Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

uninvolved folks
Below are statements by folks not part of the original dispute. ——  nix eagle email me 03:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement from 100% uninvolved Grsz11
I've never worked on a Macedonia or Greek article, I have no interest in doing so. I saw this come up on ANI several times today. From what I can tell, Chris made the move and after, explained himself on the talk page. Not really the standard procedure, but how often has "procedure" failed in these cases? He made a legitimate, even compelling argument backed up with statistics, etc. It earned support then, even from some (as far as I can tell) neutral editors. Obviously the relevant articles are subject to endless ethnic and cultural battles. Why let them even attempt to solve this any longer? I don't see why ArbCom couldn't settle the naming issue.  Grsz 11  04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Horologium
In the previous arbitration (WP:ARBMAC), the Arbitration Committee explicitly and specifically declined to discuss the central issue, that of the name of the country, because it was a "content issue", and ArbCom doesn't deal with content issues. They referred that matter back to the community for resolution. The result was an epic failure of the community to come to such a resolution, and there are good-faith editors on both sides of the dispute (or perhaps all three sides, seeing the new wrinkle introduced yesterday by ChrisO's move). The problem is that the content dispute is now a behavioral dispute, which is clearly under the purview of ArbCom.

My involvement in this issue is minimal; I protected the article Greece (three times now) to stop the edit warring over "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"/"Republic of Macedonia", and I have commented on the article's talk page about my personal preference, but I have not edited the article or any other article which relates to the naming issue. In fact, I question whether I qualify as an involved party at all, but that is something which I do not have the ability to explore at 6 AM (local time).  Horologium  (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In reference to the second proposed motion, I cannot possibly emphasize how strongly I support such a motion. Although it is not entirely clear in the presentation of the problem here, the move of the Macedonia article was secondary; the primary dispute was at Greece, and the back-and-forth there was to be the topic of the arbitration. The page move has overshadowed the edit warring over "Republic of Macedonia"/"former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" that has occurred over dozens of pages, some of which are only tangential to either country. This arbitration should not focus solely on ChrisO's page move, because doing so would fail to address the root cause of the edit warring, which will continue until a resolution of the name issue occurs.  Horologium  (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by J.delanoy
I really do not care where the article ends up. I have my own personal opinion, but I do not have a vested interest in this topic, as I am a fourth-generation American with German/French ancestry. What I would like to see come out of this case is a definitive method to deal with disputes like this, where consensus clearly fails to produce results. As much as I know the Committee does not like to step into content disputes, something desperately needs to be done to end the relentless wikilawyering that surrounds topics like this. J.delanoy gabs adds 15:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Nathan
A useful precedent for this case is the stubbing and protection by Fut. Perf. of the Liancourt Rocks article, subject to a similarly disruptive and long-term naming dispute. While that step was unilateral and without substantial prior discussion, it had the effect of shutting down the dispute. While it may not have permanently settled the issue, the fact that I haven't seen it back here or on the admin noticeboards suggests it was an effective step.

ArbCom typically doesn't decide content disputes, and it seems like this issue can be resolved without changing that tradition. Simply endorse ChrisO's, or decide not to overturn it, and it will become the new status quo without an explicit content decision on the part of the Committee.

I do understand that endorsing this type of action (essentially resolution of a content dispute by administrator fiat) is a difficult proposition for the committee and the community to accept. I think this case, and the problem of endorsing fiat actions, can both be resolved by committee motion: resolve that the decision in this instance will stand, caution ChrisO and other administrators against making unilateral decisions without discussion in the future, and further admonish ChrisO for choosing to take this action at a time when many of the key involved editors are away on holiday. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 15:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SheffieldSteel
On the face of it, the underlying issue (M, ROM, or fYROM) looks like a pure content dispute, but I feel that the conduct of many participants needs to be considered, with numerous incidents and/or accusations of nationalism, bad faith, and personal attacks having taken place. There is additionally a policy aspect to this: editors and admins have been unable to establish a consensus as to how our naming conventions should be applied to this case - uniformly, or making exceptions.

I hope that ArbCom will consider this case in its entirety, rather than focussing solely on (getting distracted by?) the issue of ChrisO's move/protect protected move of the article currently at Macedonia. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hiberniantears
ChrisO did the correct thing, even though it has stirred a hornet's nest. Look at Taiwan as a case in point. This all comes down to a long, long edit war concerning an entrenched camp(s) of nationalist editors. There cannot be consensus on this. There will not be consensus on this. So the only responsible thing to do is to take the warring camps out of the picture and view how we treat every other article on Wikipedia concerning a country. That is what administrators exist for, and it is what ArbCom exists for. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Knight of the Wind
After noticing a thread on AN/I, I decided to look farther into this. It seems to me that ChrisO's action was done according with policy, and that the move protection was applied to prevent edit-warring. Reading through the talk page, I saw no consensus to move or to keep as is. For me, in my opinion, in an area where there is no consensus, policy takes priority. However, reading through the talk page, it seems a large number of the editors involved in the naming dispute are Greek/Macedonian. This, is an issue due to nationalism. I believe this could represent a conflict of interest to many users. I do not believe ChrisO abused his admin tools in this situation. What I want to see come from this RFAR is a clear consensus on the name, and though I hate to say it, topic bans on users with obvious COI may be in order. Knight of  the Wind  16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by LessHeard vanU
I was the first respondent to the notice posted by John Carter at the Noticeboard, and it was I who moved the discussion - after a few false starts - to Talk:Macedonia after it became apparent that there was little in the way of neutral admin reaction to the move against the amount of partisan comment that was being generated on the Noticeboard. The opportunity for uninvolved community comment on ChrisO's actions has passed, and it therefore falls to the ArbCom to decide if it was in line with the admin remit (understanding that any evidence or comment that may be made in the process will again be dwarfed by those responding to the long standing dispute). It may be that ArbCom will need to divorce the review of ChrisO's admin actions and that of ChisO as a party to the dispute to gain a proper perspective of those actions. At the time of writing I am assuming the Committee will accept this request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BirgitteSB
Responding to an RFC on this naming issue was one of the first really heated disputes I ever came across in Wikipedia. That was in April 2006. I am a strong believer in consensus but we must find a way resolve areas of perpetual "no consensus". Chris O's actions were neither with nor against consensus here, because there has never been anything more stalemate achieved in regard to the issue. I don't know that ArbCom intends to touch the content issue here. But they may be able to help the resolution of the content issue by at least framing the question properly. I found a diff from Talk:Macedonia back in 2006 were I tried to share some insight on that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia&diff=prev&oldid=48945091 See here is where you and I at an impasse. I am looking at the article attached to this talk page (BTW take a minute and read the article one more time). I read this article and think how to best direct the average English speaker who is looking for this information to this article. While I believe you are thinking more about what people who have already found the article will think about the concept of Macedonia. There is a place to deal with the concept of Macdonia, but it is not here; it is on the disambiguation page.] I think the reason that the issue has been so problematic for so long is that no one has enforced people from sidetracking productive discussion by asking irrelevant questions or by presenting evidence that is irrelevant to the useful question. I believe the solution here is the one used at Talk:Evolution put together an FAQ on a sub-page figure out the answers by consensus and once it is done quickly and firmly redirect misguided questions or objections there.-- Birgitte SB  23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis (Pmanderson)
If ArbCom does not choose to address the content dispute, they should reconsider accepting the case. There is no hope of consensus otherwise, and the sanctions of WP:ARBMAC, which have caught at least of the parties to this case, have not produced decent or civil behavior.

This includes something like providing a Special Master to decide the content dispute for them; but I think the settlement is only likely to prevail if it is backed by ArbCom's full authority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by harej
I would like to begin by introducing words to live by for all warring parties. '''By editing Wikipedia, you are not a Greek, a Macedonian, an Albanian, Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, Pole, Russian, or whatever you may choose to call yourself, but a Wikipedia editor. You are a writer who must be capable of collaborating, compromising, apologizing and forgiving. If you are not capable of that, you are not wanted here.'''

