "forgot" to be mentioned in the aforementioned ChrisO/Husond list. Future Perfect has gone as far as to include in his evidence, justification for "collective...", "inane, obtuse and clueless argumentation", that basically is just calling people stupid (but trying to hide it with complex wording) and possibly infers about all Greeks. He included me Shadowmorph, a new user, to "stable core of a handful of editors". I made 10 edits of NPOV nature in one article (Macedonian language) in 2008; then I resurfaced only in April's Fool 2009 so I guess I'm a fool. I edited only a mere handful of disambiguation pages when I was caught in the middle of this with ChrisO's moves. Well since I made the statement of being Macedonian (Greek), I guess he included me just to prove that all Greeks act the same. Also, how does ChrisO actually knows that I'm only Greek. I could be American too. Shadowmorph (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need any new umbrella to protect obvious POV pushers. It's enough that we are slapped around with "AGF" when the issue is "bias" not "good faith". When a simple page move creates so much drama you can't ignore bias issues. The parallel between the real-live naming drama and this drama in Misplaced Pages is too perfect to ignore the real cause of it and who has interests to promote some specific names. man with one red shoe 05:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

When it is raining insults, people need "umbrellas" :) It is not just a page move, it is relevant to the Macedonia name dispute. It would be equivalent to moving the Republic of China article or changing just the two first words in Abkhazia, from "disputed region" to "autonomous country". Imagine the drame in the cases above. Because the dispute is about the name the "page move" (wiki-term for renaming) is related to the dispute. I think that covers it. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Dealing with ethnic profiling

1) Users who make attempts at ethnic profiling should at first be warned that such actions have been deemed inappropriate by ArbCom . If they persist, then any uninvolved administrator can ban them for a short period of time. If they are repeat offenders, more extensive measures might be in place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. By the way, I think this should not apply to attempts at ethnic profiling that happened before the ArbCom decision, since the practice had not been explicitly deemed inappropriate at the time. --Radjenef (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's reasonable that some form of enforcement should be taken about that. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Man with one red shoe

Proposed principles

Editors should not use potential offensive non-English terms.

1. Editors should not use potential offensive non-English terms. "Fyromian" is not an English term and can be considered offensive by some, per WP:ENGLISH and WP:TALK good practices, editors should use English when they communicate in Misplaced Pages, thus this term should be avoided even in talk pages. Same thing goes for "Skopjans" when it doesn't refer only to people living in the city of Skopje. This term is OK probably in Greek Misplaced Pages, but is not the English term for "Citizens of Republic of Macedonia" and it can be deemed offensive if used as such, in any case is not an English term and is not the self-identifying term either which in the absence of an English term would be acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. man with one red shoe 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. There's always ways of making a point without having to resort to ridiculous made up names. I take it that "person from fYRoM" would be an ok thing to use in a talk page, though, to be on the safe side, I usually refer to people from the Republic which is even more neutral (I always try to be extra careful not to offend people). --Radjenef (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree Fyromians and Skopjans are not acceptable terms and they should never be used to indiscriminately identify people from RoM. Dr.K. logos 23:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, with the asterisk that "Skopje" in order to refer to ROM should not be construed as offensive, as per diplomatic norms. Same with "Athens" for Greece. Of course on the other side, "Grecomans", "Christian Turks", "Atheneans" and even "Ethiopians"(!) should be avoided as well. The list is endless. --Avg (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In "news speech" like "the government in Skopje..." is fine, but if somebody uses "Skopjans" and they refer to people from the Republic of Macedonia and not necessarily Skopje is not OK, just like is not OK to refer to Greeks as "Athenians". Otherwise I see a consensus emerging about this, should we include "Pseudomacedonians" and "Bulgaromacedonians" and other such non-English terms? man with one red shoe 06:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally agree with Avg. However Athenian usually refers to Athens and people from there. Grecomans has been used in a wide historical context and is still often used by many people. While "Ethiopian" should only be used in reference to here, it is very offensive. "Christian Turks" again should be only used when refering to Ethnic Turks who are Christians. PMK1 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Both sides should avoid nasty terms, however insults can be made in other ways to. General etiquette should be prescribed. Shadowmorph (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support as something obvious.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Makes sense. BalkanFever 08:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"FYROMian" and "Skopjan" are offensive terms. Nor are they English terms. Just to let people know Skopje is a city not a country. PMK1 (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense and I agree with what Shadowmorph says that both sides should be civil. Kyriakos (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Long held consensus" cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Misplaced Pages's policies.

2. "Long held consensus" cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Misplaced Pages's policies. Since now it is a debate and the case is in ArbCom it is clear that there is no longer any consensus, the past consensus (if it ever existed) is dead and irrelevant now and cannot be invoked as an argument against a change that's based on polices and new realities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed man with one red shoe 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the argument on consensus was referring mainly to ChrisO's conduct which happened before this case was brought to ArbCom. If you are saying that his actions were so disruptive that they completely shattered consensus, then I am inclined to agree with you; that move was a disappointing thing to see from a wikipedia administrator. In short, consensus can be used to judge conduct prior to ArbCom, but the old conensus probably won't be used to prevent change in the future. --Radjenef (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The point I'm making here is that there was such a strong consensus before the move it would exist after the move too, we don't see it here. Since there's no consensus, invoking past consensus is only Wikilawyering and holding on the straws, but you seem to agree with me. I didn't make this point to save ChrisO from responding for his actions, I'm just pointing out that since there's no consensus after a move the illusory consensus before the move was probably just status quo, nothing more. man with one red shoe 13:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so you're saying that there was never a real consensus to begin with. Well, you are entitled to your own beliefs. You do, however, realize that both the arbitration decision and ChrisO's view was that there was a consensus, right? --Radjenef (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

They are entitled to their opinion, in my opinion it was just a status quo. If it were a real consensus there would have been a consensus against his move, can you claim that? But I've noticed that in other discussion too, the "losing" party always claims consensus somehow, maybe because they lack other tangible arguments (like clear policies or references). man with one red shoe 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

While I can and do agree with the idea of the proposal, I would myself change the phrasing rather a lot. In the event of real-world changes which make the prior consensus irrelevant, like Cassius Clay becoming Muhammad Ali, Lew Alcindor becomming Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Malcolm Little becoming Malcolm X, I can easily see how the prior consensus might be irrelevant now. However, this proposal could potentially lead to real problems of having individuals declare, seemingly on their own, that the prior consensus is invalid because they personally disagree with it. In most cases where there isn't a clearcut obvious need for a change, it would make sense to me to at least establish that the old consensus is no longer a consensus through at least minimal discussion to verify the current lack of consensus first. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Paradoxical. How can a change be according to policies, when enforced without prior consensus when WP:Consensus is also a policy? Changing against consensus is also against policies. Your proposal is a paradox, isn't it? Shadowmorph (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"consensus" is many times an empty word used by POV editors to support the status quo that is convenient for them, I don't see this situation to be in any way different. Using "consensus" as a club to beat down everybody who wants to make a change is ridiculous. man with one red shoe 02:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and the corollary is that a lack of consensus cannot be used as a way to block the implementation of basic policy requirements (and you don't get much more basic than WP:NPOV). See also #Consensus (or lack of) does not override policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Policies, such as NPOV and article sourcing, can not be overridden by straw polls. "Lack of consensus" as shown by a straw poll should not be used as an excuse to ignore policies and NPOV considerations.

3. Policies, such as NPOV and article sourcing, can not be overridden by straw polls. "Lack of consensus" as shown by a straw poll should not be used as an excuse to ignore policies and NPOV considerations. First sentence is almost word-by-word from WP:POLLS, the second one follows logically.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed man with one red shoe 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw this as a given, myself. Clearly agree to what is basically just a restating of policy. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages doesn't need POV-driven walled gardens.

4. Misplaced Pages doesn't need POV-driven walled gardens. We don't need in Misplaced Pages to use Chinese POV when we talk about Tibet in China related pages or Palestinian POV when we talk about Israel and so on, there's no reason to use Greek POV (per my evidence this is a Greek POV) in Greece page when we refer to the country, in all the rest of the pages is called either "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" however in talk:Greece it has been insisted by most of the editors who oppose the "Macedonia" name to call it "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", this is unacceptable, "Republic of Macedonia" is enough disambiguation for Greece article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed man with one red shoe 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Where possible walled gardens should identified and broken up. PMK1 (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It is almost impossible to do in this imperfect world. Aren't some other articles walled gardens too? Obama, George Bush, Iraq, Creationism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints etc etc. So what should we do? Make lists of involved editors who are Democrats, Republicans, Iraqi or lists based on editors' religions? Then what, ban those editors? Shadowmorph (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no extensive knowledge about those articles, but do they use POV terms or info that are not used in the other articles, something similar to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in Greece page, when the rest of the Misplaced Pages uses other term? If that's the case then my point is a very valid point and indeed we should find methods to de-POV those pages too. man with one red shoe 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That argument is simply the old WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument - it's invalid by definition. We fix problems with what is in front of us, without worrying about how we're going to fix other unrelated problems. Needless to say, none of those articles you mention have anything to do with the Macedonia situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've actually worked on LDS-related articles (Book of Mormon specifically) and the LDS editors are quite willing to work toward consensus and compromise. It's not been overly difficult to come to appropriate NPOV compromise wording after everyone butts heads for a little time. There is not a single issue that has proven to be a place where consensus is impossible. So, please, do not include the LDS articles in this statement. The Greek intransigence here is like nothing I've ever seen before in Misplaced Pages. (Taivo (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

I didn't "include them" anywhere, it was a metaphor. I'm totally respectful of other peoples religions unlike others (not you Taivo). The only reason I wikilinked to it is because of the obviously not common name of that article's title. Please understand, I don't know anything about any of those articles, just wanted to make a point. I know next to nothing of the book you talk about. I know only about the book of Mozilla :D I'm sure everybody is ultra nice everywhere else. I haven't seen anything like this too. ChrisO's move == severe disruption of Misplaced Pages. Shadowmorph (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Greek POV pushing and potential COI in this case

1. Participation in talk:Greece and talk:Macedonia per evidence presented by ChrisO has been lopsided, Greek editors aligned their positions en masse to the Greek POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. For example in Talk:Greece/Naming_poll, the poll created for using "Republic of Macedonia" instead of "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" we could not find one Greek editor who voted for "Republic of Macedonia", I also think very few Greeks if any voted for "Macedonia" name. It's not statistically probable that a specific group of editors interpret the policies in a different way than the general population of editors. To be clear, I don't accuse anybody of bad faith, I only see bias, which is natural and not a bad thing in itself, just that we need to protect Misplaced Pages from it. Normally I wouldn't and shouldn't care what is the nationality of other editors, the ideas are what are important, not who proposed them, however in a strong national POV context like this one when there's a potential of WP:COI I don't think it's OK to have editors who use POVish (and potentially offensive) names like "Skopjans" or "Fyromians" or "Psedumacedonians" hide behind the "Assume Good Faith" shield and overwhelm straw polls, discussions, and edits in main pages. Even more dangerous is the fact that nationals tend to watch "their" pages and Misplaced Pages will continue to have this kind of issues when some people under the cover of AGF (and thus no COI) will continue to promote their national POV by sheer number overwhelming the main space and talk pages. Assuming no COI automatically even in the face of counter-evidence will only encourage this kind of behavior. I see this is a weakness of Misplaced Pages and the possibility of developing parallel realities in different pages because they are watched by different demographic. To be more precise, the problem is not with the ideas presented by people who have bias or conflict of interest, I can discuss any ideas presented by no matter who, the problem becomes painful in straw polls, edit wars, endless filibustering and vandalism where the number of editors aligned to some POV matters.

Maybe I'm wrong for seeing things this way, if that's the case punish me for "ethnic profiling" and move on... man with one red shoe 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The point seems to me to be a reasonble one. A few situations come to mind which might be among the reasons for it, and those may not necessarily be generally bad things. The first is that I get the impression more Greeks regularly edit wikipedia than Macedonians. If that is true, then there would be a clear imbalance in their favor, as there would be more Greeks responding than Macedonians. The same imbalance may exist for several other national or subnational articles as well, possibly involving several outside of the Balkans. Based on my own limited experience with these topics, I have no doubt that there are imbalanced numbers of respondents to ethnic/national issues in several areas of wikipedia. Having said that, though, I'm not really very sure how to address the problem in a fair, unbiased manner. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I frankly don't know, I assume that asking (more) 3rd party editors to participate in the content decision or use solutions used in other pages would make sense to de-POV a specific page that's too closely watched by some nationals. Since I wrote this I realized that "COI" as defined by Misplaced Pages is rather narrow and probably doesn't include this type of cases, the case for bias remains though. man with one red shoe 22:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The wording is a tautology(almost). So basically, the Greek editors are accused of Pro-Greek bias(!) It is just like this thing here, if you haven't seen it, to lighten up a little :) Oh, and the WP:COI is not applicable to whole ethnic groups, I explained on another section Shadowmorph (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To give a fair assessment of your arguments, yes there exists a general (not Greek-only) problem of bias in Misplaced Pages. It is difficult to measure people's bias in advance and taking measures would be difficult, who would decide the bias of an editor and in what fair way? Certainly ethnic profiling would fail. YouTube has been using a voting technology to relieve bias from the video comments. Yet there is the problem of "democracy" or better "popularity voting" might get in the way of well documented truths that a biased editor can still introduce. I think Misplaced Pages works in the way of evolution and has managed to have a far better degree of NPOV from the past. That happened through just one simple thing: Consensus building. Even when aggressively competitive editing was involved. I'd call it the survival of the fittest NPOV version of an article Shadowmorph (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Survival of the fittest" in this case, however, doesn't mean "survival of the best". If one measures verbage at Talk:Greece or Talk:Macedonia, I daresay there would be a distinct weight advantage to the Greek POV. Indeed, many editors, including myself, have stopped contributing at Talk:Macedonia in general because hitting my head against a Greek wall without effect is wasting time. As I have mentioned elsewhere in this arbitration, fatigue is not consensus. And the Greek POV concerning Macedonia is certainly not "the fittest NPOV version". It is highly POV. And besides one single tentative step towards consensus and compromise by Dr.K at Talk:Greece, there has not been a single, solitary step taken towards consensus by the nationalist editors pushing "FYROM" at either Talk:Greece or Talk:Macedonia, including from you, Shadowmorph. So your calls for consensus building are disingenuous. (Taivo (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

I aggree to all you said Taivo except that only I have never edited the Greece article. See my not so long contributions history. I guess ChrisO's move totally blew my mind. I was trying for consensus even though I was labeled a Greek nationalist by someone. I was working on building consensus with Future Perfect until the move and we did make progress (although fighting about it). E.g. See Macedonian and Makedonia. Oh, that's when I assumed his good faith, he blew that for me too. See my response in the evidence page. Shadowmorph (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Make it clear that potential offensive non-English terms like "Fyromians" or "Skopjans" are not OK in Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed man with one red shoe 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither are terms such as "Bulgaroskopjans" or "Pseudomacedonians", but you have got the right idea. PMK1 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Beside being ridiculous and offensive, it's also confusing for example when "Pro-FYROMian" term actually is meant for people who are against the using of the "FYROM" term. So, basically a "Pro-FYROMian" is an Anti-FYROMian... it's a problem that we need to solve otherwise the Universe will implode. man with one red shoe 20:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to mention that the word "Skopjan" is obviously OK to use when referring to people from the city of Skopje. I completely agree with you, though. --Radjenef (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Definately yes; eg. Elena Risteska is a Skopjan BUT Lambe Alabakoski is not a Skopjan. They are both neither "FYROMians", "Pseudomacedonians" nor are they "Bulgaroskopjans". PMK1 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongest possible agreement on all points already expressed. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and it should be clear that administrators will have the right to impose the appropriate sanctions regarding them as cases of PA.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy that we've built some consensus regarding this issue, it seems like people coming from both sides of the Macedonia/FYROM schism agree that some wording is inappropriate. While I'm not fan of PC, I agree with previous poster that these words could qualify as WP:PA and poison the discussion enough to deserve a warning. man with one red shoe 19:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Please phrase this extremely carefully. Whig and Tory originally were, and still can be, in the wrong contexts, offensive terms; they are also the standard English for their subjects. We do not want "Fyromian"; we also don't want a principle that can be quoted in an Arbitration as mandating political correctness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

All of these terms are pejorative in English (even though they're not English) regardless of context. Elena Risteska would normally be described as a "person from Skopje" rather than a "Skopjan". BalkanFever 03:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Have previously uninvolved 3rd party editors or admins decide content in this case

Because of bias accusations/suspicions one good solution would be to have 3rd party editors or admins decide content in this case. The condition for these editors would be to have accounts established before the case started and to have never edited Greece or Macedonia related articles before. Preferable if possible to have them randomly selected. The solution should be binding for 2 years to assure peace in Macedonia related articles.

One explanation: since this issue doesn't require extensive local knowledge, it's a matter of interpreting the policies any editor should be able to form an opinion even if she or he is not familiarized with the debate.

Issues to be decided: name of Republic of Macedonia/Macedonia article and the reference name in Greece and Greece-related articles: "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" or other name.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I think this is the fairest and less POVish way (from either side) to solve this content debate. man with one red shoe 03:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair but with a correction: Maybe if you changed "content" to "article names". Content will always be free, community contributed, it can't be "decided". And about the naming it would possibly be part of a policy. Practically, consensus would still be sought for that too. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

1) Warn nicely and politely people who use such non-English terms: "Fyromians" or "Skopjans", impose progressive bans for people who don't comply.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed man with one red shoe 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. An alternate possibility might be to impose some sort of explicit civility probations, but I myself don't know if that sort of thing is done often. I don't think I've ever seen it myself, but I'm only familiar with a few cases directly myself. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I do not like civility probations. I will prefer Man's wording.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Fut.Perf.

Proposed principles

National factionalising is harmful

1) It is harmful to Misplaced Pages when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world political polarisations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along political frontlines due to shared national backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favourable to their shared political views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and you could add that it is equally harmful to permit nationalist factions to use strength of numbers to block the application of policy or obstruct consensus-building, as has happened repeatedly in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Political advocacy

2) It is unavoidable that an editor's views of what is best for Misplaced Pages may sometimes be coloured by their opinions about real-world political issues. If an editor occasionally defends editorial positions that coincide with political preferences typical of their national background, this is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing. However, when a debate becomes systematically polarised along such political lines, editors who have real-world political ties to one of the POVs in question should recognise this as constituting a possible "conflict of interests", and should be willing to step aside from the dispute and defer to a consensus of other editors. It is not appropriate for any Wikipedian to make advocacy for national editorial "causes" a permanent focus of their editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. When real-life drama is matched perfectly by content drama it's time to call for uninvolved editors/admins to help. man with one red shoe 05:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nationally motivated viewpoints

3) If an opinion about an editorial decision in Misplaced Pages is systematically shared only by people associated with a certain real-world political POV or ethnic/national background, and finds little or no support from editors of other or neutral backgrounds, even though it may be ostensibly based on Misplaced Pages-internal policy arguments, this is a prima facie indicator that those arguments may be weak and may only be rationalisations to cover politically motivated advocacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Quote form above: and finds little or no support from editors of other or neutral backgrounds is just code for: even if other people agree with you, better stick to your ethnic profile please Dr.K. logos 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No, actually, this is a recommendation that editors who wish to declare an ethnicity seriously consider !voting against stereotype. This makes sense provided we do count arguments, not !votes; there will always be someone to voice the Fooish National Truth, so it need not be said again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The alternative is for Foolandish editors find new arguments for the Foolander position other than the invariable trinity of everybody knows it's ours, we're being undone by a Barland conspiracy, and it's prejudice. To his credit, Dr. K has done this from time to time, and is miffed at having that ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thank you Septentrionalis for your kind comments, but it is not only about me. This methodology that Future proposes is fundamentally flawed, it is too blunt of an instrument and it is a drama/controversy generator. Dr.K. logos 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. While there will undoubtedly be sincere, honest editors among the national pack, who sincerely wish to contribute to Misplaced Pages, guilt by association is a serious problem and, unfortunately, Dr. K. has the mud stains to prove it. However, running with the pack is not a badge of honor in these cases. (Taivo (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Tyvo for your comments about me, but see my reply to Sep. above. Dr.K. logos 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:NPOV still commends "writing for the enemy". We could use more of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Role of political factions in decision making processes

4) If in a decision-making process, such as a debate, straw poll or "!voting" procedure, it becomes evident that editorial opinions are heavily and permanently polarised along real-world political frontlines, then it is legitimate to assign systematically less weight to the contributions of editors who are recognisably associated with such political camps, or in extreme cases to discount them entirely. An editor who is tasked with evaluating such a process and calling a consensus on it (for instance an administrator closing a move debate) should then give a rationale for their call including a description of the political division found in the debate and a reason for why certain sides in the debate must be discounted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The Misplaced Pages community has long been in search for an effective method to free itself from the grip of the various national factions in certain corners of the project. The solution is simple: just make it a rule that we don't listen to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wholehearted opposition. Beyond the fact that the proposal violates a central behavioral guideline, WP:AGF, it also would almost certainly cause editors who fear that they would be counted as biased to develop alternate accounts, with alternate identifiers, which would not be quite so quickly discounted, and that would bog this proposal down in so much work trying to determine who is sockpuppet of who that the whole matter would be more trouble than it is worth. There are alternate ways to resolve these matters. John Carter (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Such as? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that to date no one has yet addressed my point of a proposal such as this being almost certainly the impetus of obviously biased editors from, say, Greece, creating alternate accounts saying they are from, for instance, the Republic of Macedonia, and somewhat wonder whether anyone ever actually will address that point. However, if it becomes obvious over time that such processes will not work, then filing for mediation as per WP:MEDCOM or arbitration as per WP:ARBCOM. But if such polls clearly are already doomed to fail, saying that they might work if some party who will probably be challenged as biased by one side or another will ignore input from others at their own discretion seems to me to be very much asking for trouble. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"To date no one, as yet"? You mean none of the whopping 2 (two) comments made in the 27 minutes since you first proposed it? Okay, I'll bite: Creating a pseudo-neutral sock would of course always be a possible way of trying to disrupt a procedure, just as it is now, but creating a sock that is plausible enough (i.e. has an independent, neutral and substantial editing profile outside the disputed domain) would be cumbersome enough that I believe not many would try it. As for other methods: Medcom doesn't work, because it presupposes (a) a small number of involved editors (ideally just two) and (b) substantial willingness to compromise and/or listen to each other. We know that's not a given. Arbcom: well, that's where we are now, right? So you're saying after two years of trying to find a consensus, and after agreeing that only Arbcom can solve this, Arbcom should send us away to try again, and then if that doesn't work we should turn to Arbcom again? – As for ignoring input "at one's own discretion", of course not; ideally such situations should be handled through somebody (ideally several people) formally closing a procedure. Unfortunately, in the Greece case, nobody was willing to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if two people didn't answer a point, I think he had a reason to raise it. And I just want everyone to know that if I hadn't made my userpage as I did, and actually done some work on psychology, as xenopsychology is actually my specialty, irregularly for a month or two, I don't think anyone would ever assume I had anything to do with the second person above. Oh, yeah, I forgot the name. Oh, well. But it wouldn't be that hard for any regular editor to identify his or her own fields and then create socks working in other areas they haven't earlier had time to work in. Carthoris of Helium (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose proposal , reasons stated elsewhere more or less I agree with John Carter. To Carthoris, outside input is always welcomed :) But please move your comments in the proper comment by others section. Shadowmorph (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

John Carter, please propose an alternate way. At some point, the assumption of good faith is no longer applicable (continuous filibustering, repetition of the same arguments, sporadic users showing up simply to vote...). And please read WP:BEANS. BalkanFever 14:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is in my section below. Considering it is based on a procedure recently enacted by the ArbCom in a similar case, I tend to think the chances of it being enacted here are fairly good. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You've only stipulated that somebody (be it the "community" or the committee) should please come up with a new process that should magically work somehow. Have you got any concrete ideas about what that process could actually looked like? I've named one feature that in my view ought to be part of it; you rejected that. Okay, fair enough. I'm all ears for other proposals. What might such a process look like, and what makes you think it would work? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade

5) In nationally motivated disputes, the affiliation of individual editors with one national side is usually easy to recognise from their editing profiles (often in connection with their user names, languages, self-description and political symbols on user pages, and other self-disclosed cues), and is generally considered obvious and common knowledge between the parties in a dispute. Where political polarisation along ethnic lines has to be investigated in order to evaluate a consensus, counting an editor as part of an ethnic camp on the basis of such cues is legitimate. It is also not an act of "outing", as it does not infringe an editor's personal privacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Quote: counting an editor as part of an ethnic camp. This is very close to a ghetto or an editor concentration camp. Dr.K. logos 18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This kind of hysterical bad-faith comment is precisely why it is proving so difficult to get any meeting of minds on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your histrionics no longer impress me. For a British guy you seem to fly off the wall quite easily. Pity. Dr.K. logos 01:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See Godwin's law; but the original law having been validated also, can we leave this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not start this talk about ethnic camps. I simply suggested the logical conclusion of such talk. I guess every time a camp is mentioned, Godwin is not far behind. Dr.K. logos 02:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Only for those with limited command of English idiom. Both camps for both sides of an argument has been a cliche for a century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But I was not the one who invoked Godwin in the first place. Dr.K. logos 08:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Dr. K on this. The first mention of Nazis was shortly after Husond had posted his list of nationalities involved in the poll at Talk:Greece about two weeks ago. We are long past the invocation of Godwin. (Taivo (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Wikilawyering

Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Don't know if the Arbcom has some precedent wording about a principle against wiki-lawyering; if not, here's one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Benjamin Gatti formulation is probably closest to the mark: "X ... frequently appeals to technicalities or makes frivolous motions ... characteristic of Wikilawyering." -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good faith but Faint proposal, lacking clarity. Any final statement should be clear to any outside audience and future new contributors. It shouldn't use Misplaced Pages slang terms. By what process can any argument be picked out as wikilawyering? It's a good faith proposal, but maybe if you should reword it a bit to remove your own interpretations. By the way what would be the spirit of the WP:AGF,WP:Consensus, WP:Naming conflict and WP:Requested moves? I'm just asking because ChrisO's rationale for the move could also be described by the same term. Shadowmorph (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Refusal to get the point"

