Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence
Delete/Disregard Ethnic polarisation
IMO the paragraph on Ethnic polarisation must be deleted and all contributors and administrators directed to ignore any inferences it may contain.Politis (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I have touched on the subject in my section [1]. I think it's offensive (bordering on WP:OUTING) and demeaning towards people, judging them by where they were born instead of the content of their posts. --Radjenef (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion of evidence. One of the main issues that this arbitration is attempting to decide is the effect of nationalistic and parochial points of view on the stonewalling and failure to reach any consensus in articles such as Macedonia. This is a serious problem in Wikipedia and needs to be addressed. There is no outing here since all such identifications are based on self-identifications by the users themselves. This is the fundamental problem which lies at the root of this arbitration. If the Greek side in this issue had not made a point of it themselves, then it would not be an issue, but time and time again, we see the vandalism of Macedonian articles linked to Greek politics with overt statements in the edit line. We see statements such as "Greeks will oppose this name until we die", etc. scattered throughout the talk page at both Talk:Greece and Talk:Macedonia. The issue is an issue of entrenched and uncompromising nationalism. That is the issue that needs to be discussed. (Taivo (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
- Did all of the users listed write "Greeks will oppose this name until we die" in the edit line or are you referring to other users? I haven't seen any diffs linking the people that were listed to such statements. I also fail to see why such statements from a minority of users would justify disregarding the arguments of one-or-another ethnic group. Wikipedia arbitration decisions were never based on the number of flags appearing on either side; they were based on the merits of each side's arguments. To ask that the content of a person's post be disregarded because of where they were born is demeaning and offensive. As far as WP:OUTING goes, I agree that it doesn't apply to users who self-identify as Greeks, but ChrisO's ethnic polarization argument also tries to deduce the ethnicity of users who are not self-declared Greeks ("unknown, but blah blah blah probably Greek"). --Radjenef (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Make your case in the Evidence page, either present counter-evidence or state that the evidence provided by somebody else is not well supported, however trying to remove evidence has a distinct skunkish perfume to me. man with one red shoe 19:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with you man with one red shoe. Trying to remove evidence would be a dubious thing to do, which is exactly why I haven't tried to remove them. Trying to do something and agreeing that it should be done are two completely different things. I reserve the right to express my opinion that the ethnic polarisation paragraph should be deleted/disregarded by the arbitration committee. If my name ever appeared on such a list, my tone would have been considerably less friendly. --Radjenef (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I see that you added "disregard" that makes more sense to me, you can make a case to disregard some evidence, asking for deletion is not OK in my view. man with one red shoe 21:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with you man with one red shoe. Trying to remove evidence would be a dubious thing to do, which is exactly why I haven't tried to remove them. Trying to do something and agreeing that it should be done are two completely different things. I reserve the right to express my opinion that the ethnic polarisation paragraph should be deleted/disregarded by the arbitration committee. If my name ever appeared on such a list, my tone would have been considerably less friendly. --Radjenef (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Make your case in the Evidence page, either present counter-evidence or state that the evidence provided by somebody else is not well supported, however trying to remove evidence has a distinct skunkish perfume to me. man with one red shoe 19:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did all of the users listed write "Greeks will oppose this name until we die" in the edit line or are you referring to other users? I haven't seen any diffs linking the people that were listed to such statements. I also fail to see why such statements from a minority of users would justify disregarding the arguments of one-or-another ethnic group. Wikipedia arbitration decisions were never based on the number of flags appearing on either side; they were based on the merits of each side's arguments. To ask that the content of a person's post be disregarded because of where they were born is demeaning and offensive. As far as WP:OUTING goes, I agree that it doesn't apply to users who self-identify as Greeks, but ChrisO's ethnic polarization argument also tries to deduce the ethnicity of users who are not self-declared Greeks ("unknown, but blah blah blah probably Greek"). --Radjenef (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion of evidence. One of the main issues that this arbitration is attempting to decide is the effect of nationalistic and parochial points of view on the stonewalling and failure to reach any consensus in articles such as Macedonia. This is a serious problem in Wikipedia and needs to be addressed. There is no outing here since all such identifications are based on self-identifications by the users themselves. This is the fundamental problem which lies at the root of this arbitration. If the Greek side in this issue had not made a point of it themselves, then it would not be an issue, but time and time again, we see the vandalism of Macedonian articles linked to Greek politics with overt statements in the edit line. We see statements such as "Greeks will oppose this name until we die", etc. scattered throughout the talk page at both Talk:Greece and Talk:Macedonia. The issue is an issue of entrenched and uncompromising nationalism. That is the issue that needs to be discussed. (Taivo (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
- (ec)I didn't say that all Greeks made these statements, but these statements and similar nationalistic ones have been made by persons involved in the discussion at both Talk:Greece and Talk:Macedonia (they are, after all, the same discussion). And no one says that your comments should be ignored. What we are saying is that when one nationalistic or other parochial group blocks all attempts at compromise and and the application of Wikipedia policy within their "walled garden", then there must be a procedure to break the deadlock besides simply allowing the nationalists to build an unyielding wall around their "topic". That is what this arbitration is fundamentally about. If the evidence is bad, then the arbitrators will recognize that and weigh it appropriately. But disallowing any party to present whatever evidence they deem relevant to the issue is censorship of the most wretched sort. Do you want us telling you what you can and cannot say when you present your evidence? I think not. (Taivo (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