This is a problem which Wikipedia will not solve and will never solve by itself. This is a bitter debate, fueled by national interests, thousands of years in the making, and currently manifested on Wikipedia. As a collaborative reference work made possible by the positive contributions of people of all ancestral stock, and used by people of all ancestral stock, Wikipedia and its editors must consider that they will go nowhere with continual self-assertion of what they personally want. They must put down the editorial firearms, sit at a table, and consider what the best approach to solving this is. I want ArbCom to promote this atmosphere of solving the debate by actually solving the debate instead of solving the people.

After all, this is Wikipedia. It does not have to be an exact duplication of the real world (as long as the articles, er, reflect the real world sufficiently). Therefore, while it will never be able to end the arguing in its entirety, it can ameliorate it.

World peace rhetoric aside, if the editors cannot work together to solve it, ArbCom should be pushing to solve it. Let's decide on a naming convention, agree on it, and enforce it.

Statement by jd2718
I have edited Macedonia-related topics, but I am not involved in the immediate dispute.

The first Macedonia arbitration produced quite a bit of enforcement, but nothing as far as resolution. As ArbCom creates ARBMAC2, it should do so with the intent of providing editors with a clear path towards resolving this naming dispute. And that would almost be enough to make this arbitration worthwhile. But there is more: 1. editors whose primary work here is advocacy, not editing (can we look at the behavior, not the individuals?) 2. groups of editors acting as advocates in concert, making normal DR, finding consensus, etc, 'challenging' 3. Names. Can we get some direction on resolving naming disputes, which are an especially frequent, especially vexatious element in these nationalist edit wars, more expeditiously? Should there be a names project? A names board? Naming mediators?

But to take a whole case to create a process to decide on the name of one article, that would be an unfortunate use of time. Jd2718 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by AndreasJS
This case is only vaguely related to previous disputes about the choice between "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" within articles; its subject is whether the entry under the name "Macedonia" should lead directly to the country or to a disambiguation page (or, as a third alternative, to the region, as is the case with Micronesia). This is important for a casual user who reads or hears about "Macedonia" and is curious about what this term stand for. This is especially important for a controversial term, as is the case here. I want to quote from disambiguation: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no '(disambiguation)'". The Naming conventions referred to by ChrisO do not apply to this issue, because they do not deal directly with disambiguation. Naming conventions (geographic names) does not specify how to determine what is the primary topic.

I want also bring to the attention of the committee that a similar case involving Macedonians has been explicitly given as an example for the need of a disambiguation page in Naming conflict.

ChrisO's action clearly contravened a guideline, thereby breaking a consensus that had prevailed over several years. Also, ChrisO abused his privilege as an administrator if he moved an edit-protected page without any previous discussion. Quote from Naming conventions: " Any edit to it should reflect consensus." I would like to ask the committee to encourage the Wikipedia community, and especially administrators, to adhere to policies and guidelines. Andreas (T) 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like draw the committees attention to its previous decision in a similar case at Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. Andreas  (T) 15:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by NBahn
I was perusing "Abd and JzG" when I came across "Macedonia Name Change". Without reading anything I immediately knew two things: First of all, that there are Greek ultra-nationalists involved; and second, that whatever said ultra-nationalists are peddling in regard to Macedonia (republic or otherwise) is a fresh, steaming pile of bovine feces. Then, while perusing the statements, I see that User:ChrisO and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise are among those opposing the aforementioned Greeks. For me, that's more than enough right there. I hold both User:ChrisO and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in the highest of regard; even if there weren't Greek ultra-nationalists involved in this Macedonian issue (peddling Greek Foreign Ministry talking points) then knowing which side User:ChrisO and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise stand is good enough me. As far as I am concerned, anything that User:ChrisO and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise say can be taken at face value while anything proffered by the Greek ultra-nationalists needs to be confirmed through multiple and independent sources. --NBahn (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too excited about this...
This isn't just a Wikipedia dispute; it's an international one. Since this conflict has been around for over a century, I doubt the Wikipedia counterpart will be resolved very soon. You know, maybe the ArbCom members should run for UN positions and bring us world peace. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) --Ixfd64 (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut. Perf. or User:Future Perfect at Sunrise
Please do parenthesize his true nickname along "Fut. Perf": it's helpful when web-searches are executed on this initial nick of his (he was initially known as that). Have fun.


 * Done.  Balkan Fever  11:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So sorry for the confusion. FAUoFPaS (Ж) 12:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 community discussion
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Statement by Radjenef
This is a request for clarification concerning the centralized discussion that has been taking place in WP:Centralized discussion/Macedonia according to WP:ARBMAC2. As far as I can tell from the reading of that remedy, the panel of referees is to oversee while the issue is presented for discussion by the greater community. Once that discussion is over, they are "instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable [policy] rationale". We decided to winnow down the number of proposals before presenting them to the greater community. As far as I can tell, most users were under the agreement that we would remove those proposals that were supported by only one user (or no users):, ,. With that in mind, we proceeded to vote in order to indicate what our preferences where for those proposals. Despite the fact that one of the proposals (Proposal G) was the first preference of more than one users, the referees decided to remove it stating that it didn't have a proper policy rationale. I believe that the proposal actually provided a very solid rationale that was based on policy. In addition to that, evidence arguing that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a more common term than "Republic of Macedonia" had been provided to back the policy rationale. I realize that the referees and some users disagree with that rationale, but that is their POV on the interpretation of policy, not necessarily that of the wider community. I believe that this proposal should be presented to the wider community for discussion since, ultimately, it is the community that will decide how to interpret policy in this issue. After the community discussion is over, the referees can still use their discretion to disregard opinions that are not supported by policy. Disagreeing, however, with the proposal's policy rationale is not valid enough reason to prevent it from ever reaching the wider community. --Radjenef (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo
Actually, there was never a solid agreement among all participants as to how many proposals to put forward and how to decide which ones. The actual decision-making power was left to the three referees by ARBMAC2 and their appointment by Rlevse. While the participants in the discussion can propose processes, it is completely within the purview of the three referees as to how to actually proceed. The three referees agreed unanimously that Radjenef's proposal was not compliant with Wikipedia policy and therefore would not be presented to the wider community for comment. (This is not a "vote", but a request for comment.) Here are their exact quotes from the discussion of this at :

Fairness? Is it fair to allow the community to consider a proposal that I believe I would have no choice but to reject? J.delanoygabsadds 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC) To avoid J standing on his own on this issue, I would like to indicate my concurrence that in my interpretation of the Arbcom case, specifically the aspect cited by J above, proposal G would be difficult to acknowledge as having consensus even if it had significant local support. In this respect, I am happy with J's action above. (after e/c) The original plan was a preference voting system, not the system you describe - that system is enacted properly by J's alteration Fritzpoll (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC) The referees are all in agreement on this issue. While I understand that editors may strongly feel their point of view is best in this case, we have to be guided by community norms and existing policy. Shell babelfish 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll's assessment below is accurate. "Largely unchallenged" is the same as my "never a solid agreement". What there was general agreement on (not unanimous, but general), was that the number of proposals needed to be reduced before going out for comment. The STV method was agreed upon by the referees and several participants and, without serious objection ("largely unchallenged"), was the method implemented.

Statement by Fritzpoll
The description above is not entirely accurate. There was a consensus to winnow the proposals down, and I proposed using a preferential vote using STV among the particpants to get us down to 3-4 proposals. This proposal went broadly unchallenged, and an informative poll began. Running through the preferential voting system of STV, you will find that proposal G was the fifth choice. Given that we only want four to go through, it makes sense for the top four to go through. Proposal G also has other issues relating to policy and guideline application, but the basic complaint, that the means of selecting the proposals to go through for further discussion was implemented in a flawed way is incorrect. I would welcome any indication from Arbcom that we are acting against their resoltions, so that we can make the necessary adjustments before the discussion gets too much further along.

