Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop

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&mdash;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.

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,, 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 Wikipedia 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 (chat) 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.  His page was written in Greek, so you do the math about who he was summoning.  He was not recruiting Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia entry. Although I contributed to many Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. How odd is that! I do not claim to represent anyone, but since the english version of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:
 * Apologies are not something arbcom normally rules on.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * Future Perfect answered the question asked, while making clear in the same post that he had no proof. This is obfuscation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that "I believe X did it, by I have no proof", instead of keeping quiet and trying to gather evidence before accusing someone publicly, could also qualify as mud throwing; an attempt of discrediting parties opposed to your position. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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 Wikipedia 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 (chat) 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 Wikipedia and campaign on the Macedonia article move (see and  for more. New single-purpose accounts like  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo and specifically about new editors Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo. 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 Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia and this case with requests from new users that don't have any idea about Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia arbitration actually allow a newly-registered user to issue a notice to join the discussion outside Wikipedia 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)
 * When an ethnic group is accused of "stonewalling", "building walled-gardens", POV pushing, conflict of interest and bias. As long as these claims are based on ethnicity  instead of being proved through solid argumentation for every individual editor, this constitutes a fallacy of distribution, affects how people's views are treated in the consensus building process and falls right into the definition of ethnic discrimination. --Radjenef (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong on couple of counts, for one I don't accuse individual editors of anything based on nationality if I accuse them of anything is for their individual behavior. Second, I can't stop noticing the parallel between the real-life name debate and the content decision in Wikipedia, this cannot be due unless there's some real-life POV leaking into Wikipedia, otherwise it would be only a name decision issue, however this is a drama (Greek or not :D ). I see a poll where 100% of Greeks are against "Republic of Macedonia" name in Greece article... yes, it might be wrong of me to see there a conflict of interest, but do you really claim that such thing as bias or conflict of interst can't exist? If this COI is possible and some people suspect it why would be so hard to ask some uninvolved editors to decide this issue? That's the normal solution in case of conflict of interests. man with one red shoe 14:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, but stop ethnic profiling and discrimination proposals too. It's better to deal with the source of the complaints too. Yes amongst the editors on both sides there are some that are biased on the case. So? That's irrelevant of the practices used here.
 * The whole of ChrisO's points were characterized by ethnic profiling and falls into the category of ethnic discrimination. Speculations were targeted to one's ethnicity ("speaks Greek,hints Greek,"...Greek","...Greek"). In his evidence he just provided a list of possible Greeks, directly inferring their behavior as standard Greek behavior. Edit histories and other publicly available information were specifically digged into to seek for ethnicity. Clearly affirmative action was taken, something an encyclopedia shouldn't have to do.
 * He said some editors used nasty terms but didn't narrow down. The opposite, he dubiously mentioned the Greek parliament(!) covered the vandalism. Because of one obscure edit that I wouldn't even describe as vandalism. That way he inferred that all Greeks use insults.
 * Proposals were made to ignore one specific ethnicity (and not any other involved one) in polls, to determine if an actual consensus existed (Fut.Perf's).
 * New editors were pre-emptively pointed out as Greek as a reason to be excluded from discussion off hand.
 * Stereotypes were used to include editors in the Greeks (how else could I be found in a "stable core" when I have such few contributions, I don't know).
 * And lets not forget the Good Friday timing of the article moves.


 * I didn't say that ChrisO is a nazi of course. I didn't call anyone a racist too. Everybody is judged by their actions. One has have to prove where he stand through his actions and his words. ChrisO did base the core of his arguments on ethnicity (he didn't say nationality which would be mild but still discriminating). I'm sorry but what do the above constitute altogether? Can anybody say 100% that e.g. I am an ethnic Greek? No, so stereotypes were used to define my ethnicity. I'm sorry if I got too sentimental. This discussion was slip off track from the begining, when ChrisO and Fut.Perf focused on individual editors' background rather than editors' opinons. With all the assumptions of bad faith, the timing, the listmaking and the authoritative actions one must be convincing when he refuses ethnic/racial discrimination Surely, a kind of McCarthyist list-making did occur and discrimination was repeatedly proposed as a solution to all Wikipedia's problems. How ironic, one might say "let's just kick the Jew's out of the wiki, 100% of them mess with the Palestine articles naming in the polls" (disclaimer:I don't actually believe the previous sentence, it is irony). Who, tell me, who wouldn't describe the previous sentence as racism?. Shadowmorph (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to be less bold in stating my emotions, if I have too. I did remove parts of my evidence page myself that might be too personal or sentimental or irrelevant Shadowmorph (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "ethnic" appears like 250 times in this discussion. It should have been zero but I wasn't the one who introduced it here.Shadowmorph (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The fundamental problem is that this is not an "ethnic" issue, but a "nationalistic" one (they are entirely different things). When two sides cannot come to an agreement, then it is incumbent upon each side to examine the motivations of the other side to see if there is some common ground for agreement or movement.  It is inescapable that a majority of people of one side of this issue are tied to a single real-world country, which just happens to have the same point-of-view.  When examining the other side, there were no individuals who were tied to that country.  These things must be taken into account when dealing with negotiations (or, in this case, the failure of negotiations).  While individuals must be judged individually on their actions, when an entire national bloc acts in virtual unison, it is impossible to ignore.  I keep asking for the all-important counter-example, but still find none.  Dr.K broke ranks with his faction on one occasion and was willing to compromise, but his proposal was rejected and the national faction stood without any further attempts at compromising.  It is not racism to characterize that unmoving faction, whose POV happens to coincide precisely with the national foreign policy of Greece as the Greek faction.  It is not racism to point out that there is not a single person who identifies themselves as "Greek" on the other side of the issue.  If personal decision-making were indeed part of the process, then we would logically expect to see Greek editors on both sides of the issue and a higher percentage of non-Greek editors on the "Greek" side.  This isn't racism.  It has nothing to do with "race", but with national identification.  This isn't McCarthyism (a corollary of Godwin's Law).  These are just the facts.  (Taivo (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Start your own motion, let take one thing at a time, now we discuss the racism accusation, there was no racist comment in any of the discussion pages related to this subject. man with one red shoe 13:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Replace protection of Greece article with temporary injunction
3) The Greece article is currently still full-protected, scheduled until 17 May, because of the edit-war of March. It is undesirable for such a high-profile article to be fully protected for such a long time. It could be opened to normal editing again (perhaps with continuing semi-protection) if coupled with a temporary injunction against changes to the contentious Macedonia naming bits for the duration of this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. John Carter (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please. man with one red shoe 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support it with clear injunctions against changing anything related to Macedonia. But the last time it came off protection, it was but a single hour before the protection had to be placed again.  (Taivo (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I am sure that the article could do without editing for a short time. It will not significantly affect the page nor any possible beneficial information to it. All I can predict is a major revert war as soon as the protection is lifted. However a permanent IP block on the page would be a good step. PMK1 (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As protection was about to expire in any case, I reduced it to semi-protection, and extended it out another month. If the edit-warring starts up again, I'm sure we can find an admin to fully lock it up.  Horologium  (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I restored full protection, as the first content change was for a (previously uninvolved) editor to change the name of the country to the north. Oy.  Horologium  (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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 Wikipedia) 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.  [addition]  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.


 * "Republic of..." 81
 * 🇪🇸/Emblem-earth.svg Spanish; República de Macedonia
 * 🇮🇹/🇨🇭 Italian; Repubblica di Macedonia
 * 🇵🇹/🇧🇷 Portugese; República da Macedónia
 * 🇷🇺/Emblem-earth.svg Russian; Республика Македония
 * 🇿🇦 Afrikaans; Republiek van Masedonië
 * 🇩🇪/🇨🇭 Alemannic German; Republik Mazedonien
 * 🇪🇹 Amharic; የመቄዶንያ ሬፑብሊክ
 * 🇬🇧 Anglo Saxon; Cynewīse Macedonia
 * 🇪🇸 Aragonese; Republica de Mazedonia
 * Blank.png 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
 * Emblem-earth.svg 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
 * Emblem-earth.svg 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
 * 🇻🇦/Emblem-earth.svg 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
 * Roma flag.svg Romany; Republika Makedoniya
 * 🇷🇺 Sakha; Македония Республиката
 * 🇫🇮/🇳🇴 Sami; Makedonia dásseváldi
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Scottish; Republic o Macedonie
 * 🇦🇱/ Albanian; Republika e Maqedonisë
 * Sicilian; Ripùbblica di Macidonia
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿/🇺🇸/Emblem-earth.svg 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 |en|%EB%A7%88%EC%BC%80%EB%8F%84%EB%8B%88%EC%95%84%20%EA%B3%B5%ED%99%94%EA%B5%AD
 * 🇲🇽 Nahuatl; Tlācatlahtocāyōtl Macedontlān
 * 🇮🇳 Malayalam; റിപ്പബ്ലിക് ഓഫ് മാസിഡോണിയ
 * 🇮🇳/🇱🇰 Tamil; மாக்கடோனியக் குடியரசு
 * 🇮🇷/🇹🇷 Assyrian Neo-Aramaic; ܩܘܛܢܝܘܬܐ ܕܡܩܕܘܢܝܐ


 * "Macedonia" 37
 * 🇩🇪/🇨🇭/🇦🇹 German; Mazedonien
 * 🇵🇱 Polish; Macedonia
 * 🇯🇵 Japanese; マケドニア共和国 |en|%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B1%E3%83%89%E3%83%8B%E3%82%A2%E5%85%B1%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%BD
 * Emblem-earth.svg 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
 * Emblem-earth.svg Church Slavonic; Макєдоні́ꙗ
 * 🇮🇳 Telugu; మేసిడోనియా
 * 🇵🇰/🇮🇳 Urdu; مقدونیہ
 * Emblem-earth.svg Volapük; Makedoniyän
 * 🇱🇹 Samogitian; Makeduonėjė
 * 🇹🇭 Thai; ประเทศมาซิโดเนีย |en|%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%8B%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%82%E0%B8%94%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2 compared to |en|%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%93%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%90%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%8B%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%82%E0%B8%94%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2
 * 🇳🇵 Nepali; म्यासेडोनिया
 * 🇦🇲 Armenian; Մակեդոնիա hy:%D5%84%D5%A1%D5%AF%D5%A5%D5%A4%D5%B8%D5%B6%D5%AB%D5%A1
 * 🇮🇳 Hindi; मैसिडोनिया |en|%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%88%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A1%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE


 * "Macedonia (country)" 4
 * 🇫🇷/Emblem-earth.svg 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?)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.  Balkan Fever  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  (T) 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  (T) 13:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

German wikipedia & primary topic
To correct/expand the information above on how the German wikipedia handles this: It is correct that the article on the Republic of Macedonia in the German wikipedia is titled Mazedonien. This is however not because the republic is seen as the primary topic, but because there is an alternative spelling in German for the greater region, Makedonien. So the German situation is special and cannot be compared to the situation on en.wiki, and does not qualify as an example or a "count" as "support" or "oppose" for either preference on the en.wiki.

I further think it might be worth having a look at languages closely related to German (i.e. Dutch, Scandinavian languages) if they too disambiguate by alternative spellings and thus fail to provide a proper example here and might be counted as false positives in the above lists. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this information. I wanted to note that the issue of the primary topic has not been covered by the above list. To try to cover that we can see how many have a disambiguation page at Macedonia with out the (disambiguation) in parentheses, in their respective languages


 * (33) Primary topic is a disambiguation page
 * arc:ܡܩܕܘܢܝܐ
 * be:Македонія
 * be-x-old:Македонія
 * br:Makedonia
 * bg:Македония
 * ca:Macedònia
 * cy:Macedonia
 * de:Macedonia
 * es:Macedonia
 * eo:Makedonio
 * eu:Mazedonia
 * fr:Macédoine
 * fy:Masedoanje
 * ga:An Mhacadóin
 * gl:Macedonia
 * ko:마케도니아
 * id:Makedonia
 * is:Makedónía
 * it:Macedonia
 * la:Macedonia
 * lb:Makedonien
 * nl:Macedonië
 * nn:Makedonia
 * oc:Macedònia
 * nds:Makedonien
 * pt:Macedónia
 * ru:Македония
 * scn:Macedonia
 * simple:Macedonia
 * sl:Makedonija
 * sr:Македонија
 * vec:Macedonia
 * vo:Macedonia


 * (19) Pages with titles that include "(disambiguation)"
 * ast:Macedonia (dixebra)
 * bs:Makedonija (čvor)
 * cs:Makedonie (rozcestník)
 * da:Makedonien (flertydig)
 * he:מקדוניה (פירושונים)
 * ka:მაკედონია (მრავალმნიშვნელოვანი)
 * lv:Maķedonija (nozīmju atdalīšana)
 * lt:Makedonija (reikšmės)
 * mk:Македонија (појаснување)
 * ja:マケドニア (曖昧さ回避)
 * pl:Macedon (ujednoznacznienie)
 * sq:Maqedonia (kthjellim)
 * fi:Makedonia (täsmennyssivu)
 * sv:Makedonien (olika betydelser)
 * tr:Makedonya (anlam ayrım)
 * vi:Macedonia (định hướng)
 * uk:Македонія (значення)
 * bat-smg:Makeduonėjė (reikšmės)
 * zh:馬其頓 (消歧義)

The above are derived from from the Macedonia (disambiguation) page. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 11:58, 7 May 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? (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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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.  Balkan Fever  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 by FP. They don't solve disputes, that's what discussion is for.  Balkan Fever  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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-Wikipedia-approved) "FYROM".  That's the failure of MOSMAC--it did not definitively establish a single Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

(outdent)This question puts the burden of proof on the wrong side. The burden of proof lies in the hands of those who want to bring about a change, in this case, the contested move of the article from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia. So, according to the rules, it is incumbent on those who support such a move to prove beyond reasonable doubt or disagreement from neutral outsiders, that such a move is clearly mandated by policy. I think I can honestly say that, while a reasonable case for the move has been put forward, that case does not seem to have met the standard of proof required to defend the move. The fact that several neutral parties oppose the move indicates that it has not met that standard. I would remind everyone I came into this discussion opposing the "Greek" faction, and am now, based on what I see as being reasonable and just interpretation of policy, am now on the same side with many of them. But, I repeat, the burden of proof (or defense, call it what you will) lies on the parties making the change, and, in this case, the change in question was the move of the article to Macedonia. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for Avg

 * In your 19:06 29 April 2009 post at Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Workshop you show links to three rulings concerning ChrisO from the Kosovo case of 2006. Do you have anything more recent?  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to jump in but since I also used the same diffs about ChrisO's history of bad conduct in my evidence, I can provide a little here. ChrisO has made several Kosovo related admin actions here Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia, in essence evading the Kosovo ARBCOM, logging those bans at the Macedonia ARBCOM. I am not qualified to make any assertions whether they were correct or not, I'm just pointing out to them.


 * There are also a number of other past incidents/allegations involving ChrisO that might be worth looking into, but again I can't say anything about those because I don't know:
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive364
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Battle_of_Opis
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive180
 * Requests_for_mediation/Dianetics
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive223


 * Shadow mor ph ^"^ 13:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand the question. This has to be an old ruling because it proves that ChrisO engaged in ARBMAC blocks being involved from the get go. If it was newer, ChrisO could claim he became involved later. Now he can't.--Avg (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The ruling was in 2006 and about edit warring and not using rollback in content disputes. The ruling shows past history. Do you have Kosovo-related recent instances of ChrisO doing this? The ruling doesn't say he can't block someone if the block is justified. Sorry in advance if this is posted elsewhere, there's a lot to sift through in this case.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the Kosovo ruling proves he's an involved party in the dispute. The part where he's instructed not to block anyone while involved is in the ARBMAC decision, where Kosovo is explicitly mentioned. Again, he was an involved party (see Kosovo arbitration), ARBMAC had forbidden involved admins to do blocks (see decision) and ChrisO did many ARBMAC blocks (see ARBMAC log) while an involved editor. This is the sequence of events.--Avg (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very misleading summary, Avg - no surprise there, I suppose. The blocks in question relate principally to straightforward vandalism (page blanking, vandalising the text of articles and talk pages) and sockpuppetry. See for instance the blocks under WP:ARBMAC of a sock farm that I discovered. They relate mostly to Kosovo-related vandalism and sockpuppetry rather than Macedonian issues and they have been very infrequent (only three in the last year, excluding the sock farm I mentioned above). As far as I'm aware, ARBMAC doesn't prohibit dealing with routine issues of vandalism and suchlike. The arbs will no doubt be able to clarify this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins actions against things like vandals and BLP violations are exempt. Avg, you need diffs and logs to prove your point, not hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims.  — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 03:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Just a thought - if the Arbcom continues to pass discretionary sanctions, might it be possible for the Committee to state explicitly in such cases which types of "involved" admin actions continue to be permitted? It would certainly help to avoid confusion later on. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rlevse, this is somewhat an original interpretation from your part. Or actually, you believe ChrisO too easily. This is not plain vandalism and BLP issues (where did you find those anyway?). It is about discretionary sanctions. For this kind of decisions, the process has always been to refer the matter to an unbiased, third party, who can make a clearer decision. Now this ARBCOM may decide that involved admins are allowed to pass discretionary sanctions, but until then, this is not the case. Perhaps an additional Principle on what involved admins can and cannot do could clarify this situation? So I actually agree with ChrisO's proposal above.--Avg (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Avg, I was making a general statement. I did not say the edits you are referring to were or were not valid. Again, Why don't you post diffs here so we all know exactly which ones you're talking about instead of just making accusations? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, please see the following: "disruption by repeatedly posting political rants?" Who says it is disruption and who says it is rants? They may have been, but certainly an involved editor, who is actually supporting the other side of the dispute, cannot make this call and block a party of the opposing side. Again, I'm not examining if the editor in question was disruptive, he may well have been and actually some months later he was proven to be a sockpuppet. The issue is that ChrisO shouldn't make this call. Also here  "edit warring". This was not even a 3RR. And ChrisO leaving a message to the user's talk page about "biased editing" and making reference to the discretionary sanctions (not vandalism or so). Actually, in both cases the blocks preceded the warning that ARBMAC made obligatory before a sanction can be taken against a user ("Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision"). So these users were blocked without a warning. For another reason, I have to give a special mention to this one. This user was repeatedly labelling the country a "banana republic" and he was rightfully blocked. Now see this: (the part "Collective insults to an ethnic group") --Avg (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of, the editor posting off-topic talk page rants, I had already asked him to desist. This was his response. He was blocked again shortly afterward by FPaS for edit-warring, and was later blocked permanently by Khoikhoi as a sockpuppet of a banned editor. In the case of , he already had a history of blocks for edit-warring (before and after I blocked him) and notifying him of the sanctions was clearly a necessary step. As for 3RR, note that "Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring." Finally, Amorphisgr was blocked for vandalism to articles. Nobody is accusing FPaS of that - the two examples aren't comparable. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, the point is that you were (and still are) an involved party. You cannot justify a bad call by discrediting the opposing party. They may have been in the wrong, they may have not, but you, you were not in a position to impose the discretionary sanctions. Actually this whole discussion reinforces my belief that the primary issue is the abuse of admin tools. If you cannot understand that in disputes where you are involved you cannot use the tools, then this is quite a serious issue.--Avg (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we'll let the arbs be the judge of that. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess is we probably will, ultimately. But it has been my understanding that this page was to serve, among other things, as a place where all parties could discuss matters that are being proposed to the ArbCom. And I've noticed you use the same sort of phrasing before. Are you trying to imply that you believe people should not be allowed to discuss your actions, and that you consider only ArbCom's opinions worth noting? I ask that because that is the impression at least I get from your repetition of this same statement. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm simply pointing out that we can talk all we like here but it's the arbs who will decide on the rights and wrongs of the issues that have been raised - not us. And in answer to your question, when it comes to Avg, I don't consider his opinions worth noting, considering his long history of tendentiousness, wikilawyering and assumptions of bad faith. Fut. Perf. has already documented this quite well. I see no reason to take a bad-faith editor seriously. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for Alfadog777

 * Here you claim you were not vadalizing as ChrisO claimed. Yet looking deeper you were twice previously reverted and were replacing a valid template with an non-existent template. This is POV-pushing and WP:POINTy disruption since the templates are non-existent could even be called vandalism. Care to elaborate? See, , , <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 13:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It is true that I was one of the two parts involved in changing the template. The difference is that I posted on the discussion page, stating the change, explaining that using simply "Macedonia" to refer to the country is not correct (the country's article at the time was still named Republic of Macedonia), and that the template's name should be either FYROM or RoM. I chose the first one, but did not object to the second either; (in fact I proposed it). On the other side, ChrisO just kept reverting it, without saying anything, without posting, without justifying his actions to anyone (just like the RoM article name change). When ChrisO changed the name on the RoM article to "Macedonia" as well, the name of the template and that of the article were the same, and now, of course, the anomaly ceased to exist. I understand what you mean when you say POV pushing, I should have written Republic of Macedonia instead of FYROM (although I proposed that too), or at least create a link, just like ChrisO linked his template "Macedonia" to the RoM article, making it valid (and after the article name change, to "Macedonia" article). I don't know how to create links, but that's not an excuse. I believe that I only disrupted a disruption, trying to correct it, however, if you find my actions disruptive, I will accept any punishment you may find suitable. I must stress however that my intentions were not to disrupt Wikipedia, or impose my view on others. ChrisO accused me of edit warring well after my evidence section was posted on the evidence page. He did this in support of himself, because it was he, in fact, who started all this, and changed the template's name in advance of the article name change in order to create facts on the ground, or simply to make the article name change more justifiable. Isn't changing a template bearing a country's constitutional name with " whatever I think right" a disruption? Is it not a pointy, biased edit? After I understood that the change was part of a bigger scheme, and not a mistake as I thought originally or POV editing, I let it rest. If I aimed at disruption, I wouldn't have acted in this fashion. Finally, I must point to the absurdity of the accusation by ChrisO, himself being accused, and instead of providing arguments and evidence in support of his innocence, in turn accusing me of the same thing. The fact remains that ChrisO is the one who created this problem, "cutting the Gordian knot" not just once with the article name, but in this case also. Regards, Alfadog777 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, let's be clear what you did: you repeatedly replaced a working template with a non-existent one. You must have known what you did, because it produced a very prominent broken link in the middle of the article. You didn't go to the template and try to change the link; you simply got rid of it. You did this three times, despite being reverted by three administrators - that is very clearly edit-warring to advance your own point of view. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be as clear as possible about this. I do not know how to create, replace, repair, alter or anything else about links. If I was reverted by three administrators, as you say, then they should have bothered to explain what I did wrong in the discussion page, after reverting me. They, and you, should know this. It is highlighted across Wikipedia, discuss and be civil. I did both, you and they did neither one. You accuse me of attempting to advance my own point of view. What did you attempt? You changed the name well in advance of changing the name of the article "Republic of Macedonia". I dare ask why? Explain your motives, explain your actions. You answer yet again with accusations. Try answering the real questions here. Why did you threaten instead of talking to me? Why did you change the name template before changing (against consensus) the name of the article? Why did you accuse me well after I posted in the evidence page? Last, but most important, why did you disregard the opposition's opinion so blatantly in every single aspect of this case, concerning the naming of the article and the template? I answered when I was called to do it, explaining my motives and assuming full responsibility of my actions before the committee, I suggest you did the same. I believe the difference between my actions and yours is evident here, so try defending yourself with arguments and proof instead of accusations. Regards, Alfadog777 (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for parties
At Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence, Taivo said "There is not a single self-identified Greek in this discussion who is not against "Macedonia" as a label either at Macedonia or at Greece. Indeed, at Greece, there is not a single self-identified Greek who is not against "Republic of Macedonia". There are very few non-Greeks in that same camp." I would like input on:
 * 1) How true is this statement?
 * 2) How critical do the parties feel national perspective is in this case?
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer by Fut.Perf.

 * 1) It is undoubtedly true, see my breakdown of the poll results (which I continue to maintain is accurate). Experience from years of debate confirms the same picture. There are a handful of cases where Greek editors (some of our best:  and  come to mind) have declined to get involved in the dispute, which may indicate they silently disagree with the majority Greek opinion. I'm not aware of any Greek editor who has ever overtly taken part in these debates on the "other" side.
 * Incidentally, I recall an incident that maybe illustrates the intensity of the national group factor, and group pressure: there was a Greek user back in 2006 who dared to stray from the national line insofar as he casually used the term "Macedonia(n)" in talk page discussion for the Slavic side without the usual signs of disparagment . He was immediately seized upon by a group of other Greek editors (Avg first among them), who accused him of being a (Slav-)Macedonian agent provocateur falsely posing as a Greek, with the argument that No True Greek could ever hold an opinion such as the one he expressed . (I was later able to confirm the person's identity, who turned out to be a genuine Greek academic and expert student of Macedonian history).
 * 1) This fact it is the absolute center and focus of the whole case. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for  the ethnic polarisation. Greek editors push the "former Yugoslav" and "anti-plain-Macedonia" line, because that is what people in their country think is politically desirable in the real world. Nothing else. Of course, we get similar situations in other disputes too, all the time. Greek editors systematically push "Greek" views, Albanian editors push Albanian ones, Korean editors push Korean ones. People have learned to accept that as the normal state of things, which it shouldn't be. The interesting and exceptional case here is that we are not dealing with a fight between two or more factions, but with a single faction dug in in a trench warfare situation against everyone else. That's why it's a good testing case of how the power of such POV-pushing factions can be effectively curtailed. (Note that of the two immediate triggers of this case, the original dispute at Greece and the Macedonia page move, the first is of course much more strongly polarised than the second. In the second case, there have been legitimate arguments against the move also from non-Greek editors (but the ranks within the Greek side are just as closed as elsewhere, of course.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification by Taivo

 * My syntax is a bit convoluted above (I'm a professor after all). Here's what I'm asserting in my Evidence and that our arbitrator seeks comment on:
 * At Greece: All Greeks want "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no Greeks want "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia"; most non-Greeks don't want "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
 * At Macedonia: All Greeks want "Republic of Macedonia", no Greeks want "Macedonia"
 * (Taivo (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC))


 * My evidence page should be clear on how critical I feel that the nationalistic position has been to the stonewalling at Talk:Greece and Talk:Macedonia. I will provide further discussion if you feel it is necessary.  In the answers which follow from those who subscribe to the Greek national POV, you will note that not a single one of them can identify a single Greek editor who supports the use of "Macedonia" at Macedonia or "Republic of Macedonia" at Greece.  The self-identified Greek editors are still in perfect lock-step.  (Taivo (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Reply to Shadowmorph: Your list is highly POV.  The "UN" position is not NPOV--it reflects a uniformly Greek position within Wikipedia and is espoused only by self-identified Greek editors.  It is vandalism when Greek editors rampage through the pages of Wikipedia replacing "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia" with "FYROM".  It also assumes that there is WP:Consensus vis a vis "Republic of Macedonia".  This is not the case.  There is no consensus on the naming of Macedonia because of Greek stonewalling.  Your list is far from accurate and is, itself, an illustration of a POV slant.  (Taivo (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Reply to Avg: But the national POV of the Greek faction is highly biased--it is "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".  You try to hide the fact that Greek nationalists are replacing "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" throughout Wikipedia (I just reverted one instance today) with "FYROM".  You are throwing this red herring of the name of the Macedonia article around so as to mask the real subject of this arbitration--the name of Macedonia at Greece which the Greek faction insists must be FYROM.  (Taivo (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Reply to Dr K: In theory, you have a good point.  But the problem is practice.  It doesn't matter what logical arguments are mustered against the Greek POV concerning Macedonia.  The Greek editors invariable come up with "logical" arguments and wikilawyering of their own and all the Greek editors then fall in lockstep behind whatever argument has been put forward.  Statistically, all logical arguments cannot favor the Greek POV, there must be a mix of logical arguments on both sides, yet there has not been a single anti-Greek argument put forward by any Greek editor.  It's not a coincidence that all Greeks oppose the naming of Macedonia against everyone else in whatever article they are discussing.  If it were simply a question of logical arguments, then there would be some logical arguments on the other side of the coin and statistically there would be Greek editors lining up on the side of those logical arguments.  Name a single logical argument put forward by a Greek editor that supports the name "Macedonia" for the country or even supports "Republic of Macedonia" at Greece.  You can't name a single one.  That's why the nationalistic arguments will not go away no matter how hard you try to downplay them.  Once you can name a single Greek who is "in the other camp", then you have an argument.  And, by the way, there are plenty of Americans who do not think that George Washington was a saint and, believe it or not, there are Americans who would look with sympathy at Al Qaeda.  That's because Americans do not work as a unitary, nationalistic bloc.  The same cannot be said for the Greek bloc in anything to do with Macedonia.  (Taivo (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Answer by Yannismarou

 * 1) To answer your first question, as far as the Greece article is concerned, I'll copy here one of my FoFs: "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"." As far the RoM move, it's obvious that ChrisO's move was opposed by all Greek users, but also various "uninvolved outside nations" editors as well.
 * 2) What I can say for sure is that all sides here (and I wouldn't like here to promote ChrisO's, Husond's and Fut's divisive and polarizing attitude) have their arguments, and as Carcaroth wittily stated "there are some very good arguments being presented on all sides here". Most of the users sharing the same views with me invoked policies, and strove to present coherent and convincing arguments. The altera pars represented by prominent Wikipedians did the same. It is up to you to judge them! Is "national prespective" crucial here? Maybe! But is it the only crucial factor here? Is it "national prespective" which led ChrisO to fully endorse a stance, which IMO is fully supportive to the ethnic Macedonian POV? Is it "national prespective" which made Husond to promote what I regard as a ethnic profiling? Is it "national prespective" which made Fut.Perf. to adopt a battleground attitude, and attack users who opposed his views?

