Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case Opened on 03:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Case Amended (by motion) on 16:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 14:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• Yannismarou (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Caspian blue (talk · contribs)
• Shadowmorph (talk · contribs)
• chandler (talk · contribs)
• Husond (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (naming dispute)
• Taivo (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Man with one red shoe (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (naming dispute)
• NikoSilver (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Avg (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Tasoskessaris (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Jim62sch (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Aramgar (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Kapnisma (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Hectorian (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (naming dispute)
• Horologium (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (naming dispute)
• Jack forbes (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• PMK1 (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Politis (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Heimstern (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Ev (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (naming dispute)
• GK1973 (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Patton123 (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Dimorsitanos (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• Radjenef (talk · contribs) (naming dispute)
• SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs) added by Rlevse

I'll be as brief as I can. After an extensive edit-war, a straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece took place but it bore no fruit. No adm closed the poll; the article was protected twice by User:Horologium to avoid ongoing edit-wars, and no solution to the problem was found. After endless discussions, it was consensually agreed that the case should be presented on 22 April before the ArbCom for the reasons exposed in the above thread. It was not conclusively decided who will file the request.

Pending the filing of the case, User:ChrisO moved the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia. The issue was brought to AN by User:John Carter, and then a "centralized discussion" started in the Talk:Macedonia page. Unfortunately, this discussion bore no fruit, and edit wars ensued.

I regard the issue of major importance. It is not only the legitimacy of User:ChrisO's move and its adherence to our policies which is judged here, but also the avoidance of further and collateral damage this action may entail. I thus decided to bring the case in front of you now, although not all the proper series of "dispution mechanism resolution" actions has been followed. I do think, however, that this case falls under the categories "Sensitive or "drama prone" issues requiring advice on handling" as well as "Unusually divisive disputes among administrators".

My filing concerns mainly the User:ChrisO's move, but it is the ArbCom itself which will determine the scope of its competence, and if and how it is going to examine the related issue of the "Greece" article. Although I try to present the case as neutrally as I can, I cannot hide that I am an involved party, and that I have commented on ChrisO's actions here. I apologize for acting in the way I act before the 22 April, when the Greece article issue was planned to be brought here, but I strongly believe that any delay to bring User:ChrisO's move to your attention would entail irreversible damage to the project (collateral edit-warring already ensued, the title's name may affect many articles where uncontrolled edit-wars most probably will erupt, and a controversial adm action of major importance for many articles cannot remain "on the air" for so many days). Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Coren: The link here answers to your question. Yes, one administrator's action precipitated this early filing. Yes, the consensus was to bring the naming issue to ArbCom the earliest on 22 April because of the Orthodox Easter. There seemed to be a consensus the filing to be made by a non-involved user (maybe User:Horologium, the protecting administrator), but this was not conclusively decided.--Yannismarou (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FloNight, bainer (arbitrators), Fut (involved party) and others: I see here that there is a question about what we ask from the arbitrators. As I see things, there are two issues: 1) ChrisO's move which precipitated the filing, and 2) the underlying issue (naming dispute). I believe that both should be dealt by the Committee. As far as (1) is concerned, LessHeard vanU's perspective is interesting (but needs some development and clarifications). As far as (2) is concerned, I've exposed how I personally regard ArbCom's extent of competence here. I am not sure if my interpretation keeps pace with how ARBCOM itself regards its competence, but I personally tend to see it in the broadest possible sense, because it is a matter of policy application everywhere. If the Committee decides to deal with the naming dispute issue, then it should issue concrete guidelines about how the country should be referred not only in the "Greece" article but throughout the project. Eventually, these guidelines will decide the naming dispute itself. So, directly or indirectly, the ARBCOM will have to deal with the heart of the problem: the naming dispute (and I agree on that with Sept). At least, this is what I believe.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Macedonia naming issue is one of the oldest and ugliest POV disputes on Wikipedia. It has been ongoing since as far back as 2002, when the Macedonia article was first created. The dispute centres on the name of the country Macedonia, which shares its name with a Greek region and a wider historical region. The Greek and Macedonian governments have been involved in a fairly bitter diplomatic dispute over the issue for the last 17 years, which has spilled over onto Wikipedia. Years of discussions between Wikipedians over what name to use for the country have been largely fruitless, with some Greek editors insisting on adopting the Greek government's preferred terminology across Wikipedia or just within a "walled garden" of Greece-related articles. POV vandalism and disruption in support of the Greek position across the whole of Wikipedia is endemic on this issue, as an abuse log shows. Any article that mentions Macedonia is a target for disruptive editing, which generally involves replacing the term "Republic of Macedonia" with "FYROM" or made-up terms like "Vardarska". This has even extended to anonymous vandalism from the Greek Parliament on an article that appeared on the Main Page recently. [1]