Statement by J.delanoy
My understanding of the instructions given to the referees was that we were required to reject any proposal that we felt was not based in policy. Based on the comments of the other referees and myself, I think it is clear that we are in agreement that Proposal G was not within policy. Frankly, it would be just plain wrong to submit a proposal for consideration that all of us would have no choice but to reject out of hand, even if consensus were gained for it. J.delanoy gabs adds 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Advertising_this_discussion J.delanoy gabs adds  05:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney
As much as I apologize for being a drain on the already limited resources of the folks at ArbCom, I hope this can be dealt with quickly and rather decisively. If we have to fight out every decision made by the referees, then delegating responsibilities for the discussion was of little use. The referees were in concert on this issue and believe that presenting proposals doomed to failure is an exercise in futility. I'm sure we'd all like to see a resolution on this issue; fragmenting discussion with inappropriate proposals does not advance that goal. Shell  babelfish 18:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
At the risk of beating a dead horse: I'll just add that whoever wants to argue the merits of "former Yugoslav...", or wants to see it argued so that it can be treated as settled fairly once and for all, has still plenty of room for doing so in other parts of the survey. There are active proposals involving "former Yugoslav" in all three RfC pages that deal not with page titles but article text. If those get rejected (as it seems likely they will), it will be obvious that it will exclude its use in the main page title a fortiori; conversely, if they should unexpectedly receive overwhelming consensus, I'm sure the parallel decision on the main page title could be reconsidered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis
I strongly oppose use of FYROM or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in any but the most narrow of contexts. Nevertheless, if I supported them, I would not find FP's opportunities sufficient to explain my position.

An opportunity has been lost here; an open invitation to provide policy-based arguments for use of FYROM would either produce one, or (what I happen to think more likely) constitute strong evidence that there isn't any. Either would have been a gain for the encyclopedia. It may have been worth doing things this way for the sake of civility and order; but a price has been paid, and I hope it will not be paid again unless there is a clear net profit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment To reiterate what I said here: I have to agree with Fritzpoll, there is no reason to put up a proposal that does not follow wiki policy and guides. Let's take an extreme example, if user group A says "let's write a version of article X that totally supports our view and ignores others even though they have solid factual support for their view", this would clearly violate NPOV guides and should not even be considered. Problems arise when people don't agree on if a version is in violation (example: is edit X a BLP vio or not?). If the consensus is version G is not in compliance with policy, it should not be offered, esp if 4 other options are viable options with a fair amount of support. And ChrisO is correct, the referees have the authority to decide this, so stop the squabbling and get this settled by the deadline. Adding, I also agree with J.delanoy and Fritzpoll above.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm in full agreement with Rlevse's comment. The referees were correct to invalidate a proposal that would obviously be against policy. The referees have the authority to make this evaluation of the proposal and to take action. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with preceding two comments. The referees have been empowered to act as such because of the long-term issues with the subject at hand. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we would only reconsider any decision the panel makes if some gross error or misconduct were shown, given that they were appointed to oversee the process as the content decisions involved are not ours to make. Prima facie the decision is sound, both on the policy bases as the other arbitrators mention above me, but also (although this would not matter on its own) on the poll results too, as Fritzpoll discusses in his statement. J.delanoy is correct; the remedy was intented to prevent localised weight of numbers from countermanding global policy. --bainer (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've been re-reading the text of the remedy that was passed (ARBMAC2), and I fear that it wasn't made clear enough there who was responsible for setting up the discussion. It only says that the panel "will assess the consensus developed during the discussion". It doesn't say they should chose which options are presented for discussion, nor that they should set up the discussion (though, understandably, this is what has happened, and it has been going well from what I can see, other than this need for clarification). Given this, I would say that either option G should be left in (there is merit in at least mentioning it in a list of other possible titles), or an option for "other" (where people state their preferred name, giving reasons based in policy) or "none of the above" should be included. It is not inconceivable that when opened up and advertised to a wider audience, that someone will come up with a new (policy-based) argument, for one of the other possible titles, that no-one has used before. However, this is all beside the point. Discussion and comments have already started, and I see I've been left an invitation to go and express my opinion there (and I do intend to participate in these discussions). On a procedural note, could those who set up this latest Macedonia discussion please note somewhere where they publicised it? See Publicising discussions for thoughts on that (disclaimer: I wrote the initial version of that 'how-to guide'). Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Future Perfect (on my talk page) and to J. delanoy (above) for the notes about where the proposals are being publicised, and where this publicity is being documented. Ideally, those that oversaw the setting up of the discussion would have posted the notices, but that is moot now. In future (and in this case where still applicable) may I suggest that the referees of such discussions (working with those involved in the issues and delegating to them as needed) take responsibility for the wording and posting of such notices, any updates needed to the notices, and keeping a centralised record of where the discussion was publicised. It is a lot of work, but if you set up a discussion intended to get wide-ranging consensus, it is an important part of the process. One more point - when I visited the discussions in question, it was not clear how long the proposals will be discussed for - though this is clearly mentioned on the main page (one month). Sometimes it is best for the notices to say how long the discussion will run for, and for thought to be given to notices placed in places where they will be automatically archived (after a few days or a week) before the discussion ends - i.e. should all the notices remain visible for one month? Having said that, I'd like to reiterate here my support for the work done so far by the three administrators who are helping to set up and guide this discussion. Hopefully the comments here will help. Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully concur with bainer. --Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rlevse and Stephen Bain. The actions taken by the referees to date are within their scope. Risker (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with above as well. Wizardman  18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points above, as well as add a further note: the entire point of selecting referees for this discussion is to avoid the endless picking of nits that is certain to appear when divisive disputes are "discussed" without a firm guiding hand.  That they have the latitude to constrain the debate to within policy (and decorum) is a requirement, and the committee supports them fully in that endeavor.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Statement by Heimstern
Not entirely sure if this is going to be a request for clarification or amendment, but starting out here. In ARBMAC2, SQRT5P1D2 was topic-banned from all Macedonia-related articles and talk pages. Recently, he began contributing at Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which ChrisO, Taivo and I view as a violation of his topic ban (at least the spirit if not the letter). SQRT5P1D2 disagrees, as seen at this request for enforcement. As J.delanoy also feels SQRT5P1D2 is not technically in violation, I'm coming here to ask for clarification. I feel it's abundantly clear that a user banned from talk pages about Macedonia should be equally banned from Wikipedia-space pages that are effectively serving in lieu of talk pages for these articles, such as centralized discussion pages. I ask the committee to clarify this and, if necessary, make proper amendments to the case.
 * To Coren: Can we then treat this situation that way? I.e., can he be reverted and blocked if he continues, or should we wait for more opinions? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo
I agree with Heimstern's assessment. The "Centralized" discussion is in lieu of separate discussions at a variety of articles, so the topic ban should cover that centralized discussion.

Statement by Shadowmorph
I think the topic ban is clear that it is about article space since that was the concern of disruption by this user as it was drafted by the arbitration members. I believe that since many ARBMAC2 parties that were in various way sanctioned by ARBMAC2 did also participate in the centralized discussion it might be the case that this party should be allowed to participate. In any case it was not clear whether that space was covered by his topic ban to suggest that he violated it that. A clarification might be more needed now. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 06:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the fact that the discussion is not in article space is probably happenstance.

Statement by ChrisO
The fact that the discussion is taking place in the Wikipedia namespace rather than article namespace is purely happenstance - the discussion was placed there at my suggestion. It could just as easily have happened in article space. I cannot imagine that the Arbcom meant for SQRT to banned from the discussion if it took place in article space but not if it was in the Wikipedia namespace. This strikes me as an instance of a sanctioned user attempting to exploit an apparent loophole to evade his topic ban. Let's not forget, SQRT was sanctioned for going off-wiki to solicit nationalist partisans to participate in Wikipedia discussions about Macedonia; he's a single-purpose account entirely focused on the Macedonia naming issue; and he registered his account specifically to agitate about the naming issue, having (so he says) participated as an IP editor before. His willingness to solicit meatpuppets and his utter lack of acceptance that what he did was disallowed indicates that he continues to pose a threat of disruption to the ongoing discussions. His "contribution" in this instance was to delete sourced statements, despite the discussion referees and Rlevse explicitly warning against that kind of behaviour (see here). He's exactly the kind of user we don't want to participate in Macedonia-related topics, whichever namespace they happen to be in. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SQRT5P1D2
ArbCom decided that I should be "topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.".

Quoting from the relevant section, "articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

Summarising, I was "topic banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages" as these "fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

According to Wikipedia, an "article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it" and articles "belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages"; this "does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes".