Excessive repetition of an argument or viewpoint in the face of consensus to the contrary and failing to take account of refutations (so-called "I-didn't-hear-that" tactics) may constitute disruptive behaviour, especially if it has the effect of perpetuating a dispute and obstructing consensus-building processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I'm not sure the Arbcom has dealt explicitly with this kind of misbehaviour before; if not, it's about time. Wording adapted from the relevant section in WP:DE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this would be counted as disruptive or tendentious editing, which is certainly something that the Arbcom has sanctioned before. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. "Refusal to get the point" can only apply to editorial actions, not to talkpage actions. Everybody is entitled to expressing and maintaining their opinion. Forcing a point down someone's throat is a violation of a number of policies, such as WP:OWN, WP:ADMIN, WP:NPA, WP:BITE etc. Those with a strong position from the "good" side, should think if they are not getting the point themselves either (and hence if their side is not ultimately the "good" one).--Yannismarou (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, the behavioral guideline at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT does pertain to talk page behaviour too. However, you do of course address an important point: "Not getting the point" is usually not something that is caused by willful "refusal". When A and B keep exchanging the same arguments for three years, and neither ever convinces the other, then there are three equally likely reasons: either A is being obtuse, or B is, or both are. It is in the nature of human obtuseness that neither A nor B will ever find out on their own which of these is true. But therefore it's all the more important that somebody else must then step in and tell them. In normal circumstances, the mechanism of the "third opinion" supposedly serves that purpose. In heavily politicised circumstances, when both A and B have large groups of supporters around them and any outside "third opinion" will get drowned in the noise of their debating, A and/or B will go on being obtuse without any chance of correction. That's when Arbcom needs to send one of them off the field. "Not getting the point" is a seriously disruptive and very common type of misconduct, and needs to be sanctioned, even though it is not usually a freely chosen type of misconduct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The guideline clearly speaks about basing "attacks" (i.e. WP:EW) or "edits" "upon the rejected statement". When there's no "attack" or "edit", there's no disruption. Seriously, who cares if one disagrees in the talkpage? And in your case, telling someone's argument is "laughable" etc without explaining why, is not exactly going to convince them they are wrong, is it? So why do you think "the consensus of the community has rejected it", and who is "refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error" when there's no such input to begin with from you? (Aprt from your relevant insults, of course).--Yannismarou (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, based on my own experience, the guidelines do apply to talk page comments. However, the guideline could be applied both ways. I would presume anyone claiming that policy or guidelines require something when there is a clear indication that others disagree and can provide some support for that disagrement could just as easily be violating this guideline. Honestly, if such discussions continue interminably, I personally think the parties at fault are both sides, for continuing to argue among themselves rather than trying to resolve the situation, through RfC, mediation, arbitration, or whatever. In those cases, both "sides" (if we want to characterize that way) would probably be equally responsible. And "the rejected statement" isn't necessarily unambiguous enough to indicate exactly how much "rejection" is necessary for a statement to qualify. In this case, it looks like the assertions of both "sides" have been "rejected" by the other, yet seemingly both "sides" keep making the same statements. Should they both then be considered to be in violation of this? John Carter (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, when two sides are locked in a dispute in such a way, it takes a third party to put a stop to it. Note that this requires the intervening party (admins, mediators, arbcom, etc.) to give up one frequent misunderstanding of policy: namely, that a "neutral" intervention must be agnostic as to quality of contents/arguments. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption can only be countered where a "neutral" third party has the courage to step in and say: listen, this argument of yours really is nonsense. For instance, if A keeps saying that "we can't use 'Republic of Macedonia' to describe what Florina prefecture is situated next to, because official sources of Florina prefecture call that thing by a different name so it would be counter to WP:V", and B keeps saying that "no, that's not a cogent argument, because we also know what is situated next to Florina prefecture from other sources, and we know that thing is the Republic of Macedonia, and we're not bound to adopt the terminological perspective of our article subject", I fully trust that any reasonable neutral observer would be able to recognise which of A and B is being more obtuse. Couldn't you, for instance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Wider locus of dispute

1) The wider locus of dispute is the question of how to refer to the country of Macedonia: by its self-chosen and common name "Macedonia", by its official constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia", or by the provisional term used for it in many international diplomatic contexts, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". There are concomitant issues. The question affects both the naming of articles themselves, and the references to the country in other articles. The issue reflects a deep-seated real-world political dispute, in which Greece disputes the neighbouring country's historical rights to the name "Macedonia".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This dispute is long-term and migrates from article to article. When ChrisO changed the name of Macedonia, the discussion at Talk:Greece virtually died and migrated to Talk:Macedonia with the same issues, the same cast of characters, and the same polarization. (Taivo (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Maybe so, but the proposal misinterprets the (official) Greece side. It's actually the other way around. I would agre if the last sentence was not there. Also, the locus should include the Balkans just like any proposal about Abkhazia should include the Caucasus.Shadowmorph (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Narrow locus of dispute

2) The specific locus of the most current dispute is twofold: the choice of reference from within the Greece article (previously "former Yugoslav...", recently changed to "Republic of..."), and the titling of the main country article itself (previusly "Republic of Macedonia", recently changed to plain "Macedonia").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I think it's a tradition the F.o.F.s should first establish the concrete factual history of the dispute. This is step 1. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's important to get help and tools for deciding both issues. I hope the ArbCom will not limit to the page move issue. man with one red shoe 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Status quo

3) Since c.2006/07, there was a relatively stable status quo that was respected though not necessarily endorsed by most regular editors in the field. "Republic of..." was the title of the main article and the routine reference from within most other articles. "Former Yugoslav..." was used in many articles dealing with international organisations which themselves use this term. "Former Yugoslav" was also used in many articles relating to Greece, including the Greece article. This arrangement is documented in the attempts to formulate a consensus guideline at WP:MOSMAC in 2007. Prior to 2009, attempts by outside editors to challenge the exceptional status of the Greece-related articles failed in the face of massive resistance of Greek editors, including the concern that Greek editors would permanently and massively edit-war against any other solution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Factual background. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. The point you make about it being a status quo rather than a consensus is very important. There was no consensus, as the failure of WP:MOSMAC shows, merely a deadlock between Greek editors and everyone else. The outcome of this deadlock reflected Misplaced Pages's internal politics rather than the standards prescribed by our naming policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Fatigue does not equal consensus and MOSMAC clearly stated that no consensus had been reached. The subsequent massive vandalism perpetrated throughout Misplaced Pages by supporters of the "FYROM" terminology vindicates the nationalistic nature of this issue. (Taivo (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Challenge to the status quo

4) In March 2009, the status quo at the Greece article was challenged by a number of editors, who proposed switching to the "Republic of..." convention. This resulted in a multilateral edit war and finally protection of the page. A straw poll held in parallel ended in a polarised result: half of the respondents, almost all of them Greeks, advocated "former Yugoslav...", the other half, almost all of them from uninvolved outside nations, advocated "Republic of".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Still just a brief narrative of the recent dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. There was nothing "multilateral" in the disruption. It was mainly User:Fut.Perf. unilaterally claiming there is consensus in the poll and mass-renaming dozens of references to the country from FYROM to ROM. When he was reverted, he edit warred.--Avg (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. The poll was split right down the middle--opponents of "Republic of" were virtually all self-identified Greek (either by birth or self-proclaimed ethnicity). Avg refuses to look at the numbers supporting the level of Greek vandalism and only focuses on the editing that Future Perfect did, including to many articles that had nothing to do with Greece, such as Staffordshire University, 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, and a couple of articles about Macedonian and Serbian nationals with no ties to Greece. (Taivo (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Support. By the way there's no such thing as unilateral edit war as some people seem to claim here. man with one red shoe 05:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ChrisO's move

5) On 18 April, User:ChrisO, an admin with a long involvement in the debate, moved the country article to plain "Macedonia", without prior discussion, arguing that this was the solution best in line with existing policy, and that in these very exceptional circumstances prior discussion would have been useless because the expectable stonewalling from the Greek editors would make consensus-forming impossible. The article was previously move-protected for a very long time, and has remained so since. Reactions to this move, including reactions from previously uninvolved outside editors, were mostly critical of the process, but partly supportive of the result.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Will have to be dealt with one way or another, obviously. Chris, please feel free to tweak my summary of your arguments so it reflects your position properly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. I think that sums it up pretty well. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence#Timing. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. (Taivo (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Oppose. As strongly as possible. Wording is incomplete and inaccurate: 1) It fails to mention the fact that there was a long-time (years long) consensus for the "RoM" title (and it was a WP consensus with the full sense of the term), 2) It fails to mention that ChrisO supported the aforementioned consensus weeks before the "drama move" took place , , . 3) It fails to mention that nobody (and I do mean nobody!) contested the long-time consensus before the "drama move". 4) It offers a POV interpretation of these reactions, which confirmed what was pretty obvious: That there was indeed no consensus for Chris' move. 5) "because the expectable stonewalling from the Greek editors would make consensus-forming impossible": offensive, and totally inacceptable as targeting a particular ethnic group. After all how do you know that Greeks would make consensus impossible, if a) you don't state you opinion that there is no consensus, b) you don't even initiate the procedure to test if consensus-forming is indeed stonewalled or not?! Finally, what consensus-forming are we talking about when consensus exists! You have first make your case against the existing consensus!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. The strong reaction to ChrisO move is the best proof that any prior discussion would have been useless, you can't achieve consensus with people determined to defend their POV. The key here is that policies and NPOV principle trump "consensus" and I think ChrisO explained pretty well how policies apply in this case. Observe that he's criticized on technicalities "how he moved" the page not on his arguments man with one red shoe 05:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Political influence of Greek editors

6) Since the beginnings of Misplaced Pages, editors with Greek ethnic background, most of whom have strongly felt opinions on the issue, have adamantly demanded or defended editorial conventions that strengthen the use of "former Yugoslav" forms, through tenacious debating, massive turnout in related polling procedures, and sometimes edit-warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Undeniably true. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. "editors from Greece" would be a non-racial wording. Still wrong. Maybe "potential influence of POV editors" to include others like you two? Just a suggestion. Shadowmorph (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Race? Please stop baiting, there's no race issue here. man with one red shoe 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is if Greek (or assumed to be Greek) editors are targeted in every proposal by Fut.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a Greek nation and a Greek state, I was not aware of Greeks being a separate race. Claims of bias caused by patriotism or nationalism have no relationship with race at least as I understand the word, do you operate under other definition of "racism" or "race" that I'm not aware of? man with one red shoe 02:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. man with one red shoe 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Don't like racial profiling of editors. I myself was accused of being a Greek Nationalist! There was obviously then an investigation into where I am from!! Reaper7 (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. The Greek faction is willing to do nearly anything to support the "home team." We have an example under discussion here in this arbitration of summoning the troops from outside Misplaced Pages, to make their voices heard. (Taivo (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Oppose. You can criticize Greek users for that, but what they (we) did was to apply MOSMAC seen as a process towards consensus. I see no evidence for strengthening the "former Yugoslav" forms. Even the "Greece article case" is a case of "defense" of the existing title (right or wrong is going to be judged) and not "strengthening". On the other hand, there is an effort to "push" the "Macedonia (and that's all)" format even with the non-consensual abuse of adm tools, as it happened with the "drama move".--Yannismarou (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to BalkanFever: It was ChrisO that played the joker cards here (maybe Fut. too, someone said they worked together). ChrisO played on me when he pulled admin rights to move "Macedonia" (a dab page at the time) to make room for moving the country article to "Macedonia". He did this while I was discussing the dab page and have moved "Macedon" in between (with my 52 card deck). He could have reverted my move, I couldn't revert his. Actually the analogy would be he was playing as The House in a Casino, me being a newbie player. I'm just following game. Besides I didn't know about that list from start. Can't say I liked it when I saw it :| Why should I? And how can the phrase "editors with Greek ethnic background" not have racial connotations? (What does it mean?) Shadowmorph (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Shadowmorph, please play with the standard deck of 52 - no race card. And as for your other suggestion, we don't need to include ChrisO or Fut. Perf. in a "potential influence of POV editors" since they are not part of the problem. BalkanFever 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Collective stonewalling

7) Over several years, a majority of Greek editors have factually represented a coherent opinion bloc (or "faction") with regard to this issue. While many of the editors concerned have undoubtedly acted individually in good faith, and individual conduct of most of them did not reach a level of disruptiveness that would normally call for individual sanctions, their actions taken together have taken on a collectively disruptive form. The stance of the Greek faction, as represented by a small number of core regular editors and a larger volatile group of occasional supporters, has had the effect of permanently blocking regular consensus-seeking mechanisms. Many Greek editors have shown a willingness to put wikipedia editing in the service of their national political interests. Disruptive behaviour shown by some editors in this context include: wikilawyering, overt appeals to political considerations, "refusal to get the point" ("WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), filibustering, assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks and ad hominems, external lobbying, and edit warring. Several outside editors have over time turned away from the dispute exasperated by the immobility of the Greek opinion block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Now, here's the crux. I think this is new: Arbcom has never dealt with the notion of "collective behavior". It is my strongly felt opinion that it will have to learn to do so. The collective influence of political factions is one of the big driving issues in these kinds of disputes, and they can only be handled adequately if we develop instruments of addressing them. -- More individualised FoF's are going to follow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Problematic, since there is no official policy on that. I want to congratulate you for the nice wording that is not in anyway racial; it adresses your concern of the problem of voices being lost by collective behaviour of others. But that is exactly the opinion of the other side too: Administrative or editorial practices should always take the minority opinion into account (the pro-"UN term" or pro-Greece in this case). However your finding fails to ascribe the same behavior to editors of the other part who form a block too (you are a part of it). Ethnicities are irrelevant, the other block is also numerous very coherent voting always in accord, as the same aforementioned ChrisO/Hussond list shows graphically. The disruptive behavior of some of them is illustrated by ChrisO unilateral move. Shadowmorph (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This is, as Future Perfect said, the crux of this entire arbitration. ChrisO's actions are simply a sideshow, this is the main act. Talk:Greece contains thousands and thousands of kilobytes of "discussion" over the issue of naming Macedonia within that article and on the accompanying map. Every filibustering technique known to Wikipedians has been used, sometimes in tag teams, by the Greek faction. There are honest and hard-working Greek editors, but for every one of them there are ten others who are just single-topic voices used in straw polls and to provide cannon fodder for the incessantly repetitive assertions of political, legal, and moral "rights" to the word "Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Oppose. First it is interesting that this comes from a user who has repeatedly attacked users he does not like in the most inappropriate and contemptuous way. I'd support the proposal, if a) he did not target Greek users in particular (as he usually does), b) if he added himself to those applying "personal attacks and ad hominems, external lobbying, and edit warring". The wording is too vague, wordy and again inaccurate. Those accused of ""personal attacks and ad hominems, external lobbying, and edit warring" are often those targeted by the proposer with such means: , or his attacks against Avg and Kekrops.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree And I suspect that the past "consensus" that's so much invoked by a specific part of the discussion (although it's irrelevant as I argued) was due exactly because of the behavior detailed by Fut. Perf. If we are to achieve consensus by fear then that type of "consensus" is not that important. man with one red shoe 06:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am absolutely convinced that this coherent bloc exists, and extends to multiple issues, not just the use of the word "Macedonia." But showing that would require much more evidence. On the other hand, I am also convinced that there are editors who have at times been part of this, but who follow policies, seek consensus, discuss, etc. A good editor will support proposals that they agree with, believe meet policy, etc, and there is nothing wrong with this. I think that this finding needs to lean hard on 1) the existence of a non-productive core, and 2) perversion of consensus. Is there a guideline against "Rallying the Troops" or embarrassing in, through 'patriotism,' reluctant support? Jd2718 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This National point of veiw also extends to pages such as Minorities in Greece, Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, Slavic dialects of Greece, Albanian-speakers of Western Thrace, Languages of Greece. Confusing and often contradictory titles and information is displayed in regards to the "ethnic homogenity" of Greece. This has often led to much edit warring etc. PMK1 (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree; this can be best seen on WT:MOSMAC and its archives. But what are we going to do about it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruption from Avg

8) Avg (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account focussing on national advocacy editing in the Macedonian naming dispute. He has disrupted the project through an aggressive "battleground" mentality, persistent wikilawyering, threats of edit-warring, and multiple instances of assumptions of bad faith against other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See my evidence section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Avg's behaviour could be classifyed as annoying of late and quasi-disruptive to the discussions. However he is trying to justify what he believes and that is not a bad thing. I would be hesitant to label him as having a "single-purpose account". PMK1 (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Then what does he do, other than promote the Greek perspective on this debate? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disruption from Kekrops

9) ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs) (Kekrops) has disrupted the project through years-long systematic advocacy editing in issues of Greek national disputes, including the Macedonia naming issue. He has shown a pattern of persistent and excessive wikilawyering, edit-warring and multiple instances of ad hominem personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See my evidence section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disruption from NikoSilver

10) NikoSilver (talk · contribs), although at times a productive editor who has shown a genuine interest in reaching some compromise over the Macedonia naming dispute in the past, has nevertheless shown a long-term pattern of behaviour in this dispute that has contributed to the obstruction of consensus building, especially through excessive wikilawyering and persistent "refusal to get the point".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I really hate to be doing this, really I do, because Nikos is my friend, but after a pattern of edits like this I have to say that his participation in the Macedonia discussions has outlived its usefulness to the project. See my evidence section for more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Probably true, at least some of the time. But is this helpful? Are we going to solve this by sanctioning individual editors (except perhaps a few of the most herd-like ones)? No. Why?