My point? I'll not argue that all the users who share the same views with me did everything properly or that they avoided mistakes. If our/their conduct was improper in certain occasions, then probably "national perspective" played a role. But users of the other side also committed serious mistakes in terms of conduct and use of adm privileges, although they are not "ethnic-Macedonians". As a matter of fact, we reached a point that their presence overshadowed ethnic Macedonians users! Thus, if "national perspective" is the mortal sin of the one side, which the mortal sin of the other side?--Yannismarou (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer by Avg

 * 1) Please allow me to make a comment which I think is very relevant. Taivo's comment is implicitly trying to discredit one of the two opinions because an ethnic group is behind it. Now, the fact that editors from a certain country are found to have a similar opinion in the said issue, does this mean by default that their opinion is wrong and should be discredited? Couldn't it mean that they're more educated about the issue since it is closer to them? To be specific: All Greeks know that more than one Macedonias exist, since they have their own Macedonia, which is actually larger and more populous than the country, so for them it is blatantly obvious that disambiguation is needed. Ask the Bulgarians. They all know their own Macedonia, so they would also agree. Ask any historian. They would also agree that Macedonia also means the Ancient Macedonia. For these groups, the support for the disambig page would be 100%. For other groups it may not be 100% since they may not know all the meanings (although as it became apparent most of them do and actually support the disambiguation). People who know from first hand the plethora of meanings of the word Macedonia simply cannot accept the fallacy that some people try to impose here that Macedonia only means one thing. It is absurd to try to put the blame on them for actually knowing.
 * 2) It is completely secondary. Why can't people look at the content of the arguments? If a national group was supporting a heavily biased version, then this should be condemned immediately and these people marginalized. But here, it is impossible to claim that supporting the fact that disambiguation is needed is "nationalist Greek POV". This is a very legitimate (and at least for me by far the most logical) argument.--Avg (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, are you able to answer the question or will you continue to dodge it? Answer please; there is not a single self-identified Greek [on Wikipedia] who is not against "Republic of Macedonia". The answer is very simple. PMK1 (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We cannot infer that for the whole of them or all the future editors Shadow mor ph ^"^ 09:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So let me reverse the tables for a sec, because if we continue this way here we'll be left with the idea that the most important division in the world is between Greeks and non-Greeks. Can you find me any Slavic Macedonian editor who is supporting "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" over "Republic of Macedonia"? Should I then say that all Slavic Macedonian editors are nationalists? My answer? Not. I will hear their arguments. However, just because I am a Greek Macedonian and I support a certain opinion which may or may not be the majority opinion on Greece, I'm automatically labelled a nationalist.--Avg (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is much better. Get strait to the point and not the usual politician style answers which much of one side has been giving lately. PMK1 (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a proposal from a self-declared British editor. The distinction to Greeks, non-Greeks, regarding disambiguation of Macedonia, is purely artificial. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 14:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer by Shadowmorph

 * 1) My laconic answer: Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization
 * 2) National position is mostly irrelevant if a position is based on policy. A position that is (falsely) attributed as national or nationalistic is the one saying "FYROM is a neutral (NPOV) term". That is the position of the neutral UN and Republic of Macedonia officially agreed to it once upon a time. Of course the "Republic of Macedonia should be the name of the country article" is not the Greek national position. It is a position based on policy that used to be supported by both sides but now is not. "Macedonia main topic should be a dab page" is not a national position of any country but the position of historians. Incidentally (as per my evidence) Brittanica uses the big bold title "Macedonia" (just that) for all the related entries. The compromise "Macedonia main topic should be the region or the kingdom" together with "Use constitutional form of the name Republic of Macedonia for the country" is not any national position but common practice in conflict regions around Wikipedia (unrecognized entities, disputes about the name of an entity - as per my evidence). I proposed the last one to find consensus, nobody seemed to care for that anymore.
 * Definitions
 * pro-UN edits (using the term f.Y.R.O.M. in whole long form) cannot be described as vandalizing
 * pro-WP:Consensus editors (using "Republic of Macedonia") cannot be described as pro-Greek
 * pro-Macedonian(Greek) nationalistic position is to oppose any non-Greek use of the word Macedonia e.g. "Skopje". (sometimes use "Fyrom" like a word or adjective)
 * official Greece: use "Macedonia" in the long name but add a geographic qualifier like "North Macedonia", "Vardar Macedonia" etc; perceives that as a compromise.
 * official Republic of Macedonia: use "Macedonia" alone as the name but also be open to double name formulas (one for usage by Greece only e.g. Macedonia-Skopje the other for international use); will also seek compromise.
 * anti-Greek position is to refuse any use of the word Macedonia that is related to Greece
 * pro-Macedonian(ethnic) nationalistic position is the above and also to use only the English word Macedonia with no qualifiers to refer to the country (sometimes also affiliate the country pseudohistorically to Ancient Macedonia)
 * pro-Bulgarian?, There exist Macedonians (Bulgarians). They shouldn't be left out. Bulgaria holds a small part of the Macedonia (region),

I try to demonstrate that there are multiple POVs, not only national, not just "the Greeks" and "the rest". Isn't that the very essence of this question to the parties? The NPOV category would be the WP:consensus, using the self identifying, descriptive, non ambiguous name for the country, that doesn't blatantly oppose the self-identifying terms of other nearby entities or disregards their people completely. Shadow mor ph ^"^
 * reason for the above list, NPOV
 * I removed the comment because it was inappropriate, there's no need to respond to something that has been deleted. man with one red shoe 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings.The above rationale should be mentioned anyhow. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments that have been edited and deleted (usually immediately) by the author should not be commented upon. That is simple courtesy to a person who is writing and thinking at the same time.  (Taivo (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I know, I have also made the same error sometime. Everybody including me should calm down before pressing "save page" :-). Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 20:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer by Man with one red shoe
1. I consider that evident. For example in Talk:Greece/Naming poll there's no self-identified Greek (from what I know) to have voted against "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I called on editors: show me one Greek to have opposed that name but nobody responded to my request. 2. I think this is very important, Greeks admit freely to a strong POV in Greek population, one editor here claimed that >95% are against calling the neighbor country simply "Macedonia" or even "Republic of Macedonia", but when they come and edit on Wikipedia they claim a miraculous impartiality. I find that hard to swallow. I also find hard to swallow that most of the Greeks interpret WP policies in one way and international editors in other way, this polarization is a clear indicator of POV leaking from real-world to Wikipedia in my view, actually the whole "drama" is the best indicator that this is a political POV fight, not a simple content decision. man with one red shoe 07:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Shadowmorph: let me make some comments about your list:
 * pro-UN -- it has been repeated over and over again that UN names have no bearing on Wikipedia when it comes to article names or how to refer to countries in articles, however mostly Greek editors push the UN name because they consider it an acceptable compromise, "smallest evil" in their view, even though it doesn't satisfy them completely because it still contain the name of "Macedonia", they are basically choosing the claiming that these "pro-UN" filibusters don't have anything to do with Greek POV pushers, is incorrect.
 * pro-consensus Which consensus? These again are people (as we notice in this very page) who claim a non-existent consensus (and when it comes to how to name the country in Greece even Greek editors claim lack of consensus) to protect a status quo that's in their interest, again claiming that this has nothing to do with Greek POV is a bit of departure from truth.
 * What you call official Greece, pro-Macedonian(Greek) are just different variants of POV which require different degrees of hiding of "Macedonia" name when it comes to the name of the Republic, we don't really care that some people don't want to use "Macedonia" at all and other (official or not) want to pair it all the time with "Former Yugoslav..."
 * So you see, all these categories are in fact only one category: POV pushers. There is of course a NPOV (neutral point of view), using per WP policies and guidelines the common English name and the self-identifier name when the common English name cannot be used. ChrisO by his move muddled the waters too much, if he didn't do that, now we'd discuss only about the unacceptable and shameful push of "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" name in Greece, his move is more complicated because it might require disambiguation, I see the page ending on "Macedonia (country)" or even back to it's original name, however the issue here is POV pushers not the degree of "Macedonia" acceptance, I don't care if some Greeks could live with FYROM while others cannot live even with that, all of them are still POV pushers. man with one red shoe 14:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Policies don't just say "use common name--that's it"; they make many mentions to "dealing with geopolitical contexts" using "conflict resolution", go along "naming conflict" guidelines etc. Most imporantly if it is difficult to find a better name, "leave it" and focus to constructive editing and content. Even if there was no consensus on Republic of Macedonia (people showed there was until some changed their mind suddenly--but I wasn't around); still the pro-Consensus editors seek to find a new consensus name, opposed to having a name chosen, by an admin, an arbitration or anybody else. Possibly e.g. "Macedonia (republic)". I know that fatigue was actually a strong case for not changing any names for years that's why new views are always needed. Macedon was one of them, I wasn't tied to any previous discussions so I boldly moved it. However my move can be undone, like it is supposed to be in a wiki. Macedonia right now cannot be--I have never met such a case elsewhere in Wikipedia, a name chosen and locked into position without trying to find a common understanding among all users. I do believe that consensus building should not be abandoned and it should include figuring out the names for all the articles. There are only so many possibilities, I don't think anyone ever discussed them all in one place. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 20:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I agree that policies are not clear cut, otherwise this would have been solved long time ago, however I would feel much more comfortable if people who interpret the policies would not be the very POV fighters from this debate, in any case not single purpose accounts that all they do is edit/debate about Macedonia name or Greek national causes on Wikipedia. 2. I doubt is possible to find consensus when a part of editors have a specific interest and will always vote against against a decent solution (see the situation on Talk:Greece/Naming poll ). Still, we might be able to find consensus for Macedonia (country), but again, look at Talk:Greece/Naming poll and the polarization of opinions there, I was totally disgusted by this polarization that I didn't even join the discussion about moving Macedonia, I think ChrisO felt the same thing and that's why he didn't even discuss the move, I bet if he did he would have found a very strong opposition from a specific part of the editors -- basically you can't find "consensus" when there's a group of very motivated editors to keep a specific POV. That's why I hope the issue is decided by uninvolved editors/admins. man with one red shoe 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All your points above are very well said. Speaking for myself I didn't even know what an AfD, a RM and an arbitration in Wikipedia was before Easter. I hope to leave SPA status behind me but right now I consume my time here, just like anybody else. I didn't chose that to begin with. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer by SQRT5P1D2

 * How true is this statement?

While certain parties showed in their comments their true colours regarding the "factions" strategy ("Greeks against everybody else, let's get rid of the bad Greeks and grecophiles"), I will just state the obvious. The results are always sample-dependent. That's what junior high statistics taught me.

-Is our sample representative?

-Is there any reliable way to validate the characteristics of the sample?

These are the real questions. Claiming that "why, of course, X always do that", is an unfounded argument for an untenable theory; it's simply an attempt to disguise POV-pushing against policies.


 * How critical do the parties feel national perspective is in this case?

ChrisO wrote that "with Macedonia, there's only one country using that name for itself and the territory is uncontested by anyone" and I responded:

-Here you are (originally posted here): "Skopje, February 2008 - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's Prime Minister, Nikola Gruevski, lays a wreath on the monument of national hero Georgi Delchev, to which a map of the so-called "Greater Macedonia" is attached; the map includes a considerable part of Northern Greece, including Greece's second-largest city Thessaloniki, and the Halkidiki peninsula. This is no less than 30% of the territory of Greece - a 55-year-old NATO member. Can this be the behavior of a friend and perspective ally?"'' - This is taken from a full page ad in major newspapers (“Washington Post”, “The New York Times”, “Le Monde” etc). There are also some really interesting school books for you.''

(The same irredentist map appeared in a recent poster for another Delchev event with Gruevski! Note the provocative use of an official, WIPO protected greek state symbol on top and the careful selective quotation.)

So, how critical is national perspective when the prime minister of a neighbouring state bows to maps claiming a large part of your country's territory? How critical is national perspective when a quarter of a region's population, living in a third of it, has irredentist claims against other countries? How critical is national perspective in reaction to state-sponsored propaganda and the endorsement of pseudohistory, from schools to everyday life?

I'd say critical enough.

How critical is for Wikipedia to stay out of political games? SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to BalkanFever - Indeed, several parties want to hide the ugly truth, to justify their POV-pushing; however, you chose the wrong person to pick on. If reality is "ranting", then insults are a prize. As long as I am here and to the extent that policies allow me, propaganda will be exposed. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer by BalkanFever
To answer 2) As you can see from SQRT5P1D2 in his rant, which by the way is a rant circulated on Wikipedia by almost every Greek nationalist troll, national perspective is the problem.  Balkan Fever  08:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer by Heimstern
The results of the straw poll show that it is clearly the case. As for its importance, I've already mentioned this, so I'll just quote myself (from my statement concerning the acceptance of this case): "Where two separate consensuses form, one consisting almost entirely of people with a vested interest in a certain nationality, the other consisting of more or less everyone without any vested interest in that country, something is broken." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heimstern (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer by Ev
Best, Ev (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) As fas as I can tell, it is true. See either Húsönd's visual conclusion or Fut. Perf.'s results summary (note also that Cédric Boissière, while a self-declared French user, gives the impression of being a true grécophile :-)
 * 2) As Fut. Perf. mentions above, this is the central element of the whole case (and of various other cases brought before this committee). That a significant number of editors try to have our articles reflect their national & cultural perspectives is an everyday reality we have learnt to take for granted in most of Wikipedia's hot spots. Deacon of Pndapetzim spoke of Eurovision trends (April 2009). For a similar situation, see the stonewalling by Persian/Iranian editors at Shatt al-Arab (April & May 2007). We need to take this situation into account, and find mechanisms to handle such distortions effectively & efficiently, without subjecting our neutral editors to the gargantuan waste of time it usually takes to sort each individual case. – We need to encourage editors in general (and administrators in particular) to dismiss culture- and politics-based arguments irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes; we need to issue topic bans and disruption blocks more liberally. (It's my fault too: I have the bad habit of commenting in discussions, instead of remaining "uninvolved" and helping to smooth discussions by acting as an administrator only).

Reply by Tasoskessaris
With all due respect to my friend Taivo, I have to ask him a few questions: If Americans are polled regarding the War of Independence, how many of them are going to support that it was illegal and that the British were the rightful government of the United States? Further how many Americans would agree that George Washington was a traitor who rebelled against the legitimate British government? Same goes for the September 11 attacks. How many Americans are going to support Al Qaeda, if polled? Does that disqualify the American editors from contributing to these articles? Do we have to run a progrom against them and countless other ethnicities and others for whom there are innumerable motherhood or even hot-button issues and yet, somehow, are able to productively contribute to this great project regardless? Obviously not. The golden rules here are: WP:AGF and judge the editors by the content of their edits not by their, purported, ethnicity. If the edits of the Greek editors are found to be bad faith and illogical then let's focus on that. Let's examine the content of the Greek editors' edits. Are the Greek editors advancing logical arguments? Or are their arguments ridiculous? If they are ridiculous it stands to reason that it should be relatively easy to refute them by logic and not by using ethnicity based arguments. Using ethnicity based arguments instead of logic is a morally and intellectually bankrupt way to analyse editors' contributions. Dr.K. logos 04:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Taivo. Dear Taivo. It doesn't matter that a few Americans may not follow the majority on the points I made about George Washington, the British or Al Qaeda. The fact remains that the vast majority of Americans will support George Washington, and be against the Brits and Al Qaeda. That by definition makes them a block. A few apostates here or there will have no effect on the reality of a nationalist American block. Hell, I support the vast majority of Americans on all of these three points. Does that make me part of the American block? Or does my Greek ethnicity automatically disqualify me from belonging in the American block? Is membership in a block dependent on intellectual affinities or solely upon ethnic affinities? A block is a block. Be it monolithic or with a few dissenters, it doesn't make much of a difference. Same goes for the Greek block. Macedonia is a region of Greece. It stands to reason therefore that you won't see too many Greeks agreeing to use Macedonia to represent RoM in the Greece article, especially because the term Macedonia is in dire need of disambiguation, so much more when used in the Greece article where the native Macedonia exists. Now we go to FYROM. It seems it is massively, but not quite monolithically, preferred by the Greek editors for use in the article of Greece. There are many reasons for this. MOSMAC may be a main reason. Nationalism maybe another. But if the opinions of the Greek editors are backed up by solid arguments, based on Wikipedia policies, it really doesn't matter if they are suspected to also be nationalism inspired. At the end of the day everyone in Wikipedia lives or dies by the strength of their arguments, not by their ethnicity blocks or other affinity identifiers. Blocks, monolithic or not, are irrelevant in this or any other discussion, because the concept of a "block" and the concept of "logic" are mutually orthogonal. Being a member of a block does not correlate to the logic (or intelligence) of your arguments. Dr.K. logos 06:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions about disambiguation discussions
I've asked this question on the evidence talk page. Posting a link here to make sure people see it. Could answers please be placed on the evidence page. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about evidence
If there is potentially crucial evidence to the case, currently not publicly accessible, should parties and arbitrators have the right to know? If yes, under what circumstances? SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this question is already covered by the following one of yours.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe in a way. But it covers only a part of the question. For example, this one could refer to parties not related in any way with organization X. It's not only about COI. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Somehow I feel that you don't ask a question but try to insinuate things (you do the same in the next question too). Do you talk about editors involved in this case talking privately between them, do you want to know what they discussed? I think that's a useless endeavor, first of all nobody is forced to reveal private discussion, second of all anybody could invent or forge emails and messages to their own desire, so maybe you should drop this useless line of "investigation". man with one red shoe 14:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an investigator but a party. If other parties have the right to ask legitimate questions, then I have the same right. If some like these questions and others don't, it's a different story. Arbitrators are not detectives but judges. If a question has the potential of bringing relevant evidence to the table, parties won't judge this. Since this is an open case, me, you or anyone else, can't predict the outcome. Now, if we'd go back to the factions theory ("the X side is evil"), put the blame on my duties as the Panultimate Captain of GTT (Grecophile Trolling Team)... SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your question is problematic because Wikipedia deals with public information, you ask about private information, how do you suggest we obtain it? man with one red shoe 14:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Although my phrasing covers every angle ("should", "what circumstances"), I'm adding this bit about your specific question. ArbCom can establish future principles when dealing with cases. As a matter of fact, it can also be the recipient of confidential information. This essay has more information. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My complain is also due to the fact that your question is too hypothetical, if you know something you should ask more clear, for example "Should we know what ChrisO and Fut. Perf. discussed privately before the move?" Then arbitrators can determine if that's a "crucial" info or not, and what should be done about it. It's also unclear, do you know the info and you want to make it known to the arbitrators or you want to fish some private info about editors and their private discussions by asking arbitrators to ask for such private details? (which would be unacceptable in my view). So, depends what you want, I bet even arbitrators cannot respond to such a general and hypothetical question and they will probably ignore it, which is not what you want, right? So, be more specific (it would also clarify your intention and people won't accuse you of things that you don't like)  man with one red shoe 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * SQRT, MWORS makes a good suggestion. Also, some people are seeing insinuations and some don't understand exactly what you want in your two questions and this should be avoided. Rephrase your question. If you are unsure of anything at all feel free to contact me directly. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rlevse, I read that you also asked arbitrators about it and my questions were considered legitimate. If some people see other things, that's what they see. As a matter of fact, only a few parties had a completely negative attitude regarding these questions, despite my carefully chosen phrasing. If the Workshop is not the proper place to discuss generic questions, that's different. But since principles are formed when dealing with cases, I thought that this was the proper place to discuss about it.
 * While I'm not into fishing or hunting and privacy is of utmost importance to me, if for the benefit of the Community we should focus to MWORS's specific question (essentially a product of my generic question), that's perfectly fine. After all, other administrators and editors asked the same question in the talk pages and elsewhere. So, if there are parties collaborating off-wiki, admitting that they knew about each other's actions beforehand, what should be done about it? Should ArbCom ask them to provide records of their private correspondence, if they agree? SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about involvement
If there are involved parties, currently or in the past affiliated in any way with organizations promoting political agendas, should parties and arbitrators have the right to know? If yes, should they be a part of a case regarding encyclopedic terminology? SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In layman's terms, if someone works/collaborates or worked/collaborated with X and X promotes a certain POV regarding Macedonian-related issues, there is a conflict of interest (WP:COI). This is harmful to Wikipedia (WP:NPOV). SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would remind you, SQRT, that outing another editor is a very serious matter—and not one to be approached flippantly. Contact an Arbitrator privately and explain in full what you intend to do. The workshop isn't the place to be posting comments like the two above, however—which could be quite easily interpreted as suggesting you intend to reveal an involved editor's real-life conflict of interest. AGK 12:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If what you mean is that ChrisO's real name is Nikola Gruevski, well then we already knew that.  Balkan Fever  12:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. My belief is that ChrisO is FutPer's sockpuppet, who's real name is Nikola Gruevski, and who is often fooling aroung to the detriment of the project. Otherwise it would have been too obvious. I'm also pretty sure that NikoSilver is the sockpuppet of Branko Crvenkovski, who wants to destroy Gruevski's fame in Wikipedia. As for me? Hi, hi, you'll never learn!
 * Seriously now: SQRT, if I understand correctly, you argue that an involved party works or worked with an organization promoting a certain POV regarding Macedonian-related issues, and there is a conflict of interest. In this case, I believe you should be very careful, and I think that AGK gave you the right direction. If you think that these affiliations critically influence the NPOV stance of the editors in question, then the best solution is to contact by e-mail the ARBCOM and present convincingly and in detail your evidence.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * AGK, thank you for your suggestion. However, I'm asking a question that those who will judge the case, thought that it was perfectly legitimate. I also believe in public resolutions. BalkanFever, I welcome your irony but I believe that your comment has no place here. If you'd like to remove it yourself and replace it with a useful contribution, please do so. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a strong advocate for full accountability and transparency where possible, but occasionally, we must sacrifice that for the sake of our editor's privacy. Please use a little tact when juggling with the identity of an editor; privacy is an area where our on-Wiki actions can quite easily spill out of the Wikipedia Bubble and into real life. If you'll insist on pressing ahead with this, then beware that a number of individuals have been banned from the project for publicly "outing" project contributors. We have an Arbitration Committee partly because we need some things to be handled in private. AGK 12:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After all, the "judges" here are the Arbitrators. They decide, and they must have full knowlegde of all relevant evidence. After all, they have the support of the Community, and we are supposed to trust them and have confidence in their integrity and judgement. I thus think that AGK's proposal is the most logical one. I'm also in support of full disclosure, but when two "goods" are conflicting, there should be some kind of compromise. The compromise here is IMO "full disclosure to the ARBCOM members".--Yannismarou (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To all: I understand and share your concerns. I read again and again the questions, hitting the preview button numerous times. However, my phrasing was careful and others believe the same. I do not juggle or insult: I just ask. Nobody is obligated to answer or react in any way. Nobody should feel threatened, if she/he has nothing to hide. It's really that simple, nothing more, nothing less. And everybody knows how to seek assistance, when reaching a sensitive area. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If your questions are innocent queries and not insinuations, and you ask them without intending to break Wikipedia's communal norms on editor privacy, then I'm relatively satisfied. AGK 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also satisfied that we resolved this. I already explained what I think about the "thin meatspace line" - and "AGK" is conveniently four keys to the left from "AGF" :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * SQRT, knock off this line of questioning. Don't do anything to out someone. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (see also response to the previous question) If I didn't make it clear until know, one more time: I have no intention of violating established policies (WP:OUTING). Even in the absence of established policies, I abide by common courtesy and common sense. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, SQRT, since your "questions" here clearly insinuate that some of the participants in this arbitration are motivated by their past affiliations "with organizations promoting political agendas", you've already violated common courtesy. --Akhilleus (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Akhilleus, thank you for your comment. We're all entitled to our personal opinions, but I would like to ask you to assume good faith. In any case, this question was considered legitimate, as it should be. When I clarified it, I mentioned WP:COI. This could refer to anyone, Greek, Italian, German, Spanish, British, administrator, editor; anyone, really. It's not a question directly accusing someone. We've discussed the role of "national perspective" and we should also discuss the issue of potential conflict of interest when ethnic identity is not involved. There is nothing wrong with that, while the Community tries to ensure NPOV. As you probably know, in the past there were several incidents; organizations, pressure groups and lobbies are always trying to influence high-profile sites like Wikipedia. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia 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) Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia
3) The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. 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) 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 Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia 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) 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". 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)
 * "Oppose'. Clear and direct relevance of this proposal as stated above to the case at hand has not been explicitly established. Also, as noted by others, the comparatively simplistic presentation here is inadequate to describe this more complex situation and could reasonably be seen as being perhaps misleading for a situation as complicated as this one. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 6 May 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)


 * Which presentation would better fit wikipedia? Common usage would be the first entry on a dictionary. Also, obviously some involved parties overeact to the presentation. Maybe they should get over it. I really don't know.--Vanakaris (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of formal names is deprecated in article titles
6) 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 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 Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. 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 Disambiguation (WP:DAB), is to resolve "conflicts in Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.  (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 Wikipedia's usage of that term. Standing policy and guidelines exclude consideration of partisan political considerations. 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. 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 Wikipedia's editorial voice
12) Wikipedia's "editorial voice" is its own, governed by Wikipedia's internal editorial policies, not by the conventions of any external agency. Wikipedia is not subordinate to the points of view of any state, international organisation or group. Their views or conventions do not dictate Wikipedia'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. 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." NPOV requires articles to be named on the basis that they use "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources." 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 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. NPOV requires editors to maintain an impartial tone, describing disputes rather than engaging in them. 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. Conflict of interest states that "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * That's a misunderstanding of Wikipedia'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) Consensus, 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) 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 - "names of Wikipedia 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)
 * Opposed. The fact that one administrator on his own chose to ignore a compromise which already existed is in itself an indication that that administrator places his own opinion, which seemingly disagrees with that consensus, above that of others, and that is a very unfortunate characteristic for any administrator to have. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read this principle, John. It's established policy - if you don't like it you're welcome to go to Wikipedia talk:Consensus and argue against it, but this isn't the place to campaign against a long-standing policy. We constantly challenge consensus to "find a better way to do things", as WP:CCC puts it. The fact that a particular approach has been taken in the past does not mean that the same approach must always be taken in the future. That's a generally applicable principle across Wikipedia, not just in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't disagree with it. I just wonder whether it's an appropriate thing to cite in a matter where there even now seems to me no consensus for the change you made on your own without consulting anyone but perhaps your best friend in the matter, particularly when the circumstances which prompted this case being opened were when an involved administrator with what many/most parties involved consider a clear bias decided that he, despite policies and guidelines to the contrary, determined that he was in such a clear position to dictate how policy should be applied without any consultation that he was able to alter content despite existing policies and guidelines stating an involved party should never do so. I contend that this proposal is factually completely irrelevant to the case, given its circumstances. That's all. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I agree with this. Let me offer a hypothetical comparison. If the country were to change its name in the future (and I know I recently said that nobody should speculate, but here I am) we would no doubt have editors (perhaps most of them Greek, but that's largely irrelevant for this scenario) proposing to move the page - whether it is located at Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia - to the new name. In that hypothetical scenario, however, I guarantee that we will not see FP or ChrisO opposing with an argument like "there was a consensus for the article to be located here". If they were to oppose (who knows, they may even support), they would use arguments based on policies and guidelines. But what do we see from those opposing ChrisO's move?  Balkan Fever  09:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Boldness
18) Be bold, a longstanding guideline, provides that: "'The Wikipedia 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)
 * Strange that you are proposing this since you went against the whole other text of that guideline that you didn't mention.
 * Let me remind you that the page was move-protected. It is still move protected, others cannot revert the move. Only administrators could (not appropriate for "anyone can edit"), but guess what, they can't either because you said that you would accuse them with wheel warring. And one more thing, I thought that WP:BOLD was for simple content editors and you know the new-commers, not the administrators. Bold administrators might be a dangerous thing since they have an advantage in power. Just imagine a bold admin moving Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo and then locking it with move-protection. As in "this administration has made bold actions"... sounds authoritative for a wiki. What about the boldness of the others, you know the "everyone can edit" people. They can be bold in their personal websites only? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you that the page was move-protected. It is still move protected, others cannot revert the move. Only administrators could (not appropriate for "anyone can edit"), but guess what, they can't either because you said that you would accuse them with wheel warring. And one more thing, I thought that WP:BOLD was for simple content editors and you know the new-commers, not the administrators. Bold administrators might be a dangerous thing since they have an advantage in power. Just imagine a bold admin moving Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo and then locking it with move-protection. As in "this administration has made bold actions"... sounds authoritative for a wiki. What about the boldness of the others, you know the "everyone can edit" people. They can be bold in their personal websites only? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you that the page was move-protected. It is still move protected, others cannot revert the move. Only administrators could (not appropriate for "anyone can edit"), but guess what, they can't either because you said that you would accuse them with wheel warring. And one more thing, I thought that WP:BOLD was for simple content editors and you know the new-commers, not the administrators. Bold administrators might be a dangerous thing since they have an advantage in power. Just imagine a bold admin moving Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo and then locking it with move-protection. As in "this administration has made bold actions"... sounds authoritative for a wiki. What about the boldness of the others, you know the "everyone can edit" people. They can be bold in their personal websites only? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Meat puppetry
19) Sock puppetry, a policy, states: "'Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate.'"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This is in relation to, 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 Wikipedia. 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) 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 Wikipedia themselves.'"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Various false accusations of outing have been made in the course of this dispute - see below. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Openness to change
21) Editors should be open to the prospect of change and to reevaluate past positions in the light of current circumstances and facts.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Or as Keynes said more pointedly, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" A willingness to constantly question and reassess one's own position and to be willing to change course is essential. A refusal to reassess or to insist on "a foolish consistency" in the face of facts to the contrary is fundamentally incompatible with developing an up-to-date encyclopedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Administrator communications
22) Administrators are required to explain their actions. When an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, wording taken from the MzMcBride case. I take seriously the communications obligations of an administrator, which I discharged in this instance - see below. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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 Wikipedia over the use of the name Macedonia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Evidence is at Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. -- 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 Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ethnic polarisation
3) Discussions on Wikipedia 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 Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. -- 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 Wikipedia articles; we can't ignore it when it happens. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Persistence of the dispute
4) Disputes on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia--South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, to name but a few--and the target of Abkhazia is not a disambiguation page, but the country.  Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia treats other conflicts
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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?
 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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?
 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)
 * Completely irrelevant, John. We have very clear directions in policy (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) for determining what constitutes a primary topic. The criteria you suggest have no policy basis whatsoever and are contradicted by what policy actually requires. A large part of the problem in this dispute has been the way that some editors have systematically ignored policy or invented rationales that have no basis in policy. As an admin, you should not be encouraging this behaviour, let alone indulging in it yourself. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, ChrisO, I have actually read that page. There is no clear indication from the text what should be considered the primary topic. The fact that you as an individual jumped to conclusions based on insufficient evidence in the text of that policy, and state something which is stated nowhere in the policy itself, is behavior you should not be indulging in. But, then, this whole case was prompted by you indulging in behavior you should not be indulging in, so I guess that shouldn't be a surprise. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, John. Nothing that I have done has prompted this arbitration case. It was agreed to and scheduled in advance on Talk:Greece, well before the Macedonia article move, or had you forgotten that? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does provide a clear set of criteria that have been agreed by a consensus of the community (that's what a policy is). In the absence of any other criteria specified by that policy, that is what we have to use as our lowest common denominator. Your own suggested criterion appears nowhere in policy and plainly does not enjoy consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, remember that the case was filed because of your actions. That prompted the case having to be filed early, or have you forgotten that? And reading the topic, the "tools that may help determine a primary meaning..." Notice the word "may", which is hardly conclusive. On that basis, it has to be said that no primary topic is explicitly clear through that policy. I don't necessarily have trouble believing that you forgot the circumstances of the filing, though, given your apparent troubles reading policies. That might explain a lot right there, actually. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The timing of the case was Yannismarou's decision, not mine, and it would have been filed whether or not I had acted, as agreed by the editors on Talk:Greece. Your views about the conditional language of the policy are missing the point, I'm afraid; you're welcome to propose whatever criteria you like on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, but our existing criteria are clear enough. You're certainly not going to get consensus for new criteria that appear to be designed to produce a result that favours one side's POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 2 May 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) 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 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia that identifies him as Greek, it is not outing for me to mention that.  Anything posted on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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:
 * Agree Reposting of self-identifying information is not outing. //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reaper7
8) has violated 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) has solicited meatpuppets, specifically Greek-speaking Usenet users, to support his position on Wikipedia . 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia entries before" using his IP address and he certainly seems to know his way around Wikipedia. It's not credible to view him as a brand new user who has no knowledge of Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia has rules. Also, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. I learn my way around Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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". 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) is a single-purpose account whose involvement with Wikipedia has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles and this arbitration case.


