Revision as of 00:58, 24 April 2009

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

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to add SQRT5P1D2 as a party

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Participation by newly registered editors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

How do other-language Wikipedias handle this?

(This question isn't only for the parties, but to anyone with knowledge about this, so I expect it can be moved somewhere else if that is deemed proper.)

I've been in the audience of this conflict for a couple of days, and I haven't looked carefully through all related talk page archives, but what I haven't seen mentioned much is:

How do other-language Wikipedias handle this conflict?  – or, if they don't have this conflict, how do they avoid having it?
(My guess is that languages with very few speakers from the involved countries don't have a big problem with this.)

I realize this is possibly not relevant to the English language Misplaced Pages, principally or in practice, but I thought it should be mentioned.

So, has anyone looked into international Wikipedian attitudes to this? --83.253.240.46 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed final decision

Proposals by ChrisO

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Conduct of editors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Core purpose of Misplaced Pages

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Naming conventions

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Use of common names

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Use of formal names is deprecated in article titles

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Use of verifiable reliable sources

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Use of disambiguation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Disambiguating to primary topics

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Determining primary topics

10) WP:DAB identifies a primary topic as one that is "much more used than any other topic covered in Misplaced Pages to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)" and provides several objective criteria for identifying a primary topic, including the number of incoming links from Special:WhatLinksHere, usage statistics from http://stats.grok.se, and searches from external sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Exclusion of external political factors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Independence of Misplaced Pages's editorial voice

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Usage is not endorsement

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Self-identifying terms

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Conflicts of interest

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Persistent vandalism and disruption

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Ethnic polarisation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Reaper7

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Radjenef

Proposed principles

Ignoring a long standing consensus without prior discussion is extremely disruptive

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Ethnic profiling is counter-productive

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Policies supersede editorial guidelines

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: