Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/Archive 1

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

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

My own suggestion: Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Create subpages for the five principal areas of discussion:
 * 2) Page title of the main country article
 * 3) Naming conventions for page titles of sub-articles of the country
 * 4) References in other articles
 * 5) Greece-related articles
 * 6) International organisations articles
 * 7) In each subpage, collect a small number of competing proposal guidelines
 * 8) Hold initial content discussion on the talk pages of each proposal subpage
 * 9) Collect consensus material on another subpage, "/guidelines", which will grow into the final result (hopefully)
 * 10) Possibly create another subpage "/evidence" to host things like usage statistics, a repository of source links and so on.


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


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


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


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


 * I am just following what the remedy says. Of course some parts of the discussion would be easier - one sentence would cover them. Lets finish once and for all with all of them (well at least for some reasonably large amount of time since "consesnsus can change" in the future). I think that was the spirit of the decision. Made some edits to the top. This effort is not only to answer the questions about the country about but the whole entangled naming issues. And of course the question of primary topic should be addressed since it was only recently and contentiously introduced. Shadow mor ph  ^"^
 * Of course, concomitant issues regarding the "other" Macedonias can be treated as they come up. But it's still unnecessary to complicate the initial summary of the questions with things that won't be contentious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have an idea, I found this Template:Resolved issues. Can we use it to give out the definitely non contested issues like: FYROM (the acronym not the long form) cannot be used in most circumstances (unless e.g. to avoid repetition of the long form of the term in certain articles). Or Macedonia (region) is the accepted title of that article... not sure that there won't be any drama about which to include. If anyone objects we can take it down. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 09:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, not sure if you've seen it, but I've started drafting sub-pages. Do you think the format is okay like that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't keep up with the pace right now. I'll see them in a while. So where does that template thingy goes best? A separate section in the page covering resolved issues? Shadow mor ph ^"^ 10:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's take a break. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
BTW, when the discussion does start, I would strongly prefer that we structure it similarly to the arbitration's evidence section. That will minimise indent replies, making the discussion more easily readable and less prone to hostility. Let me know about your views on this. I am taking a break too... --Radjenef (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean? I think it's a lot easier for readability if a reply to a comment is indented right below rather than in a section much further down called "Reply to X".  Balkan Fever  11:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * The purpose would be to put as much weight on the arguments supporting each proposal rather than the number of "votes". Shadow mor ph ^"^ 12:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced we should invite "vote"-style comments at all, at least in a first phase. Remember the whole purpose of the exercise is to finally make this NOT a vote. Perhaps we should have an initial phase that really is just hammering out the proposals and documenting the arguments. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a "vote" at Greece that initiated the latest round of arbitration, so I agree with Future Perfect, no votes, no vote-like comment behavior. (Taivo (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

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

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

Would that be acceptable? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking, we have each interested person post in their own section on some subpage, and say "This is what I think, and this is why I think it." Enforce a limit on length, say, 2000 or 2500 words per person or something, and move all discussion to the talk page of that page, kind of like the /evidence page is on an Arbitration case, but allowing for more personal opinion/analysis. By disallowing direct replies on the page itself, it would be much easier for the referees to determine consensus and the strength of the arguments. J.delanoy gabs adds  14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But the practical consideration is, if we really want to recruit more outside uninvolved people to chime in, we can't really expect each of them to write 2000-words essays on each of the questions. Also, there are only so many ways of re-stating the same arguments; we don't really want twenty people to say the same things in different words, just in order to prove that each of them has independently formed their opinion. There is, at some point, a legitimate place for a person to just say: "I'm for X, as per Y's arguments" (roughly in an RfC-"endorsement" style). Such endorsements provide the visible demonstration that somebody's arguments have convinced somebody else. Only, we don't want people with preconceived, external political motives doing that; "endorsements" can only fulfill their legitimate role of validating an argument if they come from outside. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'm still uncomfortable with the voting aspect of Future's proposal. There's just no way to keep the "drive by" and "bloc voting" aspects out of it.  I like J.delanoy's limited length discussion without direct commenting.  More like legal briefs.  It may also keep anything heated from developing.  "Consensus" is not a majority vote, but a coming together.  So perhaps the next step after writing the briefs could be for someone less involved to read all the statements and write out a "this is what everyone agrees on" statement based on the briefs.  Then the contentious matters will be clearly focused for either further discussion or clarification.  More consensus might develop out of that process.  In the end, there will be things that are still not agreed upon.  Those are the matters that the arbitrators will simply have to adjudicate.  (But we knew that from the beginning.)  (Taivo (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm happy with them adjudicating – if they will be willing to do that. I'm not so optimistic about consensus developing, among those of us who are already parties to the dispute. In core questions, we already know it just won't happen. As for keeping the block voting out, it can be done to a large degree if we can exclude Greek and Macedonian voters. To forestall an objection: that doesn't exclude them from the process; I'm just saying they (and we) shouldn't be the ones who endorse, but the ones who put their arguments up for the test of endorsement by others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I've got to sound a bit like Tasos. Who is Greek?  Who is Macedonian?  And is it really possible (or realistic or "right") to exclude them?  I think that we need a very strong neutral clerk involved.  The ArbCom process seemed pretty clearly focused--stick to policy and don't drag anything else into the arena.  If we have a strong neutral clerk, then he/she can be the gatekeeper for all comments.  When a comment is not focused on policy and strays into politics, they can delete the comment or move it into a separate corral for "irrelevant" matters that are ignored.  I don't think that any of the involved editors should perform that task.  (Taivo (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Ah, I misread your comment, Future. You weren't talking about excluding them from "filing a brief", but from the endorsement process.  I still think that's problematic for technical reasons since there is a very large Greek diaspora (and virtually no Macedonian one).  (Taivo (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

So, here's a more complete proposal on how to proceed to keep the process focussed, trying to bring together the best aspects of what each of us has proposed so far: Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We stick with the subpage structure I started creating this morning.
 * On each subpage, active participants are welcome to file a concrete proposal, roughly like the ones I added already in some cases.
 * For each proposal, the proposer adds a summary rationale explaining how it is based on policy, linking to evidence data and so on. These should be restricted in size. That would correspond to what I think you were describing with your "like a legal brief", and what Radjenef meant with "like the evidence page".
 * Other editors are free to "co-sponsor" such a proposal, by adding their own supporting argument to it, but those secondary statements should be even more narrowly restricted in size, and it should only be done if the co-sponsoring statement actually contains something new. (No mere "me too" statements at that stage.)
 * (Possibly:) Opposing participants are allowed to add a very brief summary statement against each proposal. The number and size of such counter-statements should be strictly limited.
 * From that point onwards, threaded discussion will be handed off elsewhere, to a dedicated section of a discussion page which will be linked to from the proposal for convenience.
 * Finally, there will be an endorsement section for each proposal, roughly like on a user RfC, with a list of outside editors signing that they find the argument convincing. This section may only be used by established and previously uninvolved editors (and ideally, excluding editors from the nationalities involved).
 * The referees will have the task of judging the soundness of the arguments presented in the initial statements, aided in their assessment by the poll-like effect of the outside endorsements (but not reduced to counting votes).


 * Two other issues: we need to reduce as much as possible the scope for disruption (e.g. of the sort that might result from off-wiki canvassing) and we need to be as transparent as possible. To those ends, I suggest:
 * IP editors and editors with accounts created before the end of the ARBMAC2 case should be (politely) excluded from participation. I am somewhat uneasy about allowing existing SPAs to participate, but excluding them probably isn't practical.
 * Participants in this process should publicly state at the outset, for the record, their nationality and whether they have any affiliations to the disputing countries or nationalities, e.g. ChrisO UK (no Macedonian or Greek connections). By being open about our affiliations, we can better address the issue of editorial blocs identified by the Arbcom here. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the process is that it goes like this: Notice that in all this process there's no need to present which side you are on or your nationality... man with one red shoe 07:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) we present the info in that page that all people can agree to (consensus) and leave out the decision on which clearly we cannot agree.
 * 2) present alternatives
 * 3) some uninvolved users/admins (but not SPA or new accounts) will make the decision.
 * But this leaves only two categories of consensus levels: either full consensus across all participants (something that rarely happens anywhere in the wiki world, and is unlikely to happen for more than a few minor aspects here), or apparent complete standstill and relegation to "stalemate resolution". But I expect the referees won't be willing to do that. They are supposed to resort to their own judgment as "stalemate resolution" only as a last resort. First of all they are supposed to read "consensus", and that certainly includes wiki-style "rough consensus", so we need to find ways to clearly document the existence of such, including the opinions of neutral outside observers who won't have the time and energy to engage in a sustained discussion effort and tinkering with proposals, but will nevertheless be crucial to provide us with the sort of outside sanity check we need to break the deadlocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (moved comment) I don't think this (outside endorsements) is a wise addition to the process. It is just a "vote" with a different name and will be subject to the same problems encountered at Talk:Greece with the infamous poll.  There is no way to ensure that "endorsers" are truly "uninvolved" or not motivated by nationality or politics.  I also don't see how it might help well-informed arbitrators who will be adjudicating the final decision anyway.  I'm just distrustful of our (or a clerk's) ability to screen every passing endorser for prior neutrality or uninvolvement.  Watching the stream of new accounts and single-purpose accounts line up to make their voice heard at ARBMAC2, I'm leery of opening the doors to anyone who wanders by.  (Taivo (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
 * But there are things which everyone will agree on that we can mark as "already has consensus" (the names of Macedonia (Greece), for example). Consensus can actually be determined without voting.  For example, one editor can write a list of things which he or she thinks everyone will agree on and post it in a section called "Consensus".  If anyone doesn't agree, they simply say so.  If no one says anything, or if only one person objects to this or that, then we have a wiki consensus.  Consensus isn't about a majority, but an overwhelming majority, so there's no need to "vote".  I think that even right now, someone who's been involved in this discussion for a while could already write a list of things that everyone agrees on already.  (This is a key early step in all books on negotiating and in business negotiating.)  Then we focus on discussing just the non-consensus issues.  (Taivo (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
 * sure, that can be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started doing something with the Resolved issues template that Shadomorph dug up somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Taivo says, I think that voting and commenting leads to division, let's try to buld a consensus about the basic facts first without voting by keeping the article like a normal article (without comments and sign ups inside it) man with one red shoe 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


 * Well, the remedy clearly says it is "up to the community to decide how to go about it", so I can't see mandatoriness. And in any case, its intent seems to be more to notify editors of the 1RR restriction than of the discussion process. But sure, if you want to make mass notifications, go ahead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * About your tag draft, I don't think it's very productive to link the newbies to the arbitration case first thing, especially not through a cryptic abbreviation like "1RR". In any case, I'd prefer to use such tags only once a conflict or edit-warring danger has materialised on a given article. Let's keep the 1RR warning and the discussion notification separate issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Yes, but what is then the purpose of this discussion? To achieve consensus between ourselves? Where is the community factor? I think that, although potentially disruptive, it is our duty to inform the community about this procedure. The referees will regulate any disruptions. GK1973 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Yeah, one would assume that an established editor with something legitimate to contribute wouldn't be edit-warring over the name. Sure, there are a number of reasons for which they might make a single revert, or they could be reverting vandalism, but those who need to be told not to edit-war by the template most likely won't be such users.  Balkan Fever  13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, uhm, it seems such a remote possibility, but hard as it is to believe, I've heard rumours that Macedonia revert wars between established users have on some rare occasions happened. You and me and everybody else here present would of course never have had anything to do with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, point taken, but I meant in future (too tired for a pun). Humour me: can you think of any user, existing or hypothetical, whom you would need to tell not to edit-war about this with the above template, and would expect to contribute constructively here? That's different to simply informing an established editor, who may have unknowingly involved themselves in this mess, of the centralised discussion. You don't need a template for that.  Balkan Fever  14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree on comment about scholarly usage and evidence
The comment about "scholarly usage uses Macedonia to name the ancient kingdom" is not referenced. The current "evidence" of this is based on JSTOR. JSTOR digitally archives journals dating back through the entire 20th century and generally does not contain the most recent 5-10 years of the journals it includes. Therefore the counts at JSTOR are skewed in favor of non-Republic uses of Macedonia because of the heavy inclusion of pre-1990 issues and the non-inclusion of the most recent issues. Better evidence of this is needed if this is going to be one of the "consensus" bullets. Right now, I do not agree with this point. (Taivo (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Another problem I have with the comment about scholarly usage is that any scholar who works (or wants to work) in Greece, and wants official permission from the appropriate Greek government office to conduct their research, or gets funding from the Greek government or a Greek research institution, is going to be forced by that reality to use "former Yugoslav" in all their publications or else risk any possibility of working in Greece in the future. This reality would also skew the scholarly citations that might otherwise read simply "Macedonia".  These two factors lead to the evidence for "Macedonia" usage among scholars being skewed.  This is probably a minor bullet since scholars aren't going to come to Wikipedia for information anyway.  I suggest that bullet be deleted because the information is not really verifiable.  (Taivo (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
 * The ancient kingdom is generally called Maceonia or Macedon in works by classical historians and classicists. I don't think this is controversial, but I could easily be wrong. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that assertions like this should be signed with the username of who added them. There are some other "facts" that I might be contested. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 06:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's the worst idea, let's try to build a document that we all agree with not having different statement contested and commented over and over, that exactly why we don't sign them. man with one red shoe 07:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Taivo, your second comment, I think, is over-dramatising it a bit, and I'm not certain it is true. In any case, the issue here was not so much what the scholars' preferred naming choice is when referring to the country, but what their most frequently meant referent is when they use the name. And the usage of "former Yugoslav" in academic sources is so relatively rare that it hardly distorts the statistics for that latter question. Also, there's little reason why the statistics should be much distorted particularly by people working in close academic contact with or dependence from Greece; we are not talking about specialised fields like archaeology here. – BTW, I have another google statistics for web content of .edu domains somewhere; will upload it on Monday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added an additional element to that, while that might be true that's clearly driven by context, if somebody talks about "ancient Macedonia" they will use Macedonia without any reason to disambiguate the name, if somebody talks about "Macedonian soccer team" they don't have any reason to say "no, we are not talking about ancient Macedonia, we are talking about Former Yugoslav..." Context is clear in those scholarly works about ancient Macedonia, same for Wikipedia, we don't need to use "Ancient Macedonia" every time we refer to it in an article about history, just like we don't need to disambiguate Macedonia when we talk about clear current issues, there's no chance to confuse Macedonia soccer team with Ancient Macedonia soccer team for example...  man with one red shoe 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the contextualization. A sociology or political science or agricultural journal won't be talking about ancient Macedonia, just as an archeology journal won't be talking about modern Macedonia (much).  (Taivo (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