The situation outside Wikipedia regarding the country's name is straightforward - it's called simply "Macedonia" by the great majority of English-language reference works and media. Wikipedia's policy is also clear about how terminology should be used. (See Talk:Macedonia#Article move for a summary.) Unfortunately any movement towards a solution that reflects external sources has been blocked by Greek editors, essentially for POV reasons. Policy has been and is still being ignored - all of the editors who have objected to the article's new name have so far refused to discuss the policy rationale for the move. It is clear that attempts to reach a consensus have failed and are unlikely to succeed without external stimulus. I undertook a WP:BOLD editorial action to cut the Gordian Knot by moving the article to a name that matches policy and real-world usage. What we need now is to obtain a definitive, binding ruling on the policy dispute and preferably to tackle some of the disruptive behaviour - POV-pushing, wikilawyering, vandalism - that is occurring daily across Wikipedia on this issue. The issue is far wider than just the article move; there will be no resolution of this matter without addressing the underlying policy problems. Note that this doesn't imply solving the naming issue itself - ultimately this dispute comes down to whether policies should in fact be followed (the answer to which should be obvious but is being clouded by wikilawyering and a simple refusal to discuss policy requirements). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(add) I should add that this issue is rather different from the other naming disputes that the Committee has looked at - Samaria and Ireland. Samaria appears to be a much more complex issue and the arbitration case is a hopeless mess, frankly. In Ireland, the Committee remanded the issue to the community for further discussion. This stage has already happened for Macedonia - a lengthy attempt to reach agreement failed some time ago (see WP:MOSMAC, now defunct). The consensus-seeking mechanism has been tried repeatedly but as others have already noted, it has been stymied by an intransigent ethnic-nationalist block of editors. I should also add that a couple of Yannis's claims are misleading - there has been no "collateral edit-warring", merely an unrelated dispute over content in the ancient history section of the article, and I have already stated that I will voluntarily reverse the article move if its policy rationale is found to be faulty. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth. I would have no problems with a delay until the originally planned date of 22nd April. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I'm confused by this filling. this is not the issue that was supposed to be brought to ArbCom, it's only a tangential issue. Second, it was clearly agreed by all the parties to wait till the end of this weekend for practical reasons. Third, I was named a party in this discussion, but I don't even watch the Republic of Macedonia page, and I don't even have yet a formed opinion over moving it to Macedonia. Thus, this case filling has to me a distinct feeling of either scoring points against the opposite party or panic that the real case will be submitted soon and thus this was an attempt to preempt it from being filled (BTW, it was agreed that the case will be filled by a neutral party, this doesn't seem the case here either). Sorry for the meta-comment, but these things had to be mentioned.

I will only comment on what the initial issue was supposed to be: I don't see the issue in Greece page (see talk:Greece) as a simple content problem, I see it as a matter of principle, whether Wikipedia allows a group of people to "own" their national page and keep them as walled gardens and enforce their national POV there. If it's not evident to you that's the case here, please examine the use of the name of "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia" in the majority (or maybe even "all") of the other articles and even in foreign language Wikis. I also made the case that biased polls serve no use (for example it serves no use to ask Palestinians about Israel's right of existence or to ask Chinese about Tibet independence and so on, there are many national POVs out there) While assuming good faith in Wikipedia is a good policy, assuming that national editors will excuse themselves automatically from debates where their POV would influence the result is ludicrous and will only encourage same national(ist) editors to watch over "their" national pages like eagles (again I don't accuse anybody of bad faith, the problem here is POV, national POV at that) I only hope that we can find some way of removing or reducing this kind of POV and have a procedure for deciding this kind of sensible national items, maybe in case of doubt by enforcing the standard used in the rest of the articles or having a more balanced straw-poll that involves more 3rd party nationals, that's all. Now, people will complain about national profiling, I think I made a clear case why the national POV can be a problem in Wikipedia, I don't ask for excluding people based on their nationality, I ask for bringing more 3rd party people or using solutions from other articles, or finding different ways to decide content in the case there's suspicion that national POV plays an important role in the debate as it is pretty clear from the simple common sense analysis of the issue. If you can't make this kind of sweeping decision maybe you should decide in this specific naming matter and put it to sleep in a merciful manner, cause otherwise the edit wars and debates will continue endlessly. man with one red shoe 05:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request that Arbcom accept this case under the perspective previously agreed by all participants of the sub-dispute that had arisen at Talk:Greece. To Coren: No this is not a request for the committee to settle the naming dispute (i.e. the content issue) itself. It's a request for guidance in a more general matter of Wikipedia governance: how to deal with content decisions where a dispute is overwhelmingly dominated by pre-existing real-world political positions polarised along national lines. This is a situation where the standard Wiki model of consensus procedures regularly fails, and we need to figure out how to deal with that. Regarding the Greece article, we clearly found that this dispute was between a single, deeply entrenched and extremely determined, national faction of Greek editors, against a consensus of everybody else. However, the Greek faction is strong enough to block all regular consensus mechanisms threatening their POV island: by gaining at least "no consensus" status in any vote-like procedure through sheer strength of numbers, and by derailing any discussion-based procedure through sheer tenacity of filibustering, until neutral editors are bored away. We need to figure out how to deal with polls dominated by national factions, and we need to figure out where the line is to be drawn between healthy debate and disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT filibustering with people advocating nationally-based POVs.