• It's not good for Misplaced Pages. Are we going to sanction useful editors like Niko (and Yannismarou, who is just as stubborn), who have not, in themselves, gotten to the point of disruption?
• There will always be more Greek Nationalists, so it won't work.
• If it does work, if we produce neutrality towards Macedonia by sanctioning the Greeks, we will then have to sanction the Turks and the Bulgarians to defend neutrality towards Greece. Normally, the effects of ethnic hatred are a stalemate between the editors of each nation, occasionally settled by neutrals; but Macedonia is a poor, thinly populated country with few English-speakers, so there are few Macedonian editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, much as I regret it, I do see Niko as part of the most problematic core. He used to be a productive editor back when you got to know him, but he no longer is. For the last half year or so, almost every one of his (infrequent) contributions has been either drive-by revert warring "helping out" in nationally motivated edit wars, or this kind of advocacy wikilawyering, and the obtusity level of his arguments hasn't been improving. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The diff presented above () shows nothing bad in my opinion. It starts by pointing to a centralized discussion. Then there are a few possible recommendations for discussions in the relevant guidelines, which I don't know why they can be perceived as annoying. I also notice the repetition of the humorous bit with the "punch" (see the one with the farmer etc, that was discussed in WT:MOSMAC and was regarded as amusing then ), for which I cannot attribute bad faith, only an attempt to brighten and lighten the discussion perhaps? (we all know Nikos). Finally he expresses his wish that calling us Greeks nationalists all the time should stop, and that if he chose to follow the same logic accusing the other side, the discussion would obviously derail. I don't know what is bugging Fut.Perf. so much about this comment. Maybe I miss something?

Re the other diffs presented by Fut.Perf. in the evidence page in respect to NikoSilver:

1. "Threats": There are no "threats". Nikos is making the statement of fact, that the Greek users would react, which in fact he has never exercised himself as an editor. His reverts (if any) they were always very limited, and always backed with rationale, or explanation in the talkpages, and that's why he is of the very few users who have never had a block in their logs despite his dealing with such controversial topics. The rest of his comment carries on with policy based rationale, and I think it is very polite and very correct.
2. "Disingenious accusations of "outing"": This edit actually criticizes the Greek nationalists! Not taking their side! The other diff below ), I don't witness any accusation! I even see him using quotation marks to "outing", and I also notice he places "factions" next to it, in an attempt to sound fair and present both sides! Is this diff used as an impression technique? It certainly is very much misinterpreted, and with a lot of bad faith too.
3. "Wikilawyering": What is the problem in this one and why is it labeled "wikilawyering"? He is replying to a user that he is not using subjective criteria (unlike what the user accuses him of). And then he illustrates what criteria he is using, with a humorous example. Also note that the diff is two years old...
4. "Re-stating old arguments": etc. I am sorry, but the "old" arguments, to my knowledge, have never been refuted with logic. And actually there are third party users (e.g. in the poll) who support them. Why are we accusing a user for "old arguments"? What is this, he's not allowed to maintain his opinion? It would be a very different thing if his opinion was logically refuted, if it weren't backed by anybody else, and if he was enforcing it in articles rather than stating it in talkpages as he is.
5. "Edit-warring": Simply no supporting evidence. The diffs presented for Niko are these:
   1. reverting ChrisO once when he changed the content of a relevant article while the poll was still running and still uncertain. Note that ChrisO is using terminology like "walled gardens" to affect the result of the ongoing poll, and note that he makes the change without waiting for the poll to close. Very legitimate revert.
   2. second revert against Fut.Perf. who makes the same error.
   3. Changed (only once!) the wording of the intro back to the massively consented version (), and then after discussion with Taivo in the talkpage, Niko agrees (!!) to a new consensus which improves the article (). Where's the edit war?
   4. One revert in the main article of Greece, against Fut.Perf. who is reverting to his preferred version despite that the poll is still running and without decision! Please note the validity/calmness/civility (or lack thereof) of both edit summaries.
   5. Second (only) revert for the same reason. Again, note the explanatory (or non-explanatory) edit summaries.
   6. One (only!) revert in a related article for the same reason (i.e. reversion of Fut.Perf.'s edit prior to the closing of the poll which would decide exactly how this was supposed to be written...)
   7. Irrelevant issue, months ago. Legitimate revert, legitimate edit summary. Note that the article was then called "Aegean Macedonians", and Nikos' version was obviously correct as the article referred to the ethnic group, and not to the speakers, who are indeed many more. Read his edit summary.
   8. One (only!) revert to a related article where, again, Fut.Perf. and ChrisO decided to revert to their preferred version despite that the poll that would decide how this would be written was not yet closed. Note that Nikos is reverting to the least problematic version, which is in between of the two versions that are being reverted repeatedly by the others ("former Yugoslav" outside of the blue link), thereby trying to put an end in the edit war with a compromise version.
6. "Petulant complaints": from the two diffs, the first is two years ago (how far back is this supposed to go?) and is indeed concerning, but one has to read the whole thread. The second is a talk between friends in their own talkpages (which should be off-wiki in my opinion), and which regards their real-world views on the issue and certainly not editorial views (Niko states so). If people are not allowed to talk (and even more, if not allowed to talk to people they consider "friends" in their talkpages), well I don't know where we are headed...
7. "Refusal to get the point", as well as its diffs, are obviously a repetition of Circularity of debate ... etc hereby analyzed above in #4.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Consensus in Greece-related articles

1) The community is advised to recognise that in the debate and straw poll at Talk:Greece/Naming poll, a valid consensus supporting the change from the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to "Republic of Macedonia" in this article and other Greece-related articles was reached. Administrators are instructed to take appropriate action to prevent further disruption from editors who might be trying to block the implementation of this consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. No third party administrator closed the poll and affirmed there is a consensus. Instead, it was you who disrupted the project going into a renaming spree ignoring that the poll had not been closed yet.--Avg (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. There was a pretty much consensus among editors who are not bent of defending the Greek POV on that page. If anybody wants to test that I suggest opening a straw poll for uninvolved people who have never edited in Greece and Macedonia space. Otherwise this type of content will be decided by professional POV warriors, which in my opinion this is the problem we are facing here. man with one red shoe 02:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, sort of. Whenever discussions concerning Macedonia occur, there is a strong consensus when the unified Greek voice is ignored. Once you factor in the single-topic editors whose only function in Misplaced Pages is to serve as on-call dissenters to the use of "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia", then you have a split right down the middle. I don't want to say that the honest, contributing Greek editors (Dr. K and Yannismarou come to mind immediately) should be silenced. But the power of the Greek rabble needs to be eliminated because it is counter-productive to Misplaced Pages. We want well-informed and productive Greek input in the topics of Misplaced Pages where they truly have the expertise, but in issues relating to Macedonia, the majority of Greek voices are not productive Misplaced Pages contributors and are only there to vote in accordance with Greek foreign policy. (Taivo (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Support. It was clearly the case that almost every editor from a non-involved country supported this change, and the only reason that the change was not adopted was because of a filibustering effort by a Greek faction working in lockstep. The only realistic way that we can get a policy-based resolution of this issue is to exclude editors from the disputing countries. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Misplaced Pages does not belong to any group of people, neither the ethnic-((insert an ethnicity here)) or "the rest" that are non-((insert that ethnicity here)). So your point is, give Misplaced Pages to the non-Greek contributors. Maybe we should exclude the Americans from all polls about their articles of interest. I'm watching to see how far this proposals of ethnic/racial discrimination will go. About this "...when the unified Greek voice is ignored"), where is that stated in the policies? Is there a WP:IgnoreThem policy to ignore one ethnic group if has stable support on a naming issue, conforming to a position that is also that of some neutral organizations? Shadowmorph (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Consensus process regarding the country article (Republic of) Macedonia

2) On conclusion of this case, the country article (currently at Macedonia) is to be moved provisionally back to Republic of Macedonia, the status quo before ChrisO's unilateral move. A fresh consensus-forming process, possibly with an ensuing poll, is then to be held in order to form a valid consensus deciding between "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", or any other new naming proposal. The committee will name a task group of three experienced, uninvolved administrators who will be charged with overseeing this process, closing it and determining a consensus from it, with due account taken of the principle outlined in (4) above.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Any polling must take into account the nature of the editors voting. Single-topic editors and new accounts should be excluded from the process and voting. There should be no opening for a "call to arms" to summon the hordes. (Taivo (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Oppose (mainly on the procedural issues). 1) Disagree with "provisionally" (why the ARBCOM to make such a statement partly legitimizing an improper move?), 2) Disagree with "the fresh consensus-forming process" formula. The move should be simply undone, and then whoever wants to argue that there is no consensus, he can go to the talk page, make his case, and initiate a consensus-reaching procedure. But when nothing like that is done, ARBCOM should not go by itself one step forward. This would again legitimize the intentions of the "drama move".--Yannismarou (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, though note that this will be completely ineffective if the filibustering of the Greek faction is not discounted. These people are intent on preventing any policy-based solution that conflicts with their POV; we can't move forward until that's addressed. Yannis's proposed approach is just another way of saying "let's continue the filibustering", which isn't surprising considering that he's one of the people involved in it. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The arbs accepted this case with a promise to outline a general process framework in which such questions ought to be settled. I am making this proposal under the condition that the "fresh consensus-building process" envisaged will be held within such a framework. The minimum requirement that would make such a thing work is that it must contain firm rules to the effect that ethnic block voting and filibustering can reliably be excluded from the process. What the arbs will hopefully not ask us to do is to start the "discussion" over from the beginning and just have more of the same, under the same conditions as before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. We need procedures first how to deal with the issue, then decide, and then move the page or leave it where it is according to the decision. I'm afraid that any move back to "Republic of Macedonia" will encourage a part of the editors to claim "consensus" or "it's not productive to move pages" or "there's no consensus" and the issue will be dropped without a fair resolution. Actually my opinion is that in the end the page would probably need to be at Macedonia (country) or maybe even Republic of Macedonia since we need to disambiguate somehow and the second option might be preferred for some reasons, but that's another story. Macedonia should redirect to Macedonia (country) since that's the main topic (by the way I envision some fighting over redirection too). man with one red shoe 06:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Avg banned

3) As an aggressive single-purpose advocacy account who has disrupted Misplaced Pages discussion – including the proceedings of this case – with a persistent vitriolic battleground attitude, Avg (talk · contribs) is banned from Misplaced Pages for 6 months, and permanently topic-banned from all edits relating to Macedonia naming issues (including both content edits and contribution to discussions).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See related proposed FoF above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wholehearted opposition. Avg has actually pointed to some facts relevant to the case which others have not. It would be at best nonsensicial to ban someone for doing what he is supposed to do. If one were talking about a vitriolic battleground attitude, well, one could, perhaps stretching the point a bit, say the same thing about Future Perfect as well. John Carter (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Opposed. I really do not see any disruption; neither do I see this vitriolic attitude that you describe. Avg is one of the few remaining voices of reason and civility in these discussions. He might oppose your POV, but he appears to be doing that with carefully thought of arguments, not with a battleground attitude. --Radjenef (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Support at least some level of ban (whether a full ban or only a topic ban I can't say). Avg is pretty much a textbook example of treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with John Carter. "Vitriolic" is not good language. Someone could say the same about Future Perfect's attitude. I searched the policy Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account for the word "ban". I didn't find any mention there. Shadowmorph (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with permanent topic ban. But there's no reason to keep anybody out of Misplaced Pages if they can no longer edit their favorite POV warring grounds, I assume he will behave in other subjects if he's interested to edit, who knows maybe he will learn from this experience and find some other interests and become a useful editor man with one red shoe 06:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Kekrops topic-banned

4) For disruptive advocacy editing, persistent wikilawyering and edit-warring with respect to various Macedonia-related disputes, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all edits relating to Macedonia naming issues (including both content edits and contribution to discussions) for 6 months, and placed on a revert limitation for a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See related proposed FoF above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with limited topic ban, nobody will die if they can't edit Macedonia naming issues. man with one red shoe 06:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Avg

Proposed principles

Misplaced Pages has a code of conduct

1) Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are many articles on the English Misplaced Pages to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The fourth pillar, verbatim, except the number of articles.--Avg (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Actions inside Misplaced Pages resonate outside Misplaced Pages