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

Just adds one click. Oh and if we are keeping one POINTy discussion we have to keep the other response sections too with all of my responses. My comments cannot be summarized as "some objections", sorry. That declarations should be moved to each user's userspace where they belong. I have made every effort to begin here with a cool spirit. It is not me that began to poison that. I truly am sorry. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 07:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to move on. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 07:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you decided that, I was preparing a large plank to hit your head with... :D man with one red shoe 07:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Id rather we all go with Percy Shelley, we are all Greeks. Shadow mor ph ^"^


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


 * Nobody said that, I actually said I find that a natural thing. Americans do it too. However here we don't vote. Here we will talk by the books, right? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 18:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's hope so. man with one red shoe 19:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Danke schön
Danke schön Future for erasing (moving to a subpage) the nationalities section. Dr.K. logos 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having settled this (hopefully), let's return to the more substantial issue about what to do with our national affiliations: could I hear your thoughts on section "Decision process"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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

Ireland
I would suggest to have a look on what is going on at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration as an example on how to go about. I would not say we have to follow that example, just look at it to get ideas. In the case of Ireland, the discussion is moderated. Andreas (T) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In reading through the Ireland statements, you can see why I don't think "endorsements" are anything that we want to try here. It's very hard to find any of these statements that aren't supported by about half the endorsers and opposed by about half the endorsers.  It simply throws the whole discussion into a very stark and polarized light.  (Taivo (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Macedonia referee appointments
The arbitration committee has appointed a group of three admins it is sure will make a good team to help solve the issues here. The admins are: User:Fritzpoll, User:Shell Kinney, and User:J.delanoy. To an amicable resolution...for the committee.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good choices all - I welcome their involvement. Thanks for letting us know. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One additional thing that would help - the centralized discussion badly needs to have someone overseeing it clerk-style to deal with problematic conduct by participants. Is there anyone who you could find for that role? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone you know of off hand who is interested? J.delanoy gabs adds  04:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with ChrisO. Furthermore, the present whole structure of discussion looks a bit chaotic as it is difficult to navigate around and there are multiple threads developing at the same time.  Worse, it seems that the whole discussion has started in the wrong order.  If it first settled the wikipedia name for the country, then all else would be much easier to sort out.  The Apple of Discord is left on the tree while discussions are spread all over the place. Probably, the current discussion has already painted the entire picture and it may be time to somehow go straight for reaching a consensus on the name of country article.  This will reduce the number of A, B, C,... etc. "solutions" and ensuing redundant arguments.   Esem0 (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ask around and see if anyone's interested. Please do the same, if you can. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The three referees are empowered to handle the behavior problems here, contact them on their talk page if you to get their attention. It's best if those participating in the discussion don't as they're involved.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive participants?
Frankly I'm on the verge of withdrawing from this process because of the disruptive behaviour of one particular participant. Is there any mechanism for asking for someone to be excluded from the discussion on the grounds of disruption? It is yet more of the wikilawyering and bad-faith nationalism that we've seen before, and for which Kekrops and Avg were topic-banned. It's very discouraging to see that despite everything that's happened some people's behaviour still has not changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know if we are talking about the same person, but I'm out of the discussion, I much rather prefer to talk to the walls than to be nitpicked to death. man with one red shoe 07:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This was of course predictable. The argumentative smokescreen (or drowning-the-debate-in-drivel) tactics has always been successfully used in these debates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's a deliberate tactic, of course - flooding out everyone else with reams of argumentative drivel. We saw this in the arbitration case and now we're seeing it here, from the same individual. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm actually not convinced of bad faith on his part; but it's still quite disruptive. It's just his hyper-active ways in debate. The problem is that his argumentative logorrhoea drowns the good arguments on both sides. I would much rather have a shorter and much more convincing summary of the arguments opposed to my own side, so that outside readers will be quickly able to take it all in and judge, than these reams and reams of just-slightly-besides-the-point ramblings that will neither convince readers nor allow them to be convinced of the opposite, but will just turn them away shaking their heads instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:ARBMAC apply to this page? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure, who are you talking about? J.delanoy gabs adds  01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my email. (Taivo (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I've read most of the contributions of the person that you don't dare to speak about (really, why this mystery?). It seems that the definition of disruptive behaviour, given by the person who provoked this mess (my turn to introduce some mystery) and who was warned in multiple occasions, leading eventually to desysop (my turn to throw some mud), coincides with argumentation against "our position" which may be valid so let's throw some mud and discredit the opponent side. Tactics of throwing mud right and left has been occurring very often in this affair, and this proposal is one of those attempts. Congratulations gentlemen, your effort to reach consensus on an issue like that, has taken Wikipedia to another level (lower that is). We find once again the same persons that were admonished, warned etc... to participate in the resolution of this issue, yet they accuse another person of "disruptive behaviour". That's a great start. Also, any naming policy that you use to justify transfer to the article to Macedonia is good since it is wikipedia policy, whereas any policy that serves the positions of the other side becomes "wikilawyering". This is a great example you give as distinguished members of the wikipedia. Demonstration of bad faith has reached a new high. Congratulations.
 * Regards. Another "nationalist" "disruptive" greek user. El-greco (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


 * Sounds reasonable. Any views on modalities of how to edit "opposing" rationales, as we've been doing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's in good-faith and doesn't lose the meaning or is to comply with the rules we've set out, I don't see a problem; provided you accept that in the former case, if the editor reverts to their old version, then you'll need to accept that and discuss changes calmly Fritzpoll (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that we should cease to enrich the "arguments against" sections or that they will be moved to the talk pages? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you make your arguments against a proposal in the form of your alternative proposal, but if you want to directly discuss another person's proposal, the talk page would be the place for that. J.delanoy gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current format in Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/main_articles is needed, we need a section that synthesizes "arguments against the proposal" because otherwise people will read rosy descriptions of the proposals without knowing the drawbacks (following the talk page wordy and unstructured debates is probably not reasonable). That being said I don't think that that section should be an excuse to dump any imaginable argument there, it should be limited to, let's say max. 5, well thought drawbacks of the proposal. man with one red shoe 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with red shoe on this. Both the pro and the contra sections should be as terse and concise as possible. Also, I think it's inefficient to have arguments in the contra sections that are really just restatements of arguments made elsewhere in the pro section of another proposal. There are some arguments that really just serve as contra arguments against one proposal without being automatically pro arguments for a specific other proposal, but those are relatively few. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the above that explicitly prohibits a pro/con format. But individual proposals should not become a subjective commentary on the merits of other proposals - as such, as j.delanoy says, it may be better to have these arguments against as part of the talkpage discussion. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for the referees
Since it's now been clarified that the referees will be actively intervening on these pages, I've added this section to keep requests to them in one visible central location. Please add requests below with a subheader for each. (I'll be adding one in a minute.) -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing threads
Could I please ask referees, when closing threads, to add the and  tags to the top and bottom of the thread, to make it clear that it's closed? I've done that for the closed thread above. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks and point-scoring
Unfortunately some people are engaging in unproductive and off-topic personal attacks and tendentious attempts at point-scoring, on this page and in the proposals. In particular:


 * This rant was added to a closed thread by . I have removed it per WP:NPA.
 * On Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles, there have been a couple of attempts to add off-topic point-scoring by (removed by myself, restored by Shadowmorph, and finally removed by Fut. Perf. as tendentious). The circumstances of the page moves in April are not relevant to a discussion on future naming.

Could the referees please make it clear to participants that personal attacks and tendentious point-scoring are disallowed? They serve no constructive purpose and only serve to inflame and poison the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I have explained adequately in the talk page why that note has to be included to inform outsiders of the relevant background of the status quo (in short). I don't know how referring to a status quo would be in-topic but alluding that the status quo was natural or consensus of the community by failing to inform the readers of how it was imposed is off-topic. On other pages whole blocks of texts from the ARBMAC2 decision where pasted so I fail to understand how since we are referring to the status quo we should even link to the findings about the moves. My recommendation would be for removing all references to any status quo, current or previous, including the comparisons between proposals and the status quo if we don't include at least a link to how the current status quo was imposed. Hiding those facts is POV-pushing. I.e.: a note referring to background regarding actions that have happened is removed by the very person the note is referring to. The note did not include any other info other than the fact that the status quo was imposed without consensus. Those are the facts.


 * It would be nice if ChrisO also said above that Future reincluded a more NPOV version of the note that ChrisO subsequently again removed. However I only reverted once and I am keeping my promise to not edit war about it. I leave it to you to make your judgments.


 * I was asked here to be open (by Heimstern) so I am adding this last paragraph even though I didn't have an initial intention to do this. ChrisO has made been assumptions of bad faith on repeated occasions from the start of this discussion even going as far as suggesting that conclusions should be drawn about editors that simply used their right to not reveal their ethnic affiliation. just to follow the suggestions of ChrisO. ChrisO should have been already blocked for that part (WP:AGF violation per ARBMAC, if ARBMAC does apply here).


 * It seems like certain people have been striving to "expel" me from these pages; ChrisO and man with one red shoe have been closing watching to see if I make a single revert or a "pattern of editing" that is questionable enough to propose a ban on me. I have repeatedly been the subject of multiple personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith but didn't operate so in the same spirit. So this is a defensive comment by me. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeking to get rid of you - I only want you to contribute productively. If you're not willing to do that you shouldn't be participating in this discussion. How we got here is completely irrelevant to these discussions. We're here to find a way forward, not to relitigate an arbitration case. Your note was unnecessary and served no useful purpose. It is necessary and useful to state what the current status quo is, and what the previous status quo was - as I've said before, we're not operating in a vacuum or with a blank slate, and the fact is that we do have a status quo. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * @ChrisO Yes, I would love that. As long as everybody understands that ChrisO... Btw, who closed the thread in question? When I commented it was wide open and proposing very peculiar "suggestions" and accusations against an unnamed editor. This beautiful and very informative gray box was not there and a simple "resolved" icon does not actually consist a warning that nobody should comment on what was written, as is the case now. So what is this? And what constituted my input a personal attack? Did I accuse anybody of anything? I only mentioned that I agreed with YOUR opinion, regarding editors who BEYOND DOUBT have been sanctioned by the ArbCom. I did not accuse any unnamed editor of things that he was never formally charged of or sanctioned for. I just mentioned that some have officially been deemed disruptive and should we ban editors from a discussion, then we should start with them. It was a proposal, not an accusation. You in turn accuse me of a personal attack (against you?). Can an admin please clarify this for me? What is the attack I made? That I used first person plural when I asked "Are we nuts?" If, so, then I take it back... although I don't know people here personally, I doubt that they are nuts.... And how about the personal attacks evident in the now "closed" section? I also propose that the referees take a look into the matter and state their opinion on the conduct of everyone involved... It is very interesting that you close your "ranting" (not a nice word, is it?) with the phrase The circumstances of the page moves in April are not relevant to a discussion on future naming.. First, because it was you (plural) who attacked someone (maybe me? I cannot tell, since unnamed accusations may be directed at anyone...) for past conduct as perceived by you (plural) and secondly, because it was you (plural) who brought forward the issue of disruptive editors. In my vocabulary, "disruptive" can be justifiably used for editors sanctioned for such kind of behavior, one of whom is you (a fact, not an attack nor a claim). I will not get into a discussion over that issue, but I believe that your "formal", "legalistic" attitude above was demeaning and misleading and I perceived it as a personal attack against me. I urge the referees to comment on this case, so that I finally understand what constitutes a "personal attack" or a "rant" in Wikipedia, since I seem to misinterpret the policies when I read through them... GK1973 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion was closed following Heimstern's request and marked with "Resolved" by Fritzpoll at 09:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC). You added your rant (yes, that's what it was) at 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC). Please don't edit closed threads and don't post unproductive comments that serve only to inflame the situation. If you're not willing to be civil and productive, please go away. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you read what you post??? Do you sincerely accuse me of incivility and inflammatory ranting??? Do you consider my support to your idea unproductive? What does this say about you? If you're not willing to be civil and productive, please go away. Oh... and let an admin answer that... please, let us stop arguing with each other when there are admins here perfectly capable of guiding us through this process. GK1973 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, enough. I do not care what the status of the article was or is. What matters is what it will be. As Wikipedia does not cite precedent in making decisions relating to content, it is irrelevant how or why something became the "status quo" or ceased to be the status quo. Also, quit bickering. It is seriously distracting. This dispute is complicated enough without unnecessarily adding editor conduct into the mix. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I second what J.delanoy had to say; what happened in the past on Wikipedia isn't relevant to the discussion. Focus needs to be on finding a current consensus, not on who did what when. Shell  babelfish 20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I agree and I'm perfectly happy to move on. I posted a set of new data a short time ago that I hope will inform the discussion in a positive way. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok lets move on. Thank you for constructive contribution with new evidence. I might have some words about those and/or make a similar research about common English usage in specific domains. Since the talk page of MOSMAC2 does not seem a good place to discuss that new evidence would it be possible to add it in the evidence page of this discussion so that analysis talks can be initiated there? Or I could post my observations in this talk page.
 * initial observation: "General encyclopedias - various meanings, no clear trend"; since Wikipedia is a generic encyclopedia too I doubt why we have to elaborate into specific domains and not generic domains. I think Taivo said something like that too, but anyway it is my opinion. Some scrutiny and analysis still needs to be done about that research about usage of the word. For one thing the sample of books seems small to make a sound statistical argument (looking at individual domains). Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 22:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Background" section
The "Background" section on the central page has been growing in an uncontrolled way. Can we please keep that section reduced to really just the few basic facts that a new outside reader needs for their first orientation? As far as the presentation of "common usage" is concerned, my take is that the only bits that are really needed for first orientation and pretty much idisputably established are the following:
 * 1) The country is most frequently called plain "Macedonia".
 * 2) In general-purpose, present day common English publications, the term "Macedonia" refers most frequently to the country.
 * 3) In older English usage (pre-1990s), it refers more often to the wider area or to the ancient kingdom.
 * 4) The country article has far more readers than all other articles.