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


 * 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 Wikipedia - 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) has edit-warred disruptively on 2008 Greek riots and has continued to edit war after a block ended.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. One of those unfortunate people who spend their time on Wikipedia 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)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I've changed the wording accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Alfadog777 is a Macedonia-focused single purpose account who has edit-warred
13) is a single-purpose account whose involvement with Wikipedia has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles and this arbitration case. 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:

ChrisO's move was based on a reassessment of policy and usage
14) ChrisO's move of the Macedonia article was based on a reassessment of policy requirements and real-world usage of the disputed terminology.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I have set out the background to this at Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. A couple of people have accused me of being inconsistent. I did in fact formerly strongly defend the article's former location at Republic of Macedonia. However, after User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ proposed to move the article to "Former Yugoslav Republic in Macedonia" in March 2009, I reviewed the assumptions that I had made about the policy basis for the article remaining where it was, and found that the case for moving the article to a shorter name was compelling. Reappraisals of assumptions and reviews of evidence are essential for the improvement of Wikipedia - see the proposed principle at above. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

ChrisO provided a contemporaneous policy rationale for his action
15) ChrisO posted a detailed rationale for the article move, with reference to applicable policies and evidence of real-world usage of terminology, immediately after the move was carried out.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. As the principle cited above in requires, "when an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why." I fully met this obligation by posting a  detailed explanation of why the move was necessary, what the relevant policies were and what they required, and evidence of real-world usage of the terminology in verifiable reliable sources. Henrik and J.delanoy, both admins uninvolved in this dispute, both stated following my posting of the rationale that "I fully endorse it. I find your reasoning persuasive"  and "Agree with above, this was an excellent decision".  -- ChrisO (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Real-world usage of terminology
16) Data on usage of Macedonia-related terminology indicates that the term Macedonia is primarily associated with the country of that name.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Documentation of usage compiled by Fut. Perf. and myself was the factual basis for which the move was carried out; put simply, the term "Macedonia" (by itself, no "former Yugoslav Republic") is used by the overwhelmingly majority of media outlets, other encyclopedias, atlases, maps and guide books to refer to the country. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. My own real-world (not cyber-world) examination of atlases and maps in the U.S. market showed exactly that as well.  All but one U.S. publisher of atlases use "Macedonia" exclusively.  (Taivo (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Oppose, not a fact. As per my evidence section. Once again I repeat, using Google is part of policy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It appears right under the ones ChrisO used. And Google Books is not cyber-world it just scans real books. Books are real-world. I used a sample of 15,500 books, not just 50 books in my evidence. The fact: The word Macedonia in books has a wide context. Besides real people are the ones that use the internet. I wanted to avoid bias so I narrowed down to specific English speaking countries and specific data. Pieces of statistical data are just data no matter who compiles them (I didn't only use searches but some other tools by Google as well). And something you forget, Wikipedia is not an Atlas. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are things in an encyclopedia (subregions with 2.5 million people, ancient kingdoms) that an Atlas doesn't list, atlases primarily list only countries and need no disambiguation in most cases. News sources are also biased to modern news and references to modern countries and whole countries (not subregions) and not to ancient countries. A news source would also use "Balkans" to refer to the region, widely. It would probably not specify the specific region "Macedonia" to avoid confusion and the need for explanations of geography. Shadowmorph (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Inconsistency with real-world usage
17) Data on usage of Macedonia-related terminology indicates that Wikipedia's use of Macedonia-related terminology, prior to the move of Republic of Macedonia, was inconsistent with real-world usage.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This is a key point: WP:NC mandates articles to "use the most easily recognized name" for things. The usage data indicates that our use of terminology was inconsistent with the vast majority of verifiable reliable sources in English. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. That has been demonstrated with my own listing of U.S. atlases and ChrisO's and Future Perfect's more comprehensive research involving atlases, encyclopedias, news media, and other sources.  (Taivo (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Not entirely certain this is a pertinent finding in relation to the article title. It certainly is a correct and pertinent finding with respect to our usage in text, i.e. the avoidance of plain "Macedonia" in favour of ubiquitous qualifiers (which the Greek editors have also long tried to enforce), but when it comes to the article title I don't think it's that clear-cut. Anyway, I doubt the committee will go this far into content decisions anyway, so perhaps this is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are right that the committee will not go that far into the content issue, but this proposed FoF is intended to draw the committee's attention to the real-world situation regarding terminology. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Reaper7 has engaged in original research
18) has engaged in original research on Macedonia naming dispute, using sources to make an assertion by inference.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This is a clear-cut case of WP:OR. Reaper7 has attempted to use two Danish sources to make a statement about Denmark's official position on the Macedonia naming dispute. Neither of the sources he cites makes any mention of the naming dispute or of Denmark's position. Reaper7 is attempting to infer the Danish government's position from those sources, using the sources to make a statement that is not supported by the sources themselves. For the discussion with Reaper7 on this issue, please see User talk:ChrisO (note the very aggressive attitude and the clear warning from Fut. Perf., which Reaper7 promptly disregarded.) -- ChrisO (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, ChrisO, but this proposal is pretty weak.  We've all looked at similar data and made similar logical assumptions based on the limited information that is sometimes available on-line.  We read something, we make an edit, if no one objects it means they made the same inference.  But this proposal has nothing to do with the Macedonia issue except that it occurred in a Macedonia-related article and was performed by a party to this proceeding.  Reaper's "over-the-top" reaction, however, is a different matter.  (Taivo (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment by Reaper7:

I just got a warning from ChrisO for 'Original Research.' I was editing the list in the Macedonia Name Dispute page and I had just removed a reference used fort he Dutch position as it was a dead link. Then I noticed the two GOVT references on this page: [] both point to Denmark using FYROM or FYR Macedonia yet Denmark was in the list under 'List of countries to be sorted.' I moved Denmark to countries which use FYROM, ChrisO immediately reverted stating you need a source that states how Denmark uses the name, not infer it yourself from a random document. I then informed him, the 'random document were two Danish Govt Pages that were already there as references concerning Denmark and reverted. ChrisO then proceeded to revert and dish me out with an 'Original Research Warning.' This time he changed his story and stated: you are inferring Denmark's position, but the documents you cite do not say anything about whether Denmark recognises the constitutional name or not. This is interesting. Most of the list is made up of Embassy pages using the word Macedonia, and immediately they are on the list, under countries who recognise the Republic of Macedonia. I wonder how many of those editors received warnings from ChrisO? I am going to make this action of ChrisO stick as his behaviour in general has downgraded the neutrality Administrators are supposed to have. Reaper7 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Magioladitis' comment here. As a matter of fact, truth seems to be closer to Reaper's position. I read in Danforth that Denmark recognized RoM in 1997 as FYROM, and I found no source telling me that it later changed its stance. As a matter of fact the documents Reaper provided, and the Danish mfa itself seem to confirm that Denmark's stance remain the same.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that you seem to be joining Reaper7 in engaging in original research by synthesis. I'll walk you through this, since you apparently don't understand the meaning of original research. WP:SYNTH tells us "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." What Reaper7 has attempted to do is to use two documents that say nothing about Denmark's position on the naming dispute, and use those to infer what Denmark's position is. What you need is a source that states explicitly what Denmark's current position is. It's a pity that you apparently think basic rules of content sourcing don't apply in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment - While this has nothing to do with the case, I think we had enough with the battleground mentality, in order to disqualify "opponents". For old EU members like Denmark, nothing changed since 1993. According to the article: "On 16 December 1993, two weeks before Greece was due to take up the European Community presidency, six key EC countries—Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom—recognised the Republic under its UN designation.". That's it. Denmark recognised officialy the UN provisional name (FYROM). The burden of the proof lies upon those who believe that Denmark changed her position (mail their MFA at um [at] um [dot] dk). If they have any relevant sources, then they should add them. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - and  are the best official sources I found (both from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark website).  I was curious because they use both Macedonia and FYROM on the same sentence.  So I called them up (I called the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark).  They confirmed that FYROM is the official name they recognized the country.  They did not provide me any more documentation or urls for this.   My opinion is that nobody (except the people in the 2 countries) really cares about the name.  But Denmark is bound by UN and EC conventions.  GoingToPluto (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Disgusted My edit of Denmark's stance has been put back to where I originally put it and was warned for. It is agreed now I was right and my edit reinstated. Why do I still have this warning from ChrisO?? Reaper7 (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So ignore it and move on with your life. (Taivo (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Or, alternatively, "So remove it." There's nothing that says you can't remove warnings from your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And Reaper7 isn't telling the truth anyway. His edit was not reinstated. Someone added a different reference to Denmark, but Reaper7's original research wasn't used. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Denmark made up her mind in the '90s and nothing changed since then. It's simple as that. If no news exist, it's because there are no news. Be rational. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reaper7 has engaged in disruptive canvassing
19) In direct response to the finding of fact above, has disruptively canvassed "friendly" editors to support his position, ignoring advice that he should not do so.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Reaper7 has posted messages to the user talk pages of User:Avg, User:SQRT5P1D2 , User:Shadowmorph , User:Yannismarou , User:AndreasJS and User:Tasoskessaris  (the latter after this finding of fact was posted) - all editors who have taken one side in this dispute - asking them to intervene on his behalf. This constitutes inappropriate canvassing, specifically campaigning and votestacking. It's also an incredibly dumb thing to do in the middle of an arbitration case. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am afraid the warning you handed me has now been documented and reported, the wording you used, everything. In your own words, it was an incredibly 'dumb' thing to do when you are already under investigation for your behaviour especially when this whole arbitration is due to your actions. I told this would be the outcome if you continued to abuse your power as an adminstator and told you I would inform editors of your behaviour on your on talk page here: [] I am afraid it is up to all editors now to see that you erratic behaviour with all Macedonia related articles and editors within them is never ending. I think the sooner your admin privileges are stripped from your account, the sooner we can calm the situation down on pages you have turned into battlegrounds. It is important all editors who believe you have disrupted the Macedonia article]] witness your behaviour towards me and my sensational warning you decided to hand me today. neutrality is the key. It is not canvassing alerting editors to your behaviour - a favourite word of yours! It is evidence now and they will use it to prove the point I and they are already making if needed. That you are a poor, and bias administrator who has been totally disruptive in pages concerning your home nation and have abused your powers as an administrator. Reaper7 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My "home nation"? You think I'm a Macedonian? -- ChrisO (talk)
 * I think you believe you are when you log-on to wikipedia. Your bias to one side has brought about this arbitration.

I am sure you will get over it, I have been accused of being Greek in the ethnic profiling, remember? Reaper7 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Too strong wording to accurately reflect reality. Reaper's posting fulfils two of the four critera of inappropriate canvassing: it was biased and partisan (?), but at the same time it was limited and transparent. The last characteristic is the most important IMO, and for this reason I'll reluctantly oppose the FoF.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

15:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Question - ChrisO, I don't know about others, but who told you that I'm a "friendly" party to Reaper7? Is it because we beat AEK and got the cup? :) Let's not go down to the route "guilty by ethnic affiliation" again. And don't you think that you abuse the term "canvassing"? If a Wikipedia user wants to notify a few people about something publicly, this is not "canvassing". If he spams dozens of editors, yes, it's canvassing. Please, tone down a bit. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 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.

Reaper7 banned
1) As an aggressive advocacy account who has disrupted Wikipedia discussion - including the proceedings of this case - with a persistent vitriolic battleground attitude, is banned from Wikipedia 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. Reaper7's conduct - including his contributions to this arbitration case - have been pretty much textbook examples of treating Wikipedia as a battleground. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Continued injunction against Macedonia-related article name moves
2) On conclusion of this case, the present injunction against moving articles relating to Macedonia shall be continued in force until a fresh consensus-forming process reaches a definitive conclusion within a defined timeframe.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Given that there is clearly no agreement on the article naming, and none will be forthcoming until a definitive conclusion is reached, it would be sensible to continue the present injunction against Macedonia-related article name moves until such a conclusion has been reached. There is otherwise a high probability of disruption following the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible opposition - It should be noted that the proposer of this matter is, in effect, asking that his own move, which was itself arguably in violation of wikipedia policies and guidelines, be somehow "grandfathered in" until such time as a consensus is arrived at. That unilateral action itself seems to have been very disruptive on its own, and I cannot see how it serves any purposes to allow it to continue indefinitely. Would have no objections to the proposal if the extant Macedonia article were moved back to its apparently consensus position at Republic of Macedonia before the proposal were enacted, however. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Consensus process regarding the country article Macedonia
3) On conclusion of this case, a fresh consensus-forming process, possibly with an ensuing poll, is 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) below. This process shall be required to reach a definitive conclusion within four weeks of the conclusion of the task group being named.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed as an alternative to Fut. Perf's . This differs from Fut. Perf's proposal in that it does not envisage an immediate reversion of the article title back to Republic of Macedonia pending a discussion about a move back to Macedonia. There are two reasons for this, one practical, the other policy-based:
 * Practicality. Fut. Perf's proposal envisages up to two moves - one back to Republic of Macedonia followed by another to Macedonia. This would unnecessarily increase the amount of drama, since many editors would oppose both moves. A solution which would involve only one decision point would be preferable and would involve less drama. It would also seem to be common sense - when the Gordian Knot was cut, it wasn't then re-tied to facilitate a debate about whether to cut it again.
 * Policy. Policy requires articles to use common names, not formal names; this is undisputed. It is also undisputed that "Republic of Macedonia" is a formal name. Where naming is concerned, the default assumption is that a common name should be used, with disambiguation used to handle secondary topics. The basis for discussion should be whether this is a case where an exception should be made, not whether the default should be followed.
 * I have also proposed a timeframe for this to happen: we need to have definitive closure on this issue, not an indefinite timeframe that would result only in further stalling and footdragging. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * A transparent consensus process should concern the undisputed determining factors regarding the primary topic for the term "Macedonia" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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:

Ignoring a long standing consensus without prior discussion is extremely disruptive
1) Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * [This was not an arbitration decision. Please get your facts right. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] (talk) 00:19, 28 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) Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies, like WP:NC, chose to put this on top:


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


 * 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 Policies and guidelines, 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" [sic] 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 and Help:Pipe trick. Andreas  (T) 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)


 * MW1RS, you're right. WP:NCCN says nothing about a name being "non-ambiguous"; unfortunately this is yet another example of editors inventing new criteria that don't exist in policy. Plenty of terms have multiple meanings, but it's usually the case - as in this instance - that one particular meaning predominates. The name "Macedonia" is perfectly non-ambiguous when used in relation to the country, as that is its primary meaning in English - there is no other country called Macedonia. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Shadowmorph: ChrisO, as an admin you should know the policy better and not oversimplify things. I have been here for only a month and I have better understanding of the spirit of the policy. Here is what I see:
 * We are lead to this other accepted Wikipedia naming convention Naming_conventions, which in turn refers us to Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). There we are given some other instructions
 * The above also redirected us to naming conflict to resolve disagreements. It specifically mentions Macedonia related subjects when saying this:
 * The above text existed since before April 2009, prior to your move and it is an official policy. That policy of course now includes this text:
 * All the above attest to the fact that the matter is not so simple as you put it. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 07:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above also redirected us to naming conflict to resolve disagreements. It specifically mentions Macedonia related subjects when saying this:
 * The above text existed since before April 2009, prior to your move and it is an official policy. That policy of course now includes this text:
 * All the above attest to the fact that the matter is not so simple as you put it. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 07:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above text existed since before April 2009, prior to your move and it is an official policy. That policy of course now includes this text:
 * All the above attest to the fact that the matter is not so simple as you put it. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 07:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All the above attest to the fact that the matter is not so simple as you put it. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 07:27, 7 May 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:

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)


 * Disagree. The cited "evidence" provides no evidence of disruption whatsoever. In fact, as I've pointed out in my evidence, I actively sought to prevent disruption resulting from the move. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I've stated my reasons in Fut.Perf's (understatement) proposal here. Still the statistical evidence by Fut.Perf. show signs that the interests of readers are progressing into chaos after event #3 (ChrisO's move). We'll have to wait and see more. The result of his action being specifically mentioned as an endorsement of the name by Wikipedia in TV stations reports and newsblogs would qualify as disruption too. Shadowmorph (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Suport I have already stated why previously. Reaper7 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 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)
 * Let me explain one more time: trying to make a rule that you didn't break clearer by performing a minor change is not an evil act, trying to make it appear so is Wikilawyering in my opinion. You seem to not understand the key issue here: changing the rule would not have protected him if he broke it because his behaviour is measured against the rule at the time of his actions, so any change he made would be irrelevant for judging his past behavior therefore there's no real conflict of interest here (unless you claim that he intended to break the rule in the future which makes no sense). Taking this into consideration how do you keep your accusations? I suggest you retract them and appologize to ChrisO for baseless accusations. man with one red shoe 20:25, 29 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * There is precedent of a sort for this sort of "charge". Jossi was initially accused, and found to have done, something similar in the ongoing Scientology arbitration. Whether this is of the same scale is another matter. John Carter (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * John don't know about any precedent, but correct me if I'm wrong, ChrisO's actions would be judged by the rule at the time of his actions, right? So any change he made to the rule would apply to future actions that might be incident to that rule. Giving that the case against him for OUTING is so weak and the change so minor I doubt anybody can make a sane claim that he changed the rule to take advantage in the future. Since the change doesn't serve his past behavior there's really no conflict of interest here. Am I wrong in my interpretation? man with one red shoe 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I'm not sure I disagree with you. The only point I was making was that there is a precedent for such statements. Personally, I don't myself think that there is sufficient cause for this one in this case. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move along, nothing to see here. There was no need for him to edit the policy to get off the hook, because there was already a solidly documented prior consensus that he never violated it in the first place. His proposed edit was a trivial clarification (which has in the meantime been reverted, but for entirely independent reasons.) There never was any text of that policy, under any rational reading, that would have prohibited referring to people's apparent national affiliations as evidenced by their Wikipedia profiles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed He has been totally disruptive. Reaper7 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO attempted to game the system
5) ChrisO attempted to game the system by carefully timing his move of the Republic's article in order to have ArbCom freeze its name. Evidence provided in:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Radjenef (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable conclusion based on the conduct of ChrisO in the matter. John Carter (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. ChrisO did not try to game the system since the system was already broken in terms of consensus building with the proponents of the Greek national POV.  Consensus-building is impossible when one party to the dispute is unwilling to participate in constructive discussions that get anywhere.  It has been clearly demonstrated here the level of wikilawyering, filibustering, and stonewalling that the proponents of the Greek national POV are willing to use in order to prevent a useful and fair consensus over the naming of Macedonia.  "Gaming" a broken system is therefore logically impossible (especially a system that was broken by massive gaming from the other party).  ChrisO's move was entirely justified and he provided the evidence for it.  (Taivo (talk) 14:32, 28 May 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.

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. Wikipedia 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)
 * Partially because, bluntly, his policy rationale was just, basically, an excuse for him to move it. There had apparently been a fairly large agreement that the page should stay at the old name, Republic of Macedonia. Then, without any prior word, and thus no way to determine whether the apparent existing consensus had weakened at all, ChrisO moves the page and declares that policy demanded it. Well, if he had been that sure of policy, then he could have followed the appropriate channels that an involved admin is indicated by policy and guidelines he should have followed and gotten agreement. Instead, he acted unilaterally, almost dictatorially, and basically demanded that his expressed opinion regarding policy be proven wrong for him to even consider moving it back. WP:CONSENSUS is a part of one of the pillars of wikipedia, and is not something which should be treated with as much apparent contempt as he treated it here. And, as I already said, as an involved editor it was incumbent on him by policy and guidelines to discuss the matter before attempting such a move which neither then nor now has even a rough approximation of consensus to support it. The reasons for why he should not have made the move can be found at Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. The fact that he acted in the way he did, which strikes several as a clear abuse of the tools, makes it hard for many to trust him with the tools. As per WP:ADMIN, the primary requirements of being an admin are the trust and confidence of the community. ChrisO has I think demonstrably lost much of both by his recent actions. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is nothing more than an assumption of bad faith and is grossly misleading (ironic coming from someone who's complained about "misrepresentation"). You have no grounds to claim that the policy rationale was just an "excuse" - that is utterly bogus. I set out a clear policy rationale, accompanied by objective evidence, here, which I've spelled out again here in this arbitration. I was and am sure of policy. The problem we face here - which you appear to be ignoring - is that applying policy has been systematically blocked by a nationalist group of editors. And I might add that neither you nor any of the other complainers have made much effort - if any - to discuss whether the policy rationale was valid. You've spent (or wasted) your time complaining about process while ignoring policy. In doing so, you're doing nothing more than facilitating the continued filibustering that's prevented any progress for the last two years. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, please remember policy WP:ADMIN states "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or signifcant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, adminstrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." There is very little doubt in the minds of many editors that your actions, as a party who had been involved in the long term regarding this content, in moving the article without prior discussion probably violated this policy. In fact, this has been pointed out before, and I haven't seen any real evidence from you that your actions have anything like the indicated gross policy problems like vandalism to justify your having indulged in acting contrary to that policy. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Strong Oppose I agree with the spirit of WP:UNINVOLVED, which would indicate that ChrisO has been deeply involved in this matter and should not have made the move. However, we are talking about Eastern European conflicts.  ChrisO is one of perhaps 4 admins (the others being FuturePerf, dab,  and Moreschi, who appears to be inactive lately) who understand and are at least occasionally editing in this sphere.  Asking the only 4 admins with knowledge and good judgment to recuse themselves from acting in this area would be turn over this whole set of articles to the POV editwarriors (on both sides).  De-sysopping or a topic ban are simply unacceptable options.  //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Um, sorry to disagree with you, but gross violation of policy and guidelines, such as a heavily involved admin doing something that policies and guidelines say only uninvolved admins should do, is a bit more than just a "technicality". John Carter (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand that to some limit, but if nobody attacks the reasons of his move then that it remains a technical issue, let me remind you of WP:IAR if the change is basically good for Wikipedia than all rules be damned. Since nobody come with serious counter-arguments I can only assume that's a good change. I see WP:IAR and WP:BOLD designed exactly for this kind of situations when people get bogged down in technical issue and fail to address the main issue -- is this is a good move or not, and if not, why? (and by "why" I mean reasons pertaining to the subject, not meta-reasons like "it was not opportune", "there was a different consensus", "he caused disruption")  man with one red shoe 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that bans apply when people go against policies. I didn't read any policy that states that moving a move-protected page and then guard it from being reverted by uninvolved admins is ok. Besides, what do you mean nobody attacked the reasons of his move? Haven't you read the talk page and specific arguments that there is no main topic? Does a single admin have the sole power of interpreting policy? I am just a small editor but I did notice that the same pieces of policy ChrisO had other parts as well, some of them specifically refraining renaming of the Republic of Macedonia article (check my comment above). Being a shadow gets me ignored all the time. I did "attack" the reasons for the move, so I guess that at least counts as one. I did see many other parties do likewise. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment in "Policy_mandates_the_use_of_the_most_common_non-ambiguous_name" is based on a misquote. Nowhere in the policy says that, somebody has introduced "non-ambiguous" word inside the quote in a fraudulent manner, even after I pointed out that that's a misquote I still see people who remained with the misconception that the policy says something that it doesn't say. man with one red shoe 02:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure I made no comment regarding the word "non-amiguous". I have read the policies and I have quoted all the relevant parts from the policies that give the spirit of it. You haven't said anything about all the rest of the things mentioned in the policies. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 11:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (response to man with one red shoe) The biggest problems I have regarding citing WP:IAR are that, basically, (1) I don't know that I've ever seen the ArbCom rule in favor of someone on that basis, although I haven't myself seen all that many cases, and (2) there is a serious question in this case whether the change was basically good for the project. Yes, he resolved a problem, but at the cost of violation of rules regarding involved admins acting in cases, and, quite possibly, in violation of existing rules regarding naming guidelines. Frankly, if this were as unambiguous as ChrisO has repeatedly tried to present it as being, I don't think anyone would have any problems with it. The problem is, of course, it isn't that unambiguous. And, yes, even some of the evidence he produces to support his argument is at best dubious quality. This is not saying that there isn't a case for the name "Macedonia" for the article on the independent country of that name. The problem is, there is a fairly good case for it not having that name as well. And a radical action like this by an involved party, possibly/probably in violation of policy, is going to be seen by quite a few people as in and of itself being damaging to the project. And, of course, what strikes many people as being the best reason to support this proposal, myself included, is the really stupendously stupid timing of the move. To move the page after an arbitration has been agreed to, but before any action is taken, and at a time he himself has more than once indicated he knew was a holiday which would be expected to make certain editors inactive, makes it, in the eyes of many, all but impossible to AGF of him but, rather, to think he was trying to "pull a fast one" on everybody. It has been noted that some of his arguments are not as strong as he indicates, and that this name is itself serious questionable according to policy and guidelines. But he went ahead and did it anyway. One thing a sysop needs is to have the trust of the community. At this point, if nothing else, I personally have no reason to trust ChrisO, because, basically, his actions have been so, well, not only contrary to policy but, yes, stupid. Such poor judgement could itself be cause to consider de-sysoping someone. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of "loss of trust by the community". The community does not consist of a few discontent Greek editors, and I have no expectation of being elected President of Greece any time soon, so I see no need to defer to a partisan POV. I'm not sure why you seem to think that you personally speak for the community - I certainly haven't seen a great rush of non-Greek editors lining up to condemn me. This isn't like the Ireland situation, where there are multiple prominent meanings of the term and very significant ambiguity exists. If you look on a map, or in an encyclopedia, or read a newspaper, or watch a television broadcast, and see or hear "Macedonia" mentioned, it is overwhelmingly likely that the term will be used to refer only to the country. This is clearly demonstrated by the documentation of usage compiled by myself and FPaS, which demonstrate that there is a clear common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. The reality is that Wikipedia's usage was clearly out of sync with common English usage but we have no process-based way of acting on that fact, because of the way that a nationalist faction of editors has insisted on having a veto over the naming of the country.


 * There is also clear evidence that the change was good for the project. Page view statistics show that the usage of Macedonia (disambiguation) - which was originally at Macedonia and was the first thing people saw when searching for that term - has dropped greatly. Usage of Macedonia - formerly at Republic of Macedonia - has stabilised at a level just above that before the move. Page views on the "other Macedonias" - Macedonia (Greece) and Macedonia (ancient kingdom) - have remained fairly constant at pre-move levels, after the initial spike of traffic resulting from the move. Page views of Macedonia (region) have dropped sharply, but that happened before my page move and resulted from changes (not by me) to the content of the dab page. It's clear that the page move has radically reduced the number of readers who need to navigate through the dab page, without affecting usage of the other pages. I think we can be quite satisfied with these results, as they show that this has optimized the name for readers over editors and for a general audience over specialists, as required by WP:NC.


 * As for the timing of the move, I refer you to my evidence. Carrying out a move before a pre-scheduled arbitration minimised the amount of disruption. The arbitration was going to happen in any case, but the move has enabled us to focus on the core issue of naming policy and has provided a real-world test of the effect of such a move. The page view statistics show that the move has worked as planned - the majority of our readers associate "Macedonia" with the country and are now going straight there instead of having to go through a disambiguation page, while those seeking the "other Macedonias" have suffered no ill effect. I might add that I have been making sure that other editors do not change links from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia (see e.g. and, so that if this move did not prove to be optimal it could be reverted with no adverse effects. I refrained from changing any of the other articles with "Republic of Macedonia" in the name for the same reason. You may complain about process, but that's not something our readers care about. If process is being (mis)used to block necessary improvements, you sometimes have to do what is necessary. "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way." -- ChrisO (talk) 02:31, 9 May 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 "[racial] 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 Wikipedia). 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 Wikipedia 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 ). -- 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * I do agree with you this problem is present in many other national pages, we need some tools to deal with people who have conflict of interests and vote and edit war in a concerted way. It's especially needed when the drama from outside of Wikipedia leaks into simple content decisions in Wikipedia. Picking a name would not be such a difficult issue if it were not for editors with national interests. man with one red shoe 13:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom cannot do this. There is no existing policy against this (and no, neither our harassment nor our outing policies covers this), and ArbCom cannot legislate new policy; only enforce existing policy. 12:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Reverting ChrisO's move of the Republic's article
4) ChrisO's move of the Republic's article should be reverted, or allowed to be reverted, before any extensions to the article renaming injunction come into effect. As per, and.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. If his action is now "checked" but not "reversed" by ArbCom, then the system will in effect have been gamed. --Radjenef (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not permitting the dubious move which factually started the arbitration as it did occur would definitely give the impression that the move is considered acceptable, and I believe there is sufficient evidence that it is not necessarily thought of as such. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Consensus-building is impossible when one party to the dispute is unwilling to participate in constructive discussions that get anywhere.  It has been clearly demonstrated here the level of wikilawyering, filibustering, and stonewalling that the proponents of the Greek national POV are willing to use in order to prevent a useful and fair consensus over the naming of Macedonia.  ChrisO's move was entirely justified and he provided the evidence for it.  Future Perfect has provided further evidence that the move has actually helped Wikipedia users in getting to the information they were seeking faster, without having to go through a disambiguation page.  The opponents of the move have provided no such evidence that users have been inconvenienced.  (Taivo (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment by others:

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:

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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.  Balkan Fever  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 Wikipedia's policies.
2. "Long held consensus" cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia'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 . -- 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:

Wikipedia doesn't need POV-driven walled gardens.
4. Wikipedia doesn't need POV-driven walled gardens. We don't need in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.  (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 Wikipedia. Shadowmorph (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't ChrisO's move that started this issue with the name of Macedonia and "the severe disruption of Wikipedia". It has been a problem for a long time with the stonewalling of supporters of the Greek POV against Wikipedia policy.  The Greek vandalism of other Macedonia-related (and other) articles was already underway before ChrisO's move.  Too much is being made of ChrisO's move.  This issue was already going to arbitration.  Yannismarou just decided to move it up a few days before it was already planned.  (Taivo (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I've worked both with the Mormons and the creationists/intelligent design people. Actually, I've worked with pretty much anybody who considers themselves a Mormon, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, Bahai, Jain, Zoroastrian, or whatever. With very few exceptions, all the religion editors are much more interested in communicating the facts, good or bad, about their faiths than are the more POV pushing nationalist editors. User:Moreschi/The Plague indicates that one of our more regular breaker of walled gardens agrees with that point. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I claim that US Dpt of State policy regarding Macedonia was (i) designed according to the objective of undermining/delaying the EU integration process (ii) driven by the grudge (of course in a very small scale) US held against Greece for their stance on the Serbia issue. This is the US POV; simple stuff. --Vanakaris (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC) claims silly, unverifiable, irrelevant to past evidence etc--Vanakaris (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For Macedonia itself we can use a simple formula


 * Country = Borders + Nationality)


 * They are striving for a Nationality. That is the Macedonian POV. Nobody has any objection to that. And all want the well being of the people there. All this mess was the result of poor design regarding the Nationality. It overlaps their neighbors’. --Vanakaris (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC) theories silly etc--Vanakaris (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be so kind as to imply what the Greek POV is about. I sincerely am not aware of any. It does not exist. At least no more than the Italian POV, the Vatican POV, the Swiss POV, the Gay POV and of course the Greek Chauvinist Junta POV.--Vanakaris (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple the Greek POV is not to call the neighbor "Macedonia" or even "Republic of Macedonia", even Greeks here admit this readily. As for other POVs, yes, there's no place in Wikipedia, read WP:NPOV to familiarize yourself with WP's principle and policy of neutral POV. man with one red shoe 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1.Anybody from around the globe could say "macedonia" and mean one of at least three different places (in spacetime :-), one of three being ancient macedonia). It happens that 2 of them places are greek. That is a fact, not POV. 2.Lets assume that macedonian greeks are POV-driven. Not all greeks are macedonians. For example I am lesbian (from Lesbos, not to be confused with between women activity). Why should you call me POV-driven then? 3.Lets assume again that macedonian greeks are POV-driven. So what? Since they whould only try to show the obvious in this case, something like: Those macedonians are macedonians. Which macedonians are macedonians? Those macedonians or the others macedonians? => macedonia should be disambiguation page.--Vanakaris (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is much more simple than what you are saying. When an English speaker hears the word "macedonia", generally they think of the distinct modern country. When they hear the word "macedonian", they most often think of someone from the aforementioned country. I do not know about other languages, but really, for the sake of this case, they do not matter, as this is the English Wikipedia. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That assertion by J.delanoy is an oversimplification. You can check my evidence Shadowmorph (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We could also check FP's evidence...  Balkan Fever  08:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And FPaS's evidence is confirmed by ChrisO's current usage evidence which shows pretty conclusively that people are going to Macedonia mainly because they want the country, not the ancient kingdom or the region. Dab page usage has dropped since people are going exactly where they want to be with simple "Macedonia".  (Taivo (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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:

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

 * 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".  Balkan Fever  03:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Have previously uninvolved 3rd party editors or admins decide in this case
Because of bias accusations/suspicions one good solution would be to have 3rd party editors or admins decide 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)
 * OK, I removed "content" and left "decide in this case". But, it's not only the article name, it's also how we refer to the Republic in Greece article. man with one red shoe 14:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support . Obviously there are many more articles like in some organizations Shadowmorph (talk) 20:31, 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:

National factionalising is harmful
1) It is harmful to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Yes. My comments at were based on similar thoughts, but I think you've captured the issue much better than I did. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Nationally motivated viewpoints
3) If an opinion about an editorial decision in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia, 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)


 * Agree. I've mentioned before that since Wikipedia's policies aren't ethnically biased, there is no policy-based reason why members of an individual ethnic or political group should all line up in unison behind a single interpretation of policy. What is happening in this case, quite obviously, is that editors are (mis)interpreting policy to produce an outcome that is consistent with a shared POV. The rule of thumb is simple enough - if policy produces an outcome that favours the shared POV, it's cited favourably; if it produces an outcome that disfavours that POV, it's opposed or ignored. In this case, as usual any discussion of the naming issue, very few of the opposing editors have made any serious attempt to discuss the naming policies and have spent their time arguing about politics and process issues instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 29 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Very strong 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)