2) Editors should understand that Misplaced Pages is one of the top-10 sites on the internet and Misplaced Pages articles may be seen by thousands or even millions of people. They have a responsibility to avoid controversial actions stirring passions that exist in the outside world.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Avg (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The proposal seems to me to be saying "Act reasonably. People are watching." I can't see any objections to that. That doesn't preclude action in some cases, it might even demand it in some cases. John Carter (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Misplaced Pages is not governed by outside influences. That is one of the hallmarks of NPOV. WP:NCON, for example, specifically excludes any outside considerations of political, legal, or moral rights to a name. This proposed action is simply another way to say, "Don't get us mad by using 'Macedonia'". Misplaced Pages is independent of personal emotion. That is the relevance of NPOV here. (Taivo (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

To the best of my knowledge, no one said or even implied that outside influences should govern wikipedia. What the writer said, that writers "have a responsibility to avoid controversial actions stirring passions that exist in the outside world", clearly includes and seems even to stress the word "controversial". I don't think any clearcut application of policy would qualify as "controversial", because there would be no good policy basis for a controversy. I think a clear reading of the statement itself indicates that the POV which seems to be present is that of those who misread the proposal, and saw in it something that isn't really there. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction: The finding although true should have been covered by WP:NPOV. It should be more focused on the motives of Misplaced Pages editors than the result of the actions. The really important part of the problem is the backward: Misplaced Pages is the 10th site on the internet and that resonates inside Misplaced Pages. In that sense Misplaced Pages readers are not just "Misplaced Pages readers" but most probable not a subclass differentiated in any way from common internet users. That tells a lot about the hit statistics. Shadowmorph (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose it's irrelevant and against NPOV principle of Misplaced Pages. We don't suit Misplaced Pages to external point of views. man with one red shoe 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly oppose. We are ranked as we are in part because we adhere to the neutral point of view, not the Sympathetic Point of View advocated here. This is a consideration for Wikinfo, not for us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This principle is focused on the prudence that someone should exercise before engaging in controversial actions. I do not understand how WP:NPOV is relevant here.--Avg (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Using someone's ethnicity as an argument to dismiss their views is a personal attack

3) Per WP:NPA: It is never acceptable to use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Avg (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's vote here was discredited because of their ethnic background. The use of the "ethnicity argument" was only to prove an existing walled garden which was clearly based on etho-national POV. PMK1 (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support stated principle. I'm sorry PMK1, I thought that the list was made exactly to discredit some people's votes exactly because of their ethnic background. It made the basis for Fut.Perf and ChrisO to propose ignoring those votes altogether and assume there is a consensus (i.e: by excluding all the Greek votes).I think that is the verbatim definition of discrediting, but that's just stupid me. Shadowmorph (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree you left an important part of the quote out "Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack" you know what they say about half-truths... man with one red shoe 06:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Off-wiki "inner circles" are detrimental to the project

4) Forming an "inner circle" off-wiki with the purpose to decide on a strategy about editing Misplaced Pages articles is detrimental to the community spirit of Misplaced Pages and is strongly discouraged. Discussion and decisions about Misplaced Pages articles is better placed in the talk page of the said articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Avg (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)--

Oppose. This is a waste of time. Is Misplaced Pages going to monitor everyone's email now? Or perhaps this would require the removal of the "Email this user" link. No. You cannot control off-Wiki communication. There are already means to control destructive behavior off-Wiki, such as the prohibition against meat puppetry that SQRT may have violated. This proposal is unenforceable. (Taivo (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm afraid you put words on my mouth (again). There is nothing about "control" or "monitoring" in my proposal. I propose that Misplaced Pages should make a statement encouraging inclusiveness and condemning efforts to undermine the community spirit, on both the macrocosm of the encyclopaedia and the microcosm of a specific article.--Avg (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There are probably often people who discuss issues on for example wikipedias irc-channel, which to some might be considered "off wiki", I don't see any problem users discussion various issues through email, irc, real life or what ever, and I don't think there's any policy against users communicating outside the website. chandler ··· 18:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Taivo. However if something like that is concretely proven, actions should be taken. Shadowmorph (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Conspiracy theory, unverifiable. man with one red shoe 06:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

more to follow

Proposed findings of fact

Abuse of administrative privilege by ChrisO (1)

1) ChrisO abused his administrative privilege when he changed text in a protected template from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia while being an involved editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Avg (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This is not the main topic of this arbitration. It is a red herring. (Taivo (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment - I would suggest the above editor review the request for arbitration. That page makes it very clear that the misconduct of ChrisO was in fact the primary reason for the filing that in fact took place. Also, these proposed findings of fact do not necessarily have to address only the primary reason for filing, but are really supposed to address any issues which become apparent in the review of the situation. The FoF regarding Reaper7 is not particularly different. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - User:Taivo can refer to the Arbitrators opinion for further information. According to my understanding, this is a place where editors agree or disagree that this action was an abuse of admin tools.--Avg (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, this page is for agreeing or disagreeing. I believe that I made it clear that I disagree. You will also note that the arbitrators who made comments beyond "accept" generally agreed that the issue was not restricted to ChrisO's actions per the agreement at Talk:Greece. The attempt to restrict this arbitration to just ChrisO is a red herring. (Taivo (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Response to Taivo - Sir, I have seen absolutely no evidence which even remotely supports your contention that there is an attempt to restrict the arbitration to ChrisO. What I have seen is that a number of editors whose primary complaints are regarding that editor's actions clarifying what those complaints are, which is another matter. I also note that agreement and disagreement are generally supposed to be based on sound thinking. Your statement above, which seems to imply that these early statements, based on the early evidence presented to date, are somehow expected to be the sole focus of this arbitration strikes me as being both clearly untrue (reference the Reaper7 comments extant), and possibly a willful misrepresentation of fact to achieve some purpose of its own. I would very much urge you to cease making what are at this point unfounded accusations, or, if you persist in such claims, to present evidence to support them elsewhere. But this is supposed to be about agreement or disagreement based on the evidence presented, not agreement or disagreement based on a failure to assume good faith of apparently most other participants and an apparently closely held belief that they are all somehow "ganging up" on one party. You yourself are free to submit evidence regarding any other parties as well, you know. It might benefit you if you were to do so, rather than continue to make unfounded, prejudicial allegations such as the above. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I will gladly welcome when the supporters of the Greek POV start addressing the issue that was the original focus of the planned arbitration--the reference to Macedonia at Greece. So far all I have seen is an overwhelming focus on ChrisO's actions at Macedonia and what that article should be called. Maybe I've missed a comment or evidence that was presented to this point. But so far none of the Greek editors are talking about Greece, which was where the arbitration was originally to be focused. (Taivo (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Sir, I note that to date you have displayed little if any real knowledge of wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would very strongly urge you to acquaint yourself with them. Also, believe it or not, plans change when individuals act in such a way as to force them to be changed. Trust me, as has already been indicated by several people, the evidence presented to date is probably still incomplete. Also, perhaps you will think unfortunately, it really is not your place to try to dictate to others what they choose to address. If you want to raise other concerns, by all means do so, but please do not be so presumptuous as to criticize others for addressing what they see as blatant violations of policy which were not anticipated when the agreement you refer to had been suggested. John Carter (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - You are making your own conclusions. I have never said I will limit myself to these four Findings of Fact, although these are crucial for my proposed remedy regarding ChrisO. There are a lot more to follow. --Avg (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. --Radjenef (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is everybody here saying "oppose" or "support" as if we were !voting on these proposals? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably because it tends to be fairly common to do so? Granted, I don't see as many repetitions on other pages, but they tend to be less hotly contested than this one. But you will see that the same thing is done, on a lesser scale admittedly, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop. John Carter (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Reaper7 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Abuse of administrative privilege by ChrisO (2)

2) ChrisO abused his administrative privilege when he closed a poll initiated in the Republic of Macedonia talk page while being an involved editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Avg (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This is not the main issue of this arbitration. It is a red herring. (Taivo (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Support. --Radjenef (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, naturally. Closing a poll is not an administrative action and does not involve any use of the sysop bit. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this move proposal was supposed to be closed by an uninvolved administrator, as it was closed in the second time. You are not an uninvolved administrator. --Avg (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Abuse of administrative privilege by ChrisO (3)

3) ChrisO abused his administrative privilege when he moved the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia while being an involved editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Avg (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Haven't you said this same thing three times now? Three red herrings is still a red herring. (Taivo (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Support. ChrisO was obviously an involved editor, nobody tries to challenge that fact, not even the only person opposing this so far. Further to that, I do not see why saying that this thing is a red herring three times would make it a red herring. --Radjenef (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Per Avg's, John Carter and my evidence.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Abuse of administrative privilege by ChrisO (4)

4) ChrisO abused his administrative privilege by imposing WP:ARBMAC blocks while being an involved editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Avg (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Only Jesus could make one fish into enough to feed a crowd. This is the same red herring you've mentioned three times already. (Taivo (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

And your response is as irrelevant as it was each previous time as well. Please see my response to your initial claim of "red herring" to see why. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are so confusing. I see that you are conveniently talking about fish instead of attempting to rebut the proposed finding of fact. (Tu quoque) --Radjenef (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support.--Radjenef (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Being "involved" is not a bar to dealing with straightforward episodes of vandalism, which is what I've focused on. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ChrisO's action to move the article was premeditated and disclosed to selected parties

5) Fut.Perf. admits knowledge of ChrisO's intentions here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Avg (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fairly obvious, given the evidence. It should also be noted it was hinted at only to selected parties who seemingly have a history of agreeing with ChrisO on issues relevant to this topic. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support: "Premeditation" is not just an assumption here! The move of "Macedonia" to "Macedonia (disambiguation)", which occcured just before the move of "Republic of Macedonia" to "Macedonia" is proved to be a well-prepared and well-designed "clearing of the field" for what happened then. Fut's comment cited by Avg above reveals that indeed ChrisO disclosed his planned move to some involved parties he selected.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the implication -- I assume most Homo sapiens act premeditatedly. I also assume ChrisO is a member of Homo sapiens sapiens and I find it normal that he thinks before he acts. man with one red shoe 06:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ChrisO broke a long standing consensus on the Republic of Macedonia article name

6) There was a 7-year consensus that the name of the country article should be Republic of Macedonia by Greek editors, ethnic Macedonian editors, neutral party editors and ChrisO himself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence#The_Republic_of_Macedonia_article--Avg (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is yet again another oxymoron. You have just contradicted your strong views on ethnic profiling , by once again mentioning them in your above statement. Do you think that ethnicity is relevant or not? You cannot play on both sides of the court. If you are in favour of ehtnic profiling, then continue what you are doing but if you are not in favour of ethnic profiling, then using ethnicity based statements to back up your argument.

In response to your point about the long standing consensus; it has become clear through the pages and pages of talk and discussion that the consensus since 2007 has changed. The majority of editors are now in favour of simply "Macedonia" as that reflects the common use. ChrisO broke the old consensus to put in place the New Consensus. PMK1 (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, maybe you'd like to tell us where you see this consensus which has been in place since 2007? If you are going to indicate that such a consensus exists, then it is more or less incumbent on you to provide some idea where an outsider can find out. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

PMK1 I'm very strongly against ethnic profiling. Please tell me where I have dismissed anyone's views based on their ethnicity. My comment simply states that everybody, from every side of the dispute, was in agreement. Nothing else.--Avg (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Avg, I know that you are against ethnic profiling and the constant use of ethnicity as an argument in these discussions. Nobody has actually said "you are Greek so your vote does not count", and nobody should say those kinds of things. My point was, for someone who appears to be completely against references to ethnicity and ethno-national POV in these discussions you have not stopped your self from refering to ethnicities. Had you really been against the ethnic profiling you would not have talked about "greek" or "macedonian" editors in your statement. PMK1 (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree -- I explained many times the value of that "consensus", basically you can't use "consensus" as a club when it comes to policies and NPOV. man with one red shoe 06:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ChrisO's current opinion is inconsistent with his past opinion

7) ChrisO has at numerous times supported that his preferred terminology is Republic of Macedonia (even a month ago). Also he was a supporter of FYROM being used in articles about Greece and international organisations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence#Undermining_MOSMAC_and_the_consensus_process--Avg (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Partial support for the first sentence, and the second part of the second sentence. About the "Also he was a supporter of FYROM being used in articles about Greece" I'll keep my doubts about whether or not the wording and the assertion is accurate. Yes, years ago he supported that, but the situations have changed in the meantime. However, for the other two assertios we have concrete statements or actions by ChrisO weeks or days before the "drama move" .--Yannismarou (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a point to this? People are allowed to freely change their mind on an issue based on the evidence presented to them. PMK1 (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a point. The point being that one side is accused of causing disruption because all they do is stand behind the previous consensus. MOSMAC has been proclaimed "dead" not because some "nationalists" tried to alter text by pushing their own POV, but because people like ChrisO have simply changed their mind and they were not happy with what they had previously agreed (or even wrote word-by-word themselves).--Avg (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So? People can change their mind, get more informed, learn about policies that apply in the case. I think at some point in time I reverted to FYROM because I was told that "that's the UN recognized term" but then I found that that's irrelevant in Misplaced Pages so my opinion changed. I still think that Macedonia (country) is better than current Macedonia but I still can be persuaded that Republic of Macedonia is better if somebody shows me some good reasons. All this outrage for a simple page move is just another proof of deep bias. man with one red shoe 06:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is consensus over how the Republic of Macedonia should be named in all articles except those about Greece

8) WP:MOSMAC has not been altered at all since its creation in May 2007.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Avg (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There seems to have been a good general consensus, up until the surprising move of the article by ChrisO, that Republic of Macedonia should be the name used, as we wherever possible try to use the name of the article itself when making links to it. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagree. MOSMAC has been marked as rejected or an essay since September 2008. Jd2718 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• As one of the three editors (ChrisO, NikoSilver, and myself) who began to draft it, I can testify that WP:MOSMAC was severely altered during its brief attempt at being {{proposed}} and {{guideline}}; even in May 2007, there was no consensus (and it still says so) about what to do about naming the Republic in articles about Greece. Since it ceased to be a guideline, in September 2008, it has been fairly stable; this is because it claims to express an opinion, not a consensus. Looking at WT:MOSMAC will show that even when editors agreed on a text, they failed to agree on what it meant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide any diff at any point in time where WP:MOSMAC said something different regarding how the country should be named in articles not related to Greece than what it said at its beginning? --Avg (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Why, yes; what it said in the beginning was a severely limited exception, justified in talk as using "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" only on such articles as those on the internal workings of the EU and the Eurovision Song Contest (international organizations which use the phrase themselves). This minor concession was made for the sake of peace; such editors as Avg himself then began to use it as a justification to revert war for "FYROM" everywhere in Misplaced Pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