- Ok, I understand what you're saying. I still don't see why these people bring a "deadlock" or build a "walled garden". Are you implying that their votes prevent proposals from materializing? As far as I know, it's not the number of votes that really make a difference but the arguments that people present as comments next to their votes. If what you're saying were the case then the article would never have had a name containing the word "Macedonia" in the first place! Anyway, let's not start imagining cabals everywhere, this whole thing sounds too conspiracy theory-ish for me to take it seriously. --Radjenef (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I didn't say that all Greeks made these statements, but these statements and similar nationalistic ones have been made by persons involved in the discussion at both Talk:Greece and Talk:Macedonia (they are, after all, the same discussion). And no one says that your comments should be ignored. What we are saying is that when one nationalistic or other parochial group blocks all attempts at compromise and and the application of Wikipedia policy within their "walled garden", then there must be a procedure to break the deadlock besides simply allowing the nationalists to build an unyielding wall around their "topic". That is what this arbitration is fundamentally about. If the evidence is bad, then the arbitrators will recognize that and weigh it appropriately. But disallowing any party to present whatever evidence they deem relevant to the issue is censorship of the most wretched sort. Do you want us telling you what you can and cannot say when you present your evidence? I think not. (Taivo (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
Comment I also disagree with this list and it should be deleted. I don't even think the list is correct, wasn't it terminated halfway through the straw poll? Jack forbes (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I oppose that's key to this case. It's Greek POV fought teeth and nails by mostly Greek editors. Present your own case and your own arguments, let the commission make up its mind after reading all the evidence presented, militating for removing arguments and evidence presented by one party is unfair in this context. man with one red shoe 17:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think we have to keep all the evidence. It isn't for us to decide what evidence is or is not relevant. Also, honestly, if the arbitrators find some of the evidence presented to them faulty or evidence against the person presenting the evidence, that's acceptable too. But we should leave all the sections of evidence presented by everybody alone. Only those person adding the evidence contained in a particular section is supposed to edit that sections, anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with you. The evidence from both sides should be looked at and if there is a very obvious lack of references and good arguments from either side then and only then should they look at the reason for it, whether that be nationalist POV or not. The list being presented now may initially sway the opinion of admins before they look carefully at the arguments being presented. Jack forbes (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Give the admins some credit--they're not stupid and won't be easily swayed just because someone posted their evidence first. Post your evidence against the nationalist label. They are smart and will decide for themselves what is and is not relevant. They were selected to be the neutral arbitration committee exactly because they are not easily swayed by pretty colors and will carefully consider all evidence whether presented in a graphics-heavy Powerpoint presentation or typed on a Smith Corona typewriter. (That's figurative, of course.) (Taivo (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
- How can anybody propose to remove any evidence? Let everybody present the evidence they want, present counter-evidence if you don't agree show why the other evidence is wrong or incomplete and let the judges judge which evidence is compelling and let them decide what to believe -- but to argue to remove evidence leaves me without words... man with one red shoe 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or in other words, "the evidence may harm my case so please remove it!". The mind boggles... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. But, having dealt with you, Chris, the rest of us are used to that by now. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do you suppose you could omit the personal attacks? It's not helping anyone, least of all yourself. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- My comment was about how
virtually everybodyso many others, including parties with no personal interests in the subject like myself, have beenmore than shockedremarkably disheartened by your actions, which is not a personal attack as per WP:NPA. Misinterpreting the statements of others to make them appear to be something they aren't hardly helps your case, Chris. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)- I don't think there's any need for you to characterise the views of "virtually everybody" else. They can speak for themselves, and I'm sure they will. Bickering outside the arbitration proceedings isn't constructive, and I'm not going to continue this dialogue any further here. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I wish you would stop the bickering yourself with your misrepresentations of the statements of others, and am grateful that you agreed to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- You don't speak for me, John Carter, and I could name several others. I was neither shocked nor offended by ChrisO's actions. Your characterization of "virtually everybody" is total exaggeration and grandstanding. "Majority" may be accurate if you've counted, but "virtually everybody" is not. (Taivo (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
- John Carter, you don't speak for me either, I'm was not shocked by ChrisO actions, I find them based on policies and actually supported by ironclad argumentation, stop using this page to make accusation or insinuations about him, use the evidence part to argue your case, don't try to remove the evidence brought by others or use this as an excuse to make personal attacks. man with one red shoe 19:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with John Carter. At that time, I, non-Greek, was shocked and considered the move not based on policies was totally inappropriate .--Caspian blue 19:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- (e-c response to The man with one red shoe) Sir, I apologize for bringing about your reaction, and for having misrepresented your opinion. That was not my intention. I would also appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my statements. If you can point out anywhere where I said I sought to remove the information, I would welcome seeing it. I believe I was saying it should be included, because it is not acceptable to edit another person's sections. If you can find where I said anything differently, I would welcome seeing it. Thank you. Oh, and, by the way, I'm a German who doesn't have a dog in this fight one way or another. I am simply looking at the policies as I have read and seen them. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was replying to your "it should be deleted" argument, I probably misunderstood who you meant to delete it. If you were urging ChrisO then that's probably OK, if he does, I will add it myself though since this is one the key issue here, the conflict of interest and POV that some editors display. man with one red shoe 20:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where did I make this "it should be deleted" argument. Please point it out to me. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- If I may interject... John, I think people have your comments confused with those of Jack forbes. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, silly me. My bad, sorry.man with one red shoe 21:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was me guv! I became involved in the subject to object to the use of an ethnic list of voters on the straw poll. Now as then I don't agree with this as it takes away from the arguments put forward. It is of course only an opinion of mine which can be ignored by the editor concerned, or indeed anyone else. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, silly me. My bad, sorry.man with one red shoe 21:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- If I may interject... John, I think people have your comments confused with those of Jack forbes. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where did I make this "it should be deleted" argument. Please point it out to me. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was replying to your "it should be deleted" argument, I probably misunderstood who you meant to delete it. If you were urging ChrisO then that's probably OK, if he does, I will add it myself though since this is one the key issue here, the conflict of interest and POV that some editors display. man with one red shoe 20:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- (e-c response to The man with one red shoe) Sir, I apologize for bringing about your reaction, and for having misrepresented your opinion. That was not my intention. I would also appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my statements. If you can point out anywhere where I said I sought to remove the information, I would welcome seeing it. I believe I was saying it should be included, because it is not acceptable to edit another person's sections. If you can find where I said anything differently, I would welcome seeing it. Thank you. Oh, and, by the way, I'm a German who doesn't have a dog in this fight one way or another. I am simply looking at the policies as I have read and seen them. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with John Carter. At that time, I, non-Greek, was shocked and considered the move not based on policies was totally inappropriate .--Caspian blue 19:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I wish you would stop the bickering yourself with your misrepresentations of the statements of others, and am grateful that you agreed to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any need for you to characterise the views of "virtually everybody" else. They can speak for themselves, and I'm sure they will. Bickering outside the arbitration proceedings isn't constructive, and I'm not going to continue this dialogue any further here. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- My comment was about how
- Do you suppose you could omit the personal attacks? It's not helping anyone, least of all yourself. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. But, having dealt with you, Chris, the rest of us are used to that by now. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or in other words, "the evidence may harm my case so please remove it!". The mind boggles... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The list here is highly relevant to the proceedings, as it demonstrates an ethnic/nationalist ganging up on an article to impose a nationalist POV on the article, something clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree to disregard the paragraph on Ethnic polarisation on principle and because it is flawed. The list presented by ChrisO regards only the supporters of the use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" vs. "Republic of Macedonia" on the Greece page. In the recent survey on the equested reversion of move, of the 16 supporters or renaming the article "Republic of Macedonia", only 5 have any sign of afiliation with Greece, one with Bulgaria. Andreas (T) 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- These are in fact two different issues. The conflict at the Greece page is what originally brought us here, and the ethnic polarisation there, which precisely mirrors the permanent stonewalling that had been going on previously in all the related debates since 2005, is the one reason why we are having this case in the first place. Chris' move of the country page has of course been more controversial and responses to it have been more mixed, that's correct, but that shouldn't stop us from addressing the underlying reasons of the conflict here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Note
As a clerk out of retirement, currently not the clerk of this case let me explain a few things. First off anyone is free to provide whatever evidence they like within the evidence section. However participants are asked to keep their evidence as concise as possible. The arbs will sort through what they are given. You guys are free to refute each other's evidence, but remember the longer this page gets, the more time it will take for arbcom to review the case, so try to stick to relevant issues. Additionally you guys can analyze evidence in the workshop, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence.
I also would like to advise all participants that their behavior on this page should adhere to WP:CIVIL. Try to avoid insinuating things. If any place is a place to be on your toes about civility, this case and related subpages is it.
I may be wrong and I will defer to tiptoety should he contradict anything said here. —— nixeagleemail me 05:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment on policies vs. guidelines
Somehow since to one side it seems that WP:NCON is especially damaging some people claim that we are supposed to use "policies" not "guidelines", but look what it says in the WP:NAME policy page: "Use the naming conflict guideline when there is disagreement over the right name to use." (my bold) So it clearly says that if there's a disagreement about the name we should use the guideline, I think the argument made in the "Evidence" page about policies superseding guidelines is dead on arrival. There's another problem with that argument, it claims it quotes from a policy page WP:NP but I could not find that page, I assume it's WP:NAME, however in that page I could not find the claimed quote "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" can I have a confirmation that that exact quote does appear in a naming policy? Please provide a link. Thanks. man with one red shoe 22:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where is this link to WP:NP? I can't find it, but if it is a dead or red link it should be noted as such. John Carter (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strike that I confused WP:NC with WP:NP, second confusion today, I guess I'm tired, the question about quote remains. man with one red shoe 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't confuse WP:NC with WP:NP... I had a typo in my statement and fixed it in the meantime. I meant to write WP:NC, not WP:NP, sorry. --Radjenef (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, can you clarify where did you get that quote from? man with one red shoe 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't confuse WP:NC with WP:NP... I had a typo in my statement and fixed it in the meantime. I meant to write WP:NC, not WP:NP, sorry. --Radjenef (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strike that I confused WP:NC with WP:NP, second confusion today, I guess I'm tired, the question about quote remains. man with one red shoe 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not quoting, I'm paraphrasing, so you'll probably won't find it using the exact wording. The part of WP:NC that I was referring to was WP:NCCN where it reads (and this time it is a quote): "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." I understand what you say about using WP:NCON in cases where there is a disagreement. I never said that WP:NCON is not to be used at all; what I said was that it can be used as a guideline, but WP:NC will always take priority because it is a policy not a guideline. I am willing, however, to edit my evidence section to make this clearer, thank you for the input.
- If you paraphrasing, then don't use quotes, it is misleading. Thanks for correcting. man with one red shoe 02:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not quoting, I'm paraphrasing, so you'll probably won't find it using the exact wording. The part of WP:NC that I was referring to was WP:NCCN where it reads (and this time it is a quote): "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." I understand what you say about using WP:NCON in cases where there is a disagreement. I never said that WP:NCON is not to be used at all; what I said was that it can be used as a guideline, but WP:NC will always take priority because it is a policy not a guideline. I am willing, however, to edit my evidence section to make this clearer, thank you for the input.