Strong oppose My reasons have been enunciated clearly but I will repeat a few here. This proposal is counter to WP:AGF and factionalises Wikipedia. Like I said before this is not a vision for Wikipedia that I espouse. By discounting votes based on blocks you automatically create underclasses of editors who are stigmatised forever. The process itself, the evaluation after a poll by the cleanup crew which arrives at the end of the poll to assign the block vote blame on some of the participating editors is, with all due respect, laughably silly. This kind of post-mortem evaluation will have a chilling effect on editor participation in polls. People will simply just not bother to !vote, once this forensic poll evaluation for the purpose of !vote discounting practice becomes known. By discounting !votes and labeling people as belonging to blocks one engages in a massive downgrading of the status of many editors in Wikipedia. This misguided proposal, coupled with the concurrent killing of WP:AGF tries to modify the very DNA of Wikipedia. There is no substitute for individually evaluating the contributions of editors. All these block voting discount proposals try to substitute the evaluation of individual editor contributions with assembly line, mass-production quick evaluation methods based on arbitrary identifiers of people, which (identifiers) may or may not be correct. It is an unjust, expedient and sloppy attempt at evaluating editors en-masse and it runs counter to the very DNA of collaborative editing. Putting people in blocks or camps for the purpose of mass evaluation is a very bad and unnecessary idea. Once people are put in these camps their !vote will always be discounted and they will become a permanent underclass whose contributions are always going to be viewed with suspicion. And all of this just for the expediency of not willing to go through each editor's contributions in order to evaluate them individually. It is simply not worth the risk. Dr.K. logos 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to share my disgust for the above Wiki-nightmare. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 10:30, 12 May 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.  Balkan Fever  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:
 * Dangerous precedent to go sliding down. Not going to do it. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 16:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Suggesting that your fellow editors are Nazis is deeply stupid and a rather obvious form of personal attack. It's a pity that this discussion has been marred by a number of editors making false claims of racism; your comments appear to be more of the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately if you think that I suggested that my fellow editors are Nazis there is nothing I can do for you. I cannot fix your prejudice and the stupidity of your statement. Dr.K. logos 18:03, 30 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * The downside, of course, is if both are being obtuse, then they are both acting in violation. It is always easy to point out a specific instance where one's opponents are wrong. But when those same people ignore comments about their own possible errors, then it seems that in fact both sides are acting inappropriately. Degree is a factor, but isn't itself cause to ignore errors. Basically, in short, regardless of 'degree', wrong is wrong. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

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:

Real-world situation may change
1b) It is noted that the real-world political situation that has fueled the Wikipedia dispute, while having been persistent over the past 18 years, may change at any time during the next months due to ongoing diplomatic negotiations. In the case of a diplomatic solution, several of the formal naming options currently debated in Wikipedia will likely become obsolete, whereas the resulting new formal name and its effect on common English usage cannot presently be predicted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Just thought it might be worth noting this as a FoF, in case any remedy might need to refer to terms of immutability of a proposed solution and possible exceptions to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Could probably be included in any such naming disputes, given the fluid nature of so many governments. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though I'm concerned that this may be misinterpreted by some (see below). The fact that a situation may change at some undetermined time in the future does not affect the way that we treat issues now - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We cannot take (or refuse to take) editorial decisions in anticipation of an event which may or may not happen at some indeterminate point in the future. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something along the lines of, "Should there be any significant change in either the self-identifying name of the country or the name by which external entities officially recognize it, as determined by ArbCom, the naming of the country within wikipedia will be subject to change"? John Carter (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need "as determined by Arbcom" to establish the fact that such a "significant change" has happened, in the event it happens. That should be easy enough to establish consensus on. What immediate consequences that would have for our naming practices, if any, would be an entirely different matter though. It would probably require a whole new decision-making process, which might get quite complex. But if Arbcom does its job right now, I'd hope we'd by then have a more stabilised general framework in place about how and along what criteria such processes should work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only added the phrase because (1) if the article name is locked for a period of time, which, based on precedent, is possible, we would need ArbCom consent to have it change again, and (2) it establishes that one individual saying, in effect, "Andorra now describes it as FYROM, so we have to change on that basis", will not be sufficient. If the name change is obvious enough, a request to ArbCom to amend the previous ruling would be needed anyway, and the fact of such a decision being needed would tend to make requests for changes on comparatively frivolous changes unlikely. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should point out that there's a problem with your premise - a change to the formal name of the country is unlikely to change the common name already in use. This would be particularly the case if Macedonia adopts a "dual name" formula by which it's known under one term in international organisations such as the UN, and by another term in everyday situations. If that happened, the UN would start calling it the Republic of whatever, but everyone else would continue to use the common name Macedonia - but you can bet that our Greek editors would continue to demand that we ignore the common terminology. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree partially. Yes, situation might change I don't disagree with this idea, but, official use is irrelevant, right? And I doubt in couple of years the general English use can drastically change. I still think we need at least 2 years injunction on the name because otherwise the drama will repeat too often. man with one red shoe 17:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the notion. Before independence, the name of the Republic of Macedonia was "Socialist Republic of Macedonia. If two states compromise as "Northern Republic of Macedonia", then we may call them as "Northern Macedonian" or whatever. --Caspian blue 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment - Very telling. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Official use is not irrelevant. For example, if the official name of the state changes to "Republic of New Macedonia", since "New Macedonia" is a simple name, the effect will be immediate. I don't see any reason for Wikipedia to prevent such a change, although I see how interested parties could try to influence everyday usage, by taking advantage of Wikipedia's strategic internet position. And may I remind you that an encyclopedia is about education and not politics? Let's not underestimate arbitrators' intelligence. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but if an official organization, e.g., the United Nations, uses a nomenclature that is different than the common English usage, it is unlikely that the article will follow the organization's conventions merely because the organization does so. Also, if the Republic of Macedonia were to do as you suggested in your example, this dispute would not be substantially changed; it would merely become a question of "RoNM vs Macedonia" instead of "RoM vs Macedonia". J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  03:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you substantially overestimate Wikipedia's influence on the real world. I learned about the names of various countries, including those on the Balkan Peninsula, in middle school, not by reading Wikipedia. To be fair, Wikipedia did not exist at that point, but if it had, I can assure you beyond all possible doubt that I would not have read an article about the Republic of Macedonia online. (I would have been too busy killing stick figures :P ) J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  03:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that, even inadvertently, you eloquently demonstrated the exact reasons on why "binding" solutions are problematic. And may I remind everyone again that, while people are trying to shift the issue from terminology (Macedonia as an ambiguous term) to politics ("Macedonia is a country"), our true colours (not yours, generally speaking) are shown and arbitrators take notes? The Macedonia naming dispute is a subset of terminology issues. Ireland, China and Britain show that. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. How does what I said demonstrate that binding decisions are problematic? Suppose that the result of this case is that the article about the modern country is placed at Republic of Macedonia, and a (semi) permanent injunction against moving the page is placed (which I think is logical). If the country were to rename itself while the injunction was still in force, I cannot imagine that anyone would object to renaming the article, and even if they did, all that would be necessary would be a simple motion to amend this case.
 * With regard to "people trying to shift the focus of this case", the case is about a naming dispute, but it is specifically about Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia. The Arbitration Committee usually does not review more than one dispute simultaneously, even if the underlying issues are similar. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  16:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Me, you and others, only "imagine" what could happen. Evidently, there are certain parties supporting that the term "Macedonia" should point directly to this country, without a dab page (ta-dah, two birds with one stone). On the course to achieve that, policies were violated. Attempts to impose a binding "solution", are just excuses for maintaining their POV. In the spirit of BSG, they claim that all of this has happened before and it will happen again; someone will try to change the name, others will protest and hello ARBMAC3! So, "bind" this and break the cycle. Nice, isn't it? But a suggestion for a "binding solution" is not a solution: it's a POV operation, an attempt to intimidate. The only clean solution is to return to status quo ante (dab page for the term "Macedonia") and let this country use its current constitutional name. I'll be very surprised to see anything different happening; I'm sure that Chinese editors will be delighted too. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that, as has been pointed out before, China is a completely different case - two countries using and disputing the same name and claiming ownership of the same territory. With Macedonia, there's only one country using that name for itself and the territory is uncontested by anyone. Strangely enough, Britannica, the majority of other encyclopedias and the overwhelming majority of maps, atlases and news outlets use plain "Macedonia" without any problems. Here's how Britannica's article starts, for instance:
 * Macedonia, [Macedonian Makedonija, officially Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Republika Makedonija] country of the southern Balkans. It is bordered to the north by Kosovo and Serbia, to the east by Bulgaria, to the south by Greece, and to the west by Albania. The capital is Skopje.
 * The republic is located on the part of the southern Balkan Peninsula traditionally known as Macedonia ... Since 1913 this geographic and historical region has been divided among several countries, and only about two-fifths of its area is occupied by the independent state that calls itself Macedonia. In this article, the name Macedonia refers to the present-day state when discussing geography and history since 1913 and to the larger region as described above when used in earlier historical contexts.
 * Straightforward enough, isn't it? Of course, the reason why everyone but us was using plain "Macedonia" is because those other encyclopedias, maps, atlases etc. don't have Greek editors seeking to impose a veto on the terminology for political reasons. That's the problem at the core of this arbitration. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mention vetoing, let's not turn this into a political discussion. It's about policy and no, Wikipedia policy is not so straightforward. The problem with Wikipedia is that there can be only one article for a single title. Britannica has no such problem and has four different "Macedonia" articles with the same title. Here they are, from Britannica, all having the same title (a subtitle is included in all of them): The region:Macedonia, the region in Greece:Macedonia, the ancient kingdom:Macedonia and the country under the same title:Macedonia. Furthermore, Britannica student's edition lists three (no subtitles whatsoever): "Macedonia" and "Macedonia" and again "Macedonia". I also want to ask you something, if applying Britannica-style policy was your concern, why have you never as an admin moved the Macedon article to Macedonia? Britannica uses Macedonia for the ancient kingdom. Shadowmorph (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, only if you think so (cue Pirandello).


 * With Macedonia, there's only one country using that name for itself and the territory is uncontested by anyone.


 * Here you are (originally posted here): "Skopje, February 2008 - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's Prime Minister, Nikola Gruevski, lays a wreath on the monument of national hero Georgi Delchev, to which a map of the so-called "Greater Macedonia" is attached; the map includes a considerable part of Northern Greece, including Greece's second-largest city Thessaloniki, and the Halkidiki peninsula. This is no less than 30% of the territory of Greece - a 55-year-old NATO member. Can this be the behavior of a friend and perspective ally?" - This is taken from a full page ad in major newspapers (“Washington Post”, “The New York Times”, “Le Monde” etc). There are also some really interesting school books for you.


 * Britannica


 * While I will remind you WP:NOTPAPER, just a preview: soon, everyone will be surprised about the " reliability" of a glorified major encyclopedia.


 * the overwhelming majority of maps, atlases


 * Which are less-scrutinized commercial sources and you conveniently chose not to mention.


 * Greek editors seeking to impose a veto on the terminology for political reasons


 * a) How do you know who is Greek or not? I could be a Filipino housewife, a Tibetan monk or a British agent. There is no ID policy.
 * b) How do you know about other people's intentions'? Forecasting is not part of any policy.


 * That's the problem at the core of this arbitration


 * The core problem lies in your actions against policies, in order to impose your POV. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

<-- Wikipedia policy is very straightforward in this case. Whatever name is used most commonly in English to describe something will be the name of the article. As far as what that is, I will not argue with you, because it is abundantly clear that nothing I could possibly say would change your opinion in the slightest. I will say though, that if you actually read WP:NOTPAPER, you would find that it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what you are trying to use it for. Thus, I can only conclude that you are trying to find a clever way to sidestep a particularly compelling argument against your position. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually did read it and I found this bit interesting: "Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias." - Wikipedia doesn't have any constraints; a clickable disambiguation page for a term is impossible for paper versions. As for what constitutes a common name, if crystal balls should prevent editing, how administrators should act if consensus is not reached and what many of us are trying to achieve, the details are already here. This is not a simple problem. Read my response to ChrisO's "uncontested territory" argument and you'll understand why. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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 (previously "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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia by supporters of the "FYROM" terminology vindicates the nationalistic nature of this issue.  (Taivo (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment by others:

Status quo (details)
3a) This is a summary table of which aspects of naming practices relating to the country the parties describe as contested and which as consensual (2 versions, by Fut.Perf. and Avg)


 * Comments by Arbitrators


 * Comments by parties
 * Provided here on request by Rlevse, see discussion at Horologium's section below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: My own proposed summary is just the second column; I've added Avg's competing summary as a third column for ease of comparison. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary, thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Excellent summary. Very clearly shows where the content component to this arbitration lies--whether directly or through clear arbitration guidance. (Taivo (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
 * This is a)Ingoring the status-quo of 7 years and presenting that something is contested when a dispute only arose after ChrisO move and Fut.Perf.'s MOSMAC2 and b)Presenting only the areas where Fut.Perf. is contesting the status quo. Please see my section at Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Workshop for the status quo ante and what are the contested areas. I've kept Fut.'s format for convenience.--Avg (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by others
 * There may be some disagreement over what constitutes a "Greece-related article." Jd2718 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles I chose for my examples on the evidence page are (with one exception) incontrovertibly non-Greek: a Colombian telenovela; a German city; an American TV show; the state motto of New Hampshire; an American musician; a beverage enjoyed worldwide (which originated in Greece, but was invented by an employee of Nestlé, a Swiss-based multinational company); a list of the world's countries ranked by their energy consumption; and a list of companies, with references to the countries in which they are headquartered. Note also that the use of Macedonia in the last two in particular cannot possibly confused with anything other than the nation. These were all articles in which either "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" was replaced by "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym).  Horologium  (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was clear, thank you. I am in fact more concerned with "Greece-related" being drawn too widely, not too narrowly. Jd2718 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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 16 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 Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. -- 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)
 * Oppose understatement of facts. The proposal seems to me as the definition of an understatement. Various other things have followed by direct outcome of his move, some of them were mentioned by ChrisO himself. Opinions about it aside, all the facts should be mentioned. What followed directly was mistrust among editors, undermining possible future consensus, assumptions of bad faith, escalation to outside media, destruction of stability, furtherance of an existing outside political dispute inside Wikipedia (and more). Importantly, it should not be left out the apparent interpretation of his move by outsiders (on both sides of the dispute) as an endorsement of the name by Wikipedia. Some outsiders claimed it was the affirmation of the validity of their position while others saw it as an editorial choice (like a newspaper would do), when Wikipedia should have a neutral "editorial voice". When someone opens a Pandora's Box it should be stated as such. Comment on the wording. The wording is POV by default, ChrisO himself was invited to make it even more accustomed to his POV. The sentence "reactions... were mostly critical of the process, but partly supportive of the result" hardly covers the reactions from editors siding with the pro-Greece position (it just ignores them). Reactions about the process were mixed and the result of the move was strongly opposed by some editors while strongly supported by others with previously uninvolved editors included in both sides. That would be truthful Shadowmorph (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Political influence of Greek editors
6) Since the beginnings of Wikipedia, 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)
 * In your case nobody needed to examine anything, you discredited yourself by using non-English and POVish (potential offensive) names like "Fyromian". man with one red shoe 14:34, 29 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 Wikipedia, 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 on "race": As has been very clearly spelled out on several occasions here, this is not a "race" issue.  "Greek" is not a race.  Using the word "race" is an unwarranted infusion of a buzzword into the discussion and the mention of Rosa Parks is equally unwarranted and simply intended to inflame the passions.  The issue is not about ethnicity, but about nationality--one bloc of users who self-identify with the country of Greece in one way or another who follow the foreign policy of Greece to the exclusion of following the policies of Wikipedia.  That's not race.  (Taivo (talk) 12:51, 1 May 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.  Balkan Fever  10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, I take it that the race card is played univocally upon editors not in agreement with Chris' or FP's POV, but when they admit at least in two circumstances that they knew about each other's actions beforehand and off-wiki about the case, the community shouldn't include them in another "faction"'s POV? That's odd. I thought that after Rosa Parks, we're done with these things. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some editors should assume poetic license for the "race" pattern (at least in my writings, where I respond to others that wrote about it). Though they're right; the race card (don't assume poetic license this time) is important, especially when it's state-funded. Let's hear God himself: "Your mother earth I have inhabited with three races: the White-Macedonoids, the Yellow-Mongoloids and the Black-Negroids. The rest-all are mulattoes." This is how state media brainwash people in some countries (note: I don't agree with the title of the video). Now, let's think again about "political influence", nationalities and biased editorship... SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop the accusations of racism. Poetic license or not, race has no place here. As I am sure everyone saw, my and the Arbitrators' patience is wearing thin over all the infighting in this case. Please present your case, and then go and enjoy the rest of Wikipedia. Your case will not be won or lost arguing with other editors. KnightLago (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and my goal was to demonstrate the absurdity of accusations on "race" and "factions", as started by others. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The accusations of "race" are patently ridiculous. To deny that there is a definite faction is to willfully blind yourself to the facts. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only facts I see here, are these: a) some people support this, others support that and b) prime ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia, don't bow to maps of "Greater Macedonia". If Greek editors are more concerned about what's going on in the neighbourhood, it's natural. Similarly, US editors are naturally interested in Obama articles; but if Mexican politicians bowed to maps of "Greater Mexico", I can safely predict a shifting pattern. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 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)


 * Oppose. This is precisely what I am trying to address with my proposal below. This cannot be done piecemeal and only against the Greek editors. Editing in a collective manner based on ethnicity (or potentially other group identifiers) and collective stonewalling are brand new concepts by Wikipedian policy standards, they fundamentally change the way editors are viewed within Wikipedia and they affect the very DNA of collaborative editing and some of its core principles such as wp:agf. These novel concepts could equally well apply to any ethnicity and can potentially be extended to cover many other collective opinion blocks based on other criteria. Therefore this FoF should be proposed as a project-wide policy and then be adopted or rejected on its merits. Personally I would be neither for nor against this proposal, if it were properly presented in a policy forum. I would weigh the evidence, the pros and cons, its potential impact on the current editing model of Wikipedia, as well as the opinions of my fellow editors before I made up my mind. Dr.K. logos 19:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Support with serious reservations about the phrasing. There does seem to be merit to the idea that there have been a fair sized group of intermittent editors, who often self-identify as Greek "sympathizers", who have effectively unbalanced the scales between the regular editors in this discussion. This is not to say that there may not be editors on the "other side" at least as irrational or unyielding, however. Nor do I think that the regular Greek editors who have in effect been given support by these irregularly involved editors be in any way criticized for, effectively, being given the present of the input of the others. And I'm not really sure I can criticize the occasionally involved editors, either, because such input is more or less standard in wikipedia. But I can agree to a minimum of factual accuracy in the statement, even if I believe the statement as it exists to be itself less than completely fair. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 6 May 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)
 * Agree, I think. I am not sure what is intended by the word "coherent". If you mean there is a definite, easily identifiable group of editors with one (or a very few) characteristics in common, I agree wholeheartedly. If you mean that you think that there is a coordinated effort by a very large group of editors to disrupt the topic, I am not sure I agree with that. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  03:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What about Macedonian editors? This user's page is nothing but nationalism-driven-propaganda + racial insults. In reality, the dispute is happening between Macedonians and Greeks, not between Greeks and the world.--Caspian blue 16:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some Macedonian editors have a lot to answer for in terms of ethnic POV-pushing, that's for certain, but for some reason or other they have been conspicuously absent from the fighting over these naming practices. If you look at the old debates, the polls, or the various de- or re-fyromization edit wars, you will not find many ethnic Macedonian editors play any particularly prominent role in them. They are more occupied with other POV matters, such as minority issues or their perpetual ideological conflicts with the Bulgarians. Here in Wikipedia, Macedonian-Bulgarian conflicts are actually much hotter than Macedonian-Greek ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree With the caveat that I don't believe Greek users are the only ethnic group of editors acting as a bloc to push national POVs, this is an issue that ARBCOM should consider. The issue is too large for standard policies like WP:MEAT to handle.  //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 17:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruption from Avg
8) 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)
 * Oppose vehemently. Avg has produced valuable evidence, even if some of it is damaging to Future Perfect. Both this proposal and Avg's similar proposal regarding Fut Perf give some of us the impression of vindictiveness, although this one seems to have less rational foundation than Avg's. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the labeling of single-purpose account and the proposal is damn harsh. He naturally gets mad at the whole situation that ChrisO's unilateral conduct and Husnod's ethnic profiling caused. In the "special situation", AGF could simply not be a weapon and shield. I don't think he has harassed anyone, but wikilaywered a bit only to remind of policy what involved editor violate.--Caspian blue 12:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My only threat of edit warring was 1.5 years ago and did not materialize. Of course it was not the best of behaviors, even if there was a reason for my outburst. But I have grown to restrain myself, even when provoked. The fact that you dug back to 2006 to find diffs shows how difficult it is to find anything recent against me. On the other hand, you made threats to edit-war last month (and three times), and more importantly you actually did fulfill your promise and in a huge scale. Also I would appreciate if you stopped accusing me of being an SPA. I do not edit exclusively in Macedonia articles, in fact I edit very infrequently if ever in Macedonia article space, just see my article contribs, because I prefer to discuss any change first. So you will of course find me discussing changes in the talk pages, but almost never actually changing the articles (the exception being that I did revert some of your changes against consensus, although of course you immediately started revert-warring and I did not continue). I don't know why you like so much to single me out, but after having received countless threats and continuous harassment from you, it is not "bad faith" to consider that you probably do not have the best of intentions against me. Especially when your proposed draconian remedies came just after I posted some compelling evidence against you. --Avg (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I see no basis for the proposal to be accepted. I think that this proposal might have widened the definition of WP:SPA and pushed it an extra mile. Failure to also propose other editors from the other end of the POV axis as such (not that I would agree) by the same broad definition, only confirms the alignment of Future Perfect to a certain POV and that this proposal could be a personal vendetta. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 23:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Disruption from Kekrops
9) (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), 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 Wikipedia. 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:
 * 6) 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.
 * 7)  second revert against Fut.Perf. who makes the same error.
 * 8) 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?
 * 9) 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.
 * 10) Second (only) revert for the same reason. Again, note the explanatory (or non-explanatory) edit summaries.
 * 11) 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...)
 * 12) 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.
 * 13) 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.
 * 14) "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...
 * 15) "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)


 * Comment - I acknowledge that Niko has at times been difficult to work with, which, basically, puts him in the same league with bloody near everybody else in this case. I too acknowledge that he has in conversation with me, I believe more than once, actively criticized the Greek government's position on the naming. His most recently expressed opinion, that the name FYROM or some variant thereupon be used in the Greece article because that is the way the Greek government refers to the nation, even has a logic of a sort, even if it isn't good logic. I think the proposal might go a bit far, and maybe benefit from being altered to AGF, because I get the impression personally Niko seeks to abide by policy and guidelines, just has a clearly different opinion of what they do and don't say. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.  We want well-informed and productive Greek input in the topics of Wikipedia where they truly have the expertise, but in issues relating to Macedonia, the majority of Greek voices are not productive Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * There are some principle about conflict of interest (nevermind that WP:COI definition doesn't fit this case perfectly, there are plenty of "avoid conflict of interest" mentions). I don't agree that we should ignore anybody, what we need is to bring some uninvolved editors into this process who is watched too closely by people with interest. man with one red shoe 12:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Everybody should pay specific attention to the last sentence of Shadowmorph's comment. Seriously, analyse it well and you will understand precisely why we are here.  Balkan Fever 

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)
 * Unsure; although the idea has its merits, it is very much possible for the same thing to occur over again. Taivo's comment, although seemingly of good faith, is a very well worded paradox. It subliminaly invites ethnic profiling back into the arena. By the exclusion of the "sinlge-topic accounts" any claims to ethnic profiling will become legitimate reasons for the cancellation of the poll. Either everyone or no one votes. The administrators can delibirate amongst themselves in reagrds as to the merits of each person's votes.
 * My main concern is that should a repeat of "April's Antics" occur then that will just turn into another fruitless excersize. PMK1 (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've proposed an alternative at which addresses three areas that I think this proposal fails to address - the lack of a definitive timeframe, the practicality of a reversion back to the old name, and the basis from which a further discussion would start. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Even if the following process detailed above is not carried out, the move which was the factual beginning of this arbitration case should be reverted. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Avg banned
3) As an aggressive single-purpose advocacy account who has disrupted Wikipedia discussion – including the proceedings of this case – with a persistent vitriolic battleground attitude, is banned from Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia as a battleground. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with John Carter. "Vitriolic" is not good language. Someone could say the same about Future Perfect's attitude. I searched the policy 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Support a topic ban. Although he has generally remained within the rules of Wikipedia his actions of late have not contributed to the project and has generally been focused on one thing (his ethno-national POV). He definately has had a battleground attitude. PMK1 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The strongest possible opposition. Avg is a revelation in this ARBCOM case! He is teaching proper procedures and evidence presentations to all of us; he has shed light with his interventions, fof, and evidence to various aspects of this case, and some of his fofs have been endorsed by users not fully in accord with him. His presence here has been one of the most constructive ones. His presence is the best proof against the argument that he "has disrupted Wikipedia discussion – including the proceedings of this case".--Yannismarou (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is of course your own personal opinion. PMK1 (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As per Yannis and John Carter. Dr.K. logos 20:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support, although a topic ban would be sufficient (indeed, one of the problems with Avg's editing is that the two would be virtually equivalent). I am shocked and offended that an admin should praise him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also praised you Sept! Am I going to be sentenced twice in death therefore?!--Yannismarou (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kekrops topic-banned
4) For disruptive advocacy editing, persistent wikilawyering and edit-warring with respect to various Macedonia-related disputes, 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)
 * Opposed. You are mislabelling a number of things here. Kekrops' "disruptive advocacy editing" [sic] is simply disagreeing to your POV. "Persistent wikilawyering" is citing policy and arguing that it should be followed. "Edit-warring" is never really substantiated but actually refers to following WP:MOSMAC guidelines. By the way, the evidence section explains what happened with WP:MOSMAC and why it didn't die but was killed. I am assuming that these accusations towards  are coming in good faith, so I would really be interested in seeing you explain why they are as you say. --Radjenef (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering argument is mere nonsense. Now, disruptive editing is not completely inaccurate, but this is also the case for the proposer, both in the near past and during this case as well (especially in his intercourse relations with Avg, and other users he dislikes). I'd thus accept the proposed topic-ban, if the proposer proposes a similar one for himself as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Intercourse!?  Balkan Fever  10:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well ... It's time to reveal the real nature of the Fut.-Avg relations ... Haven't you heard that hate often hides a passionate love?! Seriously now, I had the impression (and I still have it!) that intercourse could be used in the above context!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, I cannot possibly state how much I wish I could unread that... Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "relations" connotes something similar to "intercourse", though "relations" is milder. Perhaps "dealings" or "interactions" is the best option here... --Akhilleus (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia 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)
 * Standard.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Actions inside Wikipedia resonate outside Wikipedia
2) Editors should understand that Wikipedia is one of the top-10 sites on the internet and Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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'".  Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors than the result of the actions. The really important part of the problem is the backward: Wikipedia is the 10th site on the internet and that resonates inside Wikipedia. In that sense Wikipedia readers are not just "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. We don't suit Wikipedia to external point of views. man with one red shoe 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose on principle. "Avoiding controversial actions" may well be a legitimate topic here in the light of WP:CONSENSUS, but avoiding controversial actions in order not to stir up external passions is a very bad idea. We don't take note of external political passions, period, whether what we're doing is internally controversial or not. The passions in this case would have arisen in any event of a page move like this, even if the process had been completely regular and consensual within Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to J.delanoy: I don't think this is a similar case, because we do have a "right" answer in the evolution topics. This is hard science, it is not controversial. On the other hand, we do not have a "right" answer in many softer topics and a choice of a controversial answer over another, especially when it is not based on established policy, is bound to stir passions externally. So to sum up, do a controversial change only when you know you have policy and consensus behind you, otherwise, you're simply too irresponsible.--Avg (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. A ridiculous principle on the face of it. We're in the business of creating an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, not appeasing outside interest groups. There are lots of things that we do that are controversial: just focusing on nationalist conflicts, we annoy Arabs by referring to the Persian Gulf, Koreans by referring to the Sea of Japan and both Japanese and Koreans by not using their favoured terms for the Liancourt Rocks. Those considerations are irrelevant for our purposes. To quote WP:MOSMAC2: "The opinions of any external entity that disputes the appropriateness of a name do not enter the equation at all, except to the extent that these preferences are demonstrably reflected in common English usage. Thus, the cornerstone of the Wikipedia way of dealing with political naming conflicts is very simple: ignore them." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 8 May 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)
 * I think I understand where you are trying to go with this, but as it is currently written, I see this proposal setting a precedent which has the potential to cause drastically far-reaching and incredibly dangerous effects. If Wikipedia's editors have to take into account what people in general personally think about an issue, independent of sources, there is absolutely no way that anyone could possibly make a high-quality article. For example, what about articles relating to natural science and biology? Far more than 99% of the scientific community considers the theory of evolution the best explanation for the origin of life and the universe in general. If a similar case to this were brought up regarding the acceptance of the theories of evolution in Wikipedia articles about those topics, are you proposing that those articles be completely rewritten, to avoid offending those who do not believe in evolution? J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  04:03, 3 May 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)
 * So all have a COI with all articles relevant to their ethnicity. All have a COI with all articles relevant to their race. All have a COI with all articles relevant to their religion. Where does this lead us?--Avg (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I think so, I wouldn't want people who have such a COI to edit an article pertaining to that "interest", I explained before, for example, I wouldn't be comfortable with articles about Catholic Church edited mostly by catholics, where all the "consensus" on that page would reflect their POV. If you ask me about solution see my proposal that this issue is resolved by uninvolved editors/admins. This is a general thing about Wikipedia, I don't want group of interests to dictate content according to their POV. I don't judge your individual opinion based on your allegiance, but when I see 99% of Greeks supporting one side and 99% of the internationals supporting the other side I have the right to be suspicious and ask for uninvolved editors to decide the content in this case. man with one red shoe 22:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suggest you go to the United States article and propose that only people outside the country edit the article from now on because it is biased. --Avg (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would do exactly that in case of a POV issue where 99% of the Americans would support something and 99% of the rest of the people something else. That's why I say that this case is more than a content decision case it's a case about what to do in case there are entrenched POV pushers who have a clear interest at heart when they edit Wikipedia. man with one red shoe 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't watch that page, and "other crap exists" is not a valid argument over here. man with one red shoe 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me where you got your 99% figure? I'm curious. It is more like 60% were with the entrenched POV pushers in this one.--Avg (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I use that number as an example here, but I also haven't heard of any Greek opposing the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or supporting "Republic of Macedonia" in the Talk:Greece/Naming_poll which would make it 100% POV alignment... let's not squabble over numbers, the POV alignment is pretty obvious. man with one red shoe 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well no, the issue here is that it is far more important to show that "everyone else" have one POV than that "all Greeks" have the exact opposite POV. Because if the first doesn't happen (and it doesn't), then the second becomes moot. --Avg (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, let's not bullshit around, show me a Greek who voted for "Republic of Macedonia" in man with one red shoe 01:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The same dynamic is visible in this arbitration. The people who are yelling the loudest here are almost all strident partisans of the Greek POV. As before, we have almost entirely Greek editors on one side, and almost entirely international editors on the other. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a very good effort to spin things I'd say. Is now the request to return the ROM article to where it belongs an expression of the "Greek POV"? Is the majority of non-Greek editors that have strongly opposed your move now included in the "Greek POV" faction? And who is "yelling" again? Should I really count the amount of posts coming from your side of the dispute? If I make a post/person count, I'm 100% sure the top people will be from your side.--Avg (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue of nationality (it is not "ethnicity" as claimed) would hardly have mattered had not the opponents of "Republic of Macedonia" at Greece not engaged in canvassing and supporting the creation of new, single-topic accounts just to stuff the ballot box. This is the fundamental problem--the stonewalling of a single national or parochial faction to prevent the improvement of the project. There isn't any surprise whatsoever that a small number of non-Greeks supported the Greek side--people have their opinions. But when nearly every non-Greek is on one side of the issue and every self-identified Greek is on the other side along with new, single-purpose accounts that are nearly all clearly self-identified as Greek, it is a problem. How did these new accounts know about the poll and this arbitration and just happened to get here all at the same time and just happened to all be Greek or Greek supporters? It certainly has the appearance of wrongdoing. So the discussion of a single block of accounts, self-identified with a country, and following lock-step its foreign policy in a clear context where it matters is not a personal attack. And no one has said that their views should be dismissed. But the weight of a nationalistic view that is backed by new, single-purpose accounts must not be measured disproportionately to the weight of the other side of an issue which is not so artificially expanded. (Taivo (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC))