These four facts are indisputable, and further nitpicking over them at this point would really no longer be a sign of a constructive attitude. All other details belong to those pages where they serve as arguments for specific proposals, but not on the central page, especially if their validity and their relevance as arguments are not consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur but do so in a factually accurate manner (the text should reflect the citations) Shadow mor ph ^"^ 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Future Perfect's simple and accurate wording is fine with me. (Taivo (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I also agree to this wording. These are facts, although not the sole arguments as to the issue in question. GK1973 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearing the Air
Jeez, I sent an email to J.Delanoy after he asked who people were talking about when it came to "disruptive behavior". I didn't intend it to be such a bruhaha to send J.Delanoy an private email so that he knew the context, but I guess with this topic, there is no alternative to public disclosure. (This is my email, so a disclosure is not inappropriate.) Here's what I wrote to J.Delanoy:  "Just in case no one has mailed you, the disruptive participant is Shadowmorph.  I agree with Future Perfect, that he's probably acting in good faith, but his on and on and on nitpicking and just off-topic "evidence" and "logic" are drowning the discussion in herring." It's nothing that hasn't been said already six times, so can we just get on with the discussion? Note that I assume good faith on his part. Note also that elsewhere in this discussion (on another page) I offered this same advice directly to him and he thanked me for it. So please, let's move on. (Taivo (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks Taivo, I was the one who insinuated to JDelanoy (in his talk page), among other things, that the mentioning of this letter was intimidating to third parties. GK1973 (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

region or dab
moved talk page comment by IP to relevant page: main articles talk

How to move on?
I notice that discussion over the last few days has concentrated almost entirely on the "main article" issue. On that page, I believe the relevant arguments are now all stated, and what discussion is still ongoing seems to be going in circles already. It's unlikely that anything much fundamentally new is going to be said there.

So, how do we move forwards? Time to get some actual decision process going? Do the referees want more outside opinion, and if yes, in what form?

At the same time, the situation at the other subpages is quite different. I had expected more discussion at least on the open issues at "international organizations" and "other article titles".

At the "other articles" subpage, no discussion has occurred at all and no competing proposal has been filed. Should we assume that the existing proposal is already consensus?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking on behalf of the referees, we think that we need some fresh input. This will be done by the following:
 * On Monday, the current discussions will end, and the talkpages will be archived. The proposals should be finalised by point.
 * The proposal pages shall be advertised at WP:CENT, the Village Pump, and relevant noticeboards.
 * The discussion shall proceed in an RfC format - there will be two sections. In the first section, single line endorsements with reasons shall be permitted, but no direct replies will be permitted.  There will be a second section for discussion, where endorsement reasons shall be discussed
 * Consensus will be determined by strength and weight of the arguments and adherence to our policies and guidelines, not by the number of endorsements, which will act only as a guide. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Will the current participants be excluded from the new discussion or will this discussion simply be continued on the new page? And since you're going to advertise, be ready for gigabytes of this and this.  (Taivo (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Current participants who've helped create the proposals aren't restricted from continuing with the discussion. We're aware that there are likely to be a number of arguments that are based on personal feeling. Consensus will not be determined via a simple count of editors who like a particular proposal; the merit of arguments and their relevance to policy will be the deciding factor. Shell   babelfish 00:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I ask please, what happens in the case that no consensus is found? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 20:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the arbitrators make a decision on usage and we all live with it. (Taivo (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

I honestly have to wonder how effective this is likely to be. Remember the comments in the arbitration case about how we needed to get away from the "vote fetish" that plagues Wikipedia? This issue involves a fairly complex intersection of policies and real-world usage. How likely is it that the average uninvolved Wikipedian will be able to absorb all of that? Since consensus cannot trump policy, what happens if opinion is in favour of a solution that violates policy (as several of the solutions advanced here do)? Is there even any point in advertising policy-violating solutions? Also, isn't this simply opening the door for nationalist partisans to mobilise and swamp the discussion? We're here precisely because the Wikipedia community has proved unable to find any consensus on this issue; what makes anyone think that the community will miraculously reach a consensus after seven years of internecine wrangling? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From the very beginning in discussing this whole process I've opposed any kind of vote-like behavior, but it seems that "outside endorsements" (by previously uninvolved editors who are neutral) are some kind of Holy Grail sought after, but never found. This exercise will, as I have said from the outset and as ChrisO states here as well, bring out all the nationalist socks, meats, anon IPs, and SPAs to flood the discussion with more meaningless blather.  What's the point?  The three arbitrators here are knowledgeable enough and well-versed enough in the arguments to make a well-informed decision.  (Taivo (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC))
 * The point is that Wikipedia is a wiki and doesn't have an editorial committee to decide its content. Not in this case, nor in any other case. It is edited by "anyone". That's why Wikipedia operates by "consensus". The referees can help in countering the "gaming" effects if any as mentioned by ARBMAC2. Personally I don't see any gaming will be attempted by the usual suspects. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 23:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shadowmorph, where have you been for the last two months? You know good and well that consensus is not going to be reached here by normal means.  ARBMAC2 has a specific process to move past stalemate when consensus is not possible.  It will have to be used here.  The "endorsement process" is a waste of time, I'm afraid, for the reasons that I've stated before and the reasons that ChrisO stated above.  (Taivo (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

Disputing "largely agreed upon facts" [sic]
The first "fact", says that the state's most frequent name in common English usage is simply "Macedonia" and is supported by this as a source. A google news search can hardly be considered a good indicator of common usage; it doesn't conform with wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources as it includes opinion pieces and articles that don't predate the material's inclusion in Wikipedia. Furthermore, searching for occurrences of the word "Macedonia" in google news, includes articles that mention the country as "Republic of Macedonia" and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", of which "Macedonia" is a substring. It also includes articles where officials from that country are quoted as referring to it as "Macedonia", which is not necessarily an endorsement of that name by the news organization. Moreover, searching for news articles provides inherently skewed results, as the mainstream news media are not as interested in archaeological findings as they are in recent political issues. That is exactly why they were called news in the first place! A google news search only includes news articles that were published in the past month; obviously this would leave out volumes of scholarly findings that happened to occur before that. Finally, I would like to note that the guideline on reliable sources explicitly states that "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories."

The second "fact", the one saying that present-day English usage in general-purpose sources uses "Macedonia" in referrence to the country, is not supported by any evidence. I would really be interested in seeing reliable sources backing that statement. As far as I know, everyday English usage of the word "Macedonia" comes in many different contexts. In some instances, the meaning might be clear from the context in which it is used. For example, if people are talking about ancient history, then the word is definitely referring to Macedonia (ancient kingdom). In some other instances, however, the meaning is ambiguous and people are forced to add an extra sentence or two to avoid confusing others.