- Even if one is to use WP:NCON as a guideline in this case, it clearly states that "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." I believe this goes along perfectly with what I explain in my evidence section: For the time being, there are only three reasonable candidates; "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia" and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". "Macedonia" is an ambiguous name because it could apply to two jurisdictions, so we are left with the other two. Of these two, the most common one ("former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") takes precedence. --Radjenef (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- That last paragraph doesn't belong here. It belongs either in your Evidence or at Talk:Macedonia. We shouldn't turn this into another endless head-banging session (in other words, Radjenef, you will convince no one here). (Taivo (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
- I do not understand why you deal in absolutes. That paragraph belongs here because it is a part of my revised Evidence statement and it helps in answering the clarification question that was asked to me. --Radjenef (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it's part of your evidence then put it there. This page isn't for a continuation of Talk:Greece and Talk:Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
- I do not understand why you deal in absolutes. That paragraph belongs here because it is a part of my revised Evidence statement and it helps in answering the clarification question that was asked to me. --Radjenef (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- That last paragraph doesn't belong here. It belongs either in your Evidence or at Talk:Macedonia. We shouldn't turn this into another endless head-banging session (in other words, Radjenef, you will convince no one here). (Taivo (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
- Even if one is to use WP:NCON as a guideline in this case, it clearly states that "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." I believe this goes along perfectly with what I explain in my evidence section: For the time being, there are only three reasonable candidates; "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia" and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". "Macedonia" is an ambiguous name because it could apply to two jurisdictions, so we are left with the other two. Of these two, the most common one ("former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") takes precedence. --Radjenef (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
If you read WP:NAME, how did you miss this? "Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed." And just to be sure that our case falls within the remit of this policy: "An incomplete list of controversial names includes: Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church; BC/AD vs. BCE/CE; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia vs. Macedonia; Palestinian Arabs vs. Palestinians vs. Palestinian People". That's part of the dozens of policy violations I've gathered for ChrisO, you'll see it all soon (probably in the weekend - too busy with work right now).--Avg (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the issue I raised, please don't filibuster my questions, open a new discussion, or write in evidence page, OK? man with one red shoe 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know this might be seen as being off-topic, but I wanted to fit it in anyway somewhere. My apologies to the man with one red shoe if he doesn't want it here. But the specific phrasing used in the policy quoted above is the phrasing I suggested earlier needed to be changed. My concern is with the order in which the alternatives are presented. Roman Catholic Church is the name for the name for the article on that church. The fact that it is followed directly by Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia could cause some to think that, using parallelism, that would be the proper name of that article, although it wasn't even before this all happened. I think that phrasing needs to be rewritten so that it states a bit more clearly which are the preferred names and which are not. My apologies if it is in the wrong place. Please feel free to move or delete as you see fit, man with one red shoe. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- MWORS this is the very issue, because your clear objective is to raise WP:NC to equal level with WP:NAME. A policy violation has clear precedence over a guideline violation. But you know what, I will follow your advice and leave all this for the evidence page and the workshop. Please feel free to delete all my comments from your topic.--Avg (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This Page
I want to be clear that we have not crossed the line here yet (I don't think). But we've gotten close. I think that we need to be very careful on this page that we talk only about the formalities of the arbitration and don't turn it into Talk:Greece or Talk:Macedonia. I'm talking to myself as much as to everyone else. Let's just be careful so that we don't wear out our welcome with ARBCOM. (Taivo (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
- On the other hand if the commission has a taste of what goes on every day on Talk:Greece and Talk:Macedonia it would help them make up their mind faster :D OK, no joking from now on... man with one red shoe 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, you guys want to try to avoid re-hashing the case over again on the various case talk pages. Bringing up new developments on the disputed subject area etc is ok if those developments would impact this case. At this point, parties should focus on providing evidence and the workshop. Most discussion and possibilities will appear in the workshop as that is where folks start to bring up what they feel should be the result of the case. There is purposely places for parties/others/and arbitrators to comment on the workshop :). —— nixeagleemail me 05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Error in Radjenef's evidence
I'm not going to bother refuting this evidence on the main page because it really doesn't belong here anyway, since this case won't directly decide the result of the naming dispute. Still, I think it's important to note that the Google evidence Radjenef cites is highly flawed, and not only because Google searches aren't reliable indicators of commonality. His use of " -"former yugoslav" " doesn't just omit results that use the name FYROM; it omits any result that so much as once uses the phrase "former yugoslav", thus omitting any result that calls the country ROM but mentions FYROM as an alternative name (for example, our own article which is still cached under the name ROM on Google). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- The difference in numbers in my results is huge. Wikipedia articles are too few in comparison. There are 821,000 hits containing the name "Republic of Macedonia" without containing the provisional reference "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Are you suggesting that there are more than 80% additional websites containing both denominations? This is what would have been required: 821,000 + 0.80 * 821,000 = 1,477,800 --Radjenef (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Given that it is an alternatively used name, yes, I'd say it's likely that a huge percentage of references to "Republic of Macedonia" also mention the alternative, longer form. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"Outing"
I have seen this term pop up several times (both in the evidence section and in comments elsewhere, such as WP:AN/I and Talk:Macedonia); it needs to be stopped, because it's being misused.
Wikipedia's policy on revealing personal information is quite explicit in what is and is not considered outing, and the list compiled by User:Husond at Talk:Greece (and reproduced on the evidence page by User:ChrisO in the "Ethnic polarisation" section) doesn't qualify. (Since all of the editors squawking about this are Greek, I will limit the discussion to them.) Every single one of the editors who has a nationality assigned to him has an explicit reference on his user page (or, in one case, it's in an archived version of the userpage). It's not outing to point to someone's userpage, especially when the information was added by the editors themselves. Husond actually was quite conservative; only people with explicit references got Greek flags; the rest got the UN flag, even if their edits consisted solely of edits to Greek topics (like this editor or this one), their userpage contains nothing other than Greek language statements (such as this one or this one), their username is comprised of Greek letters (like this one), or have identified as Greek on discussion pages elsewhere (like this one). None of these have anything to do with the revelation of personal information, and even if they did, it's all self-revelation, not outing. The outrage seems to be motivated more by the clarity produced by the visual than any real policy-based opposition. Horologium (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with you on this one. The fact that someone added an item on his PERSONAL userpage, does not mean this information may be distributed around the wiki and wide internet community. It has been placed at one page and that does not give anyone the permission to show it around the google search pages! Also, I do not aggree with the method of "flagging" people, in terms of profiling, in any case. These are methods used in obscurantic periods of history. This is one way or another personal data. Just because an internet user adds a simple piece of data like his email on a facebook page, it is illegal or least immoral to distribute his email here and there within the network, for example. And I fail to see how a person's flag automatically undermines his opinion! Everyone deserves an opinion, as far as I know.