MOSMAC has always said: Use FYROM in articles of organisations that use FYROM. Use ROM everywhere else. This was universally accepted. I think you will have a really hard time finding me changing ROM to FYROM in any article outside the abovementioned scope (and obviously articles relevant to Greece, but this is not what this proposed FoF refers to). --Avg (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• This diff shows the intended scope; it is by User:Sysin, btw. Avg himself disagreed with this, here, arguing for universal use of "FYROM". Note that the point here, despite Avg's efforts to change it, is lack of consensus due to Hellenic nationalism, not disruptive behavior - a separate finding. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Avg's retroactive claim that he only meant articles relevant to Greece appears to be an invention; I do not see that he ever said so, and the phrase does not appear in WT:MOSMAC or its archives.
• If he had said so, I hope I would have opposed it as fatally vague; what article mentioning the Republic is not (in some sense) relevant to its southern neighbor? I would certainly have opposed it as tending to create a bubble of private reality for Greek articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson accused me of revert warring in articles where FYROM was not prescribed by MOSMAC. I have not done so. I have only stated by opinion in talk pages. I have never hidden I prefer FYROM to be used universally in Misplaced Pages. However I accept the current consensus and have never disrupted the project. My comment about articles relevant to Greece was to remind Pmanderson that in this proposed Finding of Fact I refer to consensus for articles not relevant to Greece. My hope is what "relevant to Greece" means is quite straightforward and will not be a matter of contention itself.--Avg (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But the naming of Macedonia at Greece is the issue here. That was the original arbitration that had been agreed to here. The ChrisO issue is only a minor sideshow to this arbitration. Considering that 30 editors agreed on "Republic of Macedonia" at Greece and five non-Greeks opposed it, that would be a fairly clear "consensus" decision. (Taivo (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

If Greece article "is the issue here", can you tell me why you're arguing against keeping the status quo at the Republic of Macedonia article since apparently there is no issue with it?--Avg (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus over how the Republic of Macedonia should be named in articles about Greece

9) A straightforward description of the problem

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Avg (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. There in fact is a valid consensus, by everybody but the Greek faction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In the naming poll there were at least 5 people with no links to Greece, you have never addressed this fact.--Avg (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree; there was general consensus on how the article should be refered to. This notion was rejected by a certain ethno-national POV. Here is a good summary created by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise:

"Oppose" side (favouring "former Yugoslav...")

• Aexon79 (t c), Apcbg (t c), Athenean (t c) (formerly Tsourkpk), Avg (t c), Biruitorul (t c), Cédric Boissière (t c), Colonel Warden (t c), Cplakidas (t c) (Constantine), CuteHappyBrute (t c) (formerly DefendEurope), Digwuren (t c), El Greco (t c), Girisha-jin (t c), Hectorian (t c), Ioannes Tzimiskes (t c), Jack forbes (t c), Kamikazi2 (t c), Kapnisma (t c), Michael IX the White (t c), NikoSilver (t c), Pel thal (t c), Politis (t c), Reaper7 (t c), Rizos01 (t c), Romanos V (t c), Sakis79 (t c) (xvvx), sysin (t c), Yannisk (t c), Yannismarou (t c), Δρακόλακκος (t c), ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (t c)
• = 29 editors (discounting one that had only a single contribution, to this poll), of whom:
  • 23 Greeks, 1 Bulgarian, 5 from uninvolved nationalities
  • 2 users with only very minor contribution histories
  • 1 administrator
  • 10 users who have previously been blocked for Greece-related nationalist misbehaviour (edit-warring or incivility blocks: sysin, Hectorian, Kapnisma, Athenean, Avg, Reaper7, CuteHappyBrute, Politis, El Greco, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ)
  • 3 users who have had sanctions related to other nationalist disputes (Digwuren, Biruitorul, Jack forbes)
  • 1 editor that can be characterised as essentially a single-purpose Greek POV advocacy account (Avg)
  • at least 9 other users with a strong, permanent contribution focus on Greece-related drama areas and/or Greek POV advocacy, though also some minor other contributions (Kekrops, Politis, CuteHappyBrute, Michael IX the White, Reaper7, Sakis79, sysin, Athenean)
  • 2 formerly productive users who have lately reduced their contributions virtually exclusively to Greek POV drama (NikoSilver, Hectorian)

"Support" side (favouring "Republic of...")

• Akhilleus (t c), AniMate (t c), Aramgar (t c), Arthur Rubin (t c), Balkanian`s word (t c), CalendarWatcher (t c), Charles Edward (t c), ChrisO (t c), Colchicum (t c), Doktorspin (t c), EdJohnston (t c), Enric Naval (t c), Ev (t c), Folantin (t c), Future Perfect at Sunrise (t c), Hans Adler (t c), Heimstern (t c), Husond (t c), JdeJ (t c), Jim62sch (t c), John Carter (t c), Kafka Liz (t c), Kwamikagami (t c), Local hero (t c), Man with one red shoe (t c), MatriX (t c), Pmanderson (t c) (Septentrionalis), SheffieldSteel (t c), slakr (t c), Taivo (t c), WereSpielChequers (t c)
• = 31 editors, of whom:
  • 2 (possibly 3) ethnic Macedonians, 1 Albanian, all others from uninvolved or unknown nationalities
  • 14 administrators
  • two national POV advocacy accounts (Balkania`s word, Matrix), all others active experienced editors in good standing and independent contribution profiles
  • at least 4 active project-wide experts on Misplaced Pages naming practices
  • users previously sanctioned for edit-warring: MatriX, Pmanderson, ChrisO, Balkanian`s word

The fact that there were only 5 "uninvolved nationalities" on one side and 28 "uninvolved nationalities" on the other side clearly shows consensus. PMK1 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that again makes me sick. This is simply appalling. Anyway my comment was about the proven non-Greeks. They just do not fit with Fut.Perf.'s logic. According to his profiling, they are part of a "Greek faction". My argument was simply a proof of the absurdity of ethnic profiling. I do not endorse ethnic profiling and I will not enter into a discussion on numbers. My objective is simply to show how absurd it is, not to start debating based on it.--Avg (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The numbers just don't lie. 30 editors agreed to "Republic of Macedonia" at Greece and five non-Greek editors opposed it. It should not surprise anyone at all that there are non-Greeks who might side with the Greek position. I would have been surprised if more non-Greeks had sided with them, but there will always be people on both sides of any issue. The key here is that the majority (30 out of 35) of non-Greeks in this poll agreed that Greece should not be a walled garden. (Taivo (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Avg, as is the case in society there are people with a range of views. Fut. Perf. should not be made to explain why these "uninvolved" nationalities voted against the proposal. Unfortunately you will have to back up the claims in the subheading. It is clear that there is consensus in the World Wide Misplaced Pages community; this however does not reflect the veiw of the Greek Wikipedian community. How much more clearer can these things be stated.

Note the administrator vote 14 vs. 1. The evidence is crystal clear. PMK1 (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I happen to be one of those on the list above as having been sanctioned in other nationalist disputes. I'm a Scottish Nationalist. Now, if anyone out there can find a connection between that and my vote in a straw poll on the Greek article talk page I will be truly astonished. I decided a number of day's ago not to be involved in this dispute any longer due to many things, among them the rather vicious at times accusations being tossed back and forth but, also the fact that someone could list my political affiliation as a reason for my vote on a subject that is in no way related. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Consensus (even if it exists) is irrelevant when it comes to NPOV issues, per WP policy. man with one red shoe 06:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. Jd2718 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic profiling has occured

10) Editors opinions have been discredited based on their ethnicity or alleged ethnicity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Avg (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Profiling did occur. It was done to establish the fact that a Walled Garden based on a ethno-national POV existed in Misplaced Pages. If anyone has noticed after the realisation that a Walled Garden existed this practise has not been used. Ethnic profiling has not feature here (workshop), the evidence page or the request for Arbitration. PMK1 (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes...? PMK1 (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but see this snippet from WP:NPA "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack" man with one red shoe 07:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ChrisO and Fut.Perf. sabotaged MOSMAC and developed a parallel MOSMAC outside Misplaced Pages

11) ChrisO and Fut.Perf. did not work with the Misplaced Pages community on improving WP:MOSMAC, instead they sabotaged it, proclaimed it dead and collaborated outside Misplaced Pages with the purpose to present their own document, which they named WP:MOSMAC2.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence#Undermining_MOSMAC_and_the_consensus_process and --Avg (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The "paralel" MOSMAC is another POV looking at the Macedonia saga. I suggest that everyone should read and observe it. It is a serious contender to replace the current MOSMAC and reflects the mainstream consensus of 2009. See: WP:MOSMAC2. PMK1 (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with the second part of the sentence ("proclaimed it dead ... WP:MOSMAC2"). The first part ("ChrisO and Fut.Perf. did not work with the Misplaced Pages community on improving WP:MOSMAC, instead they sabotaged it") may be in accord with how I subjectively see the situation, but I am not see that a neutral observer would see it like that also.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I cannot see it like that; Chris O, Niko Silver, and myself wrote WP:MOSMAC, so Chris is unlikely to have sabotaged it. Two of us, and perhaps three, did not intend what we wrote to endorse indiscriminate use of "FYROM", and regarded its being so read as misinterpretation, requiring clearer wording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly respect your efforts on building this MOS but your wording might hint to you having some kind of ownership privilege. Also, the "FYROM" name was a secondary issue when the guideline was labelled "rejected". If memory serves me right, virtually all our debates at that time (September 2008) was one side supporting plain "Macedonia" and the other the status quo "Republic of Macedonia". I can very easily find diffs where I'm supporting ROM and someone else puts in plain "Macedonia". Incidentally, you. Nothing to do with FYROM.--Avg (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is substantially incorrect. At the point of , back in September, consensus clearly no longer existed, if it had ever. Pmanderson and I tagged MOSMAC as rejected, not Chris O, not Future Perfect at Sunrise. Jd2718 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and this was Chris' response at the time .--Yannismarou (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The diff you provide is from several weeks earlier, and in response to a different discussion. Are you agreeing, though, that this proposed finding of fact is substantially incorrect? Jd2718 (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See above.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I resisted the downgrading of MOSMAC initially, as I thought there might still be some chance of getting wider agreement by bypassing the nationalists. Unfortunately that didn't happen and it became clear that the nationalists were determined to filibuster any outcome that didn't suit their POV. I didn't dispute its downgrading after that. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to continue misrepresenting the facts. Which side was trying to keep the long-term consensus version and which side was trying to subvert the consensus? A simple look at the diffs will prove it instantly. Also I would ask you once again to refrain from using the word nationalist to characterise people who do not agree with your POV. Speaking for myself, I know very well that I'm not and have never been a nationalist. I find offending to be labelled continuously by you something that I'm not. Please stop.--Avg (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

MOSMAC was sabotaged by Avg and Kekrops last year, who refused to allow the country to be referred to as "Macedonia" even in an unambiguous context, and refused to allow the country to be referred to as "Republic of Macedonia" in any article that remotely mentioned Greece. They stressed "ambiguity" and "monopolisation" when there was none, ignoring internal consistency and common English usage. BalkanFever 11:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise has severely disrupted Misplaced Pages

12) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) has engaged in multiple violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:EDITWAR,WP:CONSENSUS,WP:ADMIN and WP:SOCK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Details in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence#Fut.Perf. severe disruption of Misplaced Pages.--Avg (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fraudulent. This includes, as the worst example available at a moment's inspection, this claim: that FP put Macedonia (terminology) up for FAR, based on this edit, in which he noted that it had been up for FAR (and been kept).

Similarly, this includes FP's expression of contempt for anon vandalism of a talk-page, repudiation of red-baiting, and other quotations out of context.

Enough of this; if, the next time I come here, there is a proposal to topic-ban Avg, I expect to support it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson I'm really disappointed by your comment. FP did put Macedonia (terminology) for FAR. Perhaps these diffs can convince you?. I believe it is you who are so rushed to support FP, that you consider fraudulent an obvious fact. And of course, nothing is out of context. It is a direct violation of Misplaced Pages:Admin#Administrator_conduct. The arbs can have a look at the evidence themselves and I will be here to offer explanations on why I consider his violations pertinent to each and every one of the policies I state.--Avg (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did of course propose the terminology article for FAR, as explained and justified here. The fact that Avg continues to assume bad faith about this nomination even after my explanation of course speaks volumes about himself, rather than about me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As a minimum observation, proposing the Macedonia (terminology) article for FAR on the eve of the Macedonia Arbitration was a particularly poor judgement from your part, since it was bound to stir controversy. You knew very well that one of the people you currently accuse of "disruption" (User:NikoSilver) was the primary contributor towards bringing it to FA status and this might be misinterpreted as an attempt to undermine his editorial achievements. It was also obvious that he would not be able to come and support his case at the time of your filing since he was (and still is) on holiday for the Orthodox Easter. Moreover, the article had been proposed for FAR as late as last September. Why insisting on this specific article and why now? And why incessantly revert warring on the inclusion of the word "confusion" (which was included from the time this article was promoted to FA until now), at the very same time you uploaded an essay where your main argument is the lack of confusion? As you see, I do not assume anything, I offer my interpretation of the events unfolding before everyone's eyes.--Avg (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Attest: Future Perfect has also blanked the Macedonians (Greeks) twice in the eve of the arbitration. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC). Also see my evidence and response. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

All involved parties to observe 1RR on Macedonia-related articles

1) All involved parties should not revert more than once the same article within a period of one day. However, a pattern of slow revert-warring with reverts once a day for more than three days should be construed as an effort to game the system and be equally sanctionable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Avg (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Only "involved parties"? So that the hordes of new single-purpose accounts and IPs that keep cropping up all the time can go on reverting undisturbed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom can certainly expand on that matter and of course I wouldn't object. However, it is mostly the parties that are part of the ArbCom case that have been engaging in edit-warring, this is why it is called a remedy.--Avg (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Articles to be reverted to the status quo ante and a one-week cool down period to be implemented

2) All articles related to Macedonia should be reverted to their status quo ante before the recent disruption. A one-week cool down period should be implemented in order for all crosslinks/interwiki links to be restored to previous status and for all search engines to start reflect previous status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Avg (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Care to specify an exact cut-off date? And a defining line between contentious changes, legitimate vandalism reverts, and consensual changes to links that were plain wrong and/or non-standard under any previous consensus? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Community procedure to be binding for at least three years

3) The community procedure to be developed should be binding to all parties and its outcome cannot be challenged for a period of at least three years.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Avg (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ChrisO administrative privileges revoked

4) After repeatedly abusing his administrative privileges, ChrisO (talk · contribs) has lost the trust of the community and his adminitrative privileges are revoked, effective immediately. He may open a new RfA no earlier than six months from now.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per 4.5.2.1, 4.5.2.2, 4.5.2.3, 4.5.2.4--Avg (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Future Perfect at Sunrise administrative privileges revoked and topic-banned

5) After having engaged (and continuing to engage) in repeated and severe violations of core Misplaced Pages policies, Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) has lost the trust of the community and his administrative privileges are revoked, effective immediately. He may open a new RfA no earlier than three months from now. As he has been specifically found to have caused a large scale disruption to articles related to Macedonia, he is topic banned from all said articles and talk pages for the same period.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per 4.5.2.12. --Avg (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir, your irony simply strengthens my proposal. --Avg (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Colossally terrible idea; appears to be an effort to clear away obstacles to the Greek national agenda. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by SQRT5P1D2

(work in progress)

Proposed principles

Sourcing material

1) Misplaced Pages is a community-built encyclopedia that prides itself in maintaining a high level of neutrality and verifiability; according to its policies, editors should rely on amassing material from reliable sources (WP:V).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Using material

2) Academic sources, being the most reliable due to "the degree of scrutiny involved" (WP:V), ensure WP:NPOV. In their absence, use of non-academic sources should be considered; however, as per WP:OR, putting together "information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources", is not allowed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comments: Academic sources are reliable only when they are being consulted for their expertise in the topic at hand. An academic source on metal-working in the Balkans is not a reliable source for determining what to call Macedonia. It is only a reliable source for an article on metal-working in the Balkans. Academic sources that are not about the naming conflict itself are subject to the editorial policies of the press that is publishing the work or of the sponsoring agency that funded the work. Academic works funded by the U.N. or other international bodies will have to follow the naming conventions imposed by the funding source. Academic works published at publishing houses run by or controlled by Greek interests will have to follow the naming conventions of the controlling interests. Academic sources cannot be simply given the highest rating without a critical examination of their relevance to the issue. (Taivo (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Proposed. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is the principles section. The proposed principles are laid out in order to help resolving current and future conflicts. Other editors' interpretation of policies and guidelines and their arguments regarding Macedonia's terminology, are more appropriate for the findings section, where I will respond. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming articles

3) WP:NAME clarifies that "Misplaced Pages determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: Common English usage is the criteria and that can be verified by only a very narrow range of reliable sources--dictionaries, popular encyclopedias, atlases, etc. that typically reflect common English usage. (Taivo (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Proposed. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - According to WP:V, WP:NCGN and WP:UCN, the most common name is determined by seeing "what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject"; in addition, this name is considered "widely accepted" if a "neutral and reliable source" states that "X is the name most often used for this entity". Academic sources are the most reliable sources, due to "the degree of scrutiny involved" and this is an indisputable fact. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Geographic names

4) The guidelines set in WP:NCGN deem a name as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Misleading and an obvious use of selective quotation. The very next line, which you're omitting, goes on to say "Without such an assertion, the following methods may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name..." and lists a number of criteria, all of which have been followed in this case. In other words, it's not necessary to have such an assertion before us to identify a widely accepted name. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But SQRT seems to ignore the number one "neutral and reliable source" for geographic names--recently published English-language atlases. The names placed on their maps are the most common English names of places unless there is clear ambiguity (as with "China" and "Congo", but not "Macedonia"). SQRT always overplays the neutrality of academic sources like atlases, so it is always best to compare a range. All but one of the dozen or so publishers of atlases in the United States, including National Geographic and Rand McNalley, use "Macedonia" exclusively. The use of "Macedonia" on a map in an atlas by a reputable publisher is exactly equivalent to the quote, "X is the name most often used for this entity". (Taivo (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Proposed. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Exactly. "Without such an assertion", other methods "may be helpful". In addition, I would like to remind fellow Wikipedians, biased or not, that this case is not about the christening of a country, but for the ambiguity of a term. In other words, a chef can shout about his Macedonia salad to his heart's content; the same goes for Ohioans. Encyclopedias have other criteria for the ambiguity of their entries and their sources. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming associations

5) Quoting WP:D, "when a topic is the primary topic for more than one name the more common should be the title". This common name is determined "by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject" (WP:UCN).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, and the very best verifiable and reliable sources for geographic names are English-language atlases. All but one American publisher of atlases use "Macedonia" exclusively. So using this criterion, "Macedonia" should, indeed, be the name of the article. (Taivo (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Irrelevant; proposer is misreading the cited bit from the policy. This sentence is dealing only with cases where there are two names for the same thing and both of them are additionally also ambiguous. Like for instance "Greece", which is the primary topic both for Greece (disambiguation) and for Hellas (disambiguation). A relatively rare, special constellation of dab technicalities, which doesn't apply here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is the principles section and the quote is not used in the context that others implied. Also, we're not discussing country names, but terms and ambiguity. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor essays

6) An essay reflects the views of one or more editors. Essays do not constitute policies or guidelines (WP:ESSAYS).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alleging consensus

7) WP:CCC makes it clear that whether editors might think that they're in agreement with others, this rationale doesn't justify their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Making accusations

8) Civility is one of the core principles of Misplaced Pages. Harassment, personal attacks with ethnic slurs and being hostile and impatient with potentially valuable contributors, is not a good investment for the future of Misplaced Pages (WP:HA, WP:CIV, WP:BITE, WP:AGF). Friendly notices are not classifiable as canvassing, if they meet the criteria in WP:CANVASS (limited posting, neutrality, nonpartisanship and openness).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Naming problems (principles 1-5)

1) Academic sources are the most reliable sources available to Misplaced Pages's editors (WP:V). Accessing academic networks, university libraries and scholar search engines, shows that the crushing majority, when using the term "Macedonia", refers to the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia, Classical Greece or the homonymous region (List of academic databases and search engines). Since Macedonia is the primary topic for more than one name, the most common name of the article is decided using the most reliable sources (WP:UCN). Parties supporting their actions using user-influenced findings from commercial search engines and feature stories from news networks, err in their interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policies (WP:OR).

Misplaced Pages isn't an encyclopedia with isolated national chapters, but a world encyclopedia providing content in different languages. English is the lingua franca of our era and it's not secluded between state borders. People using english as their native language, constitute a minority among english speakers, therefore the definition of the modern english word "Macedonia" is not wholly shaped by the current usage of it in parts of some anglophone nations.

Today, five million people live in Macedonia. More than half of them are Greeks. More than half of the region belongs to Greece. A quarter of them are Macedonians of Slavic origin, living in a third of the region. Another quarter consists of Albanians, Bulgarians, Roma, Turks, Serbs and other ethnicities, living in the remainder of the region.

A name is not an empty shell: it has a content.This is not about our thoughts on christening a country. This is about the treatment of ambiguous terms. Misplaced Pages should not bend to politics, whether advanced by majorities or minorities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree. Searching academic databases is extremely unreliable as a source for information about the common English name of Macedonia. First, much of any academic library's collection consists of works written before 1991, when the Republic became independent. All works written prior to that date, will, of course, use "Macedonia" to refer to the region or the ancient kingdom rather than to a non-existent state. Second, even immediately following independence, academic works naming Macedonia take a year or more to work their way through the publication pipeline, the actually cut-off point is about 1994 or so. Third, it is arguable whether a source written in 1995 is as important as a source written in 2009 in determining contemporary common English usage. Finally, academic sources are only reliable sources on the topic they cover. An academic source on Pleistocene megafauna is only a reliable source for information about Pleistocene megafauna, not on the linguistic relevance of "Macedonia". For the issue of the meaning of "Macedonia", these sources count as reliable sources no more than news reports or web pages. Indeed, we must also remember that the editorial policy of the publisher may override any usage by the author, especially if the publication is funded by an international organization or Greek publishing house that insists on "FYROM". The only reliable sources concerning whether "Macedonia" is the most common English name for the country are linguistic or geographical works. Far more reliable for determining what English speakers understand by the term "Macedonia" are contemporary news media reports, atlases, and general-purpose encyclopedias--all of which point to Macedonia being the most common English name of the country. SQRT's search completely ignores these facts, so his numbers are completely misleading. Only one U.S. publisher of atlases, for example, uses any label for Macedonia other than "Macedonia" in atlases published within the last year. And one minor correction, the population of Macedonia is only 2.1 million, not the 5 million that SQRT claims. The other 2+ million are in Greece. (Taivo (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Proposed. Evidence coming. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We are optimized for lay readers, not for specialists. Academic sources may not represent common English usage well; academic sources from before 1993, or 1944, have limited claims to represent present usage.

There are a dozen distinct meanings of Macedonia, several of them vague, under Macedonia (terminology); most of them (but not all) mean somewhere between Thessaly and Serbia. None of them represent a "continuous tradition" of millenia except in nationalist schoolbooks (apparently on both sides of the present frontier). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - In response to Taivo:

• Searching academic databases is extremely unreliable as a source for information about the common English name of Macedonia.

According to WP:V, WP:NCGN and WP:UCN, the most common name for the entry on Macedonia, is determined by seeing "what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject"; this name is considered "widely accepted" if a "neutral and reliable source" states that "X is the name most often used for this entity". Sourcing from academia ensures WP:NPOV due to "the degree of scrutiny involved" and this is an indisputable fact.

• Finally, academic sources are only reliable sources on the topic they cover.

True. Today, most historic, linguistic and geographical academic sources on Macedonia refer to the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia, Classical Greece and the wider region.

• Far more reliable for determining what English speakers understand by the term "Macedonia" are contemporary news media reports, atlases, and general-purpose encyclopedias--all of which point to Macedonia being the most common English name of the country.

False. Academia guarantees the greatest degree of scrutiny and independence. Media groups and commercial publishers are businesses. State-funded media are prone to governments promoting their political agenda. Also, I would like to remind you that we shouldn't question the past, present or future name of this country. This is about the ambiguous term "Macedonia" in encyclopedic use.

• And one minor correction, the population of Macedonia is only 2.1 million, not the 5 million that SQRT claims. The other 2+ million are in Greece.

According to Macedonia, other places have "the same name". Among them Macedonia (region). My brief analysis on ethnic composition and territorial coverage is correct. A quarter of the population of the region are Macedonians of Slavic origin, living in a third of it. Claims like the above, show exactly where the problem lies; biased editors should read WP:NPOV again.

In response to Septentrionalis:

• We are optimized for lay readers, not for specialists. Academic sources may not represent common English usage well; academic sources from before 1993, or 1944, have limited claims to represent present usage.

Academia did not stop producing scholarly works after 1993. Academia is not isolated from the rest of the world. Common english usage is determined by the reliability of the sources. For Macedonians living in Ohio, this has a different meaning. For chefs, Macedonia has a different meaning. This is the scope of a disambiguation page. The Internet is NOT the World Wide Web, but this is the "common english usage" for "lay readers". I don't see Misplaced Pages moving that article anytime soon.

• There are a dozen distinct meanings of Macedonia, several of them vague, under Macedonia (terminology); most of them (but not all) mean somewhere between Thessaly and Serbia. None of them represent a "continuous tradition" of millenia except in nationalist schoolbooks (apparently on both sides of the present frontier).

Again, this is exactly what I'm writing about. Nobody has the exlusive rights to the name. This is what the disambiguation page addressed and this is what needs to be addressed now. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• We are not empowered to decide who "has the rights to the name". That's a red herring; our convention on placenames explicitly disavows any effort to determine what a place ought to be called.
• We are required to communicate, clearly and concisely, with English-speakers, using language understood by the English-speaking peoples (to paraphrase Archbishop Cramner). My own opinion on how to do this is on Talk:Greece, but that's my opinion, and no more.
• Efforts to appeal to the "real" meaning of Macedonia are pointless; the argument between SQRT and Taivo, in this section, amounts to using two different meanings, both defensible, of the word. We should use it, in each article, in its natural meaning in that context, explaining (once) when necessary, and not doing so when not necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't try to find a real meaning for the word "Macedonia". Instead, I'm opposing practices distorting the meaning of "consensus" and reliability. I'm not responsible if some people don't understand the context, although I try my best to explain my position in a clear and civil manner. I'd suggest reading again what I wrote. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you should rephrase Today, five million people live in Macedonia. More than half of them are Greeks. More than half of the region belongs to Greece. A quarter of them are Macedonians of Slavic origin, living in a third of the region. Another quarter consists of Albanians, Bulgarians, Roma, Turks, Serbs and other ethnicities, living in the remainder of the region. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my response above? - According to Macedonia, other places have "the same name". Among them Macedonia (region). My brief analysis on ethnic composition and territorial coverage is correct. A quarter of the population of the region are Macedonians of Slavic origin, living in a third of it. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

SQRT: "Sourcing from academia ensures WP:NPOV due to "the degree of scrutiny involved" and this is an indisputable fact." This shows that you know absolutely nothing about the way that academic publishing operates. Academic sources cannot be read uncritically. You cannot just count noses and come to any reliable conclusions based on a simple statistical analysis of word results in a search engine. When I talk about usage of "Macedonia" in American atlases published in the last two years I have actually held them in my hands and looked at them. No internet searches from my armchair--actual physical examination of the volumes most relevant to determining what the most common English usage is. (Taivo (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