 * To man with one red shoe:Please stop about POV and interest pushing. It is just the english alphabet failing to differentiate between two differnt words, Македонија (Cyrillic alphabet) and Μακεδονία (greek alphabet). In english language Македонија is translated Macedonia and Μακεδονία is translated Macedonia (the same). Македонија is a totaly different thing than Μακεδονία. Which one is older and primary and bla bla bla ... gets complex ok. Greeks have to realise (humble opinion) that it is a real world problem, a simple real world problem (english alphabet failing to differentiate Македонија and Μακεδονία).--Vanakaris (talk) 01:18, 9 May 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 Wikipedia articles is detrimental to the community spirit of Wikipedia and is strongly discouraged. Discussion and decisions about Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * The encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" should, if it respects its principles, stress that all editors have the same rights and equal chances of contributing to an article. A closed circle formed off-wiki should not be left to impose their own version of an article by collaborating in the dark. --Avg (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * A "conspiracy theory" is what the name suggests: a theory. When people admit that they know about each other's actions beforehand and off-wiki (as happened here), this is not a theory and presentation of relevant evidence is instrumental to resolve the case. I don't see anything wrong if certain parties are reminded not to engage in that activities, although I see something wrong with using derogatory terms to repeat disproved accusations, in order to "diqualify" your "opponents" (as some see it). SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. This is a decision that we should not use the Wikipedia e-mail provided at each editor's user page, which would involve ArbCom in setting novel and undiscussed policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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 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)
 * Oppose finding. If this refers to MKD, changed on 12 February, that edit was preceded by substantial discussion over several days on WT:MOSMAC, as a result of which got himself blocked for edit-warring over the WP:MOSMAC page, and Avg discredited himself by repeatedly stating that he was going to edit-war forever (WT:MOSMAC). It also turned out that the change proposed by ChrisO reflected what was already common consensus practice in most other similar templates . The text change to the guideline draft that was meant to document this proposed practice did in the end remain in the text. Under these conditions, it was legitimate for ChrisO to assume that a valid consensus for his change had in fact been reached, with only the usual filibustering from the isolated faction of "usual suspects" standing against it. I also note that the protection on the template was not an anti-dispute protection and in no way related to the issue at hand, but a mere technical, routine anti-vandalism protection (as we have for most high-use templates these days). It is of course true that no admin should make contentious changes to a page that has been protected because of that dispute, but making edits unrelated to the causes of protection is a much less clearly regulated issue. I personally wouldn't feel barred from making such edits either, under comparable circumstances. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 29 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)
 * Oppose: Talk:Republic of Macedonia/name was a legitimate SNOW closure of a clearly disruptive POINT procedure that had no chance of succeeding. Such actions are not restricted to admins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Legitimate" snow closure, before even some input was allowed to flow after the official opening of the remove proposal?! Definitely illegitimate! It was legitimately speedy closed but illegitimately snowed.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:23, 6 May 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)
 * Oppose. No relevant evidence. ARBMAC was never meant to exclude us from taking action in the whole of the Balkans topic area. You'd need to show he handed out sanctions over disputes he was immediately involved in. – Having checked the ARBMAC logs, it is clear almost all of ChrisO's sanctions were concerned with Kosovo-related disputes, and the few that were related to Macedonia seem to have been cases of straightforward, obvious POV vandalism such as, , or cases of massive sockpuppetry / block evasion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fut.Perf., I'd suggest you revisited WP:ARBMAC and especially Area of conflict, where it is stated that: "The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted". Kosovo is explicitly mentioned as within the area of conflict. Referring to your comment about ChrisO not being immediately involved in Kosovo dispute, my answer is simplythis,this and this. --Avg (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I was reluctant to support until this.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:06, 10 May 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 to man with red: Still the "disclosed to selected parties" part is very important. Premeditation is a factor since the first move of the dab page Macedonia to add "_(disambiguation)" was not just a standard addition. We all knew that it was a prerequisite but we didn't address to any uninvolved admin to immediately move it back per WP:MOSDAB because we really didn't believe that ChrisO would go as far to the second step. In essence, I foolishly believed him. When someone acts with a plan and it includes lying so that the planned moves cannot be interrupted, that is problematic behavior. Especially when it is done to cause large scale disruption. See my evidence section Shadowmorph (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is so wrong to communicate? Homo sapiens is known for that too. As for foolishly believing, that's also known to be a problem that humans deal with. So, you are actually accusing him of lying? Very well, do so, but don't accuse him of thinking or of discussing issues, those in my opinion are not valid accusations. man with one red shoe 14:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can confirm MwoRS's conjecture that ChrisO is a member of the homo sapiens sapiens species, insofar as he has the gift of speech and premeditating thought, even though his action in this case might indicate he's not among the top 2% sapiens ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe that it is a fact that ChrisO lied, I showed evidence of it. Others have shown evidence in the likes of non transparent communication (kind of conspiring) for a planned disruption. Not just plain "communication" Shadowmorph (talk) 20:41, 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 Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence--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)


 * Not sure – certainly there was something "long-standing" there, but what that longstanding something was is a whole nuther matter. As Heimstern would say: "it was something. It wasn't a policy, and we're reasonably sure it wasn't a llama, but beyond that nobody is quite sure." "Consensus"? "Stalemate"? "Resignation"? "Not-worth-the-trouble-even-thinking-about-changing-it"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To give credit where it's due, that line's actually from A Man In Black. I just stole it for my userpage because I thought it was hilarious. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:06, 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 Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence--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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Irrelevant, as MwoRS rightly says. Does anybody think Arbcom is going to judge people's changes of opinion now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously they have every right to change their opinion. But it wouldn't hurt to admit that the reason the disputes arose was them changing their mind and violating consensus and not some "nationalists" POV pushing. That would finally put things in their real perspective.--Avg (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Incosistency is not a good feature for an admin. Adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL and they [are human too]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs)
 * I don't see he changed his mind about what was the best editorial solution anyway. He probably just changed his mind about how many concessions to the Greek opinion block he was prepared to tolerate out of practical considerations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose this point could, conceivably, be useful, depending on how the ArbCom decides. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting though. It is clear that he did change his mind about a topic where he seems to have held one opinion for some time, and then, a month or two later, did something else which seems to run clearly contrary to his earlier statements could be seen as being a sign of inconsistency. Even if it is something they include, I would expect it to be a very small point, and personally don't even think it's that likely to be included anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 30 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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)
 * Note: beside Greece-related articles, there is also disagreement about the extent and the concrete handling of the exceptions for international organisations, the question of how much "Republic of" is needed in contexts where disambiguation is not a practical need, the question of adjectival usage, and so on so forth. For all of these topics there has been no reasonable hope of agreement with the Greek POV faction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 29 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 now, 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...")
 * ,, (formerly Tsourkpk), , , , ,  (Constantine),  (formerly DefendEurope), , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  (xvvx), , , , ,
 * = 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...")
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (Septentrionalis),  , , ,
 * = 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)
 * Let me then concentrate on the "alleged" ethnicity part. You seem to have cut the snippet in half, it then states "speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense". So speculating on the real life nationality of another editor is...? We've seen speculations like "this name means Greek in Japanese, hence he is Greek", or "he writes his name with Greek letters, hence he is Greek".--Avg (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand that quote. It means we cannot speculate that you are a person called "John Doe" in real life. It's funny that you consider nationality = identity (maybe that's an insight of what's going on in your head) As for nationality or allegiance there's not much speculation, ChrisO clearly listed why he assigned the nationality, most of the editors listed there are self-admitted Greeks, speak Greek, one of editor accounts is basically "I am Greek" in another language... and again the reasons are detailed for everybody to see, nothing hidden, nothing illegal, twisting "identity" into "nationality" won't help your case either. man with one red shoe 19:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It happened, and unfortunately it was badly done. Apparently I am Greek according to the profiling - can someone help change my genetics to match Taivo's experimental outcomes and profiling? Reaper7 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This was developed by several editors. To claim that it was sabotage is hyperbole.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "This" is MOSMAC2, I understand some worked on it more than others, but it and MOSMAC (1) had several people involved. ChrisO and FP both worked on both drafts so claiming this is claiming sabotage is nonsensical. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 11:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. See also Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * To Rlevse above: Not quite sure what your "this" refers to; just for clarification: the MOSMAC2 draft as it was originally posted was essentially mine, with minor modifications only by Chris. Two or three others saw an early draft but didn't give further input to it. As for "sabotaging" MOSMAC1, it had of course lost every chance of becoming a valid and authoritative guideline many months ago, and I personally regard it as unsalvagable in its present state. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget that I created MOSMAC in collaboration with other editors, so it's nonsensical to suggest that I sabotaged my own work. The fact is that it simply proved unworkable, largely because of the continued objections of hardline nationalists. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Perhaps you care to remind editors what you said when you created MOSMAC about FYROM? You then changed your mind, the flow did not go with you and you decided to sabotage the collaborative effort. It is a bit surreal to attack other editors as "hardline nationalists" when it was you who was distancing himself from the consensus version. --Avg (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is substantially incorrect. At the point of [|this MOSMAC talkpage discussion], 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.  Balkan Fever  11:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise has severely disrupted Wikipedia
12) 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 Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Evidence.--Avg (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is very unpleasant to me, but Fut's attitude is very problematic IMO for the following reasons: 1) The timing of the FAR (just a few months after the closing of the previous FAR which did not even reach FARC) just 1-2 days after I filed this case, combined with the FoF against Nikos (one of the main contributors and co-nominator of the article in question), make me wonder whether the reasons for nominating the article are spurious or not, 2) this diff alone  is totally inacceptable for an experienced user like Fut. And one thing is for sure: it definitely does not aim at improving the article! Overloading a paragraph with facts templates is an untterly disgusting practice by an experienced editor.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah, the ugly fact tag, last resort in the face of the most stubborn of edit-warriors. Fortunately, I found an alternative solution to the misguided citations soon after, didn't I . As for my motivation: An Arb recommended people should go read the article to prepare for this case, apparently under the assumption that it was featured, so it must be good. I went and was shocked to find it was not good; it had suffered decay. Now it's readable again . So, why don't you thank me? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I will not thank you for what I regard as a bad faith nomination! No way! I may be wrong and I am ready to accept criticisms by man and others about AGF, but this is what I believe, and I now believe it firmly!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:13, 30 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 Admin. 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)

Status quo (details, 2)
13) This is a summary table of which aspects of naming practices relating to the country are contested: Note: I've removed the table as Fut.Perf. merged it to his section--Avg (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by Arbitrators


 * Comments by parties
 * Provided here as a reply to Fut,Perf.'s representation of facts, see discussion at Horologium's section below. --Avg (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we're now seeing that we don't even agree on where we disagree, I think that these two tables, separate from each other, will be rather more confusing than enlightening to the arbs. Perhaps we should fold them into one, to make it more easily comparable. Feel free to tweak my section above, by introducing your version as a third column side by side with mine, if you like (perhaps titled "Fut.Perf.'s version", "Avg's version"). I'd do it myself, but haven't got the time right now. The arbs will have to cut and paste whatever parts they find useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I'm a bit hesitant about doing this myself since I may mess it a bit and stretch the page, so if any third party would like to do this they have my permission too.--Avg (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done now, see above. I've also taken the freedom to disambiguate the section heading here, to make navigation easier. (You know, one can never have too much disambiguation, right?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. I've removed the table from here since it is now a duplicate.--Avg (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by others

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)
 * Why should the "involved" parties be punished for being "involved"? PMK1 (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As has been seen on the evidence page, there is no shortage of previously uninvolved new editor warriors from showing up and creating havoc on these pages.  This proposal merely prevents the editors with the most experience on these pages from keeping them at bay.  (Taivo (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Oppose. What we need is a 0RR, meaning that we get to a decision somehow and none of the editors should edit the result of the decision for 2 years or so. man with one red shoe 13:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 0RR wouldn't help either, because then anyone could add pure b.s. to an article and have it stay there, for fear of violating 0RR. Something to the effect of "All editors are encouraged to discuss any reversions, not including blatant vandalism, on the article's talk page first" might work better, although even there I would prefer some language stronger than "encouraged". John Carter (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. John is right on this issue at least. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1RR works OK when there's just one or two people constantly revert warring in that it can force that/those user(s) to cut it out and allow for cooler heads to prevail, whether via discussion or via blocks sanctioning the behaviour. In such a broad dispute as this one, no, not a good idea, largely for reasons already covered by others. Also, why would this apply to all parties, when some parties here (myself included) have never reverted as part of this dispute? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Counterproposal: All editors are instructed (or recommended) to discuss any reversions, not including blatant vandalism, on the article's talk page first per John Carter's proposed wording.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose. 1RR is an awful, awful solution to any content dispute. Consider the following sequence of events:
 * Editor A boldly changes the text to their desired form of words
 * Editor B reverts to their desired form
 * Editor A reverts
 * No more reverts, under penalty of arbitration enforcement.
 * What does this achieve other than an incentive, and a license, to POV-push? Surely the solution is to require editors to follow the Bold-revert-discuss principle - in other words, to change step 3 above into "Editor A either accepts that their change doesn't have consensus, or begins a civil discussion on the subject." Why not enforce that instead?  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)



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)
 * If you revert vandalism, you obviously restore to the previous version, so this argument is moot. Also I see there is an injunction right now on not moving articles. People seem to abide by it, even regarding potentially consensual or obvious changes. That's because they acknowledge ArbCom's authority and respect its decision. So again, this argument is also moot. In terms of cut-off date, I would tentatively say the day before the initiation of the straw poll in Talk:Greece, but it could be any day before that. It just has to be before the edit wars occurred. I would leave that to the Committee.--Avg (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, since you know all my edits as well as you do: would you want me to revert everything including, say, this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually went to their site, apparently the Republic is not even a member. So we have a WP:V issue here and I would just remove the name altogether.--Avg (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, feel free. But then: this? this? this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One of the issues here before ArbCom is the whole Macedonia naming issue. That must be decided by ArbCom because consensus has proven impossible to reach. The names in the articles should reflect ArbCom's decision, not any status quo ante. That's why we're all here--to let ArbCom come to a decision about the name to be used for Macedonia throughout Wikipedia. Reverting to status quo ante simply says that we don't want ArbCom involved in our naming dispute. We are here because of the naming dispute and any reversion is pointless without their having made a decision on the issue. Once their decision is made, then status quo ante is completely irrelevant. (Taivo (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Taivo, you, me, and everybody else have already been told several times that the ArbCom will not decide on the naming issue. To seemingly demand that they do something that is both beyond the scope of their direct authority and something they have specifically said they will not do in this particular instance seems at best counterproductive. Rather than trying to raise the spectre of something we've all been told will not happen, I think it makes sense to deal with practical issues. This proposal, which I myself don't necessarily 100% agree with, at least deals with the realities of this arbitration. Your request that the ArbCom wave their magic wand to make it all better probably doesn't, and that tends to make your own statement above rather irrelevant. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no one has "already been told several times" except by the parties that want a very narrow focus to this arbitration. As I read the comments by the arbitrators, I clearly see an understanding on their part that the issue is larger than just the naming of the article Macedonia.  The very title given to this arbitration is "Macedonia 2", which means that it is the second attempt to provide firm Wikipedia guidance to how to call Macedonia throughout the project.  This isn't ARBCHRISO, but ARBMAC2, leading to MOSMAC2.  I may be blissfully ignorant of the difference between policies and guidelines, and this is my first arbitration, but I am quite capable of reading the arbitrators' comments, the proposals in this workshop.  Now you may be drawing a subtle difference between "putting procedures in place" and "deciding on the name".  But I see them as two sides of the same coin, leading (hopefully) to the same result--unequivocal Wikipedia policy on Macedonia's name and usage in the project.  (Taivo (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC))
 * You are free to "see things" as you like. Just remember that, based on previous actions, which you could have looked for yourself, the most likely outcome would be something along the lines of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, which is to the best of my knowledge the sort of thing that ArbCom has historically set up in similar instances. While such efforts are in no way bad, they are a very far call from anything like ArbCom establishing "unequivocal Wikipedia policy". Actually, in that case, the effort is even now moribund, because the moderators who had been managing have all removed themselves from it for various reasons. And it is hard to imagine how you, who so regularly cry for policy, can be so "blissfully ignorant" of what real policy even says. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 13 May 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)
 * Why the three years? Consensus can be changed in any time. This suggestion is very "unrealistic". --Caspian blue 16:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ireland naming case of January had a similar provision saying that there couldn't be any changes to the names for two years. I'm presuming that includes the possibility of opening a change in the ruling should circumstances warrant it. I'm guessing that it was included there as a way of saying, "OK, it's over, move on, you can't change anything now." While I agree in principle with Caspian blue, I think the ArbCom can be asked to change a ruling should circumstances warrant it, and having a designated "cooling-off period" in which no changes can be made without consent strikes me as being a decent idea. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. But we should also consider the case where the naming dispute might come to an end before the three years are over. If a mutually agreed upon name is decided by the two countries, then we might want to reflect that, right? Perhaps you can add a provision about that... --Radjenef (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose Radjenef's proviso. Wikipedia is not subject to outside influences.  Wikipedia names are subject to common English usage first and foremost.  Depending on the exact nature of any future agreement between Macedonia and Greece, Wikipedia must wait for that agreement to trickle down into common English usage (see Burma for an example).  It is quite possible that some compromise nomenclature such as "Republic of Macedonia (North)" might still be simply "Macedonia" in common English usage.  But I'm not very hopeful that any agreement in the real world will ever be reached.  I am neutral on the issue of a binding three years.  (Taivo (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Aha! So you do agree with me on the point that "commonality" supersedes "self-identification". --Radjenef (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The most common English name first (Macedonia), self-identification second (Republic of Macedonia). There's still no place in that equation for externally-imposed artificiality (FYROM) that is not the most common English usage.  (Taivo (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I would personally find three years too long, but that partly depends on how large the scope of that fabled "procedure" and its decisions will be. If it's just a single decision for the page title of the country article, then two years might be okay, but if it also attempts a more comprehensive bundle of guidelines about editorial practices elsewhere (say, MOSMAC.* style), then even that would be too long. Such guidelines need to be more flexible because consensus about all those smaller details can change more quickly, and nobody in drafting the bundle could possible foresee all the possible implications. As for Radjenef's thought about reacting to real-world changes: yes, I guess we'll have to be prepared to reconsider things if that happens. Though I note there won't be any automatism in changing everything immediately to the new official name, because as Taivo rightly says, we'll have to wait and see what common usage does first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I wasn't referring to an "automatic change". But if both countries were to start using the same name officially, then it's reasonable to expect the same thing to happen to the rest of the world sooner or later. Especially since most other countries have declared that they will switch to using whatever name is agreed upon. All I meant was that there should be a provision for such a case, to avoid finding ourselves with our hands tied behind our backs. --Radjenef (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear about what we're talking about here. If the name changes, the change will affect only the formal name of the country - it will not affect its common name, as there is approximately zero possibility that Macedonia will agree to abandon the name by which it's been known since 1944. The situation would be akin to Nepal, which changed its formal name last year when it became a republic. But note that the change to Nepal's formal name made no difference to its common name - it's still Nepal. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a very Titoesque comment, Chris. While there was no country with the "common name" "Macedonia" in 1944, this is just what arbitrators need: you, distorting history, in order to prepossess their decision. FYROM was recognised in 1993. Before that, you might have heard of a country called Yugoslavia. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose; Wikipedia is based on Consensus. Should a new Consensus be reached then it should be used. A "time-frame" is unnecessary and irrelevant to possible real world events. PMK1 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think 2 years would be better, I don't agree with PMK1 we don't need this drama repeated sooner than 2 years. If the consensus changes then there's going to be consensus to ignore the decision of ArbCom (but I doubt there's going to be such consensus). man with one red shoe 01:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And should consensus change before the 2 years are up? Six months seems to me like an appropriate time frame. PMK1 (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. 2 or 3 years.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

ChrisO administrative privileges revoked
4) After repeatedly abusing his administrative privileges, 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)
 * Oppose. ChrisO has not lost the trust of the community.  Avg cannot speak for anyone but himself.  ChrisO has not lost my trust.  (Taivo (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Oppose. I don't like when people speak in the name of the "community", I'm part of the community and he didn't lose my trust, so obviously the assessment is wrong. man with one red shoe 01:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, his credibility is not the same as he used to have and never will be because he abused it.--Caspian blue 01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Because of his repeated abuse of administrative privileges on issues where he is also heavily involved as an editor, ChrisO has lost my trust. --Radjenef (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, very disruptive and clearly abusive of his status as an administrator. Reaper7 (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, He's not lost any trust, he probably never had any trust from the Greek side to lose to start with because he didnt bend over backwards for them. chandler ··· 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I already explained my reasons. I never knew ChrisO before to have had trust or distrust for him. Can't see him returning to consensus building soon, the type that includes the other side by definition. Wikipedia works by consensus, admins should guard it but he opposes that. Also, pre-emptively calling wheel-war any possible revert of his move by some other admin is against the spirit of cooperation between admins, isn't it?. Shadowmorph (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Definitely.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Taivo, maybe he means the Greek community :)  Balkan Fever  09:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.. in the same sense, he may be a hero for certain people that even featured this incident on their news channel. --Caspian blue 01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except the news report mentions Macedonians "winning", not ChrisO. And Kanal 5 is not "their news channel".  Balkan Fever  10:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: The least one could expect. - Fedayee (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Per my prior reasoning //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia policies, 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)
 * Fut.Perf. has too much engaged himself in this nationalistic dispute which is beyond administrative actions. However, without him, hmmm...some portion of Wikipedia would be collapsed.--Caspian blue 16:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Caspian blue. Fut. Perf. has engaged in some very regretable behavior, but it would be excessive to both de-sysop him and topic ban him. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of evidence in my page of violations of WP:ADMIN. I can list dozens of pertinent diffs. Moreover, this person is harassing me personally for months. I think you've been in the topics long enough now and you can see it for yourself. Threats, intimidation, insults and defamation all targeted at me personally. He has repeatedly singled me out and he now wants me completely off Wikipedia. Look at his proposal. I have good reason to think that if he's left unpunished, he will simply continue the harassment as soon as this ArbCom ends. And you know what is the somewhat funny, somewhat bitter part? Two out of the three persons he now calls disruptive (NikoSilver and me) and many more who now calls trolls and nationalists, were enthusiastically supporting him in his RfA back in 2006. Back then he was "a model of politeness and civility". I really don't know what happened to him. --Avg (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened to me? You exhausted my patience, that's what. Yes, I want you banned, you want me banned, so let's hope together that Arbcom will make one of these wishes come true, because one thing is for certain, between us two no constructive collaboration is going to happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose; Fut. Perf. has been one of the most prominent administrators to deal with the Macedonian question and the Balkans in general. He had definately tried to make Wikipedia from a NPOV, especially Balkans articles. He should be congratulated and not desysoped for all of his effort and persistence with these issues. PMK1 (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, first, is it really correct to write in this wishful future past tense. this request is only made because the editor isn't a greek pov editor. chandler ··· 04:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- why can't people speak in their name, they only make a fool out themselves everytime they write something like "has lost the trust of the community" and there are many people who don't agree. Newsflash: you are not a "community", you are a person, speak in your name. man with one red shoe 05:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Mostly the sysop part, not the topic ban. While his edits are usually good faith, he must understand though that he doesn't own the articles and is not the definitive appointed guardian of them. A 30-min revert speed, along with devaluating comments and threats of using admin power, is not proper for a Wiki. About his admin actions and manners, I already explained in my evidence. Shadowmorph (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the topic ban, oppose the desysoping.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Support: But it is way too light, this reported disruption is more than what got many users banned from Wikipedia. I don't see why administrators should be subjected to lighter sentences than other editors. Given that he has transgressed many important rules, he is in no position to act as an administrator... it would amount to hypocrisy. - Fedayee (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fut. Perf. is a useful admin on many issues, not just this one; if one of them must be topic-banned, I would pick Avg, as an SPA and an irritant. Reminding one of avgolemono is not enought. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose Ridiculously excessive. For pete's sake, it's bad enough having an ethnic conflict without adding your own personal vendettas to the pot as well. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  04:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's ban anybody who doesn't support the Greek POV. man with one red shoe 05:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be as sarcastic as you wish against Greek users (I honestly don't care, because I find your sarcasm neither humoristic or interesting!), but, as far as I am concerned, I'll be harsh against Fut, and I'll remain firm to what I'll say: Fut made it first a personal vendeta against Greek users, by trying to humiliate–belittle inter allia Avg and Kekrops (always in admirable harmony with ChrisO), and by unfairly attacking even people who used to respect him, such as Nikos. His attitude is sometimes awful, especially against users he regards as a pain in the ass. He may not be able to compose himself because of his mentality; or it may be an intentional effort to create a battleground for his personal feuds. In either case, he should bear the responsibility for his actions.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Per my prior reasoning //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 16:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by SQRT5P1D2
(note: as of May 7, Rlevse added me as a party - coming: a spa treatment for this workshop section and a tuning to the evidence - I'll be abroad for ten days and edit sporadically)

Sourcing material
1) Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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)
 * SQRT, your proposed policy is not about avoiding ambiguity, so that is a red herring. Your proposed policy simply says, "A place is named X if a reliable source says that is the most common name."  That's exactly what I provided above--the great majority of atlases say exactly, "The most common name for Macedonia is 'Macedonia'" by using it exclusively on their maps.  (Taivo (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I wrote that language, as an addition to the six methods already in WP:NCGN. I have seen exactly one naming discussion -halfway around the world from the Balkans- where such an assertion was cited (and that may be the only case where one exists), but looking for one seems obviously useful, in analogy to WP:RS.   SQRT misreads the guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:22, 2 May 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 Wikipedia. Harassment, personal attacks with ethnic slurs and being hostile and impatient with potentially valuable contributors, is not a good investment for the future of Wikipedia (WP:HA, WP:CIV, WP:BITE, WP:AGF). Postings not meeting the criteria for canvassing in WP:CANVASS are considered friendly notices. These are classified as such if they are characterised by limited scale, neutrality, nonpartisanship and transparency. They are "neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors" and intend "to improve" a discussion. Repeated poor judgement and breach of bacic policies from administrators is not compatible with adminship.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment. The phrasing of this needs definite work. It appears to indicate that notices which "meet the criteria in WP:CANVASS" (presumably meaning qualifying as canvassing) are not classifiable as canvassing. Would suggest that it be rephrased to say something along the lines of "Friendly notices which do not meet the criteria for canvassing as per [{WP:CANVASS]] do not qualify as canvassing." John Carter (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. (note: I'm a proposed party) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Improved phrasing. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Using statistics
While statistics provide tools in order to help with decision making, choosing the wrong sample leads to erroneous conclusions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Fairly basic, but several parties abuse statistics again and again, while jumping to preposterous conclusions, in order to influence the outcome. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact
(check Evidence section)

Naming problems (principles 1-5)
1) Academic sources are the most reliable sources available to Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's policies (WP:OR).

Wikipedia 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.''' Wikipedia 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. Check Evidence. (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. [Also, my nickname is SQRT5P1D2 and I'm not squirting; that is Phi to you (WP:CIV) ;)]


 * 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 Wikipedia 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.  Wikipedia 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)

This entire thread is special pleading. We require reliable sources to ensure that we are not picking our article titles off the web, and no more.

OUP's reliability varies, as it always has, from book to book. When they get to the Oxford Book of Unusual Sexual Practices, it is likely to be a touch less reliable than the OED; James McPherson's history of the American Civil War is more reliable than Robert Herring's history of American foreign policy, because McPherson is a better historian, although they are in the same Oxford series.