Moving on to the fourth "fact", which states that wikipedia's article on the country has a larger readership than other Macedonia articles, I would like to question how reliable it is to look at these statistics. Given ArbCom's finding on Abuse Filter 119, it is reasonable to assume that a large number of the visits to the country's article were by editors who wanted to either correct inaccuracies, find out about the naming dispute, edit war or participate in talk page discussions. The truth is that we have no way of knowing what people do once they land on the country's article; they might read the article, edit it, click on one of the other Macedonia articles on the hat link or even go post in the talk page! To make matters even worse, article hits were significantly inflated by televised news reports in the Republic, that told people to visit the article on wikipedia.--Radjenef (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yawn. I'm not going to respond; every single point of this has been discussed, refuted, discussed again and refuted again a thousand times. If any new outside reader finds there's some merit in these points, please tell me and I'll respond; otherwise I'll just let it stand as yet another example of the tired old smokescreen tactics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be more civil when responding to my concerns. These statements were listed as "largely agreed upon facts", even though they are not largely agreed upon. I hardly see why pointing this out qualifies as "smokescreen tactics". --Radjenef (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I raised some legitimate concerns. Please do not dismiss them as unacceptable filibustering and please do not accuse me of bad faith! Also note that 1RR is in place. We are obviously in disagreement about this... we should be able to resolve it like gentlemen, without resorting to personal attacks!  --Radjenef (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have nothing further to contribute to this than an appeal to the referees to step in and exclude Radjenef from the proceedings. I still maintain that this is obviously unconstructive behaviour designed for no other purpose than to obstruct the process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's better if the referees step in. I have already messaged Fritzpoll about your conduct... just letting you know. --Radjenef (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the google news search is a google UK search. I'm not sure if that is significant, but it might be. Personally, I also very much question google news as a source for current usage as well. The BBC, I know, has a guide to how to use names, and I believe I heard a few weeks ago NPR has a similar unofficial guide. Google news will, basically, reflect the style guidelines of the news services which most frequently mention the country more than anything else, and will likely be slanted toward the news services which most frequently cover the country, for whatever reason, and reflect their style guide. I am not sure how to address that problem, if it should be addressed, but I think it is reasonable to mention it. Regarding the fourth point, that the main article for the country is likely the most frequently accessed article, I've found it to be the case that the main article for a country is almost literally universally the most often accessed article, and, at this point, see no reason to question it unless specific evidence to the contrary is presented. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The solution is to do several searches from different domains. So far we have common Google web searches, web searches restricted to .edu domains, web searches restricted to individual news organisations, Google news, Google books, and a general-purpose linguistic corpus of present-day American speech. Every one of these surveys supports the claim that the country is more often called by the simple name than by anything else; and every one except Google Books (i.e. all present-day data sources) support the claim that the name is used much more often for the country than for the other referents. As for the issue that some sources have their individual style guides, yes of course they do, but then again, (a) if these are high-profile media, their influence will ultimately determine what our readers are familiar with, and (b) news organisations are unlikely to uphold naming conventions that are incompatible with their readers' expectations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, I would also say that although individual news organisations may have their own style guides, what we're concerned with is what the usage is in aggregate. If we focused on, say, just the BBC or NPR, then obviously that organisation's style guide would be reflected in our results. You would get the same effect if you just focused on (for instance) National Geographic maps or the Encyclopaedia Britannica. But what Fut. Perf. and I have been doing is assessing usage in aggregate across a wide range of sources - media, reference works, encyclopedias and cartographic products. Having a sample that is as large and as broad as possible ensures that the results are not skewed by the style guides of a few individual sources. By the way, I've amended the Google search link to eliminate the UK news search domain. (The results are not actually that different - the news search domain attribute ("&ned=uk" in this case) simply weights the results so that media sources from the country referenced are listed first. You get the same results, just ordered differently depending on which country is referenced.) -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the complaint to my talkpage, I will comment here. Radjenef: "largely agreed on" does not mean unanimously agreed on. Besides yourself, is there another editor here who holds your position on this matter? If not, the substance of your argument is best saved for later than for a presentational issue. Fut. Perf: I know you are feeling frustrated, but the best way to avoid rsponding to comments is not to respond at all - if the arguments lack merit, we'll find that on our own Fritzpoll (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The main problem with Radjanef's changes is that - as usual - they're not based on any evidence at all, and he simply ignores the reams of evidence gathered here. Radjanef has not bothered to do anything other than put forward unsourced assertions and dispute unarguable facts. For instance, if he disagrees with the page view statistics compiled from stats.grok.se, he should put forward a counter-argument based on hard evidence, not simply slap tags over it and rant about it. Fut. Perf. is quite right to be frustrated (not to say disgusted) with this conduct. It's exactly this kind of behaviour that made the recent arbitration case necessary in the first place, and I for one certainly won't hesitate to go back to arbitration enforcement and request a topic ban on Radjanef if necessary. If he can't or won't contribute constructively, he should go away or be kept away. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The kind of behaviour that made the recent arbitration case necessary is available for all to read in the final decision. In any case, however, I am willing to sidestep the personal attacks and reiterate the fact that I have raised some legitimate concerns. I never ignored any reams of evidence; I made a very specific post arguing against the validity of the said evidence. Other users, like John Carter and El-greco, have already expressed similar concerns towards some of the evidence. So far, nobody has bothered responding to my arguments, though I've seen plenty of "yawns", personal attacks and requests to ban me from the discussion. While we're at it, I'd like to point out one more thing about the fourth "fact": it claims that the article on the country has a much larger readership than all other Macedonia articles, yet the evidence provided (however skewed they may be, since kanal5 TV urged viewers to visit wikipedia) only exhibit hits. Like I said, we have no way of knowing what people do once they land on the country's article; they might read the article, edit it, click on one of the other Macedonia articles on the hat link or even go post in the talk page! --Radjenef (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it ironic that ChrisO criticizes behaviours about this issue. In my knowledge it was ChrisO course of actions that made the recent arbitration case necessary following his unilateral actions and abuse of his administrative powers for which he was warned and condemned . I personally am dissapointed that users that have demonstrated this kind of conduct (in multiple occasions it seems) are permitted to participate in this process and I wonder if ARBCOM would think the same way. On what it concerns me, this process has completely lost its credibility thus I have stopped participating. I would expect that this issue would have been taken care of by completely uninvolved parties; however it wasn't, thus I felt necessary to introduce my POV, to counter-balance. I see now that all my proposal edits have been methodically removed from the project page. If you think that this is the way to achieve consensus, you are wrong.El-greco (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that you freely admit that you are here to introduce your POV. man with one red shoe 10:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At least, I admit it. Oh, and you actually agree with me on my points above, though you only find it useful to delimit my phrase about introducing my POV. Great. El-greco (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) As a matter of fact, a topic ban was proposed for ChrisO. The fact that it was rejected probably answers your implied question about what AC thinks of having someone it admonished participating in this discussion. They could have removed him from it, but they didn't. Frankly, your bringing his behaviour up here is nothing more than an effort to discredit your opponent based on past behaviour rather than based on what really matters: the strength of his arguments. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What arguments. The great majority of ChrisO "arguments" in this page is about disruptive behaviours and who should post or not post. Radjenef posted some valid points, but I didn't see any counter-arguments about these, and "Yawn" is not a counter-argument. For example, he stated that FYROM media has encouraged people to visit the page, thus infalting the number of visits. Where is the counter-argument about that? El-greco (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you're mistaken to say ChrisO's action caused the RFAr to be filed. It had already been agreed upon to do so well in advance; ChrisO's move just caused it to occur a few days ahead of schedule. What really caused the RFAr to be filed was stonewalling by nationalists who wouldn't accept any term for the country north of Greece on "their" article except "FYROM". Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not refering exclusively to ChrisO actions concerning the move of the article. Also, FYROM is a perfectly valid term in the context it was put, FYROM is the name of the country for almost half of the world (but this is not the subject here). FYI, for the entire greek community, anything else except FYROM is offensive, not just "nationalists". Anyway, this is not the subject here, but I am not convinced of some people's intentions here. Some people should have been involved more actively in clearing up the hundreds of articles speaking of Taiwan and China as countries, instead of Republic of China and People's Republic of China (and more other examples) and then I would be convinced of their objective involvement. El-greco (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's offensive to the Greek community, but that has no bearing on how it should be named in Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protected
Gents, today's edits, dare I say edit warring, over the discussion page is not good form. I've restored it to the last version prior to today's edits, which is the 11:22, June 17, 2009 version, and protected it for two weeks. I've notified the referees. I take no sides in the dispute of today's edits, but this should have been worked on the talk page, not rv'd repeatedly on the discussion page itself. The referees are will handle this issue and are free to unprotect it when they deem fit. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added refs for the assertions currently on the page. If I unprotect the page (I'm waiting to see what Fritzpoll and/or Shell Kinney think), I do not want to see fact tags and so forth all over the place. If you disagree with something, discuss it on the talk page. If you want to add something to the page, include a reference for it. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding back my link to Jstor. I understand what you say about fact tags. What do you recommend we do about things that are listed as "largely agreed upon facts", when in fact they are disputed? I am perfectly open to discussion, yet I do not understand what I am supposed to do when the other editor says "not worth responding to", "Whoever still "disputes" these facts is not acting in good faith" and "obviously disruptive, no discussion". Why don't we just move all of these statements to the evidence section? Though they could be used as evidence to support one solution or the other, most of them clearly do not form an undisputed background for the case... --Radjenef (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Largely agreed upon" doesn't mean everyone agrees.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 17:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should be clear that if you make a change to the main page and someone reverts, the next step is discussion. There's going to be very little tolerance for edit warring or other disruptive actions.  As far as resolving disputes, there are more than just two editors interested in this discussion; if you and one other person can't reach an agreement, wait and let others respond as well.  I also agree with J.delanoy, references would be helpful when adding new material. Shell   babelfish 00:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments from my colleagues. We are here to determine a broader consensus of action, and I have already warned about the need to discuss reversions.  I will unprotect the page, with the following warning: further edit warring will be sanctioned by blocks and ultimately by bans from discussion on these pages.  Discussion is why we are here, and mindlss reverts are not the way to advance your position.  Fritzpoll (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about JSTOR

 * Earlier today, Taivo made this edit, adding the bit about "predating 1995". I checked the reference link to Jstor and the search does produce papers that were written long after 1995 (1996, 2000 and even 2003). So, I reverted his edit , explaining that his claim was not true and that the Jstor reference includes papers from 1996, 2000 and even 2003. The Jstor reference is not a matter of subjectivity; it is an objective fact that the search brings up papers that were published after 1995. Without discussing it with me at all, he then proceeded to revert my edit . Given that the page is currently under 1RR and given Shell's warning above, I would expect this to be treated as edit warring. --Radjenef (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, Radjenef, I only reverted once. I can count.  The JSTOR search does bring up post-1995 items, but the point is that the majority of JSTOR items are pre-2000.  That's the nature of JSTOR.  (As an academic, I use JSTOR regularly, but everyone knows that it does not regularly have items published after 2000--we must look to other data bases, such as MUSE, for that.)  Your comment was inaccurate.  (Taivo (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
 * "I think it should be clear that if you make a change to the main page and someone reverts, the next step is discussion". It's nice to see that you've finally decided to talk about this. The crux of the matter is that Jstor includes both old and newer papers. In fact, nearly 24% of the Macedonia-related papers are dated after 1995, yet still most of them do not use "Macedonia" in reference to the Republic. The newer papers are fewer in number, but that's only because you're covering a shorter time period, not because Jstor doesn't list papers. The number of papers written in 1996 is less than the number of papers written in the '90s (the entire decade), but that's just the way things are in life because one is a subset of the other, it's not a problem with Jstor. I stick to my proposed phrasing. --Radjenef (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In your rush to look only at papers about Macedonia, you ignore the great number of academic sources that are about something else, but use "Macedonia" to refer to the country exclusively. You cannot just look at things about Macedonia.  For example, biology and linguistics references use "Macedonia" to refer to the country only.  They are not about Macedonia, but they clearly show a much broader academic usage.  In focusing only on articles about Macedonia, you ignore the broader range of academic usage.  Also your wording is incorrect in that 76% of Macedonia-related papers in JSTOR are prior to 1995!  That will certainly skew the results away from the country in an aggregate comment.  The wording needs to reflect the fundamental shift in usage after 1995 as opposed to before 1995 and your wording masked that.  (Taivo (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
 * No Taivo, once again, what you are saying is not true. My search was for all articles containing the word "Macedonia", so these include articles on biology, botanology and many other subjects. I guess you would have been able to see that if you were at a Jstor-accessible computer but, since you are not, you just blindly oppose my statement without even consulting the database. All in good faith, I will assume that this has nothing to do with the way I self-identified in the nationality-declarations section. --Radjenef (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question to both of you guys: have we got exact counts, either before or after 1995 or both? I'm not currently in a place where I have access to JSTOR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not at a JSTOR-accessible computer right now either. (Taivo (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
 * 13588 Macedonia-related articles in total, 3245 of which where published after 1995, that is close to 24%. --Radjenef (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And how many using which meaning, in each of the two time periods? (check random sub-samples if necessary) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to start counting articles for both time periods right now. From what I saw by checking a few pages, the count was heavily against the use of "Macedonia" in reference to the Republic. The link is still there for any who wish to do the counting for themselves. In any case, since Taivo wants to add the extra statement "predating 1995", the burden of proof lies with him to prove his claim. --Radjenef (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was a major event relevant to this issue that occurred just before the 1995 date I'm using--the independence of Macedonia. The logical assumption is that a shift would have occurred then.  It's also incumbent upon you, Radjenef, to prove that an expected and logical shift did not occur.  Your "evidence" shows 13,000+ articles, but you have made no analysis of what they referred to.  (Taivo (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Just went through the first 50 matches on "Macedonia" at JSTOR and looked at the first reference to "Macedonia" in each of the articles. There were 39 articles published before 1995 and 12 in 1995 or later. One article was from 2007, but no other article was more recent than 2003. The earliest articles were from 1903 and were scattered throughout the 20th century.
 * Pre-1995
 * 22 articles referred to Greek Macedonia. These included articles such as "New neolithic sites in Macedonia" where the map showed all the sites in Greece or "New inscriptions from Macedonia", etc.  While some of the articles may have had subject matter related to the ancient kingdom, the actual first use of "Macedonia" was in reference to the contemporary Greek region as the location of the ruins, artifacts, inscriptions, etc.
 * 9 articles referred to Yugoslav Macedonia (or "Upper Macedonia" in pre-war terminology).
 * 7 articles referred to ancient Macedonia (in articles such as "A constitutional government in Macedonia [the ancient one]" or "Philip II of Macedonia")
 * 1 article (from 1994) referred to the Republic.


 * 1995 and beyond
 * 7 articles referred to the Republic
 * 3 articles referred to the ancient kingdom
 * 2 articles referred to Greek Macedonia

So we have here a small sample of the actual usage of "Macedonia" in academic sources from a JSTOR sample. It correlates precisely with my wording--Before 1995 usage was in a variety of non-Republic meanings; after 1995 usage started shifting to the Republic. (Taivo (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Thank you Taivo. While this is probably not fully conclusive proof in a statistical sense (would need a larger sample to reach a decent significance level), it's a good enough first indicator of a tendency confirming your reasonable hyothesis; so I think for the time being we can say that the claim that the republic constitutes a minority use is safe only for the older material. (For the sake of clarity, I must add that in my own searches of comparable data I have usually counted the "archaeological site" tokens as instances of the ancient sense rather than the modern Greek one, but I can see how one could interpret those either way.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I did some counting of my own, yet the numbers I got are quite different to the ones that Taivo got. My breakdown can be found here. My evidence still supports my claim. --Radjenef (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your count was made on a different set of data, Radjenef, so of course it's going to be different. But you forgot to count this, this, and this.  Plus 5 of the first 50 results in your JSTOR search were not even about Macedonia--they were articles on Caribbean fauna authored by a J.M. Macedonia.  So subtracting those 5 articles and adding the three articles you missed, there are 25 out of 45. In other words, the majority of the references to Macedonia in the search you linked to were to the Republic.  The other references are split between Greek Macedonia and the ancient kingdom.  And, as I have stated before, JSTOR's citations are not the most current.  There is one citation from 2007 and the remainder are from 2005 and earlier.  Your comment is not accurate in the sense that it implies that there was not a shift in the meaning of "Macedonia" in the mid-1990s and it ignores the fact that the majority of JSTOR's citations are to works that predate independence. (Taivo (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

International recognition
We seemed to have lost some of the international recognition lines from the background summary, what was there before was out of date, and what was added to replace it was flawed. I've taken the liberty of amending this accordingly. To summarise:


 * We had somehow lost the fact that most of the UN's member states (now two-thirds of the total, including most of the English-speaking world) recognise Macedonia under its constitutional name. This is a very important point, as it influences common usage in those countries. The page had previously said that "just over half" of the UN's member states employ this usage. I believe that figure was taken from the original MOSMAC1, but the international diplomatic position has shifted decisively in Macedonia's favour in the two years since that was written.


 * Some data had been added, sourced to Macedonia naming dispute, to state that "12 states recognise the country under it's UN reference, and 34 states/entities either do not hold formal diplomatic relations with the country, or it is unknown what reference they use to refer to the country". I'm afraid we can't be definitive about that. I had a major role in compiling that list, which is mainly sourced to public statements about diplomatic activity between Macedonia and other countries. We do know (because it's been stated on several occasions) that 125 countries as of February 2009 recognised Macedonia under its constitutional name. We do not know for sure how many countries use the UN reference or how many do not have diplomatic relations. Both of those categories of states must be among the remaining 67 countries, but we don't have enough evidence to say exactly how many are in each of those two categories.


 * Not every international organisation employs the exact UN usage - some have come up with their own variants ("FYR of Macedonia", for instance).