(My nickname is SQRT5P1D2. Please, use it.) On the contrary, this shows your repeated attempts to distort my writings and misguide others. Quoting from above: Academia guarantees the greatest degree of scrutiny and independence. Media groups and commercial publishers are businesses. State-funded media are prone to governments promoting their political agenda. These are indisputable facts. Scrutiny "is a careful examination". Publications from university professors contributing to peer-reviewd journals, require judgement by independent panels of experts; not just anyone, but their peers. Also, I remind you that we're not talking about the name of a state, but for the usage of an ambiguous term. Please, don't try to take advantage of me, claiming that I'm completely ignorant. Me, you and every stray cat in the universe, have different atlases and perceptions. That's why a policy is established, stating clearly that the strongest possible characteristic of reliable sources for the use of a term (Macedonia is a term), is scrutiny. Businesses exist for profit. State-funded media exist for promoting political agendas. Universities promote knowledge and this is an encyclopedia's terrain. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that university publishers exist to "promote 'knowledge'" and not to make a profit? You are obviously not a part of academia and have no experience in academic publishing if you think that is the truth. Academic publications may be somewhat more reliable as sources than media outlets, but you are seriously mistaken if you think that a publisher like Rand McNalley is more profit-oriented than Cambridge University Press or Stanford University Press. These presses would be closed in a heartbeat if they didn't turn a profit for the university. Most commercial publishers also use peer review when publishing scientific works. (Actually, there is no such thing as a "non-profit" publishing house except those associated with religions that print sacred texts.) They don't want to pay for publishing a work that will be trashed by the scientific community at large. I am on the inside of academia, so I know how the system works. Misplaced Pages policy values academic works, as it should since they tend to be more reliable. But when it comes to common usage, you have to find out what common people are saying, not academics. You propose above a policy that says, "use the most common name cited by the most reliable source". Good. That means that English-language atlases, the most reliable English-language sources for geographic names, nearly unanimously use the simple name "Macedonia" to refer to the Republic of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, I don't think it's worth discussing this proposal; it hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of entering the final decision anyway. BTW, the crucial issue for the article naming problem isn't whether or not "Macedonia" is the most common name for the country (we all know that it is, even the Greek editors are admitting that; that's not the point); the issue is whether the country is the most frequent referent of the name. Other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How about another attempt to distort my writings? Universities promote knowledge. That's what I wrote. Profit for the sake of profit is fundamental for a business. Balancing a sheet, is another thing. Investing in infrastructure is also another thing. For example, the most highly respected scholarly publisher in the world is Oxford University Press, a part of the University of Oxford. It's a non-profit organization. At least those that should, see the difference. Biased editors say that Macedonia is a country (and their atlases say so), I say that Macedonia is an ambiguous term (from a region to a salad and a city). Well, OUP and others won't publish that to make an extra quid; scrutiny is the magic word. I think we're done with that. As for hell, snowballs and worthlessness, nice to see another attempt to prepossess ARBCOM's decision. Finally, about "the Greek editors" admitting what is the common name of this state, hell dismissed the case due to the lack of evidence. Please, continue to be constructive. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Member actions (principles 6-8)

2) WP:MOSMAC was used and abused to death, that's why permanent guidelines are needed in this matter. Whilst the country that claims the name of the region for exlusive common use did not exist sixteen (16) years ago, some Wikipedians felt that they should grant this name by distorting facts and policies. This is a unique conception, as Ireland is not considered the "common name" for the Republic of Ireland and China didn't move to People's Republic of China either. If Ireland is an island and China is a cultural region, by what standards Macedonia is the "indisputable common name" for a new sovereign country, instead of the common name of a region established for thousands of years? This is exactly the scope of disambiguation. Per WP:RS: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available" and they are available in this case.

Furthermore, the behaviour demonstrated by some parties is detestable. Misplaced Pages doesn't benefit by people taking advantage of other editors' absence, making fun of their beliefs, blanking articles, harassing newer members, presuming consensus and sluring ethnic backgrounds. Especially when they're experienced users and should know WP:ADMIN by heart.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Disagree. See my comments above concerning SQRT's uncritical use of academic resources prior to 1993 in building his claims that "Macedonia" is not the contemporary common English name of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
• This is an argumentative polemical rant, not a proposed Arbcom decision. There's no chance the arbs would ever consider this as part of the final decision. If the proposer wants to be taken seriously in this process, he'd better start drafting serious proposals, or shut up. Please keep the noise down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why Fut? Why?! Why on earth can't you temper yourself?! Why the "shut up" thing?!! I agree with you and disagree with the above statement, but why do you have to react like that? If you wanted to shift the attention from the proposer's polemic to your improper answer, then ok you did it! Well-done!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Evidence coming. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It's always sad when experienced administrators cross the line. It's even sader when they do it repeatedly. But sadest when it happens on a wider scale. In any case, although "polemic" is certainly not a valid designation for my writings, especially when it's not accompanied by a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue, nobody should prepossess ARBCOM's decisions and their rationale. Period. My question was rhetoric: earth did not stop moving after 1993 and this state accepts formally a name change. The name of the region exists for thousands of years. That's why disambiguation exists. If others want to play political games, include me out. This is an encyclopedia and that's why I'm here.SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Yannismarou

Proposed principles

Ethnic profiling and offensive pejorative terms

1) Using ethnic profiling or offensive pejorative terms as a means to discredit one's view or standing as an editor are not acceptable in Misplaced Pages wherever they come from. Terms such as "FYROMIANS", "Skopjans", "Pseudomacedonians", "Bulgaromacedonians" etc. fall into the category of pejorative terms, which are regarded as particularly offensive. Equally offensive responses to the aforementioned pejorative terms should also be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I am not sure about the etc. part, namely I am not sure if the list of pejorative terms should be exclusive or indicative. I put ethnic profiling next to offensive pejorative terms, because I regard both tactics are equally non-acceptable, and related with each other: they both targer ethnicity to discredit or offend somebody. I'll not propose an enforcement on that, but I like Man with one red shoe's related proposal.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Easy to support. It's a motherhood issue. Dr.K. logos 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support.--Avg (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, this to me seems to equate calling Macedonians, Skopjans with showing the very true context that there are no Greek editors who fall outside their nations official stance on the issue. chandler ··· 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

ChrisO's conduct

1) ChrisO repeatedly abused his administrative status. More specifically:

1. He changed text in a protected template from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia while being an involved editor.
2. He closed a poll initiated in the Republic of Macedonia talk page while being an involved editor.
3. He moved the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia while being an involved editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your terminology needs some work. "Protected template", "involved editor"? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For the convenience of readers, please specify which template you mean. There is nothing about an edit to a template mentioned in the evidence page, and I can't find a single edit of ChrisO to a protected Macedonia-related or country-list template during the last year or so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a look at my evidence, you will find it, but for your convenience, it is here.--Avg (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Support.--Avg (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As I said below, I suspect it was {{MKD}}, but that had consensus (politically motivated rants notwithstanding) BalkanFever 14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus about the Republic of Macedonia article name and links to it

2) Until the move of the article by ChrisO there was a general consensus that:

1. The name of the country article should be Republic of Macedonia.
2. Republic of Macedonia should be the name used, as we wherever possible try to use the name of the article itself when making links to it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. "Macedonia" to refer to the Republic was never allowed for first mention in an article. Agree with BalkanFever that "Macedonia" was allowed after the first mention and only if there was no ambiguity, as was of course the case for Greek Macedonia articles and Ancient Macedonia articles. --Avg (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not sure about number 2, since in cases of no ambiguity (country lists etc.) it was generally agreed (political rants aside) to use Macedonia. It was also agreed to follow general style and common English usage and refer to the country simply as Macedonia after it had been introduced once as the Republic of Macedonia in articles where initial ambiguity may have been a problem, but afterwards not. BalkanFever 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Conduct of the involved parties during the controversy over the lead of the Greece article

3) Since c.2006/07, there was a relatively stable status quo that was respected by most regular editors in the field. Part of this status quo was the "Former Yugoslav" form in the Greece article. In March 2009, the aforementioned status quo at the Greece article was challenged by a number of editors, who proposed switching to the "Republic of..." convention. During the ensuing controversy, editors of both sides supported their respected views with great tenacity, and often exhibited inappropriate behavior. Disruptive behavior, filibustering, assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks and ad hominems, and edit warring by editors who supported the status quo. Ethnic profiling, assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks and ad hominems, and edit warring by users challenging the status quo.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Certainly not consensus. One faction insisted on "former Yugoslav", but it was never a supermajority, and there was never the acceptance required by WP:Consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not my wording (in the first half of my proposal). It is basically Fut's!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Situation in the Greece article not yet settled

4) A held straw poll ended in a polarised result: half of the respondents, mostly Greeks but also some uninvolved outside nations, advocated "former Yugoslav...", the other half, most of them from uninvolved outside nations, advocated "Republic of".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I describe the events as I lived them! I'll not propose a remedy! This is the task of the Committee, since I am an involved party and, having expressed my views clearly in both the straw poll and the ensuing discussions, I don't think I am the best person to draft remedies on this issue!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. A very fair assessment. (Taivo (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Agree up to a point - rather than "mostly" it would be more accurate to say "almost all". Greeks constituted 80% of the respondents on one side, editors from uninvolved outside nations constituted around 93% on the other side. If the "involved nationalities" were removed from the equation, the other side would have had an overwhelming majority. It should also be noted that every single Greek who participated !voted on the same side. There's no realistic reason other than ethnic-national politics that would explain why all the editors of one ethnic group should line up on the same side. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The text of the description is correct, but the heading isn't. The situation is settled. That poll did demonstrate a valid, enforceable consensus, namely a consensus of everybody minus a single faction. Numeric strength of the faction is irrelevant. If this doesn't count as a valid consensus, we will never get a consensus, ever. See my proposed "remedy" above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The country article and the template

1) Both the template and the country article are to be moved back to Republic of Macedonia, the status quo before ChrisO's abuse of administrative status. A fresh consensus-forming process in accordance with the existing WP policies is then to be held in case interested editors challenge the current consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I do not disagree to adding something similar to Fut's proposal, such as "if consensus is indeed challenged the committee will name a task group of three experienced, uninvolved administrators who will be charged with overseeing this process."--Yannismarou (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The normal processes of consensus-building have proven impossible at the Greece/Macedonia interface. Something extraordinary is going to be required. (Taivo (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Comment: Yannis, please specify which template you mean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've not moved any templates. And it may be noted that normal Misplaced Pages processes have demonstrably broken down completely on this issue, thanks to the filibustering and wikilawyering of Yannis's compatriots, so a straight reversion to the status quo ante will not solve anything. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And if you had moved a template, making a fuss about it would be entirely nonsensical, because the titles of templates are completely irrelevant to a reader. What Yannis evidently means, according to his FoF, is that you recently edited the reference to the country in some template. Did you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I suspect Yannis is referring to the edit of {{MKD}}, which wasn't recent at all, and did in fact gain consensus. BalkanFever 13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Tasoskessaris

Proposed principles

Evaluating user contributions

1) Editors in Misplaced Pages are not judged by their userpage identifiers, including their race or ethnicity, but by the content of their edits. (Paraphrased from Martin Luther King).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It has become fashionable as of late to mass profile editors according to their ethnicity. This practice is abhorrent in real life and it should be abhorent here as well. The proposed principle would serve as a guiding principle for evaluating the contributions of an editor in Misplaced Pages. It should also serve as a reminder of what Misplaced Pages stands for. Dr.K. logos 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So let's be clear about this - you're arguing that it's nothing more than a coincidence that every single Greek editor who participated in the straw poll on Talk:Greece took exactly the same position? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing anything of that kind. I am just proposing a principle that should be accepted or rejected at its face value. You either accept it or reject it. Dr.K. logos 08:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This case is full of coincidences. For instance, I may also ask (as Chris does): Is is a coincidence that not a single ethnic Macedonian editor participated in the straw poll? By the way, Husond's list needs some updating.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with judging "content of edits" part, but when it comes to straw polls or reverting edits that say "rv vandalism" (reverting to the POV of the group) what can be judged about that? What can be done? It's frustrating to see a specific group of people rallying to their favorite POV (being that national or religious) By the way I would appreciate if everybody would stop using the loaded word "race", there's no "Greek race" being discussed here. I would have the same concern if a group of Catholic people (identifying themselves as such) would troll a page about protestantism or catholicism and filibuster any move that they wouldn't like. If there are people that there are too involved into the subject maybe it would serve Misplaced Pages NPOV principle better for them to take a step back and let some uninvolved editors decide. How to do that technically I don't know, but for example I can envision a call for editing or content debate for 3rd party editors that never edited those POV related pages. man with one red shoe 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you man with one red shoe. I am pleased that you found in yourself to support this principle. I can also see your points. I know that in the heat of editing sometimes heated edit summaries occur. If someone calls your edit vandalism, obviously they should not have done that. That's plainly wrong. So judge them by their edit (and they are wrong to call you a vandal) not by their ethnicity. I also admit I don't have all the answers to satisfy all of your concerns. But I think that in whatever solution we propose to your questions, the contributions of the editors must play the prominent role, not the ethnicity or other identifiers. As far as polls, I think they are evil. And as Septentrionalis said in my section below, until there is some hope for consensus in the issue simply don't have any. That's what I supported during the last poll, before I withdrew my comments and vote in protest. Dr.K. logos 08:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We do have a noticeboard for ethnic and religion conflicts at WP:ECCN, but it doesn't get that much use or seem to have that many people involved. I wish neither of those were the case, however. And, for what it's worth, as someone who works primarily with religious content, I think the arguments here are worse than most any I've seen in the religion area. Polls can be useful, but primarily as a tool for when a single editor who refuses to listen to others whose opinions he has prejudged can hear the opinions of a broader group of people who disagree with him and hopefully realize that maybe he's the one with the weaker position. Otherwise, I have serious doubt about them myself. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your valuable points. Polls as you say can be used to persuade an editor or maybe a group of editors that an even larger group does not agree with them and thus enable some consensus to be reached. However a poll should never be used as a means to gather unsuspecting editors to participate and then at the end of the poll either the forensic crew or the tar and feather crew to come in to process the hapless people whose only mistake was to participate. That's not what the function of a poll should be. At least not in Misplaced Pages. Dr.K. logos 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)