OUP was more "a part of the University", and less a profit-making organization, two centuries ago than it is now; yet two centuries ago they were a laughing-stock, producing Greek texts by plagiarizing Teubner editions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While you entirely miss the point of this section, you're entitled to your POV about OUP, which was only brought as an example. Similarly, reliability of commercial atlases and commercial online search engines varies, but nobody cares; they're commercial sources. The British Library and the Library of Congress use the Macedonia heading for everything related to the region and/or the ancient kingdom only. I suspect there's a good reason for that. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Library of Congress is by no means as consistent as that. Macedonia--History--1945-1992 contains one book on the Greek Province, one on the Socialist Republic, as it then was, and two on the conflict. But even granted that were true, Macedonia (Republic) would be the obvious way to disambiguate hundreds of entries in a system already set up to use Macedonia for the ancient kingdom. I do note that they are avoiding Republic of Macedonia, much more any of the forms of FYROM. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The authority files are clear. Macedonia = ancient kingdom, wider region. Macedonia (Greece) = modern greek region. Macedonia (Bulgaria) = modern bulgarian region. Macedonia (Republic) = modern country. About your specific example, while I'm not aware of the contents of these specific books, if they discuss historical regional problems or something along these lines, they qualify for the Macedonia heading. The system is consistent :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the Library does not follow them consistently. This book, about the Byzantine monuments about a town in the Republic, has five keywords, all using Macedonia. This is not surprising.
 * Even if they were consistent, and we were agreed to follow them slavishly, we would use Macedonia (Republic), which is not what SQRT insists upon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Library is consistent. Let me explain to you. There are 33 headings for "Macedonia". "Macedonia" by itself refers to the ancient kingdom and the region. "Macedonia--something else" or "Macedonia (something else)" are different headings and they have their own descriptions.
 * The book about St. Panteleimon has different headings:
 * Crkvata Sv. Pantelejmon (Gorno Nerezi, Macedonia)
 * Architecture, Byzantine--Macedonia--Gorno Nerezi.
 * Church decoration and ornament--Macedonia--Gorno Nerezi.
 * Mural painting and decoration, Byzantine--Macedonia--Gorno Nerezi.
 * Gorno Nerezi (Macedonia)--Buildings, structures, etc.
 * These are not "Macedonia--something else" or "Macedonia (something else" headings. The main subject isn't "Macedonia".
 * Regarding what I "insist upon", I would appreciate it if you let me know about my future proposals. :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Member actions (principles 6-9)
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. Wikipedia 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)
 * Everybody knows that "Ireland" is the common english name for Ireland; my mug shots are proof enough . On a less humorous note, the British Library and the Library of Congress use the "Macedonia" heading for everything related to the ancient kingdom and/or the region. Just. That. I certainly don't plan to shut up about it and as a party, I'll take their argumentative polemical advice for my future rantings. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Check Evidence. (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:

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:

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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Removed. It overlaps with Avg's relevant fofs, which are excellently presented, and have my full support. I don't know how it works, clerks. Keep the ex-fof for historical reasons, delete it, do as you wish!--Yannismarou (talk) 23:05, 6 May 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)  Balkan Fever  14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus about the Republic of Macedonia article name and links to it
1) 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.  Balkan Fever  14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Conduct of the involved parties during the controversy over the lead of the Greece article
2) 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
3) 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)
 * Heading re-edited.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

User:1111tomica disruption of the project
4) User:1111tomica is an account focused on promoting the ethnic-Macedonian POV; he/she has also engaged in edit-warring (not even caring for violating the 3RR, and refusing to discuss his edits), in order to promote his nationalistic POV, and his presence constitutes an obvious disruption for the project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Per my evidence .--Yannismarou (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This user is certainly a nuisance, but mostly for the crap content he writes. I don't see much of his disruption is directly related to this case, is it? It's just run-of-the-mill POV pushing of a not very articulate n00b. This one should be easy enough to handle under the existing ARBMAC (1) rules, but isn't really a party to the naming dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As you see, the title of the case is not just about the naming dispute; it is now named "Macedonia 2". So, the scope of the case seems broadened to me as it happened with ARBMAC1. The user in question has blatantly promoted the ethnic Macedonian POV falsifying Greek history as he did here. So, I do see a relevance.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if the arbs want to treat the case under such a wide scope, they can sanction away, no objections. I thought the understanding was they'd basically only be dealing with the naming dispute. Please keep in mind that you'll need to notify him of the case. But then, he'll come here and make noise trying to defend himself. Do we really need more noise? I still think he can be handled more efficiently elsewhere. Report him at AE, that's quicker. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 30 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)
 * Removed. Similar comments like the fof I also deleted. In this case, I support the procedure articulated and exposed by John Carter, and I think that my proposed remedy adds nothing any more.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:11, 6 May 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Not recently, no. See BalkanFever's comments below - I suspect that's what Yannis is referring to. This is a rather sneaky attempt to reopen a question that was closed a long time ago. If you look at Template talk:MKD, you'll see that the change I made was very briefly disputed by Kekrops and Avg (no surprise there) but the issue was never raised again after that. Yannis's premise is bogus anyway. All of the country-flag templates are protected as a matter of course, as they're high-risk templates. This one was protected (not by myself) for that reason, not for anything to do with the naming conflict. The template was edited, not "moved" (so Yannis is demanding a content change, not a title change as he implied). Yannis is also very misleading about just what the change was. He implies that the change was from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia (note the destinations). In fact, all I did was do to what we do for every other country - use the short form of the name piped to the article's canonical location, viz. Macedonia . Compare Template:IRL for a similar format. We always use short forms in flag templates unless it overlaps with another country's name, which in this case it obviously doesn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 29 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.  Balkan Fever  13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Evaluating user contributions
1) Editors in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. It should also serve as a reminder of what Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Yannis, two ethnic Macedonians participated.  Balkan Fever  14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. But my point is the same with 0 or 2!--Yannismarou (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, rather, two editors who have described themselves as ethnic Macedonians participated. I should note that I am an ethnic German, but am a citizen of the US. I say that because I only said before that I am a German, and to indicate that all we have to judge on is our own statements. Had I lied and said I was French, no one would have known any different. However, I could then go on to describe the French as oversexed, smelly, lazy, drunken bastards and not be accused of any sort of racial insult, because I would theoretically be describing my own people. Why do I doubt that I'm the first person to have thought of that? John Carter (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely John. In an environment of anonymity where anyone can declare anything, it simply adds insult to injury to use tags to identify ethnicity, real or imagined. And anyway the quality of one's contributions should be the criterion of judging someone in fairness and WP:AGF. Dr.K. logos 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand there people who edit Greece and Greece related articles, have a Greek quote and maybe a flag on their profile or their username is practically "I am Greek" (in other language), and then when it comes to this issue they declare firmly that it just happens to be aligned to the Greek POV because that's how they consider that policies should be interpreted. Frankly when I see that this specific type of people participate in straw polls in a largely lopsided manner I'm a bit suspicious about that and I think about the common sense: how come Greek editors all (or most of them) interpret policy in one way and the rest of the people in another way that seems highly unlikely if it's not some bias involved -- can you find in the straw poll that was help in talk:Greece any self-declared Greek editor (or even on that wrote in Greek on his page) to support "Republic of Macedonia" over "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"? We can assume good faith all you want, but let's not be idiots and pretend that this polarization didn't happen.
 * But even if you don't agree with me I have a proposal to get out of this problem (accusations of bias, and accusations of ethnic profiling) how about involving 3rd party editors: previously non-involved in Greek/Macedonian articles editors (no new editors who might have been canvased for this case) to decide content, will you agree with this principle? I for one I would be entirely happy that this issue be decided either way by un-involved parties, are you? man with one red shoe 02:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all I did support Taivo's proposal for "Rep. Mace." on the map, so I did compromise. I even put it up for a vote as you recall. Second we already have John Carter's proposal for getting out of this mess. I think it is more efficient than your proposal. Third this section is about a principle that is not connected to how the name dispute will be resolved. It is a statement with which you either agree or you do not. So let's not even discuss unrelated stuff here. As far as being idiots I think your statement is characteristic of the poisoned atmosphere here. Maybe you can moderate your tone. Dr.K. logos 03:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I made the proposal in the appropriate space, hope you will support it. In response to my question you are talking about another poll (on which BTW I voted "depends"), but have you found any (one) Greek (self-identified or even "suspected") to have voted for "Republic of Macedonia" name in Greece article? So much for lack of bias... I will cease the so called "ethnic profiling" when I see some evidence of unbiased participation, or better said, when I cease to see so much evidence of biased participation. man with one red shoe 03:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at the proposal but John Carter has made a similar two-phase proposal with the second phase functioning much like your proposal. Again, it is easy to use ethnic profiling but difficult to evaluate the contributions of an editor because that requires attention, reading and evaluation and thus it is more difficult. Not all of the Greek editors' opinions were the same. If you bothered to study these editors' opinions in detail, maybe you could understand their reasons and you wouldn't have to ethnic profile them. Also don't forget that one of the main reasons of the unanimity in this case was that almost all Greek editors adhered to MOSMAC, which was dissolved in a hurry. That caught people by surprise. So it is easy to see why the Greek editors wanted to stick with a convention that they used for such a long time and which provided relative stability on a wide range of articles. Anyway that's my take on it. For sure I wouldn't like to reopen yet another debate on the merits of MOSMAC. Dr.K. logos 04:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Polls must be free and fair
2) Polls in Wikipedia must be free and fair. Editors who participate in polls should not be judged by their userpage identifiers, including their race or ethnicity, at the end of the poll.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Users should be judged by their edits, conduct, and behavior. If they've self-identified via userboxes or whatever, it is not outing. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 16:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Polls in Wikipedia must be free and fair. If an editor knows that judgement is coming at the end of the poll based on race, ethnicity or any other anti-intellectual metric, this would have a chilling effect on editors and will stigmatise them. The end result is that many will not participate in such polls and in effect they will be muzzled like I was. Mousetrap type polls are neither free nor fair. Dr.K. logos 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a reasonable request on the surface, but masks the all-too-real practice of "summoning the troops" to vote in polls on controversial issues of national interest. We have cited an example here of an editor calling on others outside Wikipedia to make their voices heard on a Wikipedia poll.  When single-topic editors and new accounts flock to a poll and vote in a 100% predictable manner, that is not healthy for the polling process.  With proper prior controls on voting the "labelling" can be avoided.  Every democracy in the world controls who can and cannot vote based on some type of prior registration.  Wikipedia's open polls are ripe for abuse, and then when abuse occurs, are ripe for labelling of one or both sides of the issue.  (Taivo (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I can see your points. I understand the need for preventing stacking of votes with new accounts and the problems related to WP:SPA accounts, even though some of them are quite literate, intelligent and have some great points to make. So we may need to differentiate between wp:spa accounts based on the quality of their contributions. Same thing goes for new accounts. I know that I don't have all the answers. However we should strive to make the polls as open as possible and as free from fear and intimidation as possible. Maybe the Arbs can find the golden section somewhere. Dr.K. logos 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to Pmanderson: I agree that policy and consensus override polls, but as Dr. K says, there is a cultural bias among the English and their cultural descendants toward polling/voting. However, I would reorder Dr. K's "free and fair" to place fair first.  A free poll that exhibits clear evidence of ballot box stuffing is not a fair poll.  (Taivo (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Support.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Polls need to be free, but they also need to be representative. A non-representative poll is more harmful than useful. A non-representative poll is more like a half-truth... means close to nothing. Let's see, a poll conducted in Turkey talk page about Armenian genocide: what name to use "genocide" or "tragedy" -- we have plenty of evidence for either names, what do you expect the result would be? The question is, is a poll where about half of the respondents have a strong POV representative for the whole Wikipedia, or useful in any way? Would a poll conducted in another page followed up by a different demographic would give the same results? What about a poll conducted in Armenia page? Would that create parallel "truths" in Wikipedia? man with one red shoe 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. This would not necessarily be the case. The answer to your questions is that: a) Do not conduct polls in hostile environments where there is no consensus present. Conducting a poll in such an environment and then bringing in the forensic crew at the end of the poll to analyse the results is an exercise in mass insult and it generates (preventable and predictable) drama and it is thus futile. My proposal suggests that when you take a poll take it not under false pretenses and under the threat of eventual ethnic tagging, but take it under conditions of fairness and freedom from intimidation. Otherwise don't bother taking the poll. That's all. Dr.K. logos 16:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tasos, I think you misunderstand what polls in Wikipedia are. Polls are not votes. Your demands of "fairness" and "freedom" would make sense if polls were supposed to be votes, but they are not. That doesn't mean they are useless: it's just not the case that they are meant to produce a decision by way of numerical majority. They are supposed to produce an overview of how opinions are distributed between editors. If one opinion has a strong majority, a poll will show it. If two opinions have equal weight, a poll will show it. If an opinion is held only by members of a certain real-world group, then that will be the result of the poll. The result is simply a description of the distribution patterns of opinions. If that picture involves an obvious ethnic frontline component, that's not the fault of the poll and it doesn't mean restricting the value of those votes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No Future I don't misunderstand what a poll is. I understand the function of the polls as an indicator of the statistical distribution of opinions. Your final statement: If that picture involves an obvious ethnic frontline component, that's not the fault of the poll and it doesn't mean restricting the value of those votes. is a bit disingenuous. First the "ethnic frontline component, that's not the fault of the poll". I never said that's the fault of anyone, that much more of the poll. In fact I said we should not have any polls in such controversial matters. Second your statement it doesn't mean restricting the value of those votes. Someone not acquainted with your analysis would think that you value the Greek votes as much as anyone else's. Now you know and I know that this is simply not the case. Not by along shot. I remind you that in your post-mortem analysis of the ill-fated naming poll which you attempted to close you declared victory for the "other" side because you en-masse dismissed the Greek vote as a nationalist block vote. Anyway what I am trying to say here is, never mind what the function of a poll is, when you take one, please do not bring the forensic crew at the end of the poll so that you can call a group of voters any kind of epithet at the same time as you are dismissing the value of their votes as belonging to the epithet group. I will try to make this a bit more clear: A poll, again never mind what its function is, should be free as in free from the intimidation to wait to be judged at the end of the poll and be called names or free from ethnicity or other personal identifier oriented analysis and fair as in WP:AGF fair. Other than that, it's nice seeing you around. Dr.K. logos 01:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Any such act will have a chilling effect to the large number of editors who above all strive to avoid controversy in Wikipedia. If newcomers to a debate know they're going to be profiled according to their vote, they will simply not vote and will move away of the article. --Avg (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Polling is evil. The sole preferred use of such polls is to find and demonstrate consensus; there is none here. Until there is even a plausible claim of one, polls do not matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we agree completely. In fact that was the first comment I made in my ill-fated attempt at voting during the naming poll. But realistically polls are here to stay because people seem to be attached to them. So if we must have them at least they should be free and fair. Dr.K. logos 08:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with this comment. man with one red shoe 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rlevse: Yes, I totally agree with you on all your points, also I agree that using the userpage identifiers is not outing. But I am sure you noticed that I never once used this "outing" term in my FoF or in any of my comments. However use of userpage identifiers to classify or judge people should be discouraged. As you say: Users should be judged by their edits, conduct, and behavior. I completely subscribe to that. Thank you very much for affirming this core principle. Dr.K. logos 17:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy cannot be made on the backs of local editors
3) Major and controversial initiatives such as ethnicity or other identifier-based analysis of polls, potentially affecting many editors across the project, should be rejected. As a minimum they should not be tried locally but should be proposed, discussed and approved or rejected on suitable policy discussion fora before being implemented at the local level.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The offensive ethnicity-based statistics were tried on the Greek editor population first. The ensuing controversy and disruption this has caused could have been avoided if this novel idea was discussed project-wide first. The opinions of other similarly affected editors should have been sought. The application of such tactics on a local population of Greek editors was a bad idea and used them as guinea pigs. Dr.K. logos 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Some issues are discussed by many editors in the interest of their national causes. Does Dr. K mean to deny this? If so, he must explain away the recurrent Eastern European cases, not to me, but to the Arbitrators.
 * This does not mean that all editors, on either side, are driven by nationalism. In this case, I know of at least one Greek editor who has abstained from this folly, and I think at least one has been found on the other side; doubtless this would also be true of the Macedonians if there were more of them.
 * It does not mean that all editors who take a given side are driven by nationalism.
 * It does not mean that one side is always nationalist, and the other is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want to deny editors talking about anything at all. I simply want to avoid the isolation of a single ethnicity through arbitrary profile related statistics. If and when such statistics are to be implemented they must go through the scrutiny of the wider Wikipedia community so that safeguards are put in place prior to such use. This would avoid the arbitrary parade of names and other distasteful practices that we saw in use recently. Dr.K. logos 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The editors in question (not the ethnicity, for there are other Greeks) have isolated themselves. This is not something ArbCom can prevent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case isolation has been attempted in the form of ethnic tagging. The editors did not isolate themselves. Dr.K. logos 08:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By your proposal are you suggesting that there has not been enough discussion on this issue? PMK1 (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I do. I mean that if you think that there are ethnic blocks in Wikipedia and you want to neutralise them don't go after the Greeks first to see how this goes experimentally. Go to the arbcom and tell them you have a problem with voting blocks all across Wikipedia and try to enact a few policies for this kind of thing. Don't hold a poll and then try to tag the Greek editors as nationalists in order to neutralise them, with a few Macedonians and Albanians as collateral damage. This problem may be endemic throughout Wikipedia. It needs a global, professional approach. Not a dog and pony show, tar and feather approach. Dr.K. logos 05:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only I think that there are ethno-national blocs in Wikipedia, but so do many other editors who have had some involvement with this case. If you feel strongly about this idea then propose that. However unlike in your proposal there have not been "Major and controversial modifications to the policies"; MOSMAC were and are only guidelines. '''It seems to me that plan B is to discredit the method in which this saga has been handled, Plan A (direct opposition) has failed. PMK1 (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to shout at me with the bolded sentences, thank you. Don't forget you are talking to an editor who up until now has almost never taken part to a Macedonia related debate and who has consciously avoided these debates. Now if that is not enough for you there is nothing I can do. The only plan that I know is Plan 9 From Outer Space and that is a plan that worked almost as well as the ethnic-tagging plan here. If you do not believe in the principles that I propose then don't support them. But please do not use cold war innuendo with me. I thought you were better than that. If you cannot use WP:AGF toward me there is nothing we can discuss, unfortunately. Also it is not up to me to propose policies handling ethnic blocks on Wikipedia. It is not my area of expertise. Let the people who started this dog and pony show finish what they started by proposing that. Not me. Dr.K. logos 15:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Plus I think we are talking about different policies. In my statement above I refer not to MOSMAC but to the way the polls were used to ethnically tag the editors. MOSMAC, which is not a policy, never entered my mind when I proposed this FoF. What I try to achieve by this FoF is to avoid using polls and subsequent ethnic based analysis to combat ethnic block voting. We can do this better by addressing this problem on a project-wide basis with wide consultation across Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 17:14, 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.

Community asked to develop a procedure
1) The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Macedonia, the Republic of Macedonia, Macedonia (region) and related articles.  The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used.  Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This was already tried with the first ARBMAC. Something more is needed here. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. From the Ireland article names case, changing the name as appropriate. John Carter (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Well-meant but hopeless. The existing polarisation is such that the chance of consensus is precisely zero. The Greek faction will never agree to anything that would curtail their freedom to swamp any further process with their block votes, and in the absence of a clear mandate that such blocks can be discounted, the best the community could possibly come up with is a plain vote. In which case the decision would boil down to who can rally their troups more effectively, the very opposite of what Wikipedia procedures should be. We need something radically different, not more of the same. – I don't know if the Ireland procedure is currently working or not, but what I know is, a Macedonia procedure of that sort would never work. Do you really think it would be possible to hold a rational consensus-seeking procedure in the presence of the ranting hordes we are currently seeing at Talk:Macedonia? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, you did read the point below from the same case, right? I don't see any reason not to give two weeks to the issue, if only to demonstrate that there is no reason to think that a consensus will be reached. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, but we can just as well save ourselves the trouble, because we know in advance what the result of those two weeks will be. Seriously, we've been debating for two years, why would anybody think two more weeks would bring a solution? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I agree with Future Perfect even though I know you mean well, John. Two weeks after months (and, actually, years) of wrangling will not make any difference, IMHO.  If everyone in the discussion could start with a tabula rasa, all single-purpose and new accounts eliminated, all anonymous IPs blocked, and polling prohibited, then there is a small chance that a framework could be agreed on.  But since the first ARBMAC failed to reach a consensus, it's only a small chance.  It would also assume that all editors ignored all past acts and posts by the other involved editors.  That's a tall order.  I'm afraid that the two weeks would be a wasted two weeks.  (Taivo (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Support There are no easy answers and the path to an agreement may be difficult, but at least the proposed process is an intelligent attempt at genuine (and intelligent) discussion and does not use dubious, forceful or heroic methods to reach consensus. It is in the best traditions of Wikipedia. It's easy to be cynical, kill WP:AGF and try to bring out the paddy wagon to arrest everyone on the basis of.....(I am not going to complete this sentence because it makes me sick to repeat the same things over and over). It's far more difficult to resist the urge and give intelligence and dialogue, both Wikipedian staples, a chance. Dr.K. logos 14:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So, Dr. K, does that mean that either you or Yannis (or both) would actually be open to changing your mind about the use of "(Republic of) Macedonia" at Greece? Or are you hoping that the rest of us would be willing to change ours?  That's the key issue here.  It's not about the name of Macedonia.  At the core of the problem is removing "the former Yugoslav" from Greece.  Without that, then discussing Macedonia is not really the issue.  Without knowing that the two of you are open to the possibility, then two weeks is nothing more than a two-week delay on the inevitable.  For myself, I think that Wikipedia's references to Macedonia should be consistent throughout the project, with no "islands".  I would accept a consensus based on something else that includes "Republic of", but I oppose names that are not self-designations.  So there we are.  Is a further two weeks a useless delay or is it actually something that might produce results?  (Taivo (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Taivo, of course I am open to discussion and good arguments and compromising. I already compromised by accepting your proposal at talk:Greece. Or do you forget that? (I am sure you didn't, I just can't resist a rhetorical question sometimes). :) Dr.K. logos 15:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think one of the reasons the ArbCom included the two weeks in the decision they did include it in was to allow themselves the time to choose the three independent admins while not apparently dragging their feet with the choices. Also, it is, remotely, possible that with the threat of a decision being made without their input at all, some parties might become a bit more conciliatory, and thus make a compromise possible when it might not be otherwise. The odds might not be particularly good, but they are at least statistically better than nothing. Also, given the new president is to be sworn in on the 12th, there is a real chance that, by the end of two weeks, the country will have formally adopted the Northern Macedonia name, and that name might be more agreeable to both sides than any of the existing ones. For all those reasons, I can't see anything other than a little time would be lost giving a lot of editors the chance to become reasonable, even if it is a slight chance. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, with the proviso that all articles are reverted to the status quo ante during this period.--Avg (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Agreeing at the same time with Avg, especially in cases where abuse of adm tools is established, namely in ChrisO's move.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose; you do realise that this proposal will just be followed by another like it, and followed by another like it, and followed by another like it .... These issues have been discussed for nearly a month now, it is clear that neither side plans on giving up or conceding. It seems like more procrastination and filibustering. I cannot realistically see anyside changing their Point of Veiw on this issue in an extra two weeks. And guess what will happen after two weeks, we will end up here again. Rewriting the same points we have been doing these past two weeks. Regards. PMK1 (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopeless as others said. man with one red shoe 07:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Supportive. As intelligent creatures we should be able to start afresh. Even more so for those established Wikipedians who have committed themselves to the neutrality of the project. They and we have time, there is no deadline. It could fail of course. That's what the backups are for. Shadowmorph (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Shadowmorph, I'll ask you the same question I asked Dr.K. I know that he is willing to work toward compromise at Greece, but are you?  This isn't about abstract entitities floating in the air who can theoretically come to a consensus.  It's about you and me and Future Perfect and Yannismarou and ChrisO and Dr. K. and others.  Are you willing to put "(Republic of) Macedonia" at Greece and give up on "former Yugoslav"?  That's the core issue.  It's not about renaming Macedonia, it's about "former Yugoslav" going the way of the dodo (except, obviously, in direct quotes).  If you aren't willing to give up "former Yugoslav", then all other issues are moot and two weeks will just bring us right back here.  (Taivo (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I would and I was. Up until two admins decided to ignore me and others completely. And who says it is you and me and a handful of others only? Remember the "that anyone can edit" that is a cornerstone, like User:Jimmy Wales says. I have never edited the Greece article, yet. Check the Macedonians (Greeks) article that I did edit (it needs more work). It is legitimate for the references to use alternate terms when they fit better, that's why we have pipelinks. Anyway I think the case should focus on the actual name of the articles not their content. With luck the official naming dispute will be resolved soon. It was me who said that theoretically the main page could be about the greater region instead Shadowmorph (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This whole issue is not about the naming of the article Macedonia--that is just the opening act, a sideshow. It is fundamentally about the broader issue of what to call Macedonia throughout Wikipedia.  Without resolution of that conflict, this debate will be back in Arbitration faster than Cookie Monster could snare a chocolate chip.  And we have seen the results of "anyone can edit" in this very arbitration.  In principle, it is admirable, but occasionally, in practice, it is unworkable.  There are times when the discussion should be limited and a final solution implemented by arbitration.  (Taivo (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
 * To Rlevse: Not sure what you mean with "this was already done" at ARBMAC1. Arbmac1 didn't contain any rulings or recommendations about what content disputes to tackle in which ways. The more problematic thing for this proposal is that the precedent from the Ireland case appears to be failing right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * If at the end of the two weeks it is found that there is a strong correlation between the nationality of a large group of editors and their editing behaviour (e.g. tendentious, disruptive, almost identical to that which led to this arbitration) what happens?  Balkan Fever  14:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a backup plan. See below. Dr.K. logos 15:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I want to start a discussion on real-world politics, but John, there is no real chance that the country will adopt the "Northern Macedonia" name, much less immediately after the President is sworn in. The Prime Minister and his Government have thrown it out already, and they hold the real power; not the president, who is more of a ceremonial figure. I will end this here; no more speculation should be made by anybody.  Balkan Fever  11:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Back-up procedure
2) If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. From the Ireland article names case. John Carter (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Unqualified support. Intelligent yet subtly forceful. Excellent. Dr.K. logos 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Excellent. Perhaps we can get three bureaucrats if we're lucky?--Avg (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is a combination of my proposal and Fut's to overcome the current situation; however, John's proposal seems to be written in a more professional and "objective" way.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I really cannot understand the logic of JohnCarter's proposals? To add more time and to basically stop this arbitration from occuring? Wouldn't that just waste everyones time even further? Somebody please clarify to me the usefulness of "supporting" this proposal? PMK1 (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sir, these proposals as you call them have already been included in a decision elsewhere, and that only in the past few months. If you cannot see the logic of an existing ArbCom decision, then may I humbly suggest that the fault may not be in the proposals, but rather the person who cannot see the logic? And I do wish you would stop trying to rephrase the statements of others. At no point did I indicate that this would stop the arbitration from occuring, as you stated above. You do know that this is a proposal of a decision to be handed down at the end of the case by the Arbitration Committee, right? As a result, in no way, shape, or form can it be said to try to stop the arbitration from occurring, as it won't be enacted until after the arbitration case is ended. John Carter (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also propose adding that there would be no more than 4 weeks total, including the 14 days already allocated above and an additional 2 weeks maximum if there is a show of discussion in the first two weeks, for a decision to be reached. If after four weeks no decision is reached, however close it might be, the decision be turned over to the three neutral administrators. Including such a proposal would help ensure that there be no attempts to abuse the system by giving the appearance of discussion for the sake of appearances only. John Carter (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * John's proposal doesn't aim at putting aside ArbCom's competence. It aims at setting some agreed procedures about the final settlement of tha naming issues. And this sounds reasonable to me!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Realistic. Strongly support. The first thing here that could possibly become reality, And oh, these aren't exactly John's proposals, (...oh he edit-conflict beat me to saying that..) it's the arbitrators own words. See above. I myself haven't made any proposals of my own yet because I'm not that familiar with all the WP:Policies yet. If I had, that would be the one I would pick too. Hope: I do hope that panel of administrators would not be judged based on their ethnicity or even their nicknames :) I see John that you haven't lost your humor here (Dr.House kind like you say) Shadowmorph (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * John, it would really make it much easier for me to support your proposal if you took me up on the question I asked you yesterday: have you got any concrete ideas about what the process should look like, other than the stipulation that somebody else should invent one? So, I take it that as a last resort there'd be a group of three "judges". How would their task be defined? Would they just decide what they themselves thought best, or would they only be judging whether they thought there was a consensus? Would they get any specific instructions how to decide in case there wasn't? Would Arbcom set them a clear guideline about how they ought to deal with the ethnic polarisation / factionalising problem? Would the procedure before that stage include a poll? Would the poll be considered decisive if it merely produced a narrow numeric majority? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You may not like my answer, which is, basically, I'm not ArbCom and it isn't my call. If it were my decision, I would propose something like this:
 * Take some extant proposal, either the first MOSMAC or your proposed MOSMAC2 or something similar for another area, as a basic template for discussion. Allow discussion to continue on that page for 14 days. At the end of that time, ArbCom either collectively or more likely through an individual or two looks it over and sees if there is any chance of agreement. If no, the admin judges get appointed. If yes, discussion is allowed to continue for two more weeks. At the end of that time, if there is a clear consensus on a new proposal, fine, it becomes enacted. If not, the page with all its comments is used by the admin judges as some of the evidence they can use to help make their own decisions, which would be limited, in this case, to the matters regarding the naming of the various articles relating to "Macedonia" and what names will and will not be allowed to be used in the bodies of other articles and under what circumstances they would and would not be allowed to be used. Any other input they might want, be it a poll, individual presentation of evidence, whatever, would be at the discretion of either the admin "judges" or the ArbCom. They would be free to consider or ignore any or all of the input thus received, at their discretion.
 * Regarding ethnic polarization, I don't imagine that the admin "judges" would necessarily have any power to stop it, but at the same time I can't imagine the more reasonable of the members of a "side" would want too much vitriol being hurled by their side, because that could potentially weaken the likelihood of their getting an outcome they would like. And, if it is presented anyway, the "leaders" of that camp would very possibly say "we disown that person" or something similar.
 * I guess I would say that any "input" from outsiders would be entirely at the discretion of the "judges", and they would have the option of deleting any comments from the input page at their discretion, possibly even imposing a block or ban on individuals from editing it if their comments are disruptive. But the decision, whatever it is, of the judges would I think likely be entirely their own, and they would probably be free to acknowledge or ignore any input they choose. I think there are at least a few admins out there who are trustworthy enough to make it possible to find three to serve on the admin board. I can also see how they might be given a rough deadline when they take the case, maybe something like "try to get a solution in (X) weeks." That would possibly reduce the amount of pointless evidence, as too much of such evidence might help weaken the "first rush" response to that side's position, and hopefully make it not too burdensome on the individuals appointed. John Carter (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that sounds not unreasonable. I could well imagine this as a basis for further consideration. Personally, I would still prefer that the Arbcom also pass some principle dealing with the ethnic faction issue more generally, and allowing for more light-weight applications in less complex cases (like: in a case like Persian Gulf, just have a normal poll but routinely discount the block votes). I'm also still skeptical of the need for those first 2 weeks, since I really can't see them going anywhere realistically. But other than that, for a big and complex set of issues like here, this might well be a suitable process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * John Carter, I was merely saying that suggestions proposing the continual extension of this saga will just test everones patience. I am sure that your suggestions are beneficial but at the moment I can only see the extension of this case as adding more complexity to it. Just an opinion. PMK1 (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have a point. However, I don't see how 14 days qualifies as "continual extension of this saga". I can see how the 14 days could, remotely, be sufficient to have a real compromise. And, yes, I do believe in the Easter bunny too. ;) More likely, the 14 days would allow the involved editors to at least give a rough deposition of the current state of the positions relevant to the discussion, and if nothing else having that information available might be worth the 14 day delay. And, like I said, it probably isn't easy to choose the 3 admins, so at least using the time for selection for some purpose wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Topic ban of ChrisO
3) ChrisO is topic banned from all content which in any way relates to the Macedonia naming dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This may be seen as harsh by some. But, I think the evidence clearly shows that ChrisO, who is probably one of the most involved parties in this discussion, acted very inappropriately. Despite the existence of policies which specifically state involved parties should not perform certain actions, such as a page move, ChrisO as an extremely involved party did them. He justified his actions on the basis of more or less original, undiscussed, unconfirmed, opinions regarding application of policy, and, as can be seen by the discussion regarding at least some of his points in defense of his move, they may be based on less than convincing evidence as well. Again, as one of the most involved parties, his objectivity in this matter is easily open to question. At least in my eyes, ChrisO has displayed that, in this case, he is not acting like an administrator seeking to ensure that extant policy is followed, but rather as an autocrat who believes that his opinions are policy and that, policies to the contrary notwithstanding, he is perfectly justified to impose his opinions on wikipedia. It is hard to believe that a person who has already acted in such a way can be reasonably trusted never to act that way again. Certainly, the fact that, so far as I can see, he has never even indicated that he thinks he may have done anything wrong here in doing so is troubling as well. On that basis, I believe that he has at least for the moment demonstrated that he cannot be reasonably expected to behave in accord with wikipedia policies and guidelines in this area, and should be, on that basis, banned from editing such content. Ban could be lifted at some point in the future, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the suggestion is "generous" given that ChrisO's conduct that caused more chaos to the dispute.--Caspian blue 15:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not enough. I would accept that and even less for Fut.Perf., but I strongly believe that ChrisO should be not only topic-banned, but de-sysopped as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Support regardless of the decision on desysopping which I also support. I have already analyzed my reasons in full detail, in my evidence (authoritative actions) and elsewhere in this extended discussion. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 01:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually neutral regarding the topic ban. I didn't explicitly name it in my proposed remedies. The reasoning put above by John clearly spells desysopping and not topic ban. ChrisO may add useful input to a discussion, but definitely not as an administrator, since he regularly abuses his position to win content disputes. --Avg (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Oppose. See Septentrionalis' comments below.  The disruption to Wikipedia was not initiated by ChrisO's actions, but by the supporters of the Greek POV who began attacking any article that mentioned Macedonia at least a full week before ChrisO's actions.  The disruption was perpetrated by them at places such as Staffordshire University where someone deleted a Macedonian alumnus before ChrisO's action.  Complaining loudly about ChrisO's action is a red herring designed to distract focus from the real issue here--the walled garden on Macedonia's name at Greece and elsewhere throughout Wikipedia.  (Taivo (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC))
 * This is blatantly false. The disruption was initiated by ChrisO and Fut.Perf. (especially the latter) mass renaming out of the blue the way the country was referred in articles, including in Staffordshire University.--Avg (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters much, but just for the record: the entry on Staffordshire University had the R.o.M. phrasing (obviously in line with project-wide consensus, including MOSMAC) prior to January, was changed to F.Y. by a Greek anon IP in January, turned back to R.o.M. by User:Ev in early March , reverted again by a Greek IP a few days later , and the first time either Chris or I had anything to do with that article was on 31 March . After that it became the playground of one of the banned revert-warring trolls who have been harassing me all over the wiki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters much, but the issue with your action at Staffordshire University is obviously not that incidentally this may have been the version MOSMAC prescribes. After all, for you MOSMAC is "dead", so it is ironic that you claim it now. The problem is that this rename was part of a mass-renaming exercise you embarked on the 31st of March in dozens of articles, using the very same argument in all of those ("standard naming"), including those that there was never a project-wide consensus, or MOSMAC prespcription. If you hit and run 100 articles pushing your POV, you may get 1 where your POV aligns with what is prescribed. It's the hit and run that has to be condemned. --Avg (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I would agree, especially after he dished me out an illegal warning this week for 'original research' for my Danish Edit on the Macedonia naming dispute page. My edit has since been backed by many others and put back, yet my warning has not been revoked and I have still not had an apology. I think he is a dangerous administrator in he cannot be trusted to be even a little neutral in this subject, unlike Taivo and Fut Perfect who can atleast attempt to see neutrality/ He throws out exaggerated accusations against myself and many other editors. I think his time has run out due to him being simply out of control. Reaper7 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Per my prior reasoning //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very strongly oppose None of this is warranted for a single action, which may genuinely be defensible as final settlement. It would be simpler, and more justified, to ban the Single-Purpose Accounts, and topic-ban their defenders. (There may be some SPAs on each side, in which case such sanctions should be applied both ways.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect is admonished to withdraw from content relating to the Macedonia naming dispute barring resolution
4) Future Perfect is admonished to not engage in any editing or administrative functions directly relating to the Macedonia naming dispute until such time as a resolution to that issue is achieved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by Parties
 * Proposed. Future Perfect does seemingly have a comparatively good history in the long run regarding this subject, as even Avg indicated when he said that he and others voted for Future Perfect to be an admin. His recent conduct could be seen as rather more troubling. He has clearly alienated a good number of the editors working on this subject rather dramatically, and evidently caused at least some of them to question whether he is neutral enough to reasonably be trusted to perform any administrative functions in this area. Personally, I also believe that his very obvious closeness to ChrisO does not help him in any way. I myself have no reason to doubt that he can probably be trusted to perform most editorial and administrative functions regarding content related to this topic, such as regular editing, locking, unlocking and editing locked articles, etc. The only real exception I can see to that might potentially be content and issues related to the names of the country, region, historical area, etc. There is some hope that the naming issue may be resolved, one way or another, comparatively soon. Until such time, if any, that such a resolution is reached, Future Perfect's involvement will seemingly be taken by a number of individuals as being clearly "partisan", and it even seems likely that his very presence would contribute to an increased level of tension and distrust in any discussions regarding that content. Should he be seen as acting against this proposal, particularly if he does so in a way which others find clearly objectionable, he may be made subject to stronger sanctions. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want sanctions so narrowly concentrated on this topic, you will first have to show that I have engaged in harmful behaviour specifically in this topic. Given the support I found in places like here, I think that will be hard to demonstrate, unless you want to go for the mudslinging tactics of Avg. As for admin action, I'm sensible enough not to take any in areas where I'm directly involved, barring the obvious exceptions (vandalism, banned users etc.), no need to remind me. As for editors being "alienated", I hope the day has not yet come where a group of editors can get an opponent topic-banned simply by being angry at him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You were, as I remember, told that you were close to being banned from this arbitration discussion by one of the arbitrators earlier. That is I think evidence enough to indicate that your conduct in regard to this topic is at best problematic. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And that same Arbcom clerk had nothing concrete to answer when I asked him to point out where I had been disrupting the process, which is why I consider that warning moot. Is that all you have? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You were warned by both an ArbCom clerk and an arbitrator. And your stance towards an official warning (deleting it and discrediting it) normally should be reason for sanction by itself.--Avg (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are free to also ask the arbitrator in question if he had anything to blame me for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The why were you suggested by this Arbitrator "to shape up quickly"?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing warnings is perfectly within policy. As for discrediting it, last time I checked, we're free to state our disagreement with the validity of warnings. I found that warning last time a bit sketchy, though not nearly so much so as the one FutPerf got about an hour ago. So no, there is nothing sanctionable about his reaction to that warning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is just another red herring to distract attention away from the real issue of this arbitration--the name of Macedonia at Greece and throughout Wikipedia.  All of us are already warned to avoid the naming issue while this arbitration is underway.  That there are those who are still editing at Macedonia naming dispute is (Future Perfect is not one of them), to me, like walking through a minefield with just a divining rod for detection.  Unless you can actually prove some sort of malfeasance, then this proposal is just a waste of time and a witchhunt.  John Carter's comments are usually much better thought out than this.  (Taivo (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Exactly what Taivo said. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would that Taivo's comments ever extended beyond his clearly false claims of "red herring", and he ever actually realized what he has been told repeatedly, that ArbCom cannot address the issue he wants addressed. If Taivo ever managed to get that through his skull, and cease trying to dictate to everyone that they only talk about something which the Arbitrators have said is beyond the official scope of the ArbCom anyway, his own comments might not be so, well, useless. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting past the ad hominem, Mr. Carter, you have probably not noticed that the questions being asked by the arbitrators in various places here are not focused at all on behavior, but on the issue of nationality and the real issue of the name (disambiguation, etc.). That is what is being discussed by the arbitrators here so far--the name.  (Taivo (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Geez, John, let's remember really quickly how to politely discuss with people with whom we don't get along, shall we? Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If Taivo could stop using the misleading and repetitive phrase "red herring" he seems so enamored of, that might help a lot. Of course, you would never say anything against someone on your side, would you? ;) And, for all the questions the ArbCom has been asking, have they yet indicated that their earlier statements are now invalid, or even left a single message on the Proposed decision page regarding the policy matter? Yes, they can and will ask questions about the issue of naming, because among other things they have as one of their duties trying to determine if policy was violated. That does not even necessarily come close to implying that they will issue some sort of statement regarding the issue, and it seems to me to be creating a "red herring" to assume that they have any intention to do something they have only ever specifically denied they would do. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with Fut. is mainly his attitude towards users he wants to discredit. The way he reacts to warnings is an indication of his arrogance and belief in his infallibility. Yes, Heimstern, of course he is allowed to do whatever he wants in his talk page, but we have the right to judge him, when, although at least twice warned for disruption and incivility, he still believes he never did anything wrong! Taivo, the problem is not whether you are editing or not the x or z article but how you are editing. During this arbitration, I edited Macedonia naming dispute, Macedonia (Greece), Slavophones of Greek Macedonia, and Macedonia (region) (4 articles!) where none of my edits caused any reaction. And I believe that my edits were constructive, and improved the articles in question. I do reacted however to the nomination of Macedonia (terminology), and I had a content dispute with Fut. about the first paragraph of this article (his only important editing contribution to the article he sent to FAR). I still believe that this was not a wise editing decision by Fut, and I have doubts about his motives. That simply and that honestly! I must admit, however, that after that, his Macedonia-related editing has been much more careful, but this was not the case again when interacting with users he does not like. And yes, he is indeed sometimes provoked, but "αϊ σιχτίρ μαλακισμένε" or "I delete the edit of a person who is not welcomed here (in a page supposed to attract broader consensus!)" is not the attitude I expect from a Wikipedian of his caliber. He should compose a bit himself, and I believe that John's proposal could help towards this direction. After all it is carefully worded (maybe too carefully, because we now have to define which edits are "directly related to the Macedonia naming dispute"), and it has a limited duration.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposal was put in place because Future Perfect, who in general seems to be a reasonable editor, has displayed an almost relentless effort to defend ChrisO from any sort of criticism from anyone, validly or not, as is at least indicated by his rush to defend ChrisO here on a subject that Future Perfect seems to admit he has little if any first hand knowledge of. Such an almost "knee-jerk" defense of a close ally cannot help but damage Future Perfect's own credibility, and others' faith in his judgement. His conduct has also, as noted, gotten him formally warned to cease and desist from unacceptable behavior during the course of the arbitration itself, and again earlier today as per here. Yes, it is understood that all admins are told to refrain from such actions in content in which they were involved. ChrisO knew that he wasn't supposed to do anything like that when he moved the article too; it didn't stop him though. What one emotionally involved person can do, that person's almost equally emotional close ally could not unreasonably be likely to repeat. I acknowledge the phrasing is more than suspect, but, at least in this case, there is some reason to believe that emotionalism of some sort plays a much stronger role with this editor here than it does in most other editors or most other cases. Taking that into account, a stronger than usual statement, which would generally only be a "reminder", seems to me anyway very much called for. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Others' faith in his judgment"? Pray, who are these "others" you speak of? People FutPerf has disagreed with in content disputes and yourself? Sorry, not convinced. I can tell you that I for one have not lost faith in his judgment and believe that his leaving this dispute would be a net loss and would give certain editors who want to impose a nationalist POV on the article a leg up. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, for one, me, who came to this conversation at Future Perfect's request on one of the noticeboards to help him defend the content from Greek POV editors. Your own apparent lack of faith in the ability of the ArbCom to enforce its rulings is, sadly, your own problem. However, I cannot see how, if the plans that are in place are enacted, which seem to include locking the content from any such precipitous moves for some time, that you have anything to be afraid of in that area, other than perhaps some sort of vague paranoia regarding nationalist POV, which probably is beyond the ability of ArbCom to address as well. And, for what it's worth, I never intended to try to convince partisans. I am using this page the way it is supposed to be used, to file proposals for the ArbCom to consider. Others are of course free to criticize or approve of any proposals I make as they see fit, but that doesn't mean that I'm necessarily writing anything for their input. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I'm done arguing with you, since it seems all you're here to do is oppose ChrisO and anyone supporting him and since you apparently can't stop making things personal. Heimstern Läufer (talk)
 * And you seemingly can't stop with insults against others, which seems to be at least one of your primary interests here. In all honesty, I really can't see anyone objecting to at least that disappearing. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heimstem, you know, you could be also accused of what you are accusing John but towards the opposite direction. And, by the way, it is your last comment of the kind that "makes things personal"!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yannis, my last comment is an observation on John's behaviour, not a personal comment. Given his implication that I'm paranoid, I think I'm quite within reason to call him on making things personal. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have to strongly support after this. Unless I misunderstood something or Fut can give a proper explanation. See what happened: ChrisO (correctly) reverts a user who changed "Macedonia" to "FYR Macedonia", and ask all users (I suppose this goes to Fut as well!) not to change the name. Some hours later, Fut partially reverts ChrisO accusing him of "naming vandalism"! Did he do it intentionally or because of his furstration he did not understand what he was doing? In both cases, we have a problem here!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fut. says it was a mistake.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by Others