The centralised discussion does not fall under the prohibition. It's not an article, but a discussion about the naming of a term in the articles. It belongs to the Wikipedia (project) namespace, not the main (article) namespace. It isn't an "article talk page" by definition, as a discussion concerning terminology that will be used in multiple Wikipedia namespaces in the future.

Furthermore, my edit was completely justified, as there is not a single reliable verifiable source available to justify a verbal POV claim. I also contributed new data and helped towards a neutral tone in the presentation.

Concluding, while I abide by ArbCom's decision and Wikipedia's policies, I expect from users who did much worse than what is claimed that I did, but take part in the discussion, to contribute towards a positive environment. That means making NPOV edits and leave behind the battleground mentality that lead to remedies against them.


 * As a note to other parties, until now, there is no consensus among Arbitrators about this matter. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Yannismarou
I definitely disagree that "it's abundantly clear that a user banned from talk pages about Macedonia should be equally banned from Wikipedia-space pages that are effectively serving in lieu of talk pages for these articles, such as centralized discussion pages." Such an interpretation of the decision may be in accord with its spirit, but it is disaccord with its wording. And if the ban is expanded per above, then this is going to be a contra legem expansion. If this was indeed the intention of the arbitrators, then they should amend the relevant part of their decision accordingly. It is not enough to say that "come on; we explained this to SQRT"! What does this mean?! If the arbitrators want to be endowed with the authority they deserve, then they should do things properly.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * At first glance, it seems clear that this is a violation of the topic ban. Please note and remember that when someone is banned from a topic, then there is no "list" of pages that cannot be edited: new articles, centralized discussion, AfD subpages, requests for comments, etc. are all off-limits when within the banned topic.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At this time, applying the topic ban restrictions to discussion about/within the topic that lie outside article space is appropriate and supported by the decision. I would recommend, given the confusion, that it not be applied retroactively however. For the record, a topic or article ban that explicitly includes associated talk page can generally be inferred to include other discussion about those articles that happen lie outside the article talk page proper but are clearly tied to the same topic or area of dispute.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Topic bans come in two main varities: Those that prohibit an editor completely from a topic and those that permit an editor to participate in discussions. It may be necessary going forward to rephrase such bans in a way that makes it clear that a topic ban is a topic ban, especially in relation to the former. I will support a motion to clarify this breadth in topic bans if it is necessary. A topic ban is meaningless if an editor can simply fork discussion of the topic to another namespace. --Vassyana (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is mere wikilawyering by SQRT5P1D2. A topic ban is just that, a topic ban, not a ban in certain name spaces and not others, especially when talk pages are included in the ban. This part of the topic just happened to take place in the centralized discussion area and is about the naming dispute, which CLEARLY is part of the topic ban, towit, "whenever the dispute over naming is concerned". Also note the AE case was closed with a 24 hour block of SQRT5P1D2 by a totally uninvolved admin.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As per everyone else, it is clear that ongoing discussions about the articles was part of the topic ban. An amendment would be appropriate, but may be unnecessary if SQRT5P1D2 is willing to accept that the spirit of the topic ban is now clear. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As Vassyana explains, topic bans that do not allow talk page discussion means that the users can not join any discussion about the topic on any page. In emails exchanged between SQRT5P1D2 and the ArbCom mailing list, SQRT5P1D2 has been informed that the Committee declines to modify the ruling to allow increased participation in the topic. In my opinion, we have clarified the issue and no further amendment of the ruling is needed, but if others disagree, I can support wording that clarifies the point. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with FloNight. I believe the matter has been clarified to SQRT5P1D2 already. Risker (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Macedonia 2 (June 2011)
Initiated by  Fut.Perf. ☼ at 15:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 25.3 (admin topic restriction)


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

Amendment 1

 * Remedy 25.3 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Greece and Macedonia, or in relation to editors involved in that topical area.")
 * Requested amendment: for the above topic restriction to be vacated

Statement by Fut.Perf.
I am still under this admin restriction imposed two years ago. A few minutes ago, I deliberately broke it in an act of IAR for the first time: I protected the talk page of a highly esteemed Greek fellow editor against the personal attacks of a block-evading Greek vandal anon, and blocked the IP. That brought it back to my mind that it really makes no sense for me to remain barred from these kinds of actions. I wish to be again able to use admin tools in Greek or Macedonian cases at least in routine matters: e.g. routine vandal fighting, routine blocks of returning obvious socks, image deletion issues, and non-contentious housekeeping. Reasons:


 * Not being able to do these things is frustrating, leads to waste of time (my own time and that of other admins), and serves no purpose.
 * There was never a strong reason for this restriction to begin with. I never had a pattern of problematic "involved" admin actions. The evidence in the ARBMAC2 case contains one single case of an objectionable block made in anger, which was entirely untypical of my previous three years of admin work in the area. Other evidence of (perceived or real) problematic behaviour was either unrelated to this topic area, or unrelated to my role as an admin, and therefore never made for a good reason for this specific form of sanction.
 * The conflicts that sparked the 2009 case were successfully solved (not least through my own initiative, I dare say), and have settled down. My relation of trust and cooperation with other editors of all nationalities have long been back to normal, as witnessed by multiple cases of Greek, Albanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian editors contacting me for assistance on my talk page.
 * The assumption that just because I took a strong stance in one political dispute with some Greek editors I will automatically be "involved" in every other dispute involving the same countries, let alone in every non-contentious situation involving them, was never correct. The Balkans are a big place; there are plenty of different, unrelated editing issues around. I am still as reliably impartial on most of them as I always was, and most crucially: I know where I am and where I am not.

What I would prefer is for the restriction to be simply vacated, to let me work under the standard rules of admin "non-involvement". I am quite happy to confirm that I will interpret these standard rules in an extra strict way for myself. Before the ARBMAC2 case, I tended to follow what I think was then normal practice among other admins in these areas too; for instance, I might have taken admin actions with respect to editors in dispute X, when I had also engaged in content editing involving debates with the same editors on some other issue Y previously. I am not aware this was ever problematic, rather the opposite: apart from the one exceptional block mentioned above, no admin action of mine in this area was ever cited as problematic for reasons of "involvedness" or partiality. However, I believe that, for better or worse, community standards in matters of "involvedness" have generally become more stringent over time since I first became an admin, and I am quite happy to be even more conservative about such things than I was. There's no need for me to do edit-warring blocks of established editors, ARBMAC enforcement decisions or anything of that sort on Greek/Macedonian issues.

Alternatively, I request at least an amendment to the restriction that will allow routine and non-controversial admin actions.

There is a difference between "the Greek-Macedonian naming dispute" and "Greek and Macedonian topics". I was heavily involved in a bitter dispute about this one, narrowly circumscribed, political issue. That dispute is now solved, and most of the opponents in that dispute have since been banned or have left. Of course, I never would have taken administrative action in anything touching on them, so yes, those diffs are unrelated to my role as an admin. There are of course still some other issues in which I have been involved, off and on, and some editors that I have had significant disputes with. But this doesn't mean I'm unable to be neutral in each and every matter simply because it touches on either of these two countries. Just because I once had an issue with User:Avg about a country naming dispute, doesn't mean I couldn't assist User:Cplakidas in dealing with disruption about etymologies of Greek folk dance names, or couldn't help User:Dimboukas moving a page over a redirect, or couldn't delete a copyvio image of a Greek island, or couldn't interfere in an edit-war about Greek-Turkish relations, or couldn't block a returning vandal who sneakily falisifies climate statistics on Skopje. It is also not true that there was "sufficient Community concern about [me] being involved" in this whole wide area. In fact, right until the very days of that Arbcom case I was frequently congratulated on how well I was doing my admin work in it, and editors from all nationalities of the area routinely turned to me for help and assistance. Except for one participant in the Arbcom case, who used such suspicions as a weapon against me, nobody in the whole wide area had previously ever made a case that my admin actions in the wider field were biased, and none of the dozens of admin actions logged right under the eyes of the committee at WP:ARBMAC were ever challenged, let alone overturned, on "involvement" grounds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to Ncmvocalist below:
 * More to Ncmv.: If general involvement rules are as strict as you say – and I am not in need of lectures from you about what they are – then any extra restriction on me of this sort is redundant. Simply let me work under the normal rules, and if they amount to a far-reaching involvement status in some of the area, so be it. – About the history of the decision back in 2009: you are mistaken. I had indeed been willing to go for various forms of "routine-actions-only" limitations; the fact that they weren't chosen was largely a matter of behind-the-scenes tactical voting issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A "narrowing" to the Macedonia naming issue would be redundant/meaningless: it follows automatically from standard uninvolvement policy. It goes without saying that I don't use the tools there. I never did. This doesn't need an extra restriction. (Of course, if you decide to lift the restriction, you could add something worded as a clarifying note, along the lines of "It is understood that FPaS will act under strict observation of standard uninvolvement policy, and will in particular continue to abstain from admin actions in area XYZ". Just don't present it as if it was an extra limitation specially imposed on me, because it just isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Respsonse to Coren:

Statement by 125.162.150.88 (talk)

 * RESTRICTIONS SHOULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY. Those that *are* should be ignored 125.162.150.88 (talk) Jack-Fuckin'-Merridew 06:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by jd2718
Absolutely support. FPaS helped guide the problems in this area to resolution; it is a better place to edit due in large part to his efforts. He was always tough with tendentious editors and nationalist edit-warriors, no matter which non-neutral POV they carried. There was some coarseness, and some confrontation, and those things led to the remedy. But from the first it was overkill. Today, two years later? There is no reason. Keeping FPaS out of the area no longer serves a purpose (if it ever did). Lifting the restriction would be welcome and would be a positive for WP. Jd2718 (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, in case it slips by Future Perfect at Sunrise is well-informed and highly knowledgeable about the languages, culture, history, and politics of the region. This will be, too, a great asset to the project. Jd2718 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to NYB. I am going to argue that the restrictions placed on Future Perfect at Sunrise in ArbMac2 were politically necessary, but may not have made good sense then, and absolutely do not now. There were a number of major findings of fact that led to the sanction against FPaS, and several background or minor ones, as well as several more proposals that did not pass.
 * 1 That he was incivil or or insulting or intimidating on multiple occasions. Passed with no opposition, with what appears to be an eggregious, recent example as a separate finding.
 * 2 That FPaS was an involved administrator. I believe that finding was controversial, and wrong. And I believe ArbCom's and the community's subsequent actions show it was wrong.
 * 3 That he openly articulated his intent to editwar with a group of nationalist pov-pushing editors. You wrote at the time: I can understand Fut.Perf.'s exasperation with the situation, but this was not the right way to articulate it.
 * What of these?
 * 1. FPaS remains brusque at times, but there are not ongoing diffs showing insults or incivility or intimidation.
 * 2. Note particularly the comments at the rejected finding against using tools to enforce NPOV. FPaS, without a nationalist side in the dispute, was working against an entrenched clique. In fact, in the same case, the Committee unanimously adopted: It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world political polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along political lines due to shared national backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared political views that contravene the application of Wikipedia policy or obstruct consensus-building. Mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy. Defending editorial positions that support political preferences typical of a particular national background is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing . Where did you take it from? Afaik, FPaS's workshop contribution. He went further: If in a decision-making process, such as a debate, straw poll or "!voting" procedure, it becomes evident that editorial opinions are heavily and permanently polarised along real-world political frontlines, then it is legitimate to assign systematically less weight to the contributions of editors who are recognisably associated with such political camps, or in extreme cases to discount them entirely. An editor who is tasked with evaluating such a process and calling a consensus on it (for instance an administrator closing a move debate) should then give a rationale for their call including a description of the political division found in the debate and a reason for why certain sides in the debate must be discounted. . The Committee did not immediately adopt this, but the ArbMac2 decision created a centralized discussion for the naming dispute, with users Fritzpoll, J.delanoy and Shell Kinney refereeing. And they asked about proposals with numerical support, but out of policy, and the members of the Arbitration Committee reached a decision, just days after closing the case, that echoed this important FPaS principle. Had these principles been in place in advance, I do not know that the Committee would have found FPaS to be an involved admin.
 * 3. Future Perfect's declaration that, without a change in how WP handled nationalist edit-warring blocs, that he was ready to edit war, would not and could not be made today. Certainly we've seen nothing from him like it. But why would we? His and Chris O.'s actions and words may have been intemperate, may have violated WP guidelines and policies. But they led to a very effective case that changed the reality in the disputed articles in such a way that the tendentious editing that had been rampant was far tougher to maintain. Notice that there are only 6 enforcement actions logged so far.


 * I don't know that these reasons justified the sanction two years ago. I think there was some political logic to sanctioning Future Perfect that was outside of the discussion. In any event, the incivility probably was not the justification for the restriction on admin actions, and in any case no longer could be. You are already discussing the meaning of "involved" - but it looks like even two years ago it wasn't so clear, with an argument to be made that he wasn't, and that the committee, while making a positive finding, indirectly acknowledged at least the complexity of the issue. And the threat to edit war against the nationalist POV-pushing faction was made in an unusual context that does not exist today and is unlikely to exist again. The reasons for sanctioning FPaS, if they ever existed, are gone.
 * Brad, I would also ask that you not discount the users who are ready to jump in and 'vouch' for Future Perfect at Sunrise without diffs. He has earned a whole lot of respect specifically as an admin. That should count for something. Jd2718 (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am uninvolved or at best marginally involved. Jd2718 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions/comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
Fut Perf, you state that "community standards in matters of "involvedness" have generally become more stringent over time since...[you] first became an admin, and...[you are] quite happy to be even more conservative about such things". You also said that you "never had a pattern of problematic "involved" admin actions. Other evidence of (perceived or real) problematic behaviour was either unrelated to this topic area, or unrelated to...[your] role as an admin, and therefore never made for a good reason for this specific form of sanction."
 * Questions
 * 1) Is it your understanding that Community standards of involvement pertain to admin actions only, and that comments about a topic, or an editor involved in the topic, are not taken into consideration?
 * 2) Is it your suggestion that all (or nearly all) of the diffs compiled in this and this finding are not in relation to Greek/Macedonian topics?
 * 3) Generally, what remedy do you think is appropriate if there is sufficient Community concern about an admin being involved in a particular topic area?
 * 4) What approach should ArbCom (and the Community) expect to see from you if somebody expresses a concern about something you have said/done? (Note: this question is deliberately broad; an adequate response may require you to describe more than one possible scenario). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fut Perf, this is not like a mere topic ban where we can give an user some rope and hope for the best; there is more to it than that as it goes right to the heart of admin policy. Administrator are pretty plain in that there are higher standards of conduct for admins (and contrary to the impression being given here, this is not solely applicable while acting in the role of an admin). Additionally, involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute (with more stuff in the entire clause, all of which was crafted quite deliberately both as a protection for editors and admins - including about strong feelings, be it actual, or be it as perceived by others). Having reviewed the case, and some of the compelling parts of the evidence at the time (including this example: ) and the fact that ArbCom were required to become involved, I don't think your primary request (of completely vacating that part of the remedy) is reasonable. It is applying admin policy as intended in practice and preventing further issues from arising; I don't see it as a punishment.
 * Comment

Still, I think there is merit in considering your alternative request (to allow routine and non-controversial admin actions) both because it may be a more appropriate application of admin policy and for the other reasons you've stated which are in support of that request (and ironically, there were at least a couple of arbitrators who would've supported this back then if you'd expressed a willingness to limit yourself to routine actions in this area at the time). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that despite what ought to be the obvious, there are occasions where a few admins can insist on matters being escalated before they agree to abide by this standard (either because they think they are right and don't want to let go, or because they are willing to gamble their bit over it, or because they want AC to tell them when they've overstepped the mark; the many admins who resolve such issues out short of such escalation do not need such direction/restriction). Given your responses at the time, it did not seem like you were in the latter category. If you had, as you say, expressed such a routine-only willingness, then the two arbs would have supported it as I said; I expect a majority/minority issue to arise on this occasion too ironically (apologies for not being clearer). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Or clearer still.
 * In light of Fut Perf's repeated false accusations that I called him a liar when I didn't, and given that his response to criticism/advice (which wasn't too major in the grand scheme of things) was to the effect of "please stop commenting to me anywhere", I do not see what has changed in his approach since 2008/2009. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by largely uninvolved roux
Fut.Perf is quite simply one of the best admins that Wikipedia has. He is resolutely fair, disdains to entertain bullshit, and as a consequence not only tends to see to the heart of the matter, he is then able to explain it clearly and concisely. When this is in the context of interpersonal dispute, he brings both sides closer together, and while he ensures that blame is apportioned appropriately--part of his disdain for bullshit is a likewise refusal to engage in the usual Wikipedia illusions and self-deceptions, one of which is 'when in doubt, silence whoever's loudest and blame everyone')--he doesn't do so in a way that unduly shames or demeans anyone involved; Fut.Perf actually takes the goddamn time to look into an issue and understand what is going on before wading in. He calls a spade a spade, and his tone can often appear to be brusque or curt. I think, however, it is because he tries to be as unambiguous as possible, which necessarily calls for crisp use of language.