ChrisO's move is just an expression of exasperation with this situation: he tried to cut the gordian knot, by doing the correct edit in a situation where he knew normal procedure would simply never lead anywhere. Arbcom needs to deal not so much with the legalities of this move itself, but with the underlying causes: why do we regularly have situations that make such rouge moves look like the only way out? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: For what it's worth, my views on the content issue are expressed here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking just at ChrisO's action, a single administrative action, isn't going to make much of a case. What really needs examining here is a complete failure in the wiki model to get us through a problem (here I am talking about the dispute at Talk:Greece, not the move at the other article, where I've had no involvement). Attempting to follow traditional methods of dispute resolution has led to roadblock because of a sizable nationalist faction that insists on using a name not used elsewhere in Wikipedia. Where two separate consensuses, one consisting almost entirely of people with a vested interest in a certain nationality, the other consisting of more or less everyone without any vested interest in that country, something is broken. The Wikipedia community needs better tools to deal with nationalistic editing if we are to have any hope of truly being a neutral encyclopedia in cases like this. I ask ArbCom to help us with this. At least, point us in the direction we should go next (and please, don't ask us to go to mediation or RFC. This issue has been discussed out, and certain parties absolutely will not listen.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If this case is supposed to include everyone with involvement in the naming dispute, I suppose I should be added, though having that many parties sounds exceedingly unwieldy to me.

Since it seems clear to to me that this case is going to happen, I'm really hoping the Arbs will listen to this: treating this like any ordinary case is not going to produce good results. The traditional methods of counting reverts, uncivil remarks and questionable admin actions is not going produce any answer that meaningfully solves the real problem here; namely, that this article is under siege from a group of nationalists for whom no way save that endorsed by Greek foreign policy is acceptable. We need something new. More of the same will at best leave us where we are now, and at worst may bolster the nationalists. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I was hoping that this whole issue could wait until the Orthodox Easter, which begins this weekend. As a sort of respect to users from both "sides". But in further reading the comments by Yannismarou and ChrisO, both have vigourously defended their actions. It is true that a walled garden has been established by many users, all from a similar POV and ethnic background, whereby the term "Macedonia" has been claimed as an exclusively Greek one, despite the prevalent opinion in the English-speaking world. Macedonia, without any appelations, is the self-identifying term for the country officially known as the Republic of Macedonia. ChrisO's actions are justified as they follow suit behind the practises featured in the English version of Wikipedia. The addition of "Republic of" was used to disambiguate it from other Macedonias, however usage of the full name of a country is not common wiki practise. Although officially "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", the article is United Kingdom. There are dozens of similar examples, "United States of America" => United States, "Commonwealth of Australia" => Australia, "United Mexican States" => Mexico. In this case the term "Macedonia" has been appropriately chosen, acting in line with other developments on Wikipedia and accordance with WP:NAME. PMK1 (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally came across the naming dispute on talk Greece where I disagreed with listing editors nationalities taking part in a straw poll. I have no allegiances to either country, so no matter what decision is made I won't lose any sleep over it. I took some interest in the name change made by Chris0 to the Macedonia article as many of the same editors where involved. My concern is the way he went about it without any prior notice and his comments since making the change. I saw his statement here that any admin reverting his change could be desysopped for wheel-warring. I later noticed him making this change to his opening statement implying it was not an administrative action which he confirmed here after I asked him just that. He did though reassert it could be wheel-warring in a conversation on J.delanoy's talk page [2]. The question for me is, did he use his tools in the proper manner and after using those tools was he right to infer that it would be wheel-warring and possibly frighten off other admins from reverting his preferred version. Jack forbes (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has many dimensions and should all be dealt with by the ArbCom.