Future perfect be made subject to civility restrictions
5) Future Perfect at Sunrise will be subject to civility probation for a period of one year. During that time, any uninvolved administrator may block him for uncivil conduct, escalating the duration if necessary. Future Perfect may also be banned from content or other pages should he engage in uncivil activity on a particular topic twice during the period of his probation. Any such topic ban will last for the balance of the civility probation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by Parties
 * Proposed. On at least three occasions since April 21, Future Perfect has engaged in grossly uncivil behavior. These include the ANI thread I linked to in my evidence as well as the two subsequent warnings of possible blocking since then. In no way can such conduct be called even remotely acceptable. It should also be noted that Future Perfect gave a rather transparent excuse for his telling someone to "fuck off, you wanker" as acceptable on the ANI thread. This provides clear evidence that Future Perfect is either incapable of understanding the rules of civility, or possibly that he knows himself to be incapable of adhering to them and thus ignores them. As a result, having any contact whatsoever with that party is becoming an increasingly objectionable task to me, and I think to many if not most of the other parties in this case, including evidently the clerks and arbitrators themselves. I believe that the only way it may be possible to get through to this party that civility rules do apply to him is to make him subject to civility enforcement, as per above. John Carter (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that if I can get it through my skull, the word I'm looking for is pot. (Taivo (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Responses - I am not myself aware of the gender of Future Perfect, and in general try to avoid the singular "they". That leaves comparatively few alternatives. I used Future Perfect three times in the comment, and got tired of repeating it. If you can think of other gender neutral terms, I'd love to hear them. And I have to say that his excuse for his obscenity at ANI which can be found in the thread at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive531 can be seen as clear evidence that he either will not understand or cannot understand civility rules. Clear evidence is not necessarily conclusive evidence however. And, yes, like I said above, I regret to say that having to deal with the frequent failure of Future Perfect to behave in an acceptable fashion is becoming an increasingly objectionable task to me, and that my own conduct is likely suffering by the ongoing exposure to his own grossly unacceptable behavior. Considering Taivo has had to be told several times that his insistence that dealing with conduct matters, which is what the ArbCom specifically limits itself to, is not the "red herring" he so regularly insists it is, and the fact that he has indicated by his own actions that he has little if any understanding of the policies or guidelines, even to the point of stating there was almost certainly no difference between them, his comments are, basically, as irrelevant as they often have been elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * John, do not argue for the obvious. It is clear that "party" is one of the most official and polite terms one can use for another involved party–editor. I am really surprised that this is not obvious for everybody here. It is such a bad argument that it cannot shift at all the discussion from the real civility issues we discuss here.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen. It cannot be overstated that only when this person is actually penalized there is a chance to understand they were in the wrong. They have repeatedly shown contempt for warnings.--Avg (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by Others
 * "This provides clear evidence that Future Perfect is either incapable of understanding the rules of civility, or possibly that he knows himself to be incapable of adhering to them and thus ignores them" is not exactly a model for polite speech, nor is characterizing another editor as "that party". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ?! Is it impolite to call another involved party "that party"?! Why?!! It's the most neutral and formal way you can call another party! It is the first time in my life (both wiki life, and real life where I used to be a jurist) that I read such an argument!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Yannismarou, it's impolite. Arbitration pages are not a legal brief--most participants try to use ordinary language rather than legal language. Referring to someone as "that party" (rather than "him", which John used later in his edit), connotes disrespect--which is not exactly invisible in the rest of John's statement. To see what I mean, you may wish to read through my last sentence, replacing "John" with "that party". The larger point, of course, is not the choice of a particular word or phrase, but the general tone of John's statement--which is contemptuous. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with you. Calling another party a "party" (namely what he/she is) connotes "solemnity" and not contempt. If a user chooses this tone, it is his right and there is no disrespect. I changed "John" with "that party" in your sentence and what I have is formal wording; no disrespect. In any case – let's accept that John's tone is contemptuous for the shake of the discussion – I'd have expected you to have articulated all these weeks at least some words of criticism for Fut's tone, which is more often contemptuous! For instance, do you think it is ok to speak about "minor players in the Greek national team". "Greek national team"?! What is that?! Don't you think it is also a bit contemptuous? Please, read also this and this to have some further feedback about Fut's tone towards a particular group of editors. And these comments do not come by a "nationalist member" of our "national team"!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose The mind boggles at the audacity of this proposal, especially in light of the astounding bad faith evident in this comment. I echo Taivo's comment that this is a pot-kettle case. I would also add, without passing judgment on whether FutPerf's behavior passes as incivil, that we tend to tolerate incivility from those editors who are extremely productive and those who face significant harassment.  I would argue that Future Perfect easily meets both criteria.  //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that, according to your argumentation, I have the right to be incivil, because I am productive?! Did Fut face harassment by John, when he was incivil towards him?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of editors in mind who I will not name here. I think the standard is (or should be, if it isn't) that if your removal from the project for incivility would be a greater detriment to the project than continuing incivility, you get leniency.  Especially if you, like FP, have been subject to abuse for a period of years due to your editing positions.  I'm honestly unfamiliar with your editing record, but I'd venture a guess that there are only a handful of people who meet this standard (I certainly don't include myself in that group).  //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 15:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's easy to check the productivity of all of us (if you first define what is "productivity", and this is a difference I have had with Fut). Another issue is to define "handful of people". Yes, compared to the thousands of users, the "productive" (?!) users are a handful. But I can assure you that this "handful of people" are already hundreds! So, do you argue that for certain hundreds of us civility rules do not apply? You talk about leniency: Fut has been warned three times during this arbitration! Two by an arbitrator, and one by a clerk. After his ""fuck off, you wanker" he was also warned (by an administrator who happens to be an arbitrator, if I am not mistaken). We thus count 4 warnings during the last month and no measures against him! Chris, how more lenient should the Community be towards him?!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * O, another thing! Who talks about "removal from the project"?! You may have understood things a bit incorrectly. What John Carter proposes is that Fut "be made subject to civility restrictions". I don't see any proposals for removing him from the project.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is no way that this proposal could remotely result in having Future Perfect "removed from the project". The only penalty that would be incurred would be blocking, and. potentially. banning from a page or topic if he had already been blocked for similar conduct on that same matterearlier. If that were to happen, I think the only party who could be held responsible would be Future Perfect. I regret to say that I, who came into this discussion to try to help Future Perfect deal with what he called "Greek nationalists" on a noticeboard, have found that, since I got here, the most disruptive editors involved have seemingly included, if not in fact been limited to, Future Perfect himself and ChrisO. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @John - I'm aware that you're not explicitly calling for his blocking/banning - however, that is the end result of repeated violations of civility probation. I'm simply saying that past practice, generally not explicit, has been to excuse even repeated violations of WP:CIVIL by editors considered especially productive or helpful to the project.  I'm also aware that you don't consider Future Perfect in that category, which is your right; I'm simply expressing the opposing viewpoint that he is, in fact, too valuable to lose over civility violations.  I still stand by my statement that your own record over the past 24 hours is not exactly stellar in the civility department.  //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 16:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think that he would be blocked or banned beyond the year, until and unless his conduct continued in the same fashion it has for roughly the past month, and I don't think that is likely to happen. My primary reason for posting this comment was based on the ANI thread, where he rather weakly tried to say his blatant incivility was in some way defensible. To date, he hasn't yet heard an unequivocal response to that, and, given the subsequent warnings of possible blocks, I think he probably does need to hear that his excuse is not an acceptable one. Regarding my own conduct over the past day, please see my other recent comments on the pages of this arbitration. Basically, I've had as much of him as I can stand, and I now have I think acknowledged that more than once. It is my sincerest hope that I have no cause to have to deal with him again ever. That however does not absolve me from offering suggestions which I think are indicated under the circumstances, and I think the evidence is fairly clear here that something along these lines is needed. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally speaking: the feeling of emotional tiredness is certainly mutual. The problem is just that you have no chance of avoiding me as long as you make it your task to press for sanctions against me. As long as you insist on posting "evidence" about me – and to my regret I found yet another factual inaccuracy in your latest attempt – you won't get away without listening to my comments. If you truly want to be rid of me, the solution is to walk away, strike your comments and proposals about me, and I'll strike mine. You have the luxury of being able to walk away from this case; I, unfortunatly, do not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And, out of curiosity, why is it that you can't walk away? Your own actions have brought about the proposed sanctions against you, and I find it extremely unpleasant that you once again seem to be claiming "I'm a victim". If you want to propose sanctions against me, please do so. However, I cannot in conscience think that the four warnings about being blocked you have received in the past, what, three weeks?, are something that cannot be allowed to pass by unnoticed. If you are capable of editing without any sort of difficulties despite a probation or parole, good, I personally would see that as being the optimum solution. If not, I would hope that in extreme cases, like during the ArbCom, anyone reviewing it would be reasonaly sympathetic. In retrospect, however, I am honor bound to say that your use of an epithet which by your own acknowledgement you didn't even know the meaning of, and your willingness to engage in such actions in the first place, is something which I honestly should not have attempted to even remotely condone when it occurred. The fact that on Future Perfect's talk page that person has indicated that he or she believes that one of the primary faults of this arbitration is that he or she has not been "protected" enough from comments by others, and that he or she has I believe made previous comments regarding the insufficient "protection" they have received, seems at least to me to be attempting to pass responsibility for his or her own actions to others. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Just to attest to a certain degree of impoliteness by Future Perfect. His own words that he cannot walk away might indicate a certain feeling of ownership about Macedonia in Wikipedia. I recall him and certain others like Avg said the go back a long time here and I consider them as the "guardians" of sort of those wiki articles. I can only explain the way he behaves only in the part that he might feel personally attached by dealing too much with too many in those years; nevertheless that is not a reason to abandon etiquette. Maybe it is time for him to lay down a little. His objectivity and politeness might have shifted substancially since this. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this, but that's largely because I don't believe civility restrictions work. I'd oppose this no matter whose name was in the remedy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, actually. Unfortunately, the only real options I see are three: (1) Future Perfect get his wrist slapped with a admonishment or similar, (2) Future Perfect be topic banned, and (3) marginally relevant, Future Perfect be de-sysop'ed. I have to seriously question whether simply an admonishment of any sort would be sufficient, given the circumstances. I also personally think that imposing either of the latter two based primarily on the actions here is unreasonable, given the amount of off-topic provocation that pretty much is constant in these pages. While it might be possible that some would think a topic ban really called for, I personally would like to at least give the opportunity to avoid such a ban by, in effect, only imposing it based on subsequent glaring misbehavior. Similarly, while it might be remotely possible that he could be de-sysop'ed for continuing misconduct, I'd prefer to see it happen as a result of subsequent conduct than as a result of any actions here. Personally, I am not myself convinced that Future Perfect should be de-sysoped in any event, but could see some sort of conduct-based restriction. Even there, I would feel more comfortable with imposing any such restriction on subsequent events, rather than on the basis of any conduct which took place in this circus here. John Carter (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high quality encyclopedia. As such it does not discriminate entries based on simple criteria that might fall into pitfalls of WP:Recentism. I.e. Popularity of one entry in common news outlets cannot be the sole determining factor about primary topic when entities that are trans-political (regions) and trans-temporal (ancient civilizations) also share the same name. Political propaganda or transcendence of outside disputes into Wikipedia is prohibited. However self-identification and sensitivities of readers of all sides in a dispute should be respected.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Useful insights can be drawn from other encyclopedias to indicate if there is a multitude of subjects under one common name or referent term. In that case the possibility of the non-existence of any primary topic should be discussed. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

No hasty logic
2) Wikipedia has time. Hasty decisions about controversial subjects should be avoided as well as hasty generalization about the motives of editors regarding the above.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Common names, exclusivity and uniqueness
3) Using a unique name for any article in Wikipedia is a technical requirement that is not applicable in printed Encyclopedias. If that technical requirement becomes the source of heated controversy then focus should be on using names that stir the less controversy; that can be done by using proper disambiguating names for all entries, without measuring their relative significance and having the wider meaning as the primary topic. That is done in order to not derail constructive contribution, into warring over what entity should occupy the article named with the simpler form of the shared name.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. e.g. "Macedonia" entry would be about the region, the civilization or simply the dab page, like in China, Korea, America etc. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a fundamental problem with this.  The problem is that for many common European placenames, there is a town, county or state in the United States that shares that name.  Thus, Paris, Moscow, and Athens, for example, would, under this proposal, have to be renamed "Paris, France", "Moscow, Russia", and "Athens, Greece" since there is a Paris, Texas, Moscow, Idaho, and Athens, Georgia.  The proposal is completely unworkable since every single placename would have to be thus disambiguated "without measuring their relative significance".  (Taivo (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
 * (?) What you mentioned are totally irrelevant. I mentioned specifically doing that only when the naming is "the source of heated controversy". I don't think there is any controversy regarding Athens, Georgia and Athens, Greece. On the other side the Balkans are frequently at the breach of another war or anyhow controversial like our friend User:BalkanFever explains about the term of his nickname. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 14:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides I can't think of any culturally or geographically wider meaning of Athens that covers both the US and the Greek city. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not sure how Balkan stupidity is meant to affect Wikipedia. Wasn't the whole point that we should ignore it?  Balkan Fever  13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore it yes; then Macedonia should be about the region (or a dab page). Macedonia being an article about the country not only is not ignoring Balkan realities but rather choosing one side - that of one Balkan country. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 06:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Move-protected articles should not be moved
4) The action of any administrator to move an article that is move-protected goes against the purpose of move-protection and Wikipedia practice that "anyone can edit" by appearing as an abuse of administrative tools, rendering the application of that protection null. Administrators should not use special powers over regular editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 10:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

New users are respected
5) Any new editor should not be bited, judged or labeled as SPA too early or restricted preemptively in Wikipedia because of any speculation of his political affiliation and especially not because of his ethnic background that can never be concretely proven in Wikipedia


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 10:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. While this is admirable in theory, this case has shown that the practicalities of a blanket statement are sometimes not practical.  New accounts that happen to arrive just in time for a heated arbitration, that become major contributors to a single POV in that debate should be subject to intense scrutiny and possibly excluded from that arbitration completely.  Shadowmorph and SQRT are two clear examples of single-purpose new accounts that have taken up more than their share of this discussion.  It is suspicious to many of the parties of this arbitration who were involved in the discussion years, months, and weeks before arbitration was even being discussed.  Let the new accounts edit in Wikipedia and get their "sea legs", but when they dive into a single heated discussion and immediately take major roles in one side of the argument that is a problem.  (Taivo (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I was going to leave a detailed response about your bad faith assumptions regarding parties not in agreement with your POV, but after reading "more than their share of this discussion", it's not needed. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

NPOV and English-speaking usage
Wikipedia should avoid the English-speaking Point of View about the name/word Macedonia/Macedonian but rather use historical and scientific/geographic usage about the region.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. For example the United States POV about Macedonia as expressed through American news channels, media etc Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 08:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Preparative moves by ChrisO were not based on policy
1) In April the administrator ChrisO deleted the page Macedonia (disambiguation) and then moved the move-protected page Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation), in preparative action for moving the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia. That first move was not accompanied by an explanation based on policy but rather a concealment of the actual reason behind those moves and misquoting of the policy


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Any of the above actions could have been reverted based on WP:DABNAME because no rationale about primary topic was given at the time. The moves weren't reverted partly due to the fact that the timing gave leverage to ChrisO's actions because involved or uninvolved administrators from Greece or Bulgaria that might object were away because of Orthodox Easter festivities. Future Perfect which was engaged in editing at the time didn't revert those preparative moves although there was no justification for them and actually policy required to revert them; in essence he chose to look away. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

ChrisO moved the page without consent and against move-protection
2) In April the involved administrator ChrisO moved the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia after having done preparative moves (the most recent involvement prior to the move). He provided a rationale only after the move and didn't seek consensus with either side, not even the ones he claimed were supportive. The course of his actions were fashioned secretively. The move was evidently controversial and it contradicted the protection status of the articles that was not updated to enable possible reversion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus with supportive editors has not been sought transparently. There is a question of whether any of the editors/administrators that were supportive subsequently would have expressed the same support if there was any previous transparent discussion. In that case they would have been considered involved in Macedonia by stating their preference. ChrisO could have proceeded with the move even against consensus with everybody again by claiming at least partial support. In reality he couldn't claim even that beforehand. But in that case all the "supportive" editors/admins would have stated their preferences in advance and would not be considered uninvolved any more. The matter of consensus (excluding "the Greeks") for the action is entangled with the matter of the nonexistence of any transparent discussion of support of the action before the move. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 07:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