Hope this makes sense... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Background" evidence disputed
Regarding this addition to the "background" section by Radjenef: this claim is still factually wrong; discussion now moved to int.orgs subpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noting here that I will remove these claims again some time during the next 12 hours, both from the "Background" section and from the "int.orgs" sub-page, unless somebody else does it before me, as I believe I have brought forward incontrovertible evidence it is incorrect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done. We had the same issue in compiling the list on Macedonia naming dispute of countries that use whichever name or reference - editors were citing sources that said nothing about the particular country's position on the issue. Another editor raised this issue in this discussion which led to the list being greatly amended and numerous instances of OR removed (a task in which I was heavily involved). In the present case, we have a UN document which says nothing about the naming dispute, but which lists Macedonia under its UN provisional reference. It doesn't even come from the Macedonian government but from the UN General Assembly. To support the kind of assertion made by Radjanef, you would need a document issued by the Macedonian government itself or from a reliable third party that spoke explicitly of how the Macedonian government uses the UN terminology. This particular source doesn't come close. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, are we discussing the quality of sources or not? Because in a section right below we agreed that any sentence does not have to be reliable sourced but only backed up by a footnote. Fut. Perf. said so himself that WP:OR is only for article space. A Google News query could also be thought of as original research, doesn't it? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 21:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about whether some piece of information fulfils some formal "reliability" criterion according to our content rules for articles, but about whether that piece of information is correct. The claim that the country regularly (let alone exclusively) uses "f.Y.R." in its dealings with international organisations is demonstrably wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at what you've posted on the international organizations sub-page, it's clearly wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing to reliable sources needed
I understand that some backing up must be linked for the statements and that they are not citations.

However notes 3,4,5,6 are actually citations. Wikipedia's policy about sourcing also has power in project space too. I don't understand how we can mix citations to reliable sources together with links to userspace essays.

And who is the "largely agreed upon" referring to? The 10 editors, tops that have been writing here? Are we a good sample of the community? Shadow mor ph ^"^ 20:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference syntax is often used in project space to add footnotes, as appears on a number of our project pages. It is acceptable, since the footnotes explicitly indicate the nature of the citation. Change is therefore unnecessary and only likely to provoke conflict.  We want these pages stable by tomorrow Fritzpoll (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an article, but an internal discussion page. WP:RS is about articles, as is WP:OR. The evidence notes are purely for the sake of convenience, as a reminder provided among Wikipedians of what we consider suitable documentation of facts. And whether it's formally presented as a footnote or inline is of course totally irrelevant from the perspective of "reliability". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, misconception cleared. However I'm afraid the background section is not the best factual summary we could have but I guess its not important since we are in project space that only Wikipedians would read. I respect the need for stability but I though that some sentences should need to be sourced better, that's all.
 * For the record I have stated that I am not going to re-add again any wording about those footnotes. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 20:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you would like to close (or collapse, whatever) this thread if you want to. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of who raised that particular concern, I really think that it was a very valid one and one that we should seriously consider. Indeed, we have yet to see any reliable source about the number of countries "officially" recognising the country's constitutional name. I would appreciate it if someone would add the missing evidence or strike the statement off the list. --Radjenef (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The list found at Macedonia naming dispute contains all the reliable sources and over the last two months there has been a very solid effort to make sure that all the sources there were reliable. This has been stated several times during these discussions.  (Taivo (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I agree that it should be removed if reliable and verifiable sources aren't included. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference to Macedonia naming dispute added. Since this is not an article, but a discussion, then that is a sufficient reference to the relevant information and the reliable sources quoted at that place.  (Taivo (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Taivo, don't delete my edits. Please, stop it. About the "sources", the reference in the article about the naming dispute is the same as in the project page (http://www.vlada.mk/?q=node/2273). It's the very same verbal claim by Milososki. There are no reliable, verifiable sources regarding this. Not even a list in their Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Nothing. Zero. Find sources. If you don't, you will violate Wikipedia's rules. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are a topic-banned user, SQRT. It is as if you are not speaking here.  I will defer to the arbitrator's request below.  (Taivo (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC))


 * If a comment needs to be removed from these pages, please let the referees handle it. In the meantime there is a discussion open at AE to consider SQRT5P1D2's participation, why don't we let that run its course first? Shell   babelfish 03:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The verbal claim is named on the Macedonian goverment's website. That is a reliable source. The fact that it opposes someone else's point of view does not make it unreliable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Striking along with all other comments in this section to show that I'm through with this filibustering rubbish and that it was a mistake for me to dignify it with a response. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also a hell of a lot more references than just that one here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's self-serving, which undermines its use as a reliable source. We wouldn't accept a Greek government website that claimed that half the countries use FYROM. Same problem. We could count them, one by one. We could say "the majority." We could say "except for Greece, Britain, and a few smaller countries." But 125 needs a source that is reliable for that piece of information. Jd2718 (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three quarters of European Countries, well-source through the Macedonia naming dispute link Heimstern provided. Jd2718 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually an interesting idea. I am going to write a letter to the American embassies of both countries, and see what results I get. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  04:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that a Greek government website would be unreliable, either (biased, of course, but hard facts tend to be solidly represented, regardless of POV). The other sources are clearly better, though, so we should rely mainly on those. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If your letter does get answered it should be posted since it would be helpful information in order to adequately cover the positions of both countries on that. Right now the WP page linked above uses Greek official sources for some citations and RoM official sources for others so as mixing two biased sources in one paragraph. It also uses both Greek biased news sources and RoM biased news sources for citations too. Really reliable outside sources should better be used if found. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 06:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not many other sources can be found. Nobody else cares. Either way, this discussion is starting to look like it's about the Macedonia naming dispute article now; as such any further discussion might be better placed at that talk page rather than here.  Balkan Fever  16:41, 22 June 2009
 * I agree about that. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 06:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would suggest out of respect to this process and the controversy of whether his topic ban applies that SQRT5 abstains from this discussion until the case for his participation is cleared. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 06:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I concur that quoting Milososki is not the good way to go in terms of reliably sourcing a number. Project space might be flexible but it should not contain whatever political claim there is without attribution. So the sentence should say that "the foreign minister Milososki claims that ... ...". Shadow mor ph ^"^ 06:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I include the attribution in the page? Only the number 125 needs attributino, the "two thirds" can be changed to "about two thirds". Does someone else agrees that the number needs to be attributed to "official Rom sources put the number at 125"? I think that saying "about two thirds" and a link to the WP page should be more than enough for the background section we have here Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 06:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The 125 figure has been widely reported - see e.g. this article published only 10 days ago, and this BBC News article of November 2008. I see no reason to doubt it. The figure, after all, comes from the Macedonian foreign ministry, which is both an official source and the definitive source of information on Macedonia's foreign relations. There is no indication that Greece disputes the figure. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * from BBC: quote:In a November 2008 interview, Macedonian Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki said "it is important that 125 countries worldwide have recognised Macedonia's constitutional name,". That is called proper attribution, that's what I am saying. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 08:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the BBC's not good enough for you, I guess it just goes to show that nothing will suffice for you if it supports this fact. Either way, the sources at the Macedonia naming dispute article are probably better for these purposes, if more of a pain to read though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But the BBC didn't report it as true; Antonio Milososki claimed it during an interview that was televised by the BBC. A person's claims surely do not automatically qualify as reliable sources just because he expressed them during an interview, do they? I am sure that, if the claim were true, it wouldn't be too hard to back it up with proper evidence... so, where is it? --Radjenef (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Macedonian Foreign Minister is a reliable source - indeed, the definitive source - for information about his country's diplomatic activities. Where else would you expect to get that information from? Your objection is completely nonsensical. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Prince of the Principality of Sealand claims that their micronation has been recognized by Germany. He is the definitive source on all things Sealand, yet that doesn't make his claim true, neither does it make him a reliable source. The reliable sources have to come from 125 countries, not from a spokesman for the Republic. --Radjenef (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done responding to your endless bullshit argumentation. Enjoy talking to yourself in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch the language! They way I was brought up hasn't made me accustomed to hearing people talk like that. I do not allow you or anyone else to talk to me in that manner. I hope that you will be more respectful in the future. --Radjenef (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions about disambiguation
I'm unclear about the rationale for some of the disambiguation-based solutions being advanced here (i.e. those where Macedonia reverts to being a disambiguation page), so for those editors who favour such solutions, I'll pose the following questions:

1) It's generally agreed that there are only four leading meanings for "Macedonia". Why is having a disambiguation page superior to having a hatnote at the top of the most-used page, as at present? If the aim is to direct a minority of readers to the other three pages, isn't this already being achieved through the hatnote?

2) Since the great majority of readers have always gone to the country page, what is gained by forcing them through a disambiguation page that they don't need?

3) Is there any hard evidence that readers are being disadvantaged in any way by the current naming structure?

Any answers? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Only four? In Mercury, the prime example for disambiguation (appearing in the policy text), there are only three common meanings. What is your point?


 * 2) is disputed. Right now Fut's numbers suggest a 9:1 ratio of users choosing the country but noone can say for sure what the readers of the dab page were chosing when Macedonia was a dab page. Hits specifically to en.wikipedia.org/Macedonia are about 1000/day and of those it has been conjectured that 900 are happy to stay there (?). Of course that is only a conjecture since no experiment was made when Macedonia was a dab page so as we could see without any doubt. Furthermore hit statistics are not as reliable as unique users. Even if we had reliable numbers how much a majority is considered a "great" majority?
 * Furthermore ask yourself what is lost by forcing users to go through a dab page: it's 10 seconds and a click and that only for one part of the users. Consider that together with what is at stake: stability, edit wars, violation of NPOV as perceived "by some", disambiguation problems or semiological confusion in the hat link, loss of encyclopedic value due to recentism, (all those in my opinion).
 * 2) even so we gain neutrality to say the least.


 * 3) Yes one minority of users is obviously disadvantaged. Also there is a possibility that uninformed or lay readers might be mislead or even miss some content they might otherwise read (e.g. to read the history section of the country rather than read the region article). Is there any evidence that readers are being advantaged by the current status quo? I mean other than they avoid the dab page (they gain 10 seconds and a click) while also avoid seeing what other "Macedonias" exist?


 * Personal opinion: A dab in some cases will be educative for the general user or even incite him to learn other things. That is even more so for Macedonia. But I could support dab pages in other places too, I learned many things from having a query direct me to a dab page rather than a specific topic. Speaking for myself I don't see going through a dab page such a bad thing but rather a good thing.Therefore the users are actually more disadvantaged now. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Deadline today
Towards the end of the day, proposals and all submissions will be opened up for community presentation and discussion per our earlier comments. At this time, comments on the talkpage may be archived, and some structural alterations will take place to facilitate endorsements and discussion. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fritzpoll, I've not seen any answer yet to the questions I posed above about this community discussion that you're envisaging, so I'll repost them here, more clearly formatted, so that you can address them:


 * This issue involves a fairly complex intersection of policies and real-world usage. How likely is it that the average uninvolved Wikipedian will be able to absorb all of that?
 * Since consensus cannot trump policy, what happens if opinion is in favour of a solution that violates key Wikipedia policies and the Arbcom's own directions (as several of the solutions advanced here do - specifically WP:NPOV and WP:NC)?
 * Is there even any point in advertising policy-violating solutions? Does this imply that you're willing to adopt a solution that violates basic policies if enough people are in favour of it?
 * Above all, what makes you think that a wider community discussion is going to reach a consensus after seven years of the community failing to agree - or, more accurately, being filibustered and stonewalled by one faction - on this issue?


 * I'd appreciate a response. Right now I'm afraid I don't have much confidence that the proposed community discussion is going to achieve anything much beyond producing a further round of bickering and being an open target for nationalist disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not going to answer this unilaterally, but only from my perspective. By and large, you are right:  a local consensus here cannot override our policies and guidelines, but the policies and guidelines themselves are open to interpretation.  That is the purpose of having discussion of any kind at all.  Then the question is who do we ask?  Look at these pages after just a week:  hopelessly deadlocked - I couldn't make a call on most of the issues based on what you lot have written.  Consensus in a community-wide discussion will be based on judging discussion:  If ten editors wander into the debate and tell me that "we should call it X because that's how we like it and guidelines be damned", and one person says "We should call it Y to comply with policies A, B and C, etc." then the first ten people may as well not bother - consensus will fall to the policy argument.  At worst, block voting will just add some time to us reading through, so don't worry about that.
 * Basically, to summarise: you have been unable to reach a consensus here, and unless you truly believe that you can sort it out in the next couple of weeks, we need fresher eyes to look at it. We'll postpone for a bit so thta you can comment further Fritzpoll (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, I'm quite happy to see this new RfC-style phase go ahead. If so far we haven't reached a clear "consensus", that has two reasons: first, a true consensus with some of the participants here (let's say, Shadowmorph and Radjenef) was not to be expected in the first place. The rest of us might come to some consensus on most issues – and in fact, in many parts of this I believe it's already pretty clear where everybody's consensus is. But this is the second reason: our whole process so far has deliberately focussed more on presenting the alternatives than on closing in on one of them. In that sense, the process has really been in preparation for this next step. Now, there are parts where the picture is pretty clear (take away the proposals filed purely as a counter-measure by those who wish to minimize the use of plain "M." at all costs, and you'll have the consensus of everybody else) – but there are some crucial bits where there's legitimate choices to be made. I'd personally list these:
 * "main articles": A vs. B/C as a legitimate judgment call
 * "main articles": B vs. C a matter of taste
 * "other page titles": A vs. C as a choice based on practicability considerations
 * "int.orgs": B possibly debatable as an alternative to the more obvious A
 * For these questions, fresh outside opinion will be quite welcome, as far as I'm concerned. And I have full trust that the referees will deal responsibly with this input. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially, I agree with Fritzpoll. Speaking only for myself, I think that having the perspective of the entire community, rather than a small number of editors who are intimately involved with this dispute, will decisively show that consensus is eminently clear about what terms should and should not be used to refer to the Republic of Macedonia. Also, we (the referees) are specifically required to "disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline"[ 1 ], so you do not have to worry about any attempts to use consensus to trump policy. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  22:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, a practical question: when you go ahead with the "endorsement" phase, will you want us to add our own preferences again too? Because I realise in some domains those may not be entirely obvious. Things like "1st choice", "2nd choice" and so on? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think so too and wanted to ask about it. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the distribution of the opinions of the wider Wikipedia community also. I concur with Future that the point of this discussion was not to find consensus between this small group of involved editors (as was also suggested by ARBCOM, neutral outside opinion has to be sought for). Let me add that so far there has not been any block effect. One could argue that the majority of participants in this discussion are right now actually Americans (but nationality doesn't really matter).