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Certain users have been running through the wiki shouting and hollering about this terrible "ethnic profiling" or "outing" ever since the conflict began, weeks ago. They have been forum-shopping with their protests and were told by an overwhelming consensus of uninvolved observers that they have no case and should shut up, time and again. Of course the evidence will stay – it documents the one cause and reason why we're here in the first place. Although I would recommend Chris might want to replace his presentation of it with something more streamlined (and more up to date), along the lines of my summary here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, Fut. Perf. I'm running up against the word limit on my own evidence, so I might simply link to your presentation as an alternative. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, correct me if I'm wrong Horologium, but I think you are referring to WP:OUTING not WP:OUT. In any case, I never said that the list compiled by User:Husond and reproduced by User:ChrisO constitutes WP:OUTING. I said that it is bordering WP:OUTING and I continue to believe that it is a dangerous path to take. Dangerous with regards to users' privacy that is. Whatever the case, the crux of my argument still stands: I sincerely think that it's more important to pay attention to what people are saying (i.e. the validity of their argument) as opposed to where they are from. --Radjenef (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- How is privacy compromised when they've stated their nationality / location on their user pages? As I noted in the evidence, Wikipedia's policies aren't ethnically biased, so there's no reason to expect members of a particular nationality to all take the same side if all they're considering is Wikipedia's policies. The fact that one side in this dispute consists almost entirely of editors from one ethnic group shows very clearly that external political factors are determining their position. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Chris has fairly accurately summarized my views on the matter. When I protected Greece, I had little idea of the scope of the dispute within Wikipedia, although I was aware of the real-world dispute. Once I began reviewing all of the arguments on that article's talk page (and the talk page of related articles), it was immensely clear that there was an ethnic bias at work; one country's editors supported one view, and the other side was composed of editors of many other ethnicities. What is more striking is the summation compiled by Fut.Perf from the straw poll; there was one admin who supported using "FYROM", and 14 who supported using "RoM". (I didn't participate in that poll, but I would have thrown in my lot with the RoM group, making it 15 admins.) Those 14 admins come from at least five different countries, on three different continents. There is a slight imbalance there, and that was on the matter of using "FYROM" or "RoM", not "Macedonia". Horologium (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Administrators are no different than regular editors when it comes down to making decisions; all are equal in the eyes of wikipedia. How was the vote split? If the result was 14 to 1, then I do not see how that one person could be causing that much trouble. In any case, polls aren't really meant to be decided based on the number of votes anyway! Were the arguments presented by the "fYRoM" side not convincing enough? If they were/weren't convincing, then what's the problem here? I don't get it! --Radjenef (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Admins are no different, but the core issue was edit-warring, and admins are the ones who are responsible for applying blocks. With that in mind, it appears that the admin corps was squarely against the "FYROM" faction. The problem is not "who's convincing" and "who's not convincing"; the problem is that Greek editors immediately accused anyone who disagreed with them of anti-Greek sentiment, regardless of their arguments. (I was the one who originally suggested arbitration over the terminology issue, but several Greek editors specifically objected to me even filing the request, because I disagreed with their position. Fut.Perf, who was responsible for nuking the original RoM WikiProject when it began to be used as a PoV coordination site, and who used to be the "go-to" admin for Greek editors, is now accused of a vendetta against the Greeks because he disagrees with their PoV on this issue. There are other examples out there; I'll not link to all of them. Horologium (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I still fail to understand how this addresses the case at hand. Many users claim that by using "the most commonly used term" over "self-identifying terminology" we are more strictly abiding to wikipedia policy. ChrisO makes a case that the people sharing that view are largely of Greek descent. You rehash these old stories to me but I do not see why that should make the arguments of those people any less valid. All I see is that, throughout the years, people have been discussing factions and behaviour instead of the arguments at hand. --Radjenef (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- FYROM is not a name; it is a provisional label, created because of the Greek government's position on the word "Macedonia". The people of the country call themselves "Macedonian", the country's common name is "Macedonia", and the official name is "Republic of Macedonia". More than 60% of the countries of the world refer to the country as the "Republic of Macedonia", including four of the five permanent members of the security council, and (most relevant here) a sizable majority of the nations in which English is widely spoken. (Only Australia and New Zealand use "FYROM"; the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and India all use "Republic of Macedonia".) One can pull up many documents which use FYROM, but they are 1)older documents (for example, the US did not use RoM until 2004) 2) International organizations (which follow the UN if Greece is a member) or 3) from countries which use FYROM officially. Even in nations which use FYROM, most of the people will use "Macedonia" to refer to the country, except for Greece. It's improbable at best that "FYROM" is the more commonly recognizable world worldwide. The location of the article at "Republic of Macedonia" was a concession made to placate the Greek editors, and it apparently wasn't enough, because of the constant edit-warring to change RoM to FYROM across dozens of articles. That is why the whole argument that "FYROM" is the most commonly used term is poppycock. Horologium (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now, now... no need to get all upset and foul-mouthed. The people of the region in Greece call themselves "Macedonian", the region's common and official name is "Macedonia". I believe 100% of the countries in the world refer to the region as "Macedonia", including all security council members and English speaking countries. Obviously, there is a conflict and there is no reason why the Republic should gain precedence over the region just because it's a larger entity. Besides, the term "Macedonia" is totally confusing and ambiguous to everyone involved. I believe this clarifies my policy argument on why "Macedonia" is really not an option in this dispute. As far as the other two naming options go, country references change quite often as you've already pointed out. I think that online content or international organizations provide a better measure of which term is used more often. They certainly provide one that won't be prone to change as often. I understand that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not really a name, but at least it's a provisional reference both sides agreed to, so why not have it provisionally in wikipedia too? That way we can say that the article is not named but provisionally referred to, we'll be using something that will stop both sides from bickering since they've both agreed to it, and we'll be able to focus on the more important tasks at hand. I want to say thank you; I believe that our dialogue has given me a great idea on how to compromise. --Radjenef (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- FYROM is not a name; it is a provisional label, created because of the Greek government's position on the word "Macedonia". The people of the country call themselves "Macedonian", the country's common name is "Macedonia", and the official name is "Republic of Macedonia". More than 60% of the countries of the world refer to the country as the "Republic of Macedonia", including four of the five permanent members of the security council, and (most relevant here) a sizable majority of the nations in which English is widely spoken. (Only Australia and New Zealand use "FYROM"; the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and India all use "Republic of Macedonia".) One can pull up many documents which use FYROM, but they are 1)older documents (for example, the US did not use RoM until 2004) 2) International organizations (which follow the UN if Greece is a member) or 3) from countries which use FYROM officially. Even