1. Whether ChrisO abused his position as an administrator to disturb the consensus achieved in Wikipedia.

I wholly support that his actions were a direct breach of 4 out of the 5 pillars which form (or have formed until now) the only firm rules of Wikipedia. He intentionally changed the status quo of an article which had been stable for years and was not disputed by any side in this conflict. He did this in a most provocative way, deprived of the editors the right to revert/modify his edits and directly threatened other admins not to do so either. He clearly acted in bad faith, choosing the start of a holy day for the Greeks to act and he totally disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point, whatever this might be.

2. Whether his edits should be reverted

I firmly support that his edits should be reverted at least until the ArbCom reaches a decision. His goal was to create a status quo which would manipulate the opinions of those not directly interested in this matter and it seems he has succeeded, since editors already talk about "not changing things yet", thus accepting that his edits will be the start of any new "negotiation". The former, stable for so many years, status of the article was accepted by all parties and created no problems. The constitutional name of the country was used, respecting the self identification of the ethnic Macedonians and a disambiguation table was introduced respecting the Greek claims. This formula worked for so many years with minimal protest, so the situation had miraculously been resolved in a way only possible in Wikipedia.

3. How the name issue of the existing "Macedonias" should be treated from now on.

This problem exists and is in no way unique in Wikipedia. The ArbCom should make its recommendations and I will assist in every step. The only question is how we can expect respect for this decision when there have already been such recommendations and these tend to be disrespected by all sides and ChirsO. What will the difference be from the last dictates of WP:ARBMAC, which was clearly not respected by ChrisO when he disrupted the article. Should the ArbCom deem this time that stricter guidelines are necessary, I will stand by it, although I understand that such a decision is difficult to take because of the possibility that it will clash with the pillars of Wikipedia.

Finally, the ArbCom and all editors assisting in this process should keep in mind that although the name problem exists and is a serious issue for both sides, this was not the case in the specific article in question, whose title, name, position and general status quo had been accepted by all sides. GK1973 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic. The Gordian Knot was a tangled Greek mess solved by a Macedonian who bent, if not broke, the rules. (And of course I realize that Alexander was not a Slavic Macedonian, but it's still a beautiful irony, nonetheless.)

There are several layers to the issue before us here. First, there is the real-world conflict over a single word--started by Greece so long ago that it almost seems to date from Alexander's day. This issue is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia's policies, but it is mentioned time and time again as motivation for the uncompromising stand of the nationalist editors as here, here, here, and (my personal favorite) here illustrate. They self-identify themselves as Greek (as here and here), but then complain loudly when others identify them as Greek (as at Talk:Greece passim). Second, there is the continual attempt by the entrenched nationalists to paint international usage as the standard for Wikipedia naming (as here). This issue is also totally irrelevant to Wikipedia's policies, but is repeatedly used to sidetrack the issue of common English usage as found throughout Talk:Greece. Third, there is the Greek vandalism that occurs nearly daily throughout Wikipedia against Macedonia. The abuse log is cited elsewhere here, but I have personally been watching Staffordshire University and was forced to revert this on four occasions before getting the article protected from anonymous IPs. Staffordshire University is not even within the Greek "sphere of interest", but it was cited (along with other irrelevant articles such as 2007 Fort Dix attack plot) by Avg as a reason for reporting Future Perfect to "the authorities" when he changed "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to "Republic of Macedonia". This is a serious problem and further illustrates the nationalistic fervor of this community when anyone tries to treat Macedonia as an equal entity within Wikipedia. But none of these issues is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Finally, we come to the real issue of this arbitration–how does Wikipedia deal with a parochial group of editors (whether nationalistic, as in this case, or religious) that blocks all attempts at productive editing that violates some self-proclaimed interest? In this case, we have a group of editors who refuse to reach any consensus on following Wikipedia policy using consistent wikilawyering, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and other diversionary tactics without addressing the fundamental policy issue. Wikipedia's policy is very clear to me concerning naming an entity (WP:NCON)–1) Use the most common English name, and if that isn't available for some reason, 2) Use a self-identification. The policy specifically excludes political, moral, and legal arguments in deciding on a name, but the Greek editors continually cite 1) the political views of Macedonia and Greece, 2) the moral rights of Greece, and 3) the legal name imposed by international organizations as reasons for ignoring Wikipedia naming policy. Consensus is impossible when you are talking to a wall. It is my sincere hope that this arbitration will result in a clear and unambiguous interpretation of Wikipedia naming policy. (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I first came to this discussion after Future Perfect at Sunrise requested additional eyes and voices in the discussion on the Talk:Greece page regarding how the Republic of Macedonia was to be named in that article. At the time, the two choices being considered were "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia". I and other new arrivals seemed to consistently favor the latter, but to the best of my knowledge and memory the simple name "Macedonia" was never really even spoken about, except to dismiss the article being named that out of hand. Although there were heated voices on both sides, and I am ashamed to admit that I was one of them at times, there did seem to be some real discussion taking place, and there were hopes, at least on my part, that a real solution could be arrived at.