I have quoted frequently on Wikipedia the line "It is generally considered preferable [...] for opinions to be preceded by knowledge", and Fut.Perf is one of the very few admins who takes the preferable route consistently, no matter the situation.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in his understanding of the issues and major players involved in nationalistic disputes, particularly (obviously) the ones covered by this case. As he himself stated above, the very fact that nationalistic editors on opposite sides of disputes see him as fair is evidence enough that his insight is not only desired in the area, but sorely needed. I for one trust, implicitly, Fut.Perf's promises to hold himself to a stricter standard than would be expected of another admin, and to step back if or when his involvement would be problematic. Wikipedia has enough of a problem with lack of continuity in institutional memory, particularly in the area of the hotter nationalistic disputes, where admins burn out quickly and walk away. No blame attached, obviously; but when we have an admin who understands the issues, understands the personalities and people involved, acts fairly and in the best interests of the project, is self-critical, and actually wants to work in the seething morass of the various international disputes, there is no good reason to hamstring that person. Or as Jack said above, unless we are talking about unrepentant and serial damage to the project, punishments should not last forever. Arbcom sanctions should have a specific end, or be of 'indefinite' duration ala blocks. This one has far, far outlived whatever purpose it once had.

Diffs or it didn't happen. You can't make inflammatory allegations like that and not back them up. → ROUX   ₪  08:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question for Jacurek:

Statement by Jacurek
STRONG OPPOSE - Fut Perf. in my opinion is one of the most biased administrator I have ever dealt with. He very often misemploy his administrating tools. Please allow some time to prepare a full statement. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Im a perfect example of a biased behaviour of Fut Perf. who blocked me on every occasion and picked on me exclusively. He also picked on other editors while turning a bling eye on others in many disputes, especially Polish-German related. The misbehaviour and abuse of his administrating tools in this area is quite impressive. I'm in a process of preparing a full statement with many examples. While I can not dispute possible positive behaviour of Fut Perf. in other topic areas because I know him only form Arbcom case and as a "trigger happy" administrator who is often more that unfair. Im sure my statement will show a different "face" of Fut Perf. some editors know. Thanks --Jacurek (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Responding to Newyorkbrad: In this case I will present just 3 examples of his biased approach and lack of fairness when Fut Perf was involved in Polish-German conflict areas. I will have it ready by the end of tomorrow. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My experience with Fut Perf. was very negative. He was an involved party here. . After the case was over Fut Perf. started to bully and block editors he did not like or/and protect/unblock editors who were his allies in the EEML case. I was among few he focused the most. He started to block me for the slightest offense and his blocks were severe. He blocked me for 1 month for this conversation with the editor who was harassing me. The fact that the editor called me "an idiot" in the same conversation was completely ignored by Fut Perf. My block was reduced by other administrator and Fut Perf was criticized for his decision in the private email accidentally sent to me. Fut Perf blocked me for 3 months  for a private message in Polish language I left on my friends talk page. He later reported ONLY me for edit warring ignoring the fact that there were other people edit warring at the same time. Fut Perf even proposed an unsuccessful community ban to ban me from Wikipedia. These are just few examples but there are more. From my perspective Fut Perf was not fair to me and he used his power to block and intimidate me. Hope this explains why I so strongly oppose giving him extra power in other topic areas. He used this power against me and I believe he will use it against others--Jacurek (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Russavia
I would support FPaS' motion above, and agree with his reasoning to have the entire sanction revoked in its entireity. It is my experience that FPaS is a neutral (as one can humanly be) administrator who deals heavily in contentious editing areas. We need more neutral admins in areas like him. Editors who have a problem with FPaS are in my experience POV-edit warriors, sockpuppeteers, and generally pains in the arse who are usually eventually topic banned or indef blocked, who more often than not evade their bans. FPaS should be given the freedom to admin in contentious areas as we need more admins like him acting in such areas, the Greek-Macedonian area being one of these. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? Two pints of lager 09:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZjarriRrethues

 * AFAIK FutureP hasn't abused his admin rights and has maintained his neutrality, so I fully support his request. He should have full admin rights regarding all issues, because he's one of very few admins who understand the nature of the Balkans disputes and don't focus only on the technical aspects(3RR) of the issues.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 12:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment: I don't know how accurate these uninvolved labels users are applying to themselves are since for example Vecrumba, who considers FutureP judgemental was blocked less than a month ago(block ended a few days ago) by FutureP because of a topic ban breach, so I suggest other users not apply such labels to themselves especially when they're heavily involved.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 21:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Vecrumba
Comment. While I am not sure I can agree with Jacurek on outright bias, I regret that I have found Future Perfect to be judgemental in their statements and actions and discourse with editors they believe to fit in a particular WP:PIGEONHOLE. Any editor on the receiving end of same I suspect may well use the term "bias." I would like to see what Future P. offers regarding separating their content-related and admin-related activity. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Volunteer Marek
Request for clarification

(Note: I am using the term "uninvolved" in the same sense that FP@S is using it - I do not edit Macedonia related articles. I am NOT using the term "uninvolved" in the same sense that ZjarriR is using the term - I have had disagreements with FP@S in the past. In fact obviously part of the problem here is with these two completely different usages of the term. Which is particularly ironic considering that ZjarriR is supporting FP@S's "uninvolvedness" while at the same time calling other commentators "involved" for basically the same reason - either FP@S is "uninvolved" but then so are these other commentators, or he is "involved" and so are these other commentators. You can't have it both ways. Perhaps a motion which clarifies this (extremely vague and trouble causing) notion of "uninvolvedness" by the ArbCom could help here.)

Anyway. I'm at a bit of a loss here, both as to the purpose of the original sanction and this appeal as well. It is my understanding that FP@S is in fact active in editing Macedonia related articles (creating new ones, participating in talk page discussions, etc.). As such, I don't quite get why a specific sanction barring him from using his admin tools in this area is necessary. OBVIOUSLY, if a person is actively editing a topic area, THEY SHOULD NOT use their admin tools in that topic area. This is basic policy and practice, and does not necessitate a specific sanction. So the original sanction seems to just reitarate what is expected of admins anyway. Hence it is neither necessary nor should it be "appealed" - which would seem to be an explicit permission to both participate in content conflicts in a topic area AND use admin tools to enforce a particular viewpoint in the same topic area.

I've got some specific opinions on the details of this request but I don't see a point in expressing them until it is clarified first of why an admin who's involved in editing content in a particular topic area would be allowed to use his block button in that area in the first place, sanction or no sanction.

Having said all that, were I at all cynically inclined, I might think that it'd be better for me personally, if FP@S abused his admin powers in a topic area which I don't edit - like Macedonia - rather than a topic area which I do edit. So, were I at all cynically inclined, I might support this appeal, with apologies to all Balkan editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(As a point of clarification, I don't think anyone would ever have a problem with FP@S taking administrative action against obvious vandals, as those kinds of actions are usually excluded from these kinds of "topic" sanctions).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert
I think that this is ripe for at least narrowing; Future Perfect seems to have gotten the message on that one point and to be doing ongoing good solid work in all the other areas.

I don't see an ongoing preventive function necessary here. He's just not a problem.