in nations which use FYROM, most of the people will use "Macedonia" to refer to the country, except for Greece. It's improbable at best that "FYROM" is the more commonly recognizable world worldwide. The location of the article at "Republic of Macedonia" was a concession made to placate the Greek editors, and it apparently wasn't enough, because of the constant edit-warring to change RoM to FYROM across dozens of articles. That is why the whole argument that "FYROM" is the most commonly used term is poppycock. Horologium (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I still fail to understand how this addresses the case at hand. Many users claim that by using "the most commonly used term" over "self-identifying terminology" we are more strictly abiding to wikipedia policy. ChrisO makes a case that the people sharing that view are largely of Greek descent. You rehash these old stories to me but I do not see why that should make the arguments of those people any less valid. All I see is that, throughout the years, people have been discussing factions and behaviour instead of the arguments at hand. --Radjenef (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Admins are no different, but the core issue was edit-warring, and admins are the ones who are responsible for applying blocks. With that in mind, it appears that the admin corps was squarely against the "FYROM" faction. The problem is not "who's convincing" and "who's not convincing"; the problem is that Greek editors immediately accused anyone who disagreed with them of anti-Greek sentiment, regardless of their arguments. (I was the one who originally suggested arbitration over the terminology issue, but several Greek editors specifically objected to me even filing the request, because I disagreed with their position. Fut.Perf, who was responsible for nuking the original RoM WikiProject when it began to be used as a PoV coordination site, and who used to be the "go-to" admin for Greek editors, is now accused of a vendetta against the Greeks because he disagrees with their PoV on this issue. There are other examples out there; I'll not link to all of them. Horologium (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Administrators are no different than regular editors when it comes down to making decisions; all are equal in the eyes of wikipedia. How was the vote split? If the result was 14 to 1, then I do not see how that one person could be causing that much trouble. In any case, polls aren't really meant to be decided based on the number of votes anyway! Were the arguments presented by the "fYRoM" side not convincing enough? If they were/weren't convincing, then what's the problem here? I don't get it! --Radjenef (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Radjenef wrote: "... there is no reason why the Republic should gain precedence over the region just because it's a larger entity." Quite untrue actually, for the Republic constitutes just 30-odd percent of the surface area of Macedonia (region), while Greek Macedonia accounts for over 50 percent (including the historical primary city of the region, Thessaloniki / Solun), while yet another part of the region — Pirin Macedonia — belongs to Bulgaria. Apcbg (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll admit to being a bit upset (irritated would be a more precise characterization), but foul-mouthed? I don't think so. Horologium (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, foul-mouthed was referring to "poppycock". Don't worry about it, however, no hard feelings on this side of the house. --Radjenef (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- You've got to be joking. "Poppycock" is about as prim and Victorian as "darn" and "drat". There's nothing even remotely foul-mouthed about that. Horologium (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, though some other Victorian words have changed their meaning rather unfortunately... "Judge Cloud's heavy features clouded. 'Poppycock!' he ejaculated explosively." - Cimarron Bend, L.W. Emerson. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- You've got to be joking. "Poppycock" is about as prim and Victorian as "darn" and "drat". There's nothing even remotely foul-mouthed about that. Horologium (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, foul-mouthed was referring to "poppycock". Don't worry about it, however, no hard feelings on this side of the house. --Radjenef (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll admit to being a bit upset (irritated would be a more precise characterization), but foul-mouthed? I don't think so. Horologium (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Radjenef, but did you actually just claim that FYROM is a "great compromise"? That is why this case is in arbitration--the unswerving loyalty of one national faction against the world. That is why it is important to discuss the issue of uncompromising and unwavering stances on the part of national or parochial interest groups. The "compromise" offered is nothing more than the same filibuster that has been unwaveringly promoted by the Greek nationalists for years now with the same argument based on U.N. usage. It's as if weeks, nay months and years, of discussion here in Wikipedia had never happened. That is the fundamental problem that is being discussed here--how to prevent one nationalistic group from monopolizing the discussion without ever reaching a consensus or following Wikipedia naming policy. (Taivo (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
- You must have misread my statement; I never said that. Perhaps, however, it would be wise to continue this discussion in another page. --Radjenef (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Radjenef, but did you actually just claim that FYROM is a "great compromise"? That is why this case is in arbitration--the unswerving loyalty of one national faction against the world. That is why it is important to discuss the issue of uncompromising and unwavering stances on the part of national or parochial interest groups. The "compromise" offered is nothing more than the same filibuster that has been unwaveringly promoted by the Greek nationalists for years now with the same argument based on U.N. usage. It's as if weeks, nay months and years, of discussion here in Wikipedia had never happened. That is the fundamental problem that is being discussed here--how to prevent one nationalistic group from monopolizing the discussion without ever reaching a consensus or following Wikipedia naming policy. (Taivo (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
Yet another perfect example of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" tactic that people employ to no end. The issue discussed here is that's not WP:OUTING, admit it and drop it. Then, if you want, we can discuss if it's relevant or not. man with one red shoe 12:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Repeating something about someone that the party themselves has already said is not outing. All we're supposed to do in wikipedia is repeat what others have already said anyway; it is by definition what we do. We can't really condemn someone for doing something that is so essential to the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't equate me to other people; I am an individual. Also, please do not respond by launching accusations, I would prefer it if you constructively engaged my arguments. I believe I have responded with sound arguments to what Horologium said. To be honest, I do not recall saying that this was WP:OUTING. Thanks for making me aware (through speculations) that some users might somehow be connected to Greece; I wouldn't have been able to do that myself because I don't speak Japanese. I sincerely think that it's more important to pay attention to what people are saying (i.e. the validity of their argument) as opposed to where they are from. --Radjenef (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that for certain groups of people, where they are from is part of the issue, since we have people from Greece claiming they are from Macedonia, and we have people from Macedonia claiming they are from Macedonia. If "Macedonia" is taken off the table, then the ones from Greece can (and usually do) claim they are Greek, from Greece, but the Macedonians are from...where? FYROM? I don't think so. Greece does not have a monopoly on "Macedonia". I unwittingly entered into this debate three weeks ago without a strong opinion one way or the other, but watching the tactics being employed by some here (including you, Radjenef), I have developed an opinion, but it's not likely to meet with approval with those who support your views. Horologium (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see. I believe my actions (you call them tactics) so far have been very clean. This would not be the appropriate venue to discuss them, however, if you disagree. Feel free to start a discussion in my talk page. I am an incredibly cool headed individual, so you shouldn't worry about me acting weird. I am not from Macedonia by the way. --Radjenef (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- You need not worry, I was not under the misapprehension that you were. Horologium (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Note
It is very unlikely that the arbitrators will put a temporary injunction on this "outing" topic for the duration of this case. As far as the topic for the future, you might want to discuss that in evidence, eg show one way or the other why the practice of associating editors with nationalities in a list is good or bad. (If I'm following the issue here correctly).
There is discussion on this talk page that there is more issues to this case then just the naming dispute. If this is the case, these issues should be presented in the evidence, not discussed here. In otherwords, discuss the issues in the evidence under its own header and explain why the issue needs to be resolved here and what exactly the issue is. The arbs will review.
As far as guiding the case along hopefully an arbitrator will be along in a few days to clarify matters. If a temporary injunction is desired, requesting one on the workshop page is a possibility, however reasons for the injunction would have to be supplied in the evidence section. (eg evidence that the behavior is harmful to the completion of this case or disruptive enough to the encyclopedia that presenting it publically should not be done).
- 'Again I am not the clerk of this case, I am just out of retirement: anything said here can be overrided by tiptoety if he feels I have erred. —— nixeagleemail me 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Evidence length
From the instructions on the evidence page:
Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen.
KnightLago (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you clarify if posting a link to another page with more evidence is an effort to bypass this restriction and should therefore be avoided?--Avg (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is on a case by case basis. Evidence posters are asked to keep their statements under 1000 words, but if you must go over because you simply have a ton of evidence we won't be deleting the statements. However if possible don't restate what someone else has already said in your evidence. If that happens clerks may redact some of the evidence being as its listed twice. Generally use good judgement. If you start to go over 1250 words or so of dense concise evidence ask one of the clerks of the case (tippy or KnightLago) and they will explain what should be done. —— nixeagleemail me 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh! I forgot the important part of my statement, linking to subpages is generally not advised at this time. Try to keep all the evidence on the /evidence page. —— nixeagleemail me 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- General tips...arbs have a lot of stuff to read, be brief and to the point, and provide solid diffs. The more you ramble on....you get the idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Request to clerks
The evidence page has been swamped by discussion sections that are not evidence, some by new editors with no experience of the dispute, who by the nature of their (non-)involvement obviously can't have any evidence to offer. I'm speaking of the sections "Evidence presented by z" (unsigned, by an anon IP 76.90.31.1), "Evidence presented by Alfadog777" (a short-lived SPA edit-warring account with 15 edits prior to 23 April, containing no evidence), and several subsections in the section by Shadowmorph, which contain only discussion but no evidence. Can a clerk please remove these? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- The main reason why these SPAs and IPs appear to be turning up is most likely to be the meatpuppetry of SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs) - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop#SQRT5P1D2 has solicited meatpuppets. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- AFAIK, assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia and the term "meatpuppet" is derogatory and should be used only with care. All I did was informing people about the case, as I was informed by others. I did not ask them to support any position; quoting myself "whoever wants to participate". People that contributed to Macedonia-related articles in the past were celebrating Greek Easter (there are established Wikipedians like John Carter, supporting that you took advantage of the holiday season). They were informed by my original newsgroup post, while you accused me of recruiting people through my blog (!), presenting no evidence that a) I have a blog and b) I'm engaging in these actions. You shouted ""Greek nationalist canvassing off-wiki". How's that for assuming good faith and being civil? In any case, since the jury is out, you remain involved in the case. That means that your actions are also part of the scrutiny. When supporting conspiracies, you should be more careful; after all, it would be more practical to conspire using private communication means. If other Wikipedians do that, I feel sorry for them. If I have anything to say, whether I'm right or wrong, I'm not afraid to say it publicly. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- People are responsible for their actions, SQRT, whether their intentions were good or ill. Your actions directly led to the invasion of this discussion by new editors with no experience in Wikipedia, let alone in this dispute. You claim to be a long-time anonymous editor on Wikipedia. If so, then you should have realized what the consequences of your off-Wiki call to participate would be. (Taivo (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
- Regarding the evidence, I have been leaving notes asking users to review their evidence in light of Wikipedia:Arbitration guide#Evidence. If there is no response in due time the situation will be addressed. But I plan to give people a chance to rectify the situation before removing anything. Regarding SPAs and IPs, the Arbitration Committee is aware of the situation and is looking into it. There is no need for accusations or heated discussion. KnightLago (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Taivo, me and other people already responded here and here. My post was in WP:CANVASS's green area. KnightLago, I just came back and I plan to start working on it later. Hopefully I'll be done during the next 48 hours. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- People are responsible for their actions, SQRT, whether their intentions were good or ill. Your actions directly led to the invasion of this discussion by new editors with no experience in Wikipedia, let alone in this dispute. You claim to be a long-time anonymous editor on Wikipedia. If so, then you should have realized what the consequences of your off-Wiki call to participate would be. (Taivo (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
- AFAIK, assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia and the term "meatpuppet" is derogatory and should be used only with care. All I did was informing people about the case, as I was informed by others. I did not ask them to support any position; quoting myself "whoever wants to participate". People that contributed to Macedonia-related articles in the past were celebrating Greek Easter (there are established Wikipedians like John Carter, supporting that you took advantage of the holiday season). They were informed by my original newsgroup post, while you accused me of recruiting people through my blog (!), presenting no evidence that a) I have a blog and b) I'm engaging in these actions. You shouted ""Greek nationalist canvassing off-wiki". How's that for assuming good faith and being civil? In any case, since the jury is out, you remain involved in the case. That means that your actions are also part of the scrutiny. When supporting conspiracies, you should be more careful; after all, it would be more practical to conspire using private communication means. If other Wikipedians do that, I feel sorry for them. If I have anything to say, whether I'm right or wrong, I'm not afraid to say it publicly. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Response to Avg
Avg, in one of his usual turns of "assume bad faith", has entered a piece of "evidence" about alleged "illicit" collaboration between ChrisO and myself in the preparation of the Macedonia move and my WP:MOSMAC2 draft. Here's the full disclosure of what happened:
- Chris and I have exchanged a few e-mails and IRC chats discussing various aspects of the affair during the past few weeks. There is of course nothing illicit in this. I have had similar contacts with other users too.
