Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Non-party statements

[edit] Statement by Sam Blacketer

I have been drawn into this a few times, for example declining Xstatik's unblock request (see User talk:Xstatik and note the belief that any administrator who disagreed with him must be part of a Greek conspiracy), and taking action against Dimorsitanos who was disruptively attempting a copy and paste page move to change the title of the (ex-Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia to Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia. I am not sure I follow Future Perfect at Sunrise's analysis of the 'pecking order' here but I do endorse his encouragement of an arbitration hearing to settle what administrators may do to prevent disruption on this set of articles. Sam Blacketer 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Moreschi

Strongly urge acceptance; Macedonia has been a hotspot of nationalist edit-warring ever since Wikipedia started, see User:Moreschi/The Plague and relevant subpages. It's high time this troublesome topic was finally dealt with properly. Take the case, ban a couple of the most egregious wrongdoers to show the rest we mean business, and then apply sweeping remedies as in Armenia-Azeri Round 2: ones that give us Alliterative Admins Plentiful Powers to dole out Beautiful Blocks. Cheerio! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by occasionally involved jd2718

I have occasionally edited Macedonia-related articles. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was interested in fixing up Thessaloniki. What I found, however is essentially what Future Perfect at Sunrise reports. This is a long term, usually low-level case of POV-pushing back and forth across many articles.

When I saw this RfArb, I looked at Thessaloniki - first thing. I'm not saying this is evidence, just that it is the first article I looked at -- and here's what I found: In late September, there was an edit war over the term "Macedonia" in the lead. It was resolved on the talk page and user talk pages and the article itself, largely through the efforts of NikoSilver, FPaS, and myself (see Talk:Thessaloniki#Periphery, region etc). Kekrops was involved. But what did I find this morning? Kekrops waited a month and quietly reverted to his favorite version. I don't mean to single that user out, it was just the first example I found. But the low-level warring over the term "Macedonia" and the historical claims to its usage never stops.

That being said, I am not certain what ArbCom can do here. My sense is that most of those saving changes on these groups of pages are advocates first, editors second. Even where more reasonable editors have worked towards consensus, that consensus can be badly flawed by representing compromise amongst advocates at a table, rather than an attempt to reach NPOV. Minorities, groups that edit less, and groups no longer in the region consistently get short shrift. The articles tend to represent relative strength on WP rather than consensus. Can ArbCom find a remedy for that?

[edit] Statement by NikoSilver

I agree with most of Fut.Perf's comments, and with the necessity of certain of his remedies proposed. I have tried to serve the cause for Wiki-serenity in Macedonia related articles through a featured contribution (Macedonia (terminology)) and various other articles (notably Macedonia naming dispute and WP:MOSMAC), always preserving the established consensus. As a Greek, I must note that doing so is extremely difficult, given that the consensus in Wikipedia, as established by the related policies, practically adopts the ethnic Macedonian position. I am noting this only to suggest that there may be an apparent excuse on behalf of the Greek editors, who can never swallow that "Macedonian" refers to anything other than their northern compatriots. On the other hand, the ethnic Macedonian users start from a consensus that matches their views in most issues, therefore there shouldn't have been as many needs for editing abuse. As such, I am deeply concerned about the "getting away with murder" comment, since Greeks aren't apparently successful in killing anybody, so I don't see what there may be to "get away" from. NikoSilver 20:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by ChrisO

I've been involved with the Republic of Macedonia article for a long time, and I can confirm in general terms what Fut. Perf. says about the article and its offshoots being a magnet for POV-pushing, edit-warring and general vandalism. I've had to protect this particular article on twelve separate occasions in the past two years. Only yesterday it came out of a week's full protection as the result of yet another edit war (as yet unresolved), and it's been semi-protected since February due to incessant hit-and-run vandalism. I've also had to create and lock redirects for every single conceivable synonym or unofficial name for the RoM, as a means of preventing copy-and-paste POV moves. Greek nationalists - mostly editing anonymously and from short-lived individual accounts - have, regrettably, been the principal cause of much of the disruptive editing on this article. I've not been directly involved in the other articles Fut. Perf. mentions, but I can confirm that there's a pressing need to crack down on the frequent disruption caused by nationalist edit-warring in this subject area in general. I strongly recommend that the ArbCom take this case. -- ChrisO 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Septentrionalis

I can confirm that some Greeks do make extreme and threatening statements. On the other hand, this is not as much a property of the Greeks, as of nationalists; if we had as many editors from the Republic of Macedonia as we do from Greece, the extremists among them would probably be just as bad. (We don't, and are not likely to; the Republic has a smaller population than Greece, and is not likely to attain the same level of connexion to the internet any time soon.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Samuell

There has been a problem for IP address users placing statements that cold be hate speech or vandalism ([1] or [2]) on the article but that is not a concern on this case. However POV pushing by some users have fired up nationalists on both sides of the issue to the point where removing parts of the page might be an option, though it might be seen as a sort of censorship, though parts could be moved to a archive where they would do less harm. In short, I believe there will always be some POV pushing as long as there are new parties, but all current parties in this case should be urged to keep a cool head and try and keep the flares at a minimum. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit war spreading from Turks in Bulgaria to Bulgaria

To whom it may concern... I noticed that an edit war in progress in Turks in Bulgaria (which I believe is protected as a result of the arbitration, though the page doesn't actually say so?) has spread to Bulgaria recently. It may be interesting to check out. Martijn Faassen (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification re Macedonia case

We are currently experiencing edit wars, blanking, vandalism, ethnic ranting and various other forms of disruptive editing on a variety of different content items relating to Kosovo, including articles, talk pages, images, templates, categories etc. I'd be grateful if an arbitrator could confirm that the general sanction concerning Balkans-related articles that was passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia applies to all namespaces within the area of conflict, not just to the narrower category of "pages" (the wording used in the sanction). I presume it does but I'd like to have it on the record for clarity's sake. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by other user

[edit] Clerk notes

[edit] Arbitrator views and discussion

"Page" (as opposed to the narrower "article") applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill, although the existence of any doubt emphasizes that warnings should be given before restrictions are imposed (which is good practice anyway). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As Kiril and newyorkbrad said. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As per the above and FT2 note below. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Update -- If no objections are received in 5 days I'd suggest a clerk closes this as "confirmed", and notes this as a standard response applicable to other cases with the same basic question. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)