If this is revoked and he goes off the deep end plenty of us can apply the loving mallet of correction either as admins or taking him back here for an un-revocation. His behavior doesn't seem likely to require that, though.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect
I agree that the current restriction is now over-broad. Just say "Lifted, and FPaS is reminded that he should take care not to use any admin tools to promote or demote any specific viewpoints on any articles directly related to the original decision." Clear and clean solution, In my opinion. Collect (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Deacon of Pndapetzim
This kind of ruling is further evidence that, when it comes to these kinds of editorial issues at least, ArbCom are often the biggest problem of all. "We don't really undertand what went on, so we'll punish everyone and that'll guarantee we're at least partly right". No, not good enough. It's like killing half the soldiers in Europe c. 1943 and expecting war to stop cause you did it fairly: won't stop the war, and probably won't produce a different outcome. FPAS is not even a warring user; he is one of the good guys. Editors such as FPAS should be the ones evaluating ArbCom, not the other way around; and if encyclopedic reader-orientated values dominated Wikipedia the way socially-based editor-orientated values currently do, guys like him would be in charge. And if that were the case then the guys that cause all these problems would be spending their internet time on appropriate ideologue forums elsewhere.Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

PS, can someone email me and explain why so many EMMLers have crowded here to attack FPAS on a case they weren't involved in? I have missed the user-history here. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved MyMoloboaccount
Oppose. FP@S is one of the most engaged and emotional administrators I have encountered. I do not believe it is wise to abandon one of the core principles of Wikipedia, especially to an editor so heavily engaged. Administrator conduct states "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". I am afraid FP@S has been lacking in that department in several cases.Therefore narrowing restrictions doesn't seem a wise choice to make.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Horologium
(I identify myself as marginally involved because I don't edit Balkan/Greece-related articles, but I was deeply involved in the arbitration case.)

FPaS should be released from the restrictions, which were overkill in the first place. After two years, during which most of the more problematic editors have either disappeared or been kicked to the curb, there is no reason to prevent one of our most knowledgeable editors from using his tools to deal with routine vandals and trolls in an area which seems to have a high incidence of each.  Horologium  (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Miacek
A quick look at the comments by Russavia and Biophys, two users who don't agree that often, has further strengthened my own perception of FPaS as a calm and objective enough sysop. His decisions on our often turbulent Eastern Europe area as a rule facilitate the work of constructive editors. That a sock puppeteering long-term editwarrior with a block log like this might disagree, seconded by a diehard nationalist flamer and hatemongerer convinces me further, that the sysop concerned has actually been doing a great job. It's not that FPaS is having a problem with such editors - the thing is that the whole community has problems with users like these. Thus, I support this request. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from Heim
Mm goi sai. Thanks for doing the right thing, Arbs. Since I make such a habit of criticising the committee, I think it's only fair that I leave positive feedback occasionally. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * General note to a few commenters: remarks along the lines of "I support the amendment request, he's a great administrator" or "I strongly oppose the request, he's unfair" etc., without reasons or details, don't help us much. We don't need hundreds of diffs, but please explain the reasons for whatever position you take, giving some specifics. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Future, would you be amenable to a narrowing of the restriction to the naming dispute proper rather than outright vacating it at this time? &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Either a narrowing, or a lifting - with the "caveat" suggested by FPAS - seems reasonable. – xeno  talk  14:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a narrowing would be the best option here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lifting the restriction seems reasonable at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion
Remedy 25.3 of Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped") is lifted, effective immediately. is reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well-worded; full support for each aspect of the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 13:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 12:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Recuse:

Motion passed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for amendment (November 2013)
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=582918268 Archived discussion]


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by  Red  Slash  at 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 29


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * Information about amendment request


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2
 * Allow move requests to take place which would propose for Republic of Macedonia to move to Macedonia and for the disambiguation page to be moved to Macedonia (disambiguation).

Statement by User:Red Slash
It's been over four years since the case was decided, and I think the country article has primary topic with regard to the name "Macedonia". If I think that Cheddar cheese has primary topic for "cheddar" I can file a move request, but I feel unsure if I can do that for Macedonia since there was this case that seems to have prohibited move requests. But the reasoning seems to not be as pressing. This is not a request for some grand rescoping of the decision; simply a request that we let the community revisit a decision from four years ago made under some duress as to the primary topic of "Macedonia".

Statement by Fut.Perf.
In answer to SilkTork's question "Have there been any discussions since the case closed?": the solutions brought about by the Arbcom-imposed RfC process (WP:NCMAC) have been remarkably successful and stable. Very few serious disagreements have occurred ever since then at least among experienced and established editors (occassional expressions of unhappiness from pro-"FYROM" driveby editors notwithstanding). Even many of the Greek editors who would have been most vocally against it at the time of the conflict have been helping to uphold the consensus against driveby revert-warriors. For ease of reference, Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles is the main RfC page regarding the main Republic of Macedonia article, which Red Slash wishes to review now. If you look over it, you will see that the decision was taken on the basis of quite a large amount of carefully assembled data and quite a lot of well-informed independent input. This is in striking contrast to all earlier, less formal attempts at a solution, which basically had all ended up being shouted down and bogged down by POV stonewalling. The decision on this particular point was based on a slight majority of votes, with the alternative (country article at plain "Macedonia") also receiving substantial support and solid arguments. On the whole, after four years, I don't think the Arbcom decision should be taken as abrogating the general principle that "consensus can change", but if a new discussion is to be initiated we should make sure that it will again be done under close surveillance of clueful and neutral administrators to avoid a relapse into the kind of POV-warring we used to see regularly before 2009. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, I think we all forgot to mention that the original Macedonia 2 decision actually contains quite explicit language answering Red Slash's proposal. Here it is:
 * "... Since consensus and policy can change, these binding decisions may be reviewed at appropriate times by that same administrator(s), or other uninvolved administrators. If the community is unable to find an administrator, or group of administrators, to address the situation, it may request that the Arbitration Committee appoint one. WP:GAME-ing a situation to head towards stalemate resolution will be highly frowned upon."
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo
As another participant in ARBMAC2, I heartily concur with Future Perfect's appraisal. And I also have been pleasantly surprised at how stable the solution has become, with opponents during the process becoming current allies to protect the consensus compromise against the "drive-by" editors pushing a nationalist agenda. --Taivo (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The wording is:  My interpretation of that is that no move should take place until a community discussion, such as move request discussion, has taken place. So I don't see that it is forbidding such a discussion. The case was initiated because there were contentious page moves without having gone through the page move request procedure. I would say that a community move request would play a significant part in "a solution for the naming dispute". Have there been any discussions since the case closed? Worth having a look to see if there have been; if not, then I see no reason to object to a move request discussion.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, what I am saying is that I don't see a need for amendment, as the remedy already encourages community discussion. In deciding on any future community discussions, it is always wise to refer to previous discussions on the same issue. Fut.Perf. has indicated there has been some discussion on this issue, so best practice would be to consider that discussion before deciding to initiate a new discussion. Also to be borne in mind is the current stability; however, it is not in the Committee's authority to impose content decisions, nor to prevent the community discussing them. It is well within the community's power to restrict any user who makes disruptive move requests; though worth pointing out that a user making a well reasoned move request supported by reliable sources should not be regarded as disruptive, unless they are making repeated requests on the same article.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out, there was an extensive and supervised naming discussion after the case closed. This is similar to what happened in the Ireland naming case. In both cases, the discussion seems to to have brought some stability to the topic area. From a personal point of view, the intent of the moratoria on name discussions was not just stability for stability's sake, but to reduce the distraction of such discussions so that editors could continue to work on improving the content of the article (the bit after the title that people actually read to learn about the topic area). Could anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the topic area give some idea of whether the articles themselves have improved much in these four years or not? In general, I would hope that people would place more of a priority on improving article content than on arguing over the name of the articles, but that may be too optimistic. To answer the question posed, I'm not seeing any need for amendment here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues (and Fut. Perf.) here. The remedy does not prohibit re-opening orderly discussion seeking consensus about possible moves. There really is not need for us to amend,  Roger Davies  talk 13:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with my colleagues that amendment is not necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also concur; the remedy does not stand in the way of orderly discussion, therefore no amendment is needed. Courcelles 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Macedonia 2 (June 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by NeilN at 17:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Remedy 29.1.1: Establishing consensus on names
 * Remedy 29.1.1: Establishing consensus on names