 * Speaking for myself I have adequately expressed that I wanted to represent a sensitive approach to help reach a consensus, one that was not filled with "just call it FYROM" pro-Greece argumentation. In that part I believe I have raised several important issues with reasonable counterarguments and proposed several solutions. My concern was to help the consensus building process by representing the alternatives so that other editors can make a call based on a plurality of options. I don't regard the editors of this page (including me) as the only ones among which consensus has to be found since nobody owns the Macedonia-related articles.


 * I sincerely doubt whether a consensus already exists; a claim that has its basis on a poll at Talk:Greece that was only about one fifth of the issues discussed now and on the apparent agreement between a few editors that participate here and were parties at the ARBMAC2 case too. To my knowledge a couple of the real third parties that discussed here both opted for the "region" solution for main articles. So I have reason to believe that the wider consensus might end up differently than what one may expect; that's even if we go as far as to wrongly eject the collection of every Greek editor of Wikipedia from the endorsement process.


 * Finally I would like to say that if through this discussion a new naming convention emerges it can have reasonable variation from general naming guidelines as it is one of the reason for having a specific naming convention. Furthermore let me just recap my main argument that we should not use the primary topic scheme rather naively in a controversial and geopolitical complex case such as Macedonia. With that in mind there is room for either selecting the dab page solution (that was proven stable too) or adopting the region as a "primary set" (a logical superset of all "Macedonias"). Those solutions will in my opinion be adherent to WP:Neutral point of view regarding some aspects of the Macedonia naming dispute. Also in order to use the primary topic scheme as it is described in the disambiguation guideline, significant assumptions have to be made about contemporary generic English usage and arbitrary quantitative measurement methods to be selected to compare the usage of various meanings of the word. Right now the basis for following that guideline has been in the thesis of the essay titled MOSMAC2 which while being a survey implemented in good faith it might not be sufficient; the contained thesis itself, about English usage of the word Macedonia, has not been adequately sourced to a reliable outside scientific source. However there is one reliable source about naming conventions that can be consulted and that is the Library of Congress in the labeling scheme of which, the plain "Macedonia" label is reserved for works that are about the region and its ancient history including the kingdom. LOC uses Macedonia (Greece) and Macedonia (Republic) for the two other conflicting subjects (see LOCMAC). Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to chime in a bit, basically the referees are all in agreement - this was shunted back to the community because the group of editors most involved in the naming discussion haven't been able to reach a consensus. Reasoned outside opinions based on policy can only help here. Shell  babelfish 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was never any chance that the editors most involved in the naming discussion could reach a consensus, if only because one side of the dispute is taking an evidence-based, policy-based approach and the other very obviously isn't. That has always been the case, literally for years. However, thanks to everyone for the clarifications. I admit I'm still a little wary; nonetheless, you've eased some of my concerns, so I'm content to see what comes out of the next stage of this process. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My question to the referees is while you will "disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline", will you be disregarding any such proposals? For example, proposal G at main articles is demonstrably against NPOV, NCON and DAB but its rationale contains wikilawyering that attempts to suggest otherwise. Will such a proposal be allowed to stand for presentation to the community or will it be thrown out beforehand?  Balkan Fever  10:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am always wary of people requesting that proposals be thrown out beforehand. I believe that Proposal G provides justification of its compliance with policies and guidelines. Obviously your interpretation of these policies (your POV on how WP:DAB, WP:NC and WP:NCON should be interpreted) differs. I say enough with this paternalistic attitude; why not let the community be the judge? --Radjenef (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm asking the referees. If I want the opinion of Greek nationalists I will go to the Greek Embassy.  Balkan Fever  11:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So I guess now Radjanef (not self-declared but perceived) political ideology (nationalism) is regarded as relevant to his ability to make a proposal. That puts new perspective on "anyone can edit". I always said that from nationality declarations we would reach the point to be accompanied by political declarations too in mathematical progression. That is not a herring, but what the truth about what we are becoming. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 11:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cut the "anyone can edit" crap. It's a simplification of anyone who wants to help build the encyclopaedia can edit. Some can't edit, like vandals and trolls, and rightly so. In my opinion, nationalists are skilled trolls. I don't need a nationality declaration (or lack thereof) to tell me who is a nationalist or not; their edits suffice. The question I posed still stands, and the only people I'm interested in an answer from are the referees.  Balkan Fever  12:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BalkanFever... Given that I have never self-identified as Greek, that gives you no right to label me as one, let alone liken me to a "nationalist", a "vandal" or a "troll". This is a serious civility violation! I'll give you the chance of removing that statement yourself before I request that it is dealt accordingly by the overseeing administrators. I neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of your information. I also request that the administrators delete any relevant entries from the history log. I hope that my wishes will be respected . --Radjenef (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, gosh, promoting hardline Greek nationalism on Wikipedia, posting regularly to a Greek-language forum off-wiki (in perfect Greek) and using a Greek personal name on said forum might be considered to be an indication that you're Greek. I dunno, maybe I'm missing something? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Swamping the case pages with nonsensical proposals?
With the activities we've seen last night with Radjenef's multiple new proposals at "other articles" and today's new "main articles" proposal by Shadowmorph, I can't help the feeling there is a deliberate last-minute drive to make the whole process unworkable by swamping the pages with nonsensical proposals in order to create maximum confusion and turn outside readers away. Some of these proposals are so obviously beyond the limits of what is reasonably debatable I really wonder why else people would even bother to file them. At this point, where the "RfC" phase is about to start, can we perhaps have a moratorium on new proposals, or a rule that any new competing proposal should at least be aired for a brief sanity check on the talk page before being formally filed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could someone remind me why we are allowing single-purpose accounts to contribute to / disrupt this discussion in the first place? The Arbcom found that both Shadowmorph and Radjanef  are SPAs who have done little but campaign on this issue since they registered their accounts. Shadowmorph has been an editor for only two months and came here specifically to complain about the page moves in April. Their only contributions have been yet more wikilawyering, pedantry and increasingly useless proposals, each less workable than the previous one. Let's face it, all the objections are just cover for what Shadowmorph has already admitted is the underlying issue: that they regard the name "Macedonia" as offensive to their nationalist ideology. The latest nonsense is typical of the approach that has been taken literally for years - bury the reasonable proposals under a mountain of nonsense and make the whole thing so convoluted and unreadable that people give up in frustration. It's completely unreasonable to drop a slew of new proposals into the discussion literally at the last minute, when there is little time to evaluate and discuss them. I've no doubt that it's a deliberate tactic. Given the Arbcom's findings about Shadowmorph and Radjanef and its strong statement against wikilawyering and stonewalling, these editors should surely be kept on a short rein and disruptive behaviour of this kind should be discouraged. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Small correction: Shadowmorph is actually a bit older, he was briefly around last September. But tinkering with disambiguation links has always been his main hobby here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What's with all these personal attacks lately? The reason why most of my proposals came yesterday is because I have real-life work to do during most of the week. Of course, it would require assumptions of good faith for one to recognize that, instead of a "deliberate last-minute drive to make the whole process unworkable...". As far as the SPA accusations go, my article-space edits are mostly non-Macedonia related. If you don't believe this, you can check it out by yourself. It's always easy for people to accuse newcomers of being single purpose accounts... stretching that rationale, let's automatically accuse all users of being SPAs after their first edit, since they will only have edited on one topic! --Radjenef (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Another case of misrepresentation since I never "admitted" that "the underlying issue is that I regard the name "Macedonia" as offensive to my nationalist ideology". I never did that.


 * Also ChrisO confuses me with SQRT5 because I didn't join Wikipedia in April solely to complain. I was an editor and actually me and Future were having an editorial debate when you, ChrisO, made the unilateral moves that you still do not acknowledge of being the perfect example of WP:POINT. I was involved in the ARBCOM because I was editing at the time and have moved Macedon to Macedonia (ancient kingdom) in between your moves.
 * Not to mention that I almost single handed I wrote the Macedonians (Greeks) article that one arbitration member describe as "very good". Of course I could not do that for Andalusians because I am not an Andalusia-focused SPA account. Wikipedia's content relies on SPAs on many occasions.


 * Since I had a saying about Macedonia and the chance to air it in ARBCOM why would I have to miss the chance? Nor will I leave this discussion as a result of bad faith pressure and repeated intimidation from parties that want to me to dissappear. I will not do that simply because they have those beliefs about me.


 * ChrisO you were sanctioned in ARBCOM, not just called an SPA... why are you editing? Why is Future editing? Does Taivo neglecting his admonishment by engaging in unacceptable behavior such as misrepresenting other users and ignores the subjects of misrepresentation when they complain about it?


 * I guess talk page rules do not apply to Taivo and ChrisO. I am not responsible for them misrepresenting me.


 * If you think that including proposals for evaluation is bad faith I don't because I believe in a plurality of choices. If some proposals are stupid or that can be evaluated. If we leave the evaluation of proposals solely to you two: Future Perfect and ChrisO, there wouldn't be any debate would it?


 * I cannot speak for Radjanef and don't confuse the two of us. Note: I don't know whether Radjanef is Greek nor does anyone else. However when ChrisO called his argumentation "bullshit" that was not an acceptable behavior.


 * The last proposal I added I think (or thought) that it could be a solution. But since people repeatedly regard me as stupid here because I attempt to be groundbraking (in contrast to follow the guidelines word by word: that is the real wikilawyering), I guess my proposals are stupid too. So forget stupid me and do what you like, I never obstructed you in that part. However you have in multiple occasions tried to obstruct me from even airing my proposals (moving, deleting, reverting and so-on). If this is supposed to be a two-man show, be my guest. I am fed up with the personal attacks here and I am also fed up with how lightly they are dealt with. If I was the one that was continuously accusing Future Perfect or ChrisO of filling these pages up with their version of the truth, which I don't, then I might have been banned long ago. Since I was allowed to participate (because, I don't know... Wikipedia is supposed to be free and open) then you have to live with me. I don't understand by what book can drafting a new novel proposal be considered as something so ultimately wrong as you describe it to be. That's just another assumption of bad faith from ChrisO (we are used to that coming from him). Not adhering to AGF is a violation of Wikipedia's pillars and policies.


 * The referees have not said to my knowledge that there was any obligation to keep the proposals to some arbitrary minimum number.


 * Do what you want, it appears that there is after all a block here... and it's not "the Greeks". Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 11:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to read the ArbCom decision more closely, Shadowmorph. I was admonished for releasing a private email--not for anything related to the content of the discussion.  Nice try to throw mud.  (Taivo (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I said that "Taivo, neglecting his admonishment by engaging in unacceptable behavior such as misrepresenting other users...". (note: "by engaging" - NOT for engaging). I mean you are now engaging in unacceprable behaviour. You were admonished for relasing a private email (an unacceptable behavior). Misrepresenting me (the reason I complain) is also unacceptable behavior. Furthermore releasing a private email is also a misrepresentation of the person who wrote the email since it puts the email out of its context (or other unknown previous correspondence).


 * So where exactly did I throw mud on you?


 * The other part where I mentioned you is in "I guess talk page rules do not apply to Taivo...". Well its still my guess since talk page rules say that you must not misrepresent other people, but you still don't seem to mind about my complaints of you misrepresenting me. I can't be around to answer to all the cases you misrepresent me such as this one right above this comment. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I read a talk page comment by a referee that there would be some delaying of the deadline so I thought I could add a wild/novel/nonsense-you-say proposal. I never obstructed anyone to delete it.