Then, out of the blue, without any discussion, ChrisO moves the page, locks it in place himself, and says that he is doing this in the interests of following policy, and is forced to justify how his move is in compliance with policy. I and several others called into question the move, and there were several comments from various parties indicating that it might be an attempt to basically game the system and take advantage of the fact that many or most of the editors from the Greek side would be celebrating the Orthodox Easter before they noticed the change had been made, thus in effect making it a stable page for several days before the Greek editors returned and noticed the move. Several editors have very clearly stated that these actions of ChrisO's undermine their trust in the fairness and effectiveness of the wikipedia.

I beg the ArbCom to accept this case. The article in question was one of the top 300 in hits for March, and it is thus one of our most important articles. Such radical moves as have taken place on such an important article are at best questionable. That they take place under a cloud such as the one cast by ChrisO's actions damages the trust of several experienced editors, and even more so newer editors, and we should all do our best to address ensuring that such damaging behavior not happen any more often than necessary. John Carter (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is I believe clear to everybody that there are two distinct, related, things being considered here. They are ChrisO's behavior and the broader naming question. It seems to me as a comparative outsider to the ongoing dispute who has only recently become involved in it, that the former issue may be easier to resolve than the latter. If I am correct in that opinion, and if ArbCom rules allow it, I would request that, if a decision regarding the former issue is resolved before the second issue, any implementation of a decision regarding the former issue not be delayed until the resolution of the second issue, but be carried out as soon as a clear decision is reached. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I call to the attention of the arbitration committee this material questioning the terms of Future Perfect's proposed renaming here. In it, I mentioned that Future Perfect agreed extremely quickly with the rather sudden renaming of the article, within 45 minutes as the records will show, and requested additional information to help eliminate the possibility that he might be acting on a potential POV and COI. The conversation continued until I was called by Future Perfect "idiotic". When I called that into question, this was his response. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start by expressing my firm belief that this action by ChrisO was not simply a random "bold" move nor a move by a passing-by, uninvolved administrator. It was a carefully planned and premeditated move, by a heavily biased editor, with the objective of acting as a fait accompli. It is also the culmination of a serial disregard of any sense of the consensus process and it has been accompanied by a host of accusations, insults and threats against an ethnic group of editors. It was not the first time he abused the admin tools to settle this dispute in his favour. And finally, it was based in deceit and in an outright lie to the community. I'm prepared to prove my claims with diffs when the arbitration enters the evidence phase. ChrisO has completely lost my trust.

I would also like to draw the attention of the ArbCom to the somewhat established tactics even in the statements of certain involved parties here, in labelling a group of editors as "Greek nationalists". The issue of ethnic profiling is something that I feel ArbCom should address. Mud is a difficult thing to remove when someone throws it at you. I would ask ArbCom to protect me and anyone else insulted from the continuous abuse and ridicule we get, just because we happen to have a certain opinion, which has always been based on policy and which we have never tried to impose to anyone. I would challenge anyone to find any of the "Greek nationalists" reverting any article where "Republic of Macedonia" was the established naming. On the contrary, the other side (which mainly comprises of two users who enjoy immunity, ChrisO and Future Perfect at Sunrise) has engaged in extensive edit wars, mass renames and intimidation tactics in order to push their POV and reverse the status quo. Again, diffs will be provided in detail.

Regarding the content dispute, never, ever has "Macedonia" been discussed as a choice for naming the country, because it was common ground to everybody even remotely involved with the issue that there is a high degree of ambiguity. Again, I will present as evidence many diffs where even ChrisO himself strongly advocates that Macedonia should not be used as the name of the country. I will also present my arguments on the naming issue (of course I disagree with the current naming) if the content dispute is discussed, however I very strongly believe the behavioral issue has to be tackled first. I find appalling to be forced to enter into a content dispute with the tables turned to ChrisO favor, just because he abused the admin tools.