- I had been working on the text of MOSMAC2 off-wiki for some time since the Greece dispute erupted. I shared an early draft with a handful of people privately for consultation: ChrisO and, if I remember correctly, Husond and Ev. Chris made a few tweaks to it, though not to the passage dealing with the titling of the Macedonia article.
- My original draft did not contain the passage proposing that the country article should be at Macedonia. Instead, it had a brief discussion saying that such a titling might be objectively justified under the principle of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but that it would be difficult to get consensus for such a move and that I would personally recommend leaving it where it was.
- The page view statistics that I posted to Talk:Macedonia (disambiguation) two or three days prior to the move had originally no connection to any planned move of Republic of Macedonia, but were purely intended as support for a discussion of the internal structure of the dab page.
- Chris first mentioned to me that he was playing with the idea of the Macedonia page move about a day before the event. I did not at that time encourage him to go ahead with it. (But, evidently, it's true I wasn't completely taken by surprise when it happened.)
- I changed the language of the MOSMAC2 draft to fit with the new developments, after his move and shortly before posting the draft on-wiki, since I had in the meantime publicly agreed with him that I thought it was objectively the better solution (an opinion which hadn't changed since before.)
That's all. I see nothing illicit here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for writing down your view of the events. It is up to the arbitrators to examine the veracity of the claims and the appropriateness of this kind of behaviour. Also I would appreciate if you didn't edit my own section of Evidence. Thanks.--Avg (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Note (2)
Clerks or parties don't remove or change evidence based on their analysis of what happened. This whole section should be trimmed up and placed as a response to Avi's evidence in Fut.Perf's evidence section (by Fut.Perf of course as no other party is allowed to edit Fut.Perf's section). Secondly a reminder to all parties that civility and good faith assumptions apply here on arbcom cases just as they do elsewhere, probably even more so if that is possible. —— nixeagleemail me 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, it isn't "evidence" and isn't meant to be; it's just a personal explanation, so its place is here. Also, I won't waste the limited space of my evidence section for refuting Avg's drivel. I have more important stuff to place there. My response stands here as a service to anybody who might have some curiosity about the issue Avg raises; in the unlikely event that the arbs find anything worth investigating about his allegations, I'm afraid somebody will have to point them here. It's not my fault if Avg doesn't want a link to this response in his evidence section to help the Arbs; if his intentions were to help the Arbs inform themselves most efficiently (rather than just to sling mud) he would of course place the link himself. As for "assumptions of bad faith", well that one indeed will go into my evidence section, because it's a very pertinent issue about a long-standing disruptive pattern in Avg's behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf. You intend this to be read by the arbitrators but you are placing the burden of linking to your response on Avg. Things that are intended to be read by the arbs as evidence or a response to evidence go on the evidence page, which is why I suggested you place your comment that was here to the evidence page. You are free to check in with one of the case clerks if you like. —— nixeagleemail me 18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, responses to evidence which do not themselves contain evidence go here; that's what the talk page is for. And yes, it's Avg's topic, he brought it up, so I assume he should be interested in having the Arbs get all the relevant information about it as easily as possible. I personally do not expect the Arbs would give a damn anyway, and as I say, I have no space to waste in my evidence section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you are worried about space, I don't think anyone will frown on you using an extra 100 or 200 words to respond to evidence that is directly against you. —— nixeagleemail me 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, responses to evidence which do not themselves contain evidence go here; that's what the talk page is for. And yes, it's Avg's topic, he brought it up, so I assume he should be interested in having the Arbs get all the relevant information about it as easily as possible. I personally do not expect the Arbs would give a damn anyway, and as I say, I have no space to waste in my evidence section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would caution all parties from seeking to malign the behavior of others. The assumption that one party is somehow required to add a link to what someone else said in their own statements, which seems to be at least implicit in the above, is one which I personally have a very hard time even beginning to understand. Such statements themselves seem to clearly assume bad faith, possibly for less than adequate reasons, such as the presumption that someone would link to other, subsequent, statements of others in their evidence. I personally have no doubt the arbitrators will look at the talk pages. They also do, so far as I have ever seen. I think the situation should be regarded as resolved, pending any questions or further requests from the arbitrators themselves. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is typical Fut.Perf. Now somehow it is my fault that he's not allowed to edit my Evicence section. Also comments like this have to be seen in a totally new light since Fut.Perf. has admitted collaborating off-wiki about changing the status-quo of Macedonia articles.--Avg (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, I wrote that comment after I had heard from Chris that he was toying with the idea (but had myself already discouraged him from doing it); and of course also after I had given the question some thought privately, while drafting the essay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- You dismissed my post as irrelevant "as long as we don't change the names of the articles". But you knew that ChrisO was "toying with the idea". So my post was very relevant and you just admitted that you knew it was relevant, but you chose to conceal this information and present a wrong version of events. --Avg (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, I wrote that comment after I had heard from Chris that he was toying with the idea (but had myself already discouraged him from doing it); and of course also after I had given the question some thought privately, while drafting the essay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is typical Fut.Perf. Now somehow it is my fault that he's not allowed to edit my Evicence section. Also comments like this have to be seen in a totally new light since Fut.Perf. has admitted collaborating off-wiki about changing the status-quo of Macedonia articles.--Avg (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf. You intend this to be read by the arbitrators but you are placing the burden of linking to your response on Avg. Things that are intended to be read by the arbs as evidence or a response to evidence go on the evidence page, which is why I suggested you place your comment that was here to the evidence page. You are free to check in with one of the case clerks if you like. —— nixeagleemail me 18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)