Since we are talking about deliberate tactics, it has been ChrisO's tactic from the very start that not a single Greek should be able to participate here and be regarded as neutral. One or two persons cannot form a block so this cannot be ARBMAC2 related. It is just that ChrisO is assuming bad faith of others. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 11:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * case of wikilawyering: We should follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC word by word, ignore that it puts emphasis on may''.
 * case of not wikilawyering: Be flexible with the guidelines, follow novel approaches.
 * case of stonewalling: There is only one choice: the status quo; all other proposals should compare themselves directly to that.
 * case of not stonewalling: drafting many middle-ground proposals where my first choice is only a single one specific proposal. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 11:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

-- "People can submit as many proposed solutions as they like..." (from the rules active here). To the referees; please put a stop at ChrisO's continuous inflammation of the discussions for no reason that is forcing editors to reply directly to the attacks on them. Sorry for my loss of calm about this. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 12:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Future's reasonable call for a moratorium on new proposals. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal about structuring the pages

 * 1) I would like to try to cover the concern about the volume of data in this discussion. I propose for all "main article" proposals that are now numerous to be collapsed  with only the top part visible directly. (the one about what title goes where and what the content of Macedonia should be). That way any user can first evaluate a proposal in plain sight and then click on the "details" (rationale, compliance, comparisons, pros & cons) if he wants to investigate more. That way the number of the proposals does not have to become a possibly obstructive factor in third parties choosing which one to endorse.
 * 2) I would also suggest that all references to any status quo be removed so as the focus should be to a new approach
 * 3) Finally I suggest that all "main articles" proposals should be in random order (never understood why proposal A was put on top since B existed for years when A only for two months and only by fiat action). (never mind)  Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 12:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Troll sock
is obviously somebody's sockpuppet created only to troll these pages. I ask the referees to exclude this account from the further proceedings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Got some proof, or chattering as usual? Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "as usual" part does imply a kind of familiarity with Fut.Perf.... I suggest Spis Ikke to voluntarily abstain from here whatever the case for him may be. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading the remarks of a user throughout a Wikipedia page, such as this one here, is enough to make me familiar with his mentality and views. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for User:Future Perfect at Sunrise to enlighten me as to whose user's sockpuppet I am, plus the inclusion of his proof. Otherwise he's just an incivil chatterbox, idly chattering nonsense. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No offenced intended. Spis Ikke Gul Snø, if, as accused by FPS, you are a sockpuppet, it may be found out, if you are not, carry on freely and try and get used to being abused by some editors who love abusing fellow editors. But remember, you have wiki rights and, of course, wiki duties... Politis (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have banned User:Spis Ikke Gul Snø from all pages related to the Macedonia naming dispute. His first four edits clearly show that he is not new here. We do not need undeclared sockpuppets muddying up the water any more than it already is. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 17:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sock or not we should not let new users join the case -- for sake of sanity and common sense. man with one red shoe 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that, but if new users are going to be disruptive, then... J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  18:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the topic ban. The editor ("Don't eat yellow snow", for those wondering about the username) clearly wasn't new and I strongly suspect it's the same guy who's been trolling Fut. Perf. for a while. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Winnowing proposals
I think it's clear, particularly following the last-minute posting of a slew of new proposals, that we have far too many proposals to present to the community in an RfC (assuming that Fritzpoll is still envisaging that route). I suggest that it would be a good idea to winnow down the number of proposals to present only the strongest to the community. To achieve this, I suggest the following:

1) A number of editors (Fut. Perf, Shadowmorph, Radjanef and I think a couple of others) have put forward a number of proposals about terminology in a number of individual subject areas - main articles, other page titles, Greece etc. Some proponents have put forward several proposals addressing one single subject area.

2) Each editor who has presented a proposal should indicate whether he/she wishes to put forward proposals to the community. (Some proponents may not wish to have their proposals incorporated into an RfC, following the talk page discussions here; they should be given the chance to opt out.)

3) Each proponent should nominate which of their proposals should go forward to the RfC, on the basis of one proposal per subject area per person. They should choose of which of their proposals they feel is strongest, winnowing out the ones with which they are less confident. Each proponent would therefore be the "sponsor" of one proposal in each subject area.

Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good start at winnowing out the proposals. But even two or three proposals per subject area is still too much IMHO.  Can, say, Shadowmorph, collapse his main proposals in each of the areas into one all-encompassing proposal?  Same for Future?  That way, readers won't be going through and picking two from column A and two from column B just so everyone "will be happy".  Right now, there is just a very poor noise-to-signal ratio.  (Taivo (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

I think you should stop wprrying about proposals and get on with editing and enjoying the site!! Dr. Blofeld   White cat 19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure reducing it completely to a small number of all-or-nothing package solutions would be so good. Some of the different subpage-domains really are independent of each other. For instance, I'd personally expect a rather wide and open spectrum of opinions between A, B and C on the "main articles" page, whereas on some of the other pages we're more likely to see consensus-minus-the-Greeks converge much more quickly. But I guess we could condense the three subpages dealing with article text into one, that would be feasible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't envisaging package solutions, to be honest. I was simply looking for a modest reduction in the number of proposals going forward. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be too many proposals. One way around this is to decide what proposals have the most support among all of you, and present those. I can propose many things, but perhaps the most obvious is a vote: specifically a vote of preferences via Single Transferrable Vote. You can decide how many proposals to put through, then vote by each ranking the proposals in order of preference - we count them up and the winning proposals go through. If it is felt necessary, the vote can be secret while it progresses - you could e-mail them to us, and we can tally them up. We can even post the votes themselves for openness and transparency afterwards if you wish. That's just one idea to winnow them down without a need to convince each other of the merits. Thoughts? Fritzpoll (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Too complicated, I'm afraid. It will just lead to each side voting for its own favourite proposals and voting down the other side's. (You have to remember that you're dealing with a bunch of editors who couldn't agree on the time of day!) Wouldn't it be easier to just have one proposal per subject area per person? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea with preferential voting is to get as close to an agreement as possible, because you get more than one choice. All we need to know is how many proposals go through, and provided it is lower than the number we have now, we will eliminate some proposals. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, why not just start and see where we get. I'll give you my own preferences here and now.


 * (edit conflict) My concern is that no proposal should be discarded before airing it to the greater community simply because the number of proposals grew. It's not like any proposal can accidentally pass... In the other case I can expect to find all the proposals that I will pick to be "gamed out" since I am more or less the only one that has supported some of them yet. The arbcom finding was about excluding possible gaming of this process by a block, not excluding proposals that were drafted by one user rather than the other.


 * Why not just collapse the text of proposals into a "detail" expandable-box and include each and everyone of them? I say keep the first lines of each proposal, the ones that describe it (just up to the rationale section) and collapse the rest of the details.


 * May I propose this taxonomy proposal: tag the proposals with MAC: (main articles - content of Macedonia page), OPT: (other page titles), GRE: (Greece), ORG: (organisations), OA: (other articles). Therefore for example Future Perfect's ot Taivo's preferences above could be codified in one line. As for myself:
 * I endorse: MAC.B, MAC.C (2nd choice), MAC.D (3rd), MAC.F (4th), MAC.E (5th), OPT.B, OPT.C (2nd), GRE.A1, GRE.B (2nd), ORG.C, ORG.B, OA.B, OA.D Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think about that way? Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. If you'd like to vote on which proposals will go ahead, please do so. Shell   babelfish 22:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several users that have already expressed their support for some specific main articles proposals (e.g. the "region" proposal). I think the choice of which proposals should go ahead should also assess their opinion since they stated it. They shuoldn't have to watch this page so as to restate that. I am talking about Andrew Darby, Sceptre, Esem0, Yannismarou (in case they miss this vote for some reason). Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Posted a link to the latter three you've listed, but can't find Andrew Darby - that doesn't appear to be a valid username... Fritzpoll (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Andrew Dalby. El-greco (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, El-greco! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shadowmorph called for the "summoning" of all the Greek supporters. Did anyone notify all the editors who have made comments here?  Or was it just Shadowmorph's Greek list?  (Taivo (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
 * How about Akhilleus, Heimstern Laufer, and JD2718? They contributed here, too.  (Taivo (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
 * BalkanFever also notified a couple of people. I think we're pretty even on that account now. Anyway, this stage should not take the character of a big showdown vote. My understanding is it's more for internal clarification where the preferences lie within each of the obvious "camps", so the total voting strength with which each camp represents itself here is probably not that important. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe every editor that has made any edit to this project space, plus one who hasn't, are aware of this voting now.  Balkan Fever  14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just didn't like the "feeling" I got when I read the request for a summons. It reminded me too much of what happened at Talk:Greece.  (Taivo (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Okay, now it's two who haven't been around here before.  Balkan Fever  15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From reading everything here I got the impression I was allowed to vote/show my preference. Not contributing does not mean I do not follow the discussion here or the Arbitration that preceded it. -- L a v e o l  T 15:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You do understand that this is not the community decision stage, right? I am still confused as to who was intended to be able to vote at this preliminary stage. If anyone is allowed here, that means the community is deciding what proposals to put forward to the community :S  Balkan Fever  15:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am against any kind of exclusions or "selectionism". If the x editor is able to read the proposals and comprehend them, then he/she should be allowed to vote. This includes I suppose all Wikipedians with a common intelligence. By the way, an editor who is just following the discussions without commenting could be better informed than an editor who visited once in the lifetime one of these subpages, and was lucky to comment. Any possible scheme of exclusions would be irrational.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Taivo just indicated that the "we are all Greeks" statement should be the one that applies here, since he included Sceptre and Andrew Dalby to a "Greek list" :-)


 * Just to note that I didn't summon any "Greek supporters". Once again I must restate that I wasn't in the "RoM vs FYROM"/Talk:Greece poll nor have I edited Greece about the naming of RoM/FYROM as of now, so please don't associate me with what went on there. I mentioned those specific users since they have explicitely stated their support for some proposals. I asked for them to be notified just so they can ratify that support that they expressed by themselves. It was a decent thing to do. The yet absent Esem0 whether he is a Greek supporter or not, he did support proposal F (outline solution) that he drafted here so I guess this should be noted.


 * I am used to being the usual devil and be blamed for all the evil things in Wikipedia. But please try to respect the other users that contributed here on good faith and might not think of themselves as "Greek supporters" (just look at their votes). As for the users that felt the need to vote for seeing a proposal to be aired to the wider community, I don't see any reason to discriminate against them. They are not subject to the "block"-related restrictions (they are not part of any "block"). Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 17:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Choices

 * Fut.Perf.:
 * Main articles: Support A, expect significant support for C (my 2nd choice) and B (my 3rd choice), would like to see those three put up for comments.
 * Other article titles: Support C, would be willing to retract A. (Don't see much worth debating about B)
 * Greece-related: Personally regard only A as policy-conformant, could live without further discussion about the others
 * Int.Orgs.: Support A, would consider B worth considering
 * Other articles: Support only A. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Taivo:
 * Main articles: Only A.  B is the only other one that should go forward.
 * Other article titles: C (first choice) or A (second choice)
 * Greece: Only A
 * Intl Orgs: Only A
 * Other articles: Only A  (Taivo (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
 * ChrisO:
 * Main articles: Support A, C second, B third.
 * Other article titles: Support C, A second choice.
 * Greece: Only A.
 * Int. orgs: Support A, B second choice.
 * Other articles: Only A. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Man with one red shoe:
 * Main articles: in order B, C, A, (and E is OK) the rest are unacceptable.
 * Other article titles: C
 * Greece: A
 * Int. orgs: in order A, B
 * Other articles: A man with one red shoe 23:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shadowmorph:
 * Main articles: Support B, C second, D/F third, E should go ahead
 * Other article titles: Support B, C second choice.
 * Greece: Support A1, B second choice.
 * Int. orgs: Support C, B second.
 * Other articles: Support B, D second. &mdash;  Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Radjenef:
 * Main articles: Support G, D second, B1 third, E should go ahead
 * Other article titles: Support B, C second choice
 * Greece: Only C.
 * Int. orgs: Support C, B should also stay even though I don't support it
 * Other articles: Support E, D second, C third choice. --Radjenef (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BalkanFever:
 * Main articles: Support A. B and C should also be presented.
 * Other article titles: C
 * Greece: A
 * Int. orgs: A
 * Other articles: A  Balkan Fever  11:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yannismarou (preferences in declining order):
 * Main articles: G, C, D, B
 * Other article titles: B
 * Greece: C, A.1
 * Int. orgs: C
 * Other articles: E, D--Yannismarou (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Andrew Dalby:
 * Main articles: B first choice, C second choice
 * Other article titles: A or C
 * Greece: A
 * Int. orgs: A
 * Other articles: A And rew D alby  12:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This flag once was red:
 * Int. orgs: A, possibly worth considering B. Dislike C.
 * My interest here is primarily with int. orgs, so no preference outside this area. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 12:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * GK1973:
 * Main articles: B.
 * Other article titles: B
 * Greece: B
 * Intl Orgs: B
 * Other articles: B In my opinion, this is and has been the most accepted solution, clearly defines the country, is clearly accepted by the country's citizens, is accepted by the proponents of the Greek side and also causes no problems to the average aware and unaware reader. A single solution is also easier to implement. GK1973 (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Andreas:
 * Main articles: Support B, A only if alternatives are explained in the lead section
 * Other article titles: Support A
 * Greece-related: Prefer A
 * Int.Orgs.: Prefer A
 * Other articles: Support A. Andreas  (T) 13:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kafka Liz:
 * Main articles: Support A, C (second), and B (third)
 * Other article titles: Only C. A only perpetuates the dispute.
 * Greece: Only A
 * Int. orgs: Support A or B (second)
 * Other articles: Only A Kafka Liz (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sceptre
 * Main articles: D, B, A
 * Other articles: A, B
 * Greece: Only A
 * Int. orgs: B (akin to Chinese Taipei at the 2008 Summer Olympics)
 * Other articles: A, B, C. Sceptre (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Apcbg:
 * Main articles: D first choice; C or B may go forward
 * Other article titles: C first choice; B second choice
 * Greece: C first choice; B second choice
 * Intl. Orgs.: C first choice; B second choice
 * Other articles: C first choice; B second choice. In my opinion, the recent disturbances in Macedonia-related Wiki articles were totally unnecessary, as unlike cited reference cases like Ireland, Luxembourg or America, there is a recognized international dispute here, and an accepted binding obligation to resolve it.  While the latter is yet to happen, it is already clear at this stage of the process that neither ‘Republic of Macedonia’ nor ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ would be among the eventual choices. Apcbg (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Laveol:
 * Main articles: primary choice - B; C or D might work as well
 * Other articles: B
 * Greece: A; maybe A1
 * Int. orgs: B
 * Other articles: prefer B; C is acceptable. -- L a v e o l  T 14:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * John Carter:
 * Main articles: (in declining order) B, C, E, F
 * Other page titles: (in declining order) A, C
 * Other articles: (in declining order) B, E, D
 * International organizations: (in declining order) C, B
 * Greece-related: (in declining order) B, A.1. John Carter (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Heimstern
 * Main articles: Prefer A, B and C seem worth looking at.
 * Other page titles: C
 * Greece: A
 * Int'l orgs: A, though B seems worth looking at.
 * Others: A


 * Grnch
 * Main articles: A (first choice) or E (second choice). The others are unacceptable.
 * Other page titles: C. The rest unacceptable.
 * Other articles: A. The rest unacceptable.
 * International organizations. A (first choice) or B (second choice). The rest unacceptable.
 * Greece-related: A (first choice) or A.1 (second choice). The rest unacceptable. --Grnch (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * dchall1
 * Main articles: B (first), with A as close second. G is unacceptable.
 * Other page titles: B, then A. Don't like C.
 * Greece-related: A only. Other solutions are not policy-compliant.
 * International organizations: A only.
 * Other articles: B, then A. //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 17:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dc76.
 * I am a late comer here, so please allow me to review my provisional options below when I finish reading. In words: I favor "Republic of Macedonia" everywhere, including the following examples: "Category:People from the Republic of Macedonia", "In 14th century the territory of the Republic of Macedonia was...", "Here in Thessaloniki, unlike in the Republic of Macedonia...", and "Also members of this organization include: Republic of Macedonia (under the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), and Madagascar.".
 * Main articles: B with option B1 (do have the word "disambiguation" in the title of the disambiguation page)
 * Other article titles: B (will read more to make sure)
 * Greece: ...reading tonight...
 * Intl Orgs: ...reading tonight...
 * Other articles: C (will read more to make sure) Dc76\talk 18:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How many?
I can use the above votes to narrow down the proposals presented to the wider community, if you can agree how many in total should be presented (assuming that we don't want to present all of them)? I have a vague notion of 3 proposals to be considered - if so, I can use STV counting principles to tally up how many proposals are "elected" to be put forward. Thoughts on that number? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should make an exception for the more contentious "main articles" proposals (5 proposals should go forward on that page); for the rest 3 is probably ok but we will wait and see Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 12:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's a magic number, just eliminate the proposals that are not supported by anybody or by only one person. man with one red shoe 13:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with the man with one red shoe. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Fritzpoll, let's do a proper cleaning up here. Go for three for each case with an objective method; STV is definitely one, but in this case we may have to reformulate our preferences, making clear that this is my 1st choice; this is my 2nd and this is my 3d. I think that's how STV would work properly.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some categories only have three proposals, and it's not an even split, so I fail to see why they should all be considered...  Balkan Fever  15:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. If they already have only 3 proposals, let's go with them to the next phase.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal preference would be to limit each parties number of votes to no more than half of the total options where there are more than three options available, rounding up so that if there are 5 options allowing 3 !votes, and then take only those which have, effectively, appeared in the top 50% in terms of total amount of support. That would eliminate the less supported ones, while still allowing for a larger number of more discrete options. Agree with Yannismarou that prioritizing choices would also be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the most reasonable option is to keep 5 proposals for the "main articles" and 3 for the rest... --Radjenef (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I put a table on one of my sandboxes. It didn't turn out to be as useful as I had hoped, but I think it is easier to read. Feel free to update your choices if I got them wrong. I put down 3 for first choice, 2 for second, 1 for third, and 0 for others. That way, we can add up the numbers in each column to see which are preferred. (I copied the table into Microsoft Excel because you can make it add up columns and display the results.) J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you spoken to Fritzpoll? He was planning to do something called a Single transferable vote, which is apparently nifty, but a bit complex to compute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an STV poll currently running at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx), with a useful discussion around tracking results using open source (free) software. There's a template for !voting. I'm quite comfortable with STV polls, but judging from some of the comments it is a strange beast for editors reared on other systems. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have a spreadsheet that computes it all for me - it gets the balance of opinion right, but is a bugger to compute. I'll archive this section and post the results in the morning.  Fritzpoll (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 is too many proposals to offer for any of these sections. Too many of the options are too similar to other options.  (Taivo (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
 * 4 is enough for the main articles. Although B and C are the same proposal with a different article title for the country. D doesn't form two proposals because it doesn't directly address the country article title. So really it's 3 proposals, which is enough.  Balkan Fever  03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of chopping off the less voted proposals (for the main articles) it would be reasonable to consider [B]&[C] as variations of the same proposal (Macedonia to be a dab page) and also [D]&[F] (Macedonia to be about the region) likewise, because they're similar for one option of [F] (the terminology option doesn't seem to be getting support). I think that while the most contentious issue is the choice between [A] vs [B or C], we should include the different approaches that were thought of worth going forward by more than one user; those are [D] (which shares some of [F]'s elements) and [E] - the redirect approach. That would be best so that this process would not be considered as not airing some of the proposals just because of a vote. They could be less popular amongst the few of us, but could still get supported by the community. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 04:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) As I see it there are two issues that need to be subject to a choice of the community between four options for each issue. The first: the second issue is
 * Q1) Macedonia to be:
 * 1) a disambiguation page
 * 2) the country article
 * 3) the region article (could be edited to include an outline/timeline with hat links directing to all "Macedonias" but that is editorial choice)
 * 4) a redirect to the country article
 * Q2) The country article to be titled:
 * 1) Macedonia
 * 2) Republic of Macedonia
 * 3) Macedonia (country)
 * 4) other disambiguators like Macedonia (Republic), Macedonia (state), (or 'modern state' or 'modern country')... Judging from the options at Ireland there may be other possibilities too. For this country former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is also a proposed possibility. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 04:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Shadowmorph, FYROM is not an option since it is not a name. The only options for calling this nation are "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia".  While it might be possible to form a consensus around ROM, it will be impossible to form one around FYROM.  FYROM is just Greek wishful thinking.  So even though there is a proposal around it, it will be a waste of time to actual treat it like a valid option.  (Taivo (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I agree. Perhaps, since this is the opportunity for "winnowing out" stuff, this would be also the best time for the referees to step in more actively and filter out those proposals that don't stand a chance because they consider them prima facie against the policies. It would be a waste of energy if people were first invited to argue further over them, only to be told later that they didn't have a chance to begin with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

From the above only Q1.1 and Q2.1 are mutually exclusive. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 04:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Shadowmorph's comment is right on target and I was considering something similar as well. There are really four questions that are clouded by all these different proposals and the way we proceeded.
 * What should "Macedonia" lead us to? To the Republic or to a disambiguation page?
 * If the answer to Q1 is "a disambiguation page", then how should we label the Republic article? "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia (country)"?  ("former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a complete non-option.)
 * What should Macedonia be called in the titles of other articles? Should references be grandfathered (current Proposal C) or should they be standardized on the results of Q1 and Q2?
 * How should Macedonia be referred to in the text of Wikipedia articles?
 * All these proposals simply cloud the fundamental questions here. (Taivo (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Well I was only talking about the "main articles" and their titles. For the rest of the things discussed (other articles, Greece, int.orgs, other texts) there are few proposals there that need no condensing and each adequately explain themselves. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 05:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree a refactoring of the main articles issue into these two logically independent dimensions would be possible, although I don't see it would gain much efficiency – it would not really reduce the number of options readers would have to go through. Assuming for the moment that "G" is in fact without a chance, the only main article proposals that are affected are D and E (and those are among the least likely candidates to succeed). If either D or E were chosen, we could just say that the remaining choice for the country article name would follow the amount of relative preference between B and C. As for the other article references, I'd prefer leaving them factored out as they are now. Actually, the question of whether and to what extent we should have special rules for int.orgs and Greece, and the question what the default conventions in other articles should be, are no less independent of each other than the two dimensions you pointed out among the main articles options. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not really see why Proposal G is "without a chance" or a "complete non-option", since it is a proposal that is supported as a first choice by more than one person. People supporting a certain nationalistic view have been trying to get Proposal G kicked out as an option from the moment it was proposed, yet I do not see why we shouldn't give it a chance of being considered by the community. --Radjenef (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because it's the proposal that tries to cater for nationalists. Maybe that's why it's only supported by two people. One of them admitted at some point that they were a nationalist, the other is in denial.  Balkan Fever  15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you'll all appreciate, all of us are in different timezones, so we'll make a good go of getting this organised and make a ruling on the proposals to be put forward in due course. The vote above will certainly advise that discussion. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a misunderstanding. All editors need to recognise that the UN, EU and many other organisations recognise the country as Former or former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This provisional international regulation (sigh) is not a wikipedia POV decision. Accepting this in no way binds them into any wikipedia policy or make them bedpals with any editors. So, do you accept that the UN, EU, etc recognise the country as  former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? the answer should be 'yes'.
 * The usage Macedonia (Republic) has been used outside wikipedia. Politis (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Politis, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not a name, it is a provisional reference. "Macedonia" is the common name of the country in English, "Republic of Macedonia" is its formal, constitutional self-identification.  No term imposed from outside will be used as a label in Wikipedia.  "FYROM" is 100% Greek POV.  This has been discussed ad nauseum here, at Talk:Macedonia and at Talk:Greece.  But I will assume good faith that you haven't read all those discussions.  (Taivo (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

I empathise with your difficulty, I also suffer from it also occasionally, you just cannot read a text. I never wrote FYROM, but the full UN reference. And, no, it is not a Greek invention but a UN response to a Greek objection, the Greek government simply agreed to it - one learns something every day (well, apparently not everyone 'sigh'). Politis (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's make this real simple for you, Politis, Proposal G violates WP:NAME, WP:NCON, and WP:NPOV because it is neither the most common English, nor is it a self-identification. It only exists because of Greek objections to its constitutional name.  The Republic never uses it.  That is enough to disqualify it.  (Taivo (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Wow, Taivo, that is widely inaccurate. The Greek POV is "Republic of North Macedonia", erga omnes, and has nothing to do with the provisional reference that is being used in the context of the UN as a form of official appellation. I do not believe the Greeks have any particular obsession with former Yugoslavia. The fact remains that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a legitimate naming option for the article, that is used by the Republic as a de facto form of self-identification (at least occasionally), backed up by a solid policy rationale. --Radjenef (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA :D  Balkan Fever  15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you are maintaining high standards of decorum as usual...--Radjenef (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec, although Balkan Fever's answer is perhaps more eloquent) Radjenef, you need to read more carefully. I didn't say that FYROM was "Greek POV", I said that it existed because of Greek objections to Macedonia's constitutional name, that's the only reason that the UN came up with it.  And, you don't read the vandalism at Macedonia and Greece to realize how obsessed Greek editors are about this.  FYROM (the long form) is not a valid naming option because it violates WP:NAME (not common English usage), WP:NCON (not a self-identification), and WP:NPOV (it takes a side in a naming dispute).  It is not used de facto as self-identification by the Republic.  When another nation says "FYROM", Macedonia replies, "ROM".  It is not used as a self-identification.  (Taivo (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
 * (ec with Taivo) Well I could try explaining something to you but you wouldn't care to listen. I think I'll stop feeding you now and ignore your "contributions" here. Have a nice life :)  Balkan Fever  15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Taivo said and I quote: "FYROM" is 100% Greek POV ...I demonstrated that it isn't Greek POV. as long as the Republic signs documents under the official appellation, which I have demonstrated it does, it self-identifies that way in those instances. Whether that is a regular behaviour or just occasional, is a completely different discussion. --Radjenef (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How many times must this be repeated? The Republic signs under that name only when required to by bilateral agreements. It never uses it otherwise. This is just a bunch of wikilawyering: grasping at straws for anything that will qualify a name that's more palatable from the Greek perspective. Wikipedia policy can always be twisted to suit one's meaning with enough cherry-picking, and that's exactly what's happening here. Actually applying the spirit of the policies, including considering how they are applied elsewhere on Wikipedia (yes, I know, there are a few other inconsistencies, such as for Ireland and China; those are similarly controversial and probably should be changed, too) clearly disqualifies FYROM, whether in its abbreviated or its written-out form. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the ad hominem. (Taivo (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

All right, enough. The direction this thread is taking was not helpful when I went to sleep last night, and now it is worse. I can assure you that none of the conversation made in the last ~12 hours or so will have any bearing on what decision will be made regarding anything, and your ad hominem attack was not necessary, Taivo. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 16:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__