Request: I specifically request User:ChrisO to revert back to the status quo ante (stable for the last 7 years) before the arbitration starts on the 22nd of April. He will then prove to the arbitrators and to the community that his action was not intended to promote a certain POV and trick the arbitrators into upholding the newly changed name.

I reiterate my brief comment on Talk:Macedonia: the timing of the move by ChrisO was inadequate. Furthermore, being ChrisO clearly involved in this dispute, he should have refrained from an unilateral move that was guaranteed to produce a very heated outcry. That said, I fully understand the frustration that led to such reaction. The naming issue of the Republic of Macedonia and its application on Wikipedia has been a long-lasting dispute, as the Greek POV is fiercely defended by a large group of Greek users that effectively block any consensus from ever occurring. The recent straw poll clearly demonstrated this. Yet, outside attention was only drawn when the straw poll issue was brought to ANI by Greek users, irked by my rather visual analysis (now deleted) of the ethnicity of the straw poll participants. Consensus was easily formed at ANI that Greek users had their own walled garden and were creating an obstacle to Wikipedia's natural consensus building process. Despite overall agreement, the poll ended, no admin ever closed it, no decision was ever made, and the heated discussion unsurprisingly died out. It is very frustrating to see core values of Wikipedia be manipulated by one ethnic group, but even more frustrating to see everybody (expect that ethic group) acknowledge the manipulation and still do nothing about it. On top of that, those who point the obvious fact that the problem lies with one ethnic group still have to bear with the usual accusations of racism and censorship. And then they become "involved" and can take no unilateral actions such as... move an article. Thus, although I do not approve ChrisO's rush, I think that his action attempts to bring rightful attention to a problem that should earn far more disapproval. I am glad that this is finally back at the Arbcom and I do expect that at last we may have some results, and some peace. Húsönd 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm innocent I tells ya, I wuz framed. Seriously, I've noted elsewhere that I thought the move was a bad idea, both in its timing and in its intent: I understand why Chris did what he did, but I see no consensus for the move. Yes, as a potential political tactic it was smart in the sense that a move to the center takes us back to Republic of Macedonia, but in this case it wasn't necessarily the best idea. The real issue is precisely what User:John Carter and User:Taivo have explained. To be more blunt: should the Greece article be a walled garden, one that can ignore the realities and policies and logic? I say "no". Period and EOS. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement forthcoming on Monday, 20 April 2009. Many editors who argue for this article to be called RoM, as it was until a few days ago have outstanding contributions to wikipedia. Many were involved in making Macedonia (terminology) into a featured article. The map of one of those editors has even found fame beyond wikipedia in (Slav) Macedonian blogs and sites and is happily used. Users came together to agree on a line of conduct over when to use Macedonia, RoM, Fyrom, Greek Macedonia, etc. It worked. Users, such as myself, then went on to revert some reference to Fyrom into RoM because we had agreed. Now, those users seem to be vilified for wishing to abide by the status quo as agreed. That seems wrong. Please reconsider.Politis (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the proverbial new editor. I was previously anonymous but Macedonia is protected from those for ever. I was trying to improve Macedonia dab page and along with the guardians there after bold edits and talks we finally spitted for the adjective to have it's own page like Irish and Ireland (an improvement). ChrisO made two moves. First he moved Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation) and lied to us about the reason (in addition to ignoring the talk page). Then he moved the Republic of Macedonia article to Macedonia. That way he ridiculed me as a new editor, and showed me the door together with all other potential new editors. He did this on an Orthodox Good Friday, to avoid confrontation, since all those that would care enough to object would be from Greece (religion) or Bulgaria (religion). He effectively started an edit war, with a tactic I parallelized (in a figure of speech) similar to Yom Kippur War.

That can't be acceptable behaviour from an admin. Furthermore he wasn't being bold in making an edit like I did with moving Macedon to Macedonia (ancient kingdom) which I discussed too. That can be reverted. Rather ChrisO was bold in deciding and locking to a new name for a move-protected page. The way to go, on an encyclopedia "anyone can edit"? Is Wikipedia now written by the admins, do they get to chose the names only?. He knew that there would never be consensus to move it back, therefore he was bold in creating a new status quo for the page. The funny part is that there never was in 5 years any talk or reason to move it, Republic of Macedonia was the consensus (in the wiki way). But aside from that, the name issue is important. Why do I bother? The first result from Google to anyone uninformed on the matters of Macedonia (region) is always the Wikipedia entry named "Macedonia". So, ChrisO's move can be seen as a Google bomb, not an administrative move.

"Macedonia" is used in a wide context (chronically). Is Wikipedia just a reference or is it a learning tool? Do the uneducated users learn anything on the historic region, when they go to Macedonia like they do with Georgia? ChrisO also opened the statistics Pandora's box, with many flaws. Statistics also showed Georgia (country) over Georgia in the stats for August 2008, and the name of Republic of Macedonia is right now on the news (elections, NATO & EU ascension, etc)

In the time pressure, I had to become creative, finding new statistical arguments WP could use elsewhere. Please see my discussions here and here for the actual English common usage of the word Macedonia.Macedonia, Ohio is favored (that's not a "Greek nationalist" thing to say, but people called me that in WP)

If WP has to have a Macedonia (terminology) article, that is by itself a reason to say that there is no single main topic It's just like the American (word) situation. Besides the policy on WP:Naming conflicts was broken by the move. It cites Republic of Ireland as a good example and says "chances are there isn't that great of a need to move it in the first place". Another example is Micronesia.

The naming dispute might be resolved soon. Let me just say that other neutrals like the UN resorted to temporary solutions, and Wikipedia is not on a WP:DEADLINE. What's with the rush, if not to create a new Wikipedia status quo? WP should remain as neutral as it can be. "Republic of Macedonia" is not the neutral solution either, but the very one that is disputed, since the dispute is over the name (not the existence of the state, like in Kosovo). But since RoM is the self-identification, constitutionally, RoM is as neutral as it gets for an encyclopedia. Shadowmorph (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as to why I'm called an involved editor, but have an interest in how ArbCom would handle the long-term and tendentious nationalistic dispute. I expect that whatever remedy comes from the case would be a precedant for other heated naming disputes. The recent two ANI reports on administrators' conducts regarding the issue - Húsönd's ethnic filling and ChrisO's unilateral move of the page - attracted me to take a look at the case. Some say ChrisO and Húsönd's conducts enforced "obvious is obvious, so let's endorse for them to fix it". I have to disagree with this view because of several reasons. First, the dispute in reality is not settled yet, so we have to respect the both side and reflect the current situation without any bias. Second, administrators are supposed to assist editors to resolve disputes, not to inflate them. However see what results have been generated by their conducts; flaring the flame. They mix administrator's roles with their editorial POV and emotions too much. The page move under the protection is not a fair play even considering the fact that he knew the Greek holidays. The pointy and unilateral action based on his firm belief that he is doing right is arguable enough. ChrisO argues that if any administrator move back the title, that would be "wheel war" which can be a ground for de-sysopping. I'm very concerned about his ethics and interpretation of our policies. I feel uneasy that many tend to blame the dispute all to Greek as calling ultra-nationalists. How so? Name accompanies identity matters, so we can not attribute this dispute to just one side. One thing to remind that not every state members of UN recognize Republic of Macedonia, and English is unarguably the current lingua franca in the world. So I expect ArbCom examines the case thoroughly and handle it fairly.--Caspian blue 02:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 April I commented on the gestating arbitration at Talk:Greece (diff., scroll down: it's the last comment of the page).

Please, do not dedicate too much of your time to the bold actions by ChrisO that precipitated the filing of this case: whether adequate or not, it is one single, easily reversable action made in good faith. — Little harm can come out of it.

Instead, focus on the subjacent reasons that led ChrisO to take such action: the general editing environment around these topics, the existence of a group of Greek editors determined to have our articles reflect their biases (as described by others above). — This is the source of much (most?) of the constant problems, and harm does come out of it. - Ev (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plethora of detailed statements and excellent rationales by Yannis, AndreasJS, John Carter and Shadowmorph fully address my concerns. Therefore since these excellent points were made by them as well as others I will avoid repeating many of their arguments here. I would like however to expand on a point John Carter made about trust. As John Carter so eloquently and diplomatically mentioned the actions of ChrisO damage the trust of established as well as newer editors. Administrators in Wikipedia hold a very special place in the community. Their authority is maintained and respected when they excercise their power with measure and discipline and always upholding the policies of the community as well as the trust of the editors. Most admins do this job remarkably well and so even though Wikipedia is not a democracy most editors feel as if they are on an equal editorial footing with the administrators because they trust that the administrators will follow due process at all times. In the few instances where administrators undertake to act in a heroic fashion and start using heroic terminology like cutting the Gordian knot, you know instinctively something went wrong. When administrators use their tools as super-powers then Wikipedia becomes Smallville, Metropolis or Gotham city. Nice places all but they seem not very suitable models for encyclopedia building. To paraphrase Tina Turner: We Don't Need Another Hero, because we are not in Thunderdome but in Wikipedia. Even Future Perfect commenting on ChrisO's actions called them a coup (italics not mine). As I said before, I know Wikipedia is not a democracy but I hope it will not soon become a banana republic either. There are many other issues remaining that I will not address in detail here, such as the use of nationality/ethnicity (or even suspected ethnicity) based statistics to cast a wide pall over a group of editors and other similar anti-intellectual tactics employed by certain admins and which I consider particularly harmful to the project, to logic and to any intellectual pursuit in general. In closing I urge Arbcom to address these points that I raised, as well as many other peripheral issues so capably enunciated by the other participants, for the good of this project. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Cacharoth for his helpful guidance regarding the background of this controversy and his comments concerning the Easter celebrations. Dr.K. logos 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept, primarily to examine the use of administrative tools in this matter—I note that the article was, and remains, move-protected—but also to try and move the broader dispute towards resolution. Yannismarou, please add as parties (and provide appropriate notification to) the editors involved in the naming dispute, as well as any others who have expressed interest in participating in the case that was to be filed on the 22nd. Kirill ^[pf] 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I need to understand something here that's of critical importance, I think: is the community requesting that ArbCom settle the naming dispute itself? I understand that one administrator's action precipitated this early filing of a request, but the intent was to bring this to ArbCom all along? — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept; It does seem that the community methods have broken down in this area, and that ArbCom might help. — Coren ^(talk) 13:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept, I am never surprised when these areas of real world ethnic/political strife come here. As Fut Perf says, this is an area where wiki consensus building regularly fails and we as a community need to find better ways to work with this type of situation. The consensus model regularly fails here because each side, due to long term centuries-old strife in the area/topic, perceives the truth, as they see it, being twisted. Focus should be on admin behavior and conduct of all users, not what the titles should be. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept To examine admin conduct, and to assist the Community in finding a solution to the naming conflict (not select the name). FloNight♥♥♥ 10:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, both to look at the recent move but also the underlying issue in the sense that it would have been brought to us anyway next week. As Flo says, we will, as always, not be resolving the content dispute, but we can provide a framework for resolution. --bainer (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Wizardman 16:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Please note that when the case opens I will post some questions thay I will be asking the parties (and interested others) to address. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Risker (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Would like to suggest here that the opening of the case is delayed until 22nd April, for several reasons: (1) So ArbCom can finish off some other cases that need our attention; (2) To fit in with the original intention to file on 22nd April - mainly, as I understand it, to fit in with the dates of Orthodox Easter; (3) To give those involved time to gather their thoughts; (4) To enable discussion of the case name (request name conflicts with an article of that name), the case scope and who should be the named parties; (5) To enable people to read the megabytes of discussion that has taken place around this topic; (6) For arbitrators and the editors involved at this topic to read the following articles: Macedonia naming dispute, Macedonia (disambiguation), and Macedonia (terminology); (7) For those involved in the naming dispute to consider whether time spent discussing the name of the article might be better spent improving articles, as was done with Macedonia (terminology) (a featured article). In general, a way does need to be found to resolve these perennial disputes for set periods of time (say two years) so that in between the periodic debates, work is actually done on other articles instead. Whether by Gordian Knot-type resolution or otherwise. But these nationalist naming disputes need to be settled because they are a large drain in time and resources (several recent and current arbitration cases have been disputes over article names). Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per flonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. --Vassyana (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) No Macedonia-related article, broadly defined, shall be moved/renamed until after the "Macedonia 2" case closes. If it does occur, any uninvolved administrator can expeditiously revert it. After the case closes, Macedonia-related moves/renames can occur as prescribed in the final decision.

Support:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Noting here that ArbCom won't say what the name(s) should be, but that we will almost certainly be laying out a framework, or urging that a framework be set up, for achieving a lasting resolution to this issue (or at least for a set period to allow editing energies to be productively channelled elsewhere for that period). Discussions on how to resolve this should still continue, but no moving or renaming (with obvious exceptions such as typos on newly-created articles). Carcharoth (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. With minor copy-edit.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Since there is a delay in opening the case, this proposal seems sensible as there was likely to be a similar injunction proposed soon after the case opened. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   We can just move this to the injunction, no need to revote. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, there will be no need for another vote. This motion covers the situations. We are doing it this way instead of an injunction because of the delay. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Wizardman 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passed 10 to 0 at 09:18, 19 April 2009.