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by NeilN
Can I get a quick clarification from Arbcom on how they want admins to handle WP:MOSMAC (which has the the force of an Arbcom decision behind it) in light of this. I'm already seeing name changes on some articles contravening "Republic of Macedonia", the full self-identifying official name, will be used in all contexts where other countries would also be called by their full official names. Enforce MOSMAC as usual with reverts until and if the name change becomes official and then change the guideline? I ask because uninvolved admins usually stay clear of naming disputes and "when to change the name" discussions but in this case it's a name mandated by an Arbcom case. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added an explicit edit and talk page notice: "Editors may not make any modifications to the official name of this country until consensus has determined that the name has officially changed." I have not logged this as I consider it a straightforward interpretation of MOSMAC. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding, "new, equal in scope, consensus emerges" - looking at history, the current consensus was arrived at via a complex three stage process which involved three admins acting as referees. Are you suggesting that the community has to undertake a similar process if an official name change goes through? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Might want to define "finalized" or editors will argue over that. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Illegitimate Barrister
AFAIK, the change is not yet official because the constitution has to be amended. Just keep the name as it is now until the change to the constitution is made official. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf
Like others here, I'd strongly recommend to not change anything for the time being, at least for as long as the change hasn't become official. Once it has, we should probably first have a systematic new naming disucssion/RfC, as there will be quite a few non-trivial issues to decide. Sure, renaming the main article will be a no-brainer, but what about the dozens of other article titles that contain the name? Will all references to the country in running text have to be changed? What about adjectival forms like "the Macedonian government"? Of course, the Greek side is quite insistent that the new name should be used erga omnes, by and towards everybody, and that this is part of the deal, but will the common usage of the English speech community follow this, or will plain "Macedonia" remain in common informal use among third parties? If it does, to what extent should Wikipedia's usage reflect the official position? There'll be some consensus building to do and it will take some time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by StanProg
We should enforce MOSMAC until the renaming becomes official, which is expected to happen at the end of 2018. When it becomes official we should use the name "Republic of North Macedonia" instead of currently used "Republic of Macedonia". Regarding the adjectival forms "the Macedonian government" or "the North Macedonian government" - this have to be discussed. In the press-conference the Prime Minister Zoran Zaev used the term "Ministry of Health of the Republic of North Macedonia" and "Macedonian healthcare" as an examples. The second thing we should discuss on after it becomes official is the short term "Macedonia" which we currently in use for the republic and it's replacement by "North Macedonia". --StanProg (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Izno
must end one month after it is opened should probably be must end no earlier than one month after it is opened--no reason to be so precise. You might also reasonable specify the number of days a month constitutes (or take our common understanding to be the same date one month later). --Izno (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
There's going to be a referendum later this year, on whether or not to accept the proposed name change. We shouldn't be changing the name now, per WP:CRYSTAL. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
The proposed motion makes sense. Perhaps it should be amended to clarify that the RfC should not be launched until the naming dispute is considered fully resolved by the authorities of both countries involved. Recent media reports indicate that the Macedonian president intends to veto the new name "Northern Macedonia", so this might still take a while.  Sandstein  18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bellezzasolo
Of course, Wikipedia should reflect an accurate, current name. I see that the below motion is currently gaining support, and I do believe it should pass. Since the current policy has the force of ArbCom behind it, it makes sense to have an ArbCom clarification. Regarding a future RfC, others have pointed out that the change is not official yet. If we're going to have a month-long RfC, we should do it as soon as practicable, rather than waiting for the change of name to be signed, sealed and delivered. Of course, the RfC shouldn't go into effect until that is the case. However, if we waited, there will be a month where we are inundated by people trying to change the name. There will be many page protections, plenty of edit warring blocks and a smattering of inconsistencies. If we run the RfC now, we can avoid all that drama. Furthermore, if, as mentioned by several others, this proposal is stopped, then we will have plenty of time to discuss any alternative proposal and no harm is done.

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Macedonia 2: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse for personal reasons --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Although agreements have been reached by both governments, it appears that there are still vehement oppositions within both states, so there are still quite a few uncertainties. Therefore I think it would not be wise to change our approach until the name change has been not only finalised but enacted. I would endorse NeilN's suggestion of "Enforce MOSMAC as usual with reverts until and if the name change becomes official and then change the guideline". Alex Shih (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At risk of sounding like were making a content decision, properly obtained consensus should exist until a new, equal in scope, consensus emerges. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, just saying that an RfC of three people should not override the consensus of a large population. Was not specifically referring to the previous RfC. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good topic for an RfC. At what point should Wikipedia recognise the change to the name? At any rate, while I have an opinion, it's as an editor, not an Arb - this is a little too close to a content decision for my liking <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 22:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia 2: Motion
The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed 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.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) This clarifies that the arbitration case does not stand in the way of a further RfC, without tangling us up in deciding a content decision. The specifics mirror those of the original case. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Edited to add: I agree that three admins isn't necessary, three experienced editors in good standing should suffice, admins or not. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm not sure that the editors who close the RfC must be admins, but I won't oppose over that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support current version, this should be a community decision. Like Callanecc, I don't think we need 3 admins to close, but not worth opposing over. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, but also dissent on the three administrators part. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) I don’t think three admins will be necessary, but like WTT, not worth opposing over. Katietalk 11:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Also supporting; the three administrators part is probably meant to be consistent with the original case, but 2009 was a long time ago, I think normal editors in good standing these days should be fine. Alex Shih (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. So long as there are three, it shouldn't matter if they are Admins or not, so long as they are uninvolved. Doug Weller  talk 20:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) I agree that an RfC would be appropriate before the name is changed. I might not be quite so prescriptive about the rules for the RfC, but they don't seem to be controversial, given that no one seems to have objected to the details we have provided, other than ones we have already tweaked. Also, to add something that I hope is obvious, nothing in the old ArbCom decisions or in the naming convention precludes objective discussion of the proposed resolution of the naming dispute itself, including reference to the proposed new name and forms of reference, so long as the current status of the proposals is accurately given. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) As it currently stands. Like the panel of three, don't think they need to be admins. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * Per my comment to Doug, I'll abstain here as long as we are stating when the RfC can be handled. I'll support any motion that says an RfC is acceptable based upon the recent developments. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)




 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * In the interests of being specific, should we say "modified by an RfC discussion held after the name change becomes finalized"? Not much point starting it before it becomes finalized, but if we don't say not to, I think there's a risk that people will want to anyway. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's ultimately a decision for the community, but there is certainly support for waiting so far. I'd rather not tie things down that far formally. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair. Also,, you make a good point. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes suggested here and above. Doug Weller  talk 13:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here to support this, but with that change I can't. I won't oppose, but I don't believe Arbcom should be saying "when" the RfC should happen. If the community believes it should be opened tomorrow and come in before the name change is finalized, then that is a community choice. As long as the RfC lasts for a reasonable length of time, so that consensus is not circumvented, then it's down to the community. Indeed, the RfC outcome might be "change when the name is finalized", meaning it can be changed when it becomes official, rather than over a month later. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that be proposed as an alternative motion, as I can't support with that change. (Referring to just the timing issue, for clarity. The "at least one calendar month" bit is fine.) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed that. I'll wait to see if there are many more comments on the timing issue. Doug Weller  talk 20:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging WTT, since the issue he abstained over is resolved. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Community comments

Motion: Removal of Unused and Unusual Remedies, Macedonia (October 2023)

 * Original discussion


 * Enacted - &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Since the 2018 agreement between Greece and North Macedonia, the topic area has become quite enough to remove the 1RR. I can't find records of Remedy 6 being since before my first term on the committee in 2015. While Remedy 30 was never enabled in the case, no longer reflects the way arbcom handles admin abuse. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Izno (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Reiterating the elements of this that remain a contentious topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) GeneralNotability (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) Remedy 30 looks particularly dated. We may need an intermediate step between adminishing and desysopping an admin but labelling someone as having lost the community's trust isn't it. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) None of this reflects how these types of issues are handled now, this sort of sanction is a relic of a very different time for the project and this committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:
 * 1) SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)