There is need for disambiguation of "Macedonia"
3) Evidence shows the need for disambiguation of the word "Macedonia" that has multiple and very different meanings. Aside from other evidence, the very need for having a Macedonia (terminology) article in Wikipedia attests to that fact; it is similar to the American / American (word) situation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. As per my evidence and disambiguation discussions in the talk and workshop pages. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 07:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And it is done quite effectively and efficiently with the hatnote at Macedonia. This shows that page views for the disambiguation page have dropped from 1200 to 100 per day since the move to Macedonia.  Thus, the majority of people are getting where they want to go faster without going through the disambiguation page first.  (Taivo (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
 * The "thus, the majority of people" part is a jump to POV conclusions, not taking into account all the factors involved. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "factors involved" are 1) What are the majority of people looking for when they type "Macedonia" in the search box? 2) When they get to Macedonia, are they looking for something else or have they found what they want? Those are the only two factors involved in this disambiguation issue.  If the majority of people don't go on to Macedonia (disambiguation) or Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedonia, Ohio, then Wikipedia has successfully named the article.  The majority of people have found what they want when they reach Macedonia.  That's the only relevant issue in disambiguation--getting the majority of people where they want to go with the least number of clicks.  (Taivo (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I hope this will be the last time to repeat it, in my opinion the drop of the dab page hits is exclusively a logical outcome of the disappearance of the dab page as a result in any Google.com search for "Macedonia". That was because the url where the dab page used to be is now the article about the country. Prior to the move the dab page appeared as a top result and led hundreds of visitors (organic traffic) to the dab page (and when they got there they actually learned things). Also I would say the current hat note is compromised. Namely it doesn't mention the Greek region specifically. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The identification of Google as a cause for the change in dab page views is mistaken. If the disappearance of the separate Google search result for Macedonia (=dab) had a significant effect on our page view distribution, we would first of all expect to register a decrease in page views on the wiki url it pointed to, namely Macedonia. There is no such effect; the page views for the "Macedonia" url have been exactly constant throughout the past half year (c.1,200 hits per day on average). This is not explainable if a majority of traffic on that page title came from Google; in the absence of significant numbers of wikilinks pointing to that title, the only other explanation consistent with the facts is that the large majority of these page views come from the Wiki-internal search function (readers typing "Macedonia" in the search box). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This graph tells the story of page viewership quite effectively.  The page view numbers for the different content pages have stayed fairly stable both before and after the move of the disambiguation page away from Macedonia.  That means that people are still finding the information that they want to find without having to go through the disambiguation page.  Since the country page is the destination of the great majority of page viewers, we have served the majority of users by not routing them through the disambiguation page.  The other viewers do not seem to be confused since they still find their way to the page of their choice.  The only page that has seen a drop in viewership is the disambiguation page.  But we should not care about viewership there since that is not a content page.  The people who need to find Macedonia, Ohio are still going to the disambiguation page.  (Taivo (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Interesting new factbite: As of today, Google has apparently changed its rankings again is now again serving up two separate pages : the country and Macedonia (Greece). That's again an improvement. We want the Google links to go not to the dab page but to the articles themselves, and apparently eliminating the dab page has actually freed up the other pages to register more efficiently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't pretend Wikipedia is isolated from the rest of the internet and that the hits come from people that "type in Macedonia in the box". It is highly likely the case (I would say the most likely case) that they come through a Google search e.g. "Macedonia what is it" or "Macedonia europe" or "Macedonia wikipedia". Personally I caught myself to finding easier to search for "{something} wikipedia" when I am already at the Google page than to load the Wikipedia main page and then type in the box. Just to get a grip of the number of hits we are talking here check out this graph of search term "Macedonia wikipedia" (You can sign in to see numbers too) Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. These specific factors are so conveniently omitted from the equation by some parties. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Taivo makes repeated statements above about the "'only' two factors involved in the disambiguation issue" and the "only relevant issue in disambiguation". I believe his rather absolute statement is rather clearly contradicted by the content of the guideline WP:DISAMBIG, which I suggest is probably more thoroughly considered and elaborated than his own short, clearly judgemental statements. Perhaps some parties might be interested in seeing what the existing guidelines are before seeking to impose opinions which seem to at least somewhat run contrary to the existing guideline. John Carter (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Technical comment.There is more to the matter of page hits in relation to 301 redirects. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 08:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Isn't this a question of content, and therefore outside the scope of an ArbCom decision? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a question of content, and therefore outside the scope of an ArbCom decision. But, as you might have noticed, questions regarding content, as opposed to any conduct matters, have been the primary matters that some individuals have presented in evidence anyway, which is evidence that at least some parties think that the scope of ArbCom decisions is broader than previous evidence and statements would seem to suggest. If you are suggesting that the thread be removed as remarkably off topic, however, I personally would in no way object to seeing that happen.
 * Answer. This FOF about the word "Macedonia" is implemental about ChrisO's move and rearrangement of Macedonia articles. Regarding matters of conduct the FOF is relevant to whether the move was (a) controversial, (b) not according to policy and (d) an NPOV and uninvolved administrative move. If the move ends up to being endorsed by an ArbCom decision then ArbCom would be making a decision about content by proxy. Thank you. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 07:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on what you have stated, then, you might be advised to change the phrasing to indicate that is what you mean. An alternate phrasing might be, though, that (x) moves, including creation of new pages for extant articles as well as deletion of old pages were made apparently out of process. That would allow you to create a remedy to the effect of all out of process changes be reverted. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple IP editors have expressed disruptive behavior
4) Many IP editors have been fueling the fire of edit wars. That has overshadowed any anonymous constructive input and undermined the potential to include a wider editorial community in the articles. Vandalism types:
 * Type A: Substitution of "Republic of Macedonia" with "Skopje"/"FYROM" (as is, not just adding descriptive "former Yugoslav" to produce the long form of f.Y.R.O.M.) or various pejorative substitutions like ("Fyromian"/"Bulgaroskopjan"/"Vardarskan") for "ethnic Macedonian" without any other constructive contribution. Probably more frequent and widespread than Type B, found in both Macedonia related and unrelated ones where the country is mentioned.
 * Type B: Substitution of "Greece"/"Greek" with "Macedonia"/"Macedonian" or Slavic equivelants (e.g."Makedonija"/"Makedonski"), or just plainly deletion, ignoring facts or without consistency with references found in the same sentence or in the article. Substitution or deletion is not accompanied by any constructive contribution. Found in Macedonia related pages Macedonia (ancient kingdom), ancient Macedonians, ancient Macedonian language  but also in unrelated or loosely related ancient/Byzantine Greek pages (e.g. Cyril and Method example)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Posted straight in the workshop page, to relieve Horologium's proposal with which it partly overlaps. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 09:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Reversion of all the administrator moves that violated move-protection
1) Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (disambiguation). The moves that were made in contrast to Wikipedia operation and proper application of move-protection should be reverted to their previous locations regardless of any other action.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say this one makes sense. There is no just cause to permit these moves, which definitely occurred out of standard procedure, to be allowed to remain as they are any longer. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Actually, this graph proves that there has been no disruption to Wikipedia users after the move except that the majority of users looking for "Macedonia" no longer have to go through the disambiguation page.  That is, they land right where they want to be (at Macedonia, the country) and no longer have to click a second link to get to the country page.  The only page that has suffered since the move is the disambiguation page, but we don't care how many viewers see it since it isn't a content page, it is only a signpost for the minority of viewers who aren't interested in the country.  Forcing the large majority of viewers to navigate through a page they don't need is inefficient.  The problem here is that, as we have seen on this page (when it veers into content), the two parties cannot come to a consensus.  Therefore the most efficient solution for the users (which the current arrangement of titles represents) would have been impossible to achieve without extraordinary measures being taken.  It would be interesting and educational here to see how the same graph would look for Rome, where users go directly to the city page and then click on a hat note to go to the ancient empire or to a disambiguation page.  (Taivo (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Oppose. I've already addressed this in my proposed remedies at and below. There should be no further article moves until a clear decision is reached on the naming. There is no point in reverting a move for the sake of it, particularly as the objective of the move was to improve the service we're providing to our readers and there is strong empirical evidence that navigation overall is now more efficient for the large majority of readers, without negatively affecting accessibility of the other articles (see  and . We should not make things worse in the name of making them better at some later point. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I urge the arbitrators to read very carefully the above post by ChrisO. It makes the best ever case on why this user is not fit for the position of an administrator. He still firmly declares that abusing the tools was a correct action which should not be reverted, since this way the "right" version (according to him of course) is now on. --Avg (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Removal of protection on all Macedonia related articles
2) The protection of the articles against moves and anonymous editing has exceeded any reasonable time limit acceptable for a Wiki that operates on community input. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unprotected Macedonian articles have been subject to a high level of Greek vandalism.  Removing protection from Macedonia will just open that article up to the vandalism that is occurring elsewhere.  Let editors talk about changes on the talk page, come up with a consensus, and then ask an admin to implement it.  There will always be some admin watching that page for consensus-built changes.  The same is true of Greece, which is the true beginning place of this arbitration and the real reason we are here.  Once this arbitration is finished and a solution for the name of Macedonia is determined for that article, then it should be locked to prevent Greek edit warring.  (Taivo (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Maybe so, but you forgot the ethnic Macedonian "vandalism". I have seen a number cases of that, specifically regarding pushing pseudohistory. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thus, Shadowmorph, an even better case for opposing the removal of protection from Macedonia (and closely-related articles) and Greece (and closely-related articles). (Taivo (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I still believe that lockdowns that don't distinguish the "good" from the "bad" IP contributors are not the proper solution to those problems. Lockdowns should only be temporary Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 09:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Uninvolved administrators free to move and revert henceforward
3) It is stated that any uninvolved admin can move Macedonia related articles, based on a) his own judgment, and b) the consensus of the community, regardless of any divisive property that might have been attributed to any specific user or class of users in the community.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Statement by Jack forbes). Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 07:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Reversion of ChrisO's move based on previous Arbitration
4) The move violated all three principles stated in the previous Macedonia-related Arbitration WP:ARBMAC. Specifically "furtherance of outside conflicts" &mdash; stated in Purpose of Wikipedia &mdash; "assumptions of bad faith" ("strong advices") and "gaming the system" (against non-admins by maintaining move-protection) &mdash; stated in Decorum &mdash; and "Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion" stated in Editorial process.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I think it is self evident. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 09:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the third or fourth proposal in this Workshop that requests exactly the same thing.  The evidence is overwhelming, IMHO, that the great majority of users looking for Macedonia have benefited from the move by not having to go through the disambiguation before getting to the page they want to reach.  "Process" should never trump improvement for the users.  (Taivo (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
 * There is no "overwhelming" evidence about anything. Even based on the extremely shaky assumptions regarding page views, you imply that there are no users who simply type Macedonia because they just want to find out what Macedonia is. You cannot say that people by default know what they're looking for beforehand. This is the role of an encyclopedia, to educate those who want to learn about a subject. And the service that Wikipedia currently offers to those users is unencyclopedic, since it leads them to believe that there is only one Macedonia, the country.--Avg (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Avg, but I think you are mistaken. The role of an encyclopedia is not to educate, but to provide information.  There's a subtle difference.  When the average person comes to an encyclopedia, they have a question.  That question might be "What is the area in square miles of Macedonia?" or "Who was the king of Macedon(ia) before Philip?" or "What does Macedonia produce?"  They don't come to an encyclopedia to "be educated", but to answer questions.  Few people have ever read entire encyclopedia articles.  They skim the article until they find the information they want.  The only time the majority of encyclopedia users read an entire article is when their question is very general.  If person comes up to me as a linguistics professor and asks, "What are the French definite articles?" I don't give them a lecture on the different varieties of French and ask "Which variety do you mean?  Cajun, Standard, Walloon, Gascon, Old?"  I say, "Le or la depending on the gender".  The vast majority of the time they are satisfied because the most common question is based on the modern language.  If they want "Old French" articles, then they can then specify, "Is that the same for Old French?"  This is the same principle that we must remember during this discussion.  When most people type "Macedonia" in the search box, they aren't looking for Macedonia, Ohio.  They have a question that needs to be answered about the modern country.  They aren't looking for information about Greece or Alexander the Great.  They don't really care about how many different uses "Macedonia" might have.  They want to know what its flag looks like or what the capital city is or what is the national language.  They won't read the entire article, but skim it for the information they are looking for.  They aren't here to "be educated", but to find information.  (Taivo (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry Taivo, but it doesn't work this way. The encyclopedia has to have all the information available, not pre-filter it according to someone's perception on what people might be looking for (which cannot be validated anyway). And by that I don't mean of course repetition of the same information everywhere, but the availability of all options when someone is simply looking for something. For ambiguous terms a dab page should almost universally used, unless one subject can be proved to be by very very far the primary topic and all the other topics to be obscure, which of course is not the case with Macedonia. However, since it seems we have completely opposing views on what an encyclopedia is, do you think it makes sense to perhaps ask the arbs for a clarification?--Avg (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said "prefilter information", so please don't misinterpret what I wrote. I was talking about navigation only.  Take "Rome", for example.  There is an ancient kingdom (that is more well-known even than ancient Macedonia) and a large modern city as well as many other cities (Rome, Georgia, for example).  When someone types "Rome" in the search box they are taken first to the modern city and not to a disambiguation page.  The navigation takes the user to the most likely place they are interested in.  A hat note then directs other users to a disambiguation page or to the ancient empire.  You can't argue that the city is "very very far the primary topic...and the other topics obscure", but it is the most likely topic.  That's what is being successfully done at Macedonia as well.  What you are advocating is to use disambiguation pages everywhere in Wikipedia, thus making the majority of articles about places subject to disambiguation.  You want to inconvenience the majority of users for the sake of "educating" them that there are other places that use that name.  Going back to my example of the person asking me about French articles, if I had responded "Do you mean Cajun French, Gascon French, Walloon French, Old French, or Standard French?" they would never come to me again for information.  They would go to the guy next door who won't "hassle them".  So instead of making information easy to access for the majority of users, you are advocating that Wikipedia make it harder for the majority of users to access information.  (Taivo (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
 * If you bring me a different topic as example, then I bring you Ireland, China and America. Are users invonvenienced? Has there been one of those exhausting researches on alleged page hits to those articles as the ones done here? No. Why? Could it be because people care more about encyclopedicity than convenience? I'm not even going into the fact that Macedonia the country is not the primary topic here, but simply asking the question, since when "convenience" is a primary encyclopedic value, higher than NPOV and completeness of information? Perhaps we should offer then one-pagers to convenience students who are bored to read an article? But the best answer to that, is that no reader has ever complained that they have been inconcenienced by not being automatically transported to their preferred version of Macedonia, whichever it was (if clicking one more time can really be interpreted as inconvenience). Instead, most of them would most certainly have appreciated the information in front of them and the chance to expand to a multitude of topics, should they wished to. Finally, replying to your example, if someone wanted to learn about all the different French articles, they probably shouldn't come to you in the first place, they should ...open an encyclopedia. This is why it is there for.--Avg (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You still don't understand anything I've said, Avg. You keep thinking I've said something about content and I've not said one single thing about content, only the issue of navigation, which is made easier for most users through the current setup.  I'm not going to say any more on the issue.  You aren't responding to simple navigation issues.  (Taivo (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks for insulting me once again, Taivo. Once more, it is very much an editorial decision to filter the way information is presented and create a certain impression to the reader. If you say to them, here is your primary topic, all the others are secondary, then you have made a conscious decision to promote a certain POV and demote the rest in terms of importance. You can do this only in the small amount of cases where you are absolutely certain there is an immensely strong case to do that. Othrwise, you simply subscribe to a POV and you offer very bad services to the encyclopedia. Structuring the way a topic is navigated is a decision.--Avg (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I go to a website looking for something specific, I hate it when I'm confronted with a page that says, "But wouldn't you rather look at all these other things, too?" It's marketing.  When the majority of users want to go to look at Macedonia, why bother them with the advertising about Macedonia, Ohio?  The arguments for a Wikipedia disambiguation page at Macedonia that points to all kinds of Macedonias that aren't the country is just a Greek marketing strategy to shift focus away from the country.  The majority of users are looking for the country.  The graphs that Future Perfect developed show that clearly.  Why bother them with the marketing strategy that tries to shift focus away from the natural target of their search?  (Taivo (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Because your initial assumption is incorrect. There is no proof that people are typing Macedonia and they mean the country. At best for your POV Fut.Perf.'s graphs showed that it is an even split between Macedonia the country and other meanings, so obviously there is not an overwhelming majority looking for Macedonia the country. Also this line of thought ignores as I said above the users who want to know what Macedonia is. So too may assumptions, all of them POV. Sorry, this is too problematic to be implemented. If there is any use for the graphs is the prioritization of entries in the dab page. That, I could agree to.--Avg (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Automatic tagging of vandalism
5) Any substitution or deletion vandalism of the words Macedonia/Macedonian, Greece/Greek in any article (in the absence of any constructive contribution) should be flagged as possible vandalism (by adding a "Macedonia naming dispute" tag in the description). A prime identifying factor can be the difference in the bytes of the edits. If the removed content involves multiple occurrences of single words and the additions follow the same pattern (scattered single words) then it might be vandalism. If the additional content is zero, it might indicate deletion type. If the additional content bytes roughly matches the removed content, it might indicate substitution type. Those criteria can be used in addition to other filters. Most common substitutions change *Macedon* to FYROM* / *Skopj* / Vardarsk* (type A) and Gree* to Macedon* / Makedon* / not Gree* (type B)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. See related FOF although I don't know the specifics of the abuse filter and the bots mechanics I believe a way can be found to implement this. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

IP Editors have disrupted Wikipedia
IP editors have changed mentions of "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" to "FYROM" throughout the project. This is often done on pages which have no direct connection to Greece, Macedonia, or their peoples, languages, or cultures. The effect disrupts Wikipedia and leads to a battleground mentality among registered editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Excellent. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This is a small subset of the disruption over this issue, and this particular type of editing doesn't accomplish anything that benefits Wikipedia. It does serve to ratchet up hostility, and wastes the time of other editors who spend time reverting it. I have tailored it very narrowly to fit the proposed remedy below. Both may need to be widened.  Horologium  (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good proposal. One correction though - it's not just IP editors who do this, it's registered editors as well, although (1) it's mostly IP editors who are responsible and (2) the registered editors who do this tend to be either very newly registered or obvious SPAs. See the contributions of for a case in point. I think your wording needs to be tweaked to reflect this. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (added) Might I suggest that you change the above to read to "FYROM" or "Vardarska"? The latter is a widespread term among Greek nationalists but has absolutely no currency beyond that community. See and  for edits which I reverted a few minutes ago. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the contributions of nick ts (note his block log), but the vast majority of these types of edits are either from unregistered editors, or obvious POV pushers who get kicked to the curb in short order. In any case, the remedy (below) will eliminate the issue entirely.  Horologium  (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. One other thought occurs to me though. I'd suggest changing the last line to "The effect disrupts Wikipedia, reduces the clarity of articles, breaks links to other articles that use the term "Republic of Macedonia" and leads to a battleground mentality among registered editors." Disruption and battleground mentality are internal issues within the Wikipedia community, but I think the most immediate problem with such changes is that it disadvantages our readers. Edits that destroy working links are obviously a bad thing, and the people making those edits clearly have no regard for clarity - they never explain what "FYROM" actually stands for, since their sole intention is to erase all mentions of "Macedonia" from the country's name. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at these two edits today, their sole intention is to erase all mentions of "Greece" from the ancient kingdom name. This has been going on for ages, by both IPs and newly registered editors.--Avg (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But that is not the subject of this arbitration, and he's one of the ones who is likely to get kicked to the curb for POV pushing.  Horologium  (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't? This is exactly the same behavior, just coming from the other side. Some people want Macedonia to refer only to a Greek context some others want Macedonia to refer only to a non-Greek context. Two sides of the same coin and they both should be prevented from doing so.--Avg (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see how vandalism from the other side should not be covered. Mentions of both countries and peoples have been vandalized in Macedonia related articles. I mean shouldn't we stop someone from vandalizing adjective "Greece"/"Greek" to "Macedonia"/"Macedonian". It is wrongly assumed that vandalism in Macedonia articles is one sided when it isn't.
 * If the FOF is to be NPOV then please add "IP editors have repeatedly vandalized Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and other Macedonian related articles like ancient Macedonians and ancient Macedonian language by inserting POV, WP:OR or removing all occurrences of word 'Greece' or Greek words either replacing them with 'Macedonia' or slavic equivelants, or just plainly deleting them". Example diffs  Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean changing "Macedonian" to "Vardaskan"/"Fyromian" is vandalism --covered by this arbitration. Correct. How about those changing "Greek" to "not Greek"/"Macedonian"/"Makedonksi"? That vandalism is not covered by this arbitration??? Why? I don't get it Horologium, is there any reason for a double standard? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 17:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Shadowmorph, two of the diffs you provided (the first and the sixth) above show Future Perfect at Sunrise reverting vandalism and restoring a Greek PoV, and one of them (the fifth) is not ethnic vandalism, just stupidity from a child at a school in Idaho, a US state. None of them use a deprecated term.  Horologium  (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to add this to the list of IP edits that disrupt and exhibit a battleground mentality. --Radjenef (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Feel free to add your own proposed finding of facts in your section; this one is narrowly tailored to apply to the specific remedy below. The arbitrators often have several related findings of fact listed separately, as what I'm addressing is not the same thing that you are addressing. They are related, but this is addressing the use of a specifically deprecated term, not a tug-of-war over who is Alexander's progeny. If the arbitrators wish to note that both sides are squabbling over Macedonia (ancient kingdom), they can, but unless you want to add an edit filter which prevents the use of Greece, your argument doesn't fit here.  Horologium  (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph and Radnajef: Please remove your diff lists and add them to the evidence page, where they belong. Also note that none of your diffs relate to the specific proposed finding of fact that this supports. If you want to add your your own proposed FoF, you both already have big sections above, although they seem to be focused more on ChrisO than anything else.  Horologium  (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The title of this FOF is "IP editors have disrupted Wikipedia". This is a comment section and they are there to support my comment so no, I won't remove them even more since they don't appear anywhere else. I wasn't aware from the start that the issue of IP vandalism - and not only registered editor conduct - was to be addressed to have an evidence section about that. I'll try to make a FOF about it but I don't know how the filter works for any possibility to add a remedy. Regarding your comments, For What Is Worth, I didn't say about deprecated terms solely, I specifically mentioned that Greece/Greek are plainly deleted with or without substitution with "Macedonian". I didn't go into geolocation details or speculation about the age of an editor for which I don't care, IPs are IPs. The diffs that show Fut.Perf. reverting them, I deliberately chose them to verify that they are indeed vandalism. If there is any possibility of the abuse filter firing up whenever Greece/Greek is deleted from the text of Macedonia-related articles, then we should do it. Therefore it is completely relevant with the FOF and the remedy, just from another perspective. I'll try to write one of my own with more diffs when I am not so stressed out. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 13:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, since when do we call "restoring Greek POV" and not just only "reverting vandalism" to restore the fact that the native name of ancient Macedonia was the ancient Greek word "Μακεδονία" and not the Slavic word "Македонија" written in an alphabet that was created several centuries later? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC).
 * I am sure that was just a misunderstanding of your sentence by me, we all know that the replacements were just vandalism and it is not any "Greek POV" to cite the fact about the original words. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Greek PoV" was a poor choice of words on my part; what I was referring to was the previous wording, which noted the relationship to Greece (and of which most Greek editors would approve). Reagrding the title of the FoF: that will likely be changed. It's just my title for the section, because it doesn't resemble any of the other FoF titles on this page. What is more important is what the FoF discusses: the repeated use of a deprecated, derogatory phrase in articles which have no direct connection with Greece, Macedonia, or their peoples, languages, or cultures. You showed me eight edits on Macedonia (ancient kingdom), which is clearly in the scope of the dispute; none of the diffs used a deprecated term. This is not a difficult distinction to grasp; please try to follow along.  Horologium  (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely you are not referring to "FYROM" as a use of a derogatory term, are you? I have never seen any source claiming that that term is considered derogatory. --Radjenef (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, replacing "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" with the five letter acronym "FYROM" across multiple pages of the project—pages which are not related to the dispute—is derogatory and ill-serves the greater public, who don't know what "FYROM" means, since it is then an unlinked acronym plotzed in the middle of the page.  Horologium  (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Horologium on that. The above point that any proper use of f.Y.R.O.M. where appropriate should be spelled out (full long form). That is not only how an encyclopedia should handle it but in official usage too. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 11:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have created a FOF and a remedy about the above that also includes the other type of vandalism I think we should handle. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 11:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by others
 * To those saying (or implying) that Macedonian nationalists are just as bad as Greek nationalists in this matter, it is true that both sides are guilty, but to say that they are equal is flat-out incorrect. In my time here on Wikipedia, I have done very little other than fight vandalism, but I have done a lot of this. While I do see vandalism of this sort from both sides, by far, the vast, vast majority of it is done by Greek nationalists. I can say without any hesitation that the ratio is considerably more than 500 to 1. In addition, from what I have seen, Macedonian vandals do not typically vandalize beyond changing/removing references to Greece. The same cannot be said of Greeks. (This is an extreme example from just a couple of hours ago.)
 * I give no proof to back up my statements here, other than my experience and the trust that the community has given me as an administrator. To offer hard proof in the form of diffs would require me to slog through roughly one hundred thousand edits, and I do not relish the idea of doing that. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  17:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is a simple explanation for that, and it is that currently the status quo is leaning towards the ethnic Macedonian POV, since it calls the country Macedonia and its people and language Macedonian. Why would someone revert when they have in the article what they support? In terms of removing any reference to Greece, you will often see ethnic Macedonians edit warring in any article related to Ancient Macedonia, including Ancient Macedonian language, Alexander the Great and Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Also, very often references to the Greek identity of the inhabitants of the Greek Macedonia are removed, especially references to the Greek identity of the Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Other areas where you will see edit wars from ethnic Macedonians are obviously the perennial disputes with the Bulgarians on whether the language, the toponyms and the heroes will be called ethnic Macedonian or Bulgarian. This is relevant to Greek articles since very often there are edit wars on northwestern Greek cities articles where their Slavic alternative name is renamed the "Macedonian" name. --Avg (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of it as a question of numbers. It is equally as bad a disruption; if we can address vandalism of that type too, we should. It doesn't matter if they are fewer examples, which is probably due to the reasons explained by Avg. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whose "POV" it is doesn't matter when it comes to naming issues - that's the central principle of the naming conflict guidelines. The status quo on Wikipedia reflects the status quo outside Wikipedia, where the country is called Macedonia and its inhabitants are called Macedonians by the overwhelming majority of everyday English-language sources. The issue that Horologium is rightly identifying is that IP editors are waging a continuous war against the status quo. POV-pushing on ancient Greek history is certainly a related issue, but it's not quite the same kind of issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it is somewhat ironic that you defend the notion of the status quo, since your move overturned a status quo of 7 years. And speaking of the outside world, people outside Wikipedia call some other regions Macedonia and some other people Macedonians as well, but this is not reflected anywhere at the moment in our encyclopedia. And while I do not disagree that IP editors blindly reverting is a problem, one must step back a bit and wonder why this problem has been intensified after your move. Perhaps it is because currently Wikipedia does not reflect the outside status quo and is seen by outsiders as pushing a specific POV? --Avg (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The outsiders who see Wikipedia as "pushing a specific POV" on the Macedonia issue are, I'm sorry to say, predominately Greek nationalists. But this kind of situation is hardly unusual. We get Koreans trying to delete the name "Sea of Japan" and Arabs trying to delete "Persian Gulf" for exactly the same reason. In all three cases, though, we're not trying to "push a specific POV", we're simply reflecting common usage. The problem we have in this instance is that your compatriots reject the common usage because it doesn't suit the nationalist POV to which they subscribe. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no sympathy for Greek nationalists and their POV so please do not associate what I say with them. Greek nationalists want Macedonia to be associated solely with Greece. This is not my view so I am against them. My point however is this: If say, we had a level of disruption N from Greek nationalists before your move and now we have a level of disruption 2N, then the increase in disruption has been probably caused by the following three factors: 1) The current move stirred passions of the existing vandals even more 2) (and this has actually happened) the incident was advertised in both Greek and ethnic Macedonian media as a "defeat" and a "triumph" respectively so hordes of new IPs came to defend their POV and 3) (even more interesting) some additional disruptive IPs may not be hardcore nationalists but people with a moderate POV who feel the current Wikipedia status quo is not representative of the outside status quo. I'm not talking about the "banana republic" etc vandals but about some say Greek Macedonian guys, who typed Macedonia in Wikipedia and the result they got was the country. They will (wrongly!) disrupt the project reverting to something like "FYROM" since they feel this is unfair. This could have been avoided if there was a disambiguation page.--Avg (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's entirely speculative. If you had any evidence of that, I suspect you would have presented it by now. From my own personal experience, I've not seen much of a change in the level of disruptive editing recorded in the abuse log. In fact, there is some indirect evidence against your thesis: if it's as you claim it to be, one would expect that Macedonia itself and the related high-level articles would have experienced an upsurge in abusive editing, edit wars, etc. We don't see that in the log; instead the distribution seems to be largely random, with very few of the affected articles being linked from Macedonia. It would appear that the typical pattern is for Greek editors to find mentions of Macedonia while browsing or coming from Google searches or adding material to articles and to then vandalise those mentions - see for an example. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of anyone systematically setting out to do this - the IPs usually come in, hit one or two articles and leave. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, common usage does not say anything about ambiguity. Macedonia is an ambiguous name, we even have a Macedonia (terminology) article. Once you said that the move was to address issues of vandalism. It seems to me that it worsened them. That strikes out one of the justifications for the move. Being the single number one result in Google searches now made the article naming so high profile that it is practically a call for vandals to come in. It is apparent that many Greek IPs were not bothering with the titles because the Republic of Macedonia was not the primary topic found at Macedonia. Unless we are preparative to lock the articles for ever I am not optimistic about the future even after your decisive move is reverted. It seems to me that it only added to the "battleground mentality" that was there. I mean let's move People's Republic of China to China and Republic of China to Taiwan because of "common usage"; lets witness then if that would be contributing to the project or a needless waste of time and resources to reverting thousands of Chinese and Taiwanese IPs. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 22:25, 18 May 2009 UTC
 * That's not a comparable example. You have two states using the same geographical term to refer to themselves - rather like Republic of Congo and Democratic Republic of Congo or the two Koreas or (formerly) the two Germanies. There is no other state anywhere else in the world called Macedonia - the only similarly-named entities are all either geographical regions or subnational entities, like the Greek provinces. Your premise is also faulty in that Greek IPs have been doing this for a very long time (see J.delanoy's comments above, and you can find diffs of this from as far back as 2003). This is an ongoing problem, not a new one, and there is no evidence that recent page moves have caused any change in the level of disruptive editing of this kind. As for ambiguity, I think that's overstated. Bear in mind that most people will only have heard of Macedonia in two contexts - historical (i.e. Alexander the Great) and the modern country. The fact that there is a Greek region also called Macedonia is about as (in)significant, overall, as the fact that there is a Belgian province also called Luxembourg. This is borne out by the page view stats presented in WP:MOSMAC2, which show very clearly which Macedonias our readers are most interested in. In short, ambiguity has largely been resolved in common usage in favour of the country. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

<-- @Avg and Shadowmorph: There has been vandalism related to this dispute for a long time, and I have not noticed any significant increase in the levels of nationalistic vandalism on either side in the wake of ChrisO's move. If anything, the level is lower than it was, although the vandalism that does turn up is generally more blatant than I ever remember it being. Three months ago, the level of ferocity in the edits made by the vandal I noted above in my other comment would have been almost unheard of, and yet I have seen three or four similar vandals within the past few weeks. This is unquestionably a result of ChrisO's action. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think vandalism like that is clearly influenced by the move, but it's an open question as to whether it's a direct response to the move or to appeals such as SQRT5P1D2's Usenet post asking Greeks to come here and campaign on the issue. I suspect it's more likely to be the latter. Having said that, such vandalism is very much the exception. You mention "three or four" such vandals but there are many dozens of different IP and newly registered editors in the abuse log. We should not, of course, be swayed by vandals. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me also note again, since it is forgotten, that a TV channel in the Republic of Macedonia also reported the event to thousands of viewers. There is no canvassing involved there, just a media response to the renaming. Besides Greek blogs would have found out about it soon enough just by doing any Google search - like the TV probably did. Also of note is that both the Greek blog and the TV channel saw it as an endorsement of the new name, the first to oppose it and the second to hail it. Even more though since it was apparently impossible to be reverted. It seemed to them that some kind of "official Wikipedia" and not the community chose that name. Shadow mor ph  ^"^
 * I have commented on FPaS's hits analysis repeatedly so I won't do that again. I do however have something to say about your comment: "The fact that there is a Greek region also called Macedonia is about as (in)significant as...". In other words you claim that to use hit statistics to infer significance is ok. That is troublesome at least, not to say bad mannered coming from an admin and discriminating too. The Macedonians (Greeks) are more than 50% of the population (2,5 mil.) of the greater region while the ethnic Macedonians are at ~25% (1,3 mil). Macedonia (Greece) spans at least 100 years (not even going into Byzantium here) while Socialist Republic of Macedonia was around for 50 years. Shadow mor ph  ^"^
 * Even if nobody contested that hits analysis, one thing remains: Significance cannot be inferred from popularity and hits. Here is an example from another case. There is only one country commonly called "America" shortly (for proof:"America Under Attack""America Remembers" - disclaimer: just for proof of usage, not an emotional appeal). The other meaning is geographic, a continent; there is no other state so there is no Korea or China (two states) situation there. Lets see the hit statistics for America:
 * America (disambiguation): 1,600 hits/day
 * basically that dab page directs you to any of the following:
 * Americas:2,200 hits/day
 * United States of America:49,500 hits/day
 * Nevertheless America has no primary topic. IMHO, in any respectable encyclopedia, America should target to its wider meaning. Same thing for Macedonia. Shadow mor ph ^"^
 * @J.Delanoy: I never said there wasn't any vandalism before. I wasn't around to attest its previous strength in numbers though. It is still early to say if it shifted, isn't it? Shadow mor ph ^"^ 05:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not too early. It has been a month since the page was moved. The longest that it generally takes for a trend in vandalism to emerge is two weeks, three on the outside. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  17:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tighten the Abuse Filter
The abuse filter, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. A new abuse filter criteria will be added; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * While I see both your point and FPAS', I think there is merit to this and it's worth considering, perhaps slightly tweaked. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To FPAS, yes that would help. A list/table of naming practices that have solid consensus from all sides of the dispute. And you're right, that hasn't been easy to figure out.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From developers: "It is technically possible to do that, although the developers said when implementing the system that it should not be used for arbitration enforcement because of the high overhead of the filters. A filter that only logs edits and doesn't actually prevent them might be low enough to not hurt performance." <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible translation: "The computers would have to work too hard."  (Taivo (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. It is inconceivable that an editor will ever have a justifiable reason to remove "Macedonia" from a page and replace it with "FYROM", and eliminating this particular edit pattern will lower the hostility level on the project. This change does not affect adding "Former Yugoslav" to the front end, as there may be legitimate reasons for an editor to add it, although my experience on Greece would tend to argue otherwise. I'm not terribly familiar with the functioning of the abuse filter, but it appears that this is a very simple change to implement. There may be issues with a new filter interacting with the existing filter 119, but I don't see them being insurmountable.  Horologium  (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure if it would be a good idea for the Arbcom to go this far into the micro-managing of how to technically implement and enforce this consensus. In my understanding, it would be sufficient if they passed something along the lines of my suggestion, acknowledging that with respect to at least certain aspects of the case a stable consensus exists, and encouraging admins to take the necessary steps to protect its implementation (with always an understood proviso that WP:CCC, I guess). It is definitely true that use of abbreviated "FYROM" is one of the things that is almost universally ruled out by existing consensus, and should be treated as immediately revertable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely clear if the arbitration case is the proper venue for this proposal at all, but as this directly follows from the evidence I contributed, and it's very narrowly tailored, I thought I'd try here first.  Horologium  (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question to Rlevse: If you're considering passing something along these lines, maybe you might need a more detailed overview of what parts of the naming practices have this kind of very solid enforceable consensus (like avoidance of FYROM in most of these contexts), and where the boundary to the legitimately contested parts is? It now strikes me we may not have been giving you a very easily digestible account of all the details. I'd offer to try and make an as-objective-as-I-can table, if you want. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, hang on, I'll give it a try, give me an hour or two. I'll file it as a FoF in my section above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need to do a new exercise. Everything is in WP:MOSMAC. The community has already worked on this, under the different sections of "Deprecated names". Also it is clearly stated that "the appellation FYROM should be avoided for general use". Why reinvent the wheel?--Avg (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried something under above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (In response to Avg) This is not a case of reinventing the wheel, as there is currently no mechanism to enforce this. Changing the abuse filter to prevent it is an extension of the original proscription. FWIW, I have generally avoided many references to WP:MOSMAC because it appears to be dead, if not DOA.  Horologium  (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied here. Sure I agree to set up an abuse filter, but let's first agree what is abuse and what is not.--Avg (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already an abuse filter in place, but it only logs edits that involve the word "Macedonia"; it does nothing to prevent the edits from occurring. My proposal is extremely narrow, as the only thing it would do is prevent changing "Macedonia" (which includes "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym). That is clearly abusive, and has occurred hundreds of times all over Wikipedia. My proposal does not address any of the many other issues that have been discussed at great length elsewhere in this arbitration, which is why I submitted it as a separate suggestion. My evidence, proposed finding of fact, and remedy only deal with the use of "FYROM" instead of one of the other three names for the country. Horologium  (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I now see there is a misunderstanding. Let me clarify that my comments are not addressed to you but to Fut's proposal. In general I agree with your proposal, however if I may comment I only think it is tackling one sub-section of the whole issue hence giving it more prominence.--Avg (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE does not apply to arbitration cases (small grin). I am only tackling one sub-section because I think that it is something in which there is a consensus; sometimes it's better to fix that upon which everyone agrees, which can clarify where the dispute still exists.  Horologium  (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: