Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Non-party statements

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am trying to get the answer for that same question from J.delanoy here [3]. It seems that ARBMAC has become the stronghold of the Greek editors to report every user that thinks it otherwise and brings alternative sources to support a different opinion. Too many Albanian contributors have been reported per ARBMAC, even though their edits had nothing to do with Macedonia. The same treatment has been reserved to some Bulgarian users (read Monshuai) whose edits never regarded Macedonia. I myself, have been reported and sometimes blocked per ARBMAC and the ban had nothing to do with Macedonia. --sulmues (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per his explanation ARBMAC was broadened to include all the Balkans per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Area_of_conflict. I guess we have to rename it ARBBAL. However I am noticing that per definition of Balkan as per Area of Conflict above, Romania is not included. Clarifications please. The Area of conflict has to be rewritten more clearly. --sulmues (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

"Page" (as opposed to the narrower "article") applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
As Kiril and newyorkbrad said. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per the above and FT2 note below. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by sulmues

I have been the object of incredible attacks and accusations from two Greek editors, Athenean and Alexikoua who have accused me of anything so far. Last attack was that of socketpuppetry here (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti/Archive#Report_date_September_13_2009.2C_04:52_.28UTC.29_2) following this (User_talk:Moreschi#Sulmues.3DGuildenrich). They were both false accusations and proved so, but these people even reject the evidence (see "this reaction", and "this other reaction"). This is becoming harassment and I think that ARBMAC should add something to punish false accusers, however I would be OK with receiving public apologies from those who accused me of being a sock puppet. I have ~4k edits in Wikipedia and I don't deserve this treatment. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 16:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be improperly accused see here by User:Athenean and I gently request that a stop be put to all this harassment. After "5.5k" edits and "66 articles" (and many more to come) brought to Wikipedia, this is an incredible treatment that I get for all my contributions. --sulmues (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Request for Clarification (April 2010)

A request for clarification concerning this case was made on 15 April by sulmues (talk · contribs). Specifically, Sulmues requested an early release from the sanctions concerning him from this case. The request was denied, but positive comments were made by arbitrators concerning Sulmues' conduct over the past three months. The full text of the request at the time of archiving can be seen here Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I thank the arbitrators for their kind words. In the light of the Albanian-Greek problems that have arised in the last two years, when I have witnessed much wasted time in useless disputes I started the Wikipedia:Albanian and Greek wikipedians cooperation board, which is intended to reinforce collaboration between Albanian and Greek contributors in a neutral and positive tone. --Sulmues Let's talk 00:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian

I'm not familiar with the situation here, but it's been suggested that this decision is relevant to the interminable nationalist edit warring at Croatian language, Serbo-Croatian language, South Slavic languages, etc. by those claiming that Serbo-Croatian does not exist, that Croatian is not related to Serbian, and other nonsense. Would someone here mind taking a look, and commenting if appropriate? Thanks, — kwami (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moving Macedonians

There is a move request at Talk:Macedonians_(ethnic_group)#Requested_move which may be of relevance to the ARBMAC decision. The request was made with the argument that "(ethnic group)" does not sufficiently disambiguate modern ethnically Slavic Macedonians. Some of the arguments, both for and against, appear to be nationalist sentiments. For instance, one argument for is that Macedonian Greeks are also an ethnic group; an argument against is that modern and ancient Macedonians are a single ethnic group. Both are demonstrably false. Given such problems, it may be difficult for whoever reviews the request to decipher whether there is consensus for a move among reasonable opinions, or whether the rational decision would be for or against. Insight from ARBMAC would be appreciated. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

I ask permission to edit under "SULMUES". Can a bureaucrat transfer my edits and block logs "Sulmues" to SULMUES"? Since my account "Sulmues" has been compromised (lost my password for that account and also the password of the email), I would need a new account to be able to edit. In addition I am under a restriction for the Balkans (see User_talk:Sulmues#Renewed_1RR_restriction), so I need to notify Arbmac for this username change. --Sulmuesi (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they rename the account, its old password settings and everything would also be transferred, so if you lost access to the old account, the renaming wouldn't help you, I'm afraid. You could only rename your current intermediate "Sulmuesi" account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind then, I'll just edit under "Sulmuesi". Thanks FPS. --Sulmuesi (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification (January 2011)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by WhiteWriter speaks at 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by WhiteWriter

Question about clarification of 1RR regarding Kosovo article, imposed in august 2009 by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs).

This happened:

As we didnt get agreement about finishing separation, Alinor reverted status quo.

Without question who is guilty, who is not (that is pointless not, i think), my question is, what exactly is 1RR? First edit by Alinor, implementation of talk page RfC was, by some, just a revert, while for some others new edit, followed the talk page. We must see what can be done regarding this, and with that agreement, similar problems may be excluded in the future. With this flammable page, clarification will be very useful. So, what exactly is 1rr on Kosovo page? Should any entry with similar historic content be regarded as revert? Now new editors can know about that? Is this 1ER (1 edit restriction) instead on 1RR per week? All of this should have answer. All best, and, by the way, Happy New Year! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZjarriRrethues


  • There is a consensus which hasn't been overturned since July 2010[5][6] and a few hours after he made the second revert, one of the regular Kosovo editors restored that consensus because there was no consensus about reverting to a pre-July infobox version or even a discussion about it.[7]. Alinor didn't implement any agreement/agree status quo/consensus but reverted to a version he considered correct, which caused other users to suggest reporting him to AE. As Alinor kept saying when he was making the reverts consensus changes, however, it doesn't change by reverting but through discussion.


  • As the one who started this request for clarification WhiteWriter should bring difs that show there was an agreement for Alinor's reverts as this supposed agreement WhiteWriter keeps insisting on mentioning to justify Alinor's reverts isn't on the article's talkpage.

--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alinor

  • I have explained my position here: User_talk:Alinor#1RR_violation_on_Kosovo.
  • The problem is that ZjarriRrethues continues to refer to a 26 hours discussion back in July 2010 that didn't involve wide input and didn't present all possible alternatives (they made an agree/disagree statements on only 2 options out of 7). As WhiteWriter explains and the RFC recently concluded shows there is no consensus for the ZjarriRrethues supported changes. I also find them as flawed for other-than-procedural reasons (the result is misleading for readers - and this was the reason I got involved in the first place - I was misled myself) - as explained in my post on my talk page.
  • I was blocked for two edits that I made - first I restored the status quo before the ZjarriRrethues-supported-changes (that got implemented after a 26 hour discussion); second - after his revert I reverted back to the status quo. The first edit was result of the lack of consensus for the ZjarriRrethues supported changes (implemented 5 months ago and under discussion since that moment - I don't know if restoring previous status quo falls inside the 1 week 1RR rules). Alinor (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that (if there is technical possibility) this block should be deleted from my block history - of course if the result of this procedure here is that DS made a mistake by blocking me in the first place. Alinor (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Without comment on the wider issue, Alinor's first edit of 31 Dec 2010 represents a reversion of the article to 05:06, 23 July 2010 (in terms of number of infoboxen), and Alinor's second edit of 31 Dec 2010 is a repetition of that revert. If a user enters some entirely new content onto a page, someone else undoes it, and the initial user reverts them - that is only one revert because the initial edit was novel (and not essentially a revert to a prior state of the article). This does not seem to be the case here. –xenotalk 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xeno's hit the nail on the head here; there were two reverts in this instance (i.e. it doesn't matter that one was a revert to something long ago). Shell babelfish 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xeno and Shell are correct in their interpretation of the word "revert"; a change to any prior state of an article constitutes a revert. (The main caveat is that the edit must have been made knowing it was a change back to a prior state: one can imagine an editor making a change without realizing that he or she is in fact reinventing an earlier version of the wheel.) I do not see that any clarification of our prior decision is required here. That being said, for what it is is worth (which may be little), in this instance if I were the enforcing administrator I would likely have given a warning rather than a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the arbitrators above; there were two reverts. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two reverts as well. Strict guidelines for these pages have been instituted as a last resort after protracted disputes, and great care is needed for this reason. I am sorry about the blemish on your block record but I am not sure there is anything we can do about it.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: WP:DIGWUREN or WP:ARBMAC

Initiated by TransporterMan (TALK) at 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by TransporterMan

Do articles about Slovenia or Slovenian matters come within the Eastern European or, less likely, Balkan discretionary sanctions and, if so, which? I am not advocating for inclusion or exclusion, just wish clarification, but would note that Doremo and Doncsecz are involved in a long term slow-motion edit war at Slovene dialects which might cool if one or the other of the sets of sanctions apply. (To their credit, they are seeking dispute resolution at Third Opinion.)

@ArbClerks: When archiving occurs, I request archiving to both Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fut.Perf.

Answer as a non-arb, but as somebody who has been active in enforcing both sets of sanctions: my personal stance would be that, since both decisions allow for a "widely construed" field of application, I'd have little qualms in using either or both in respect to this country. Where I come from, "Balkan" certainly comprises all of former Yugoslavia. However, my willingness to invoke these sanctions would depend to a high extent on the question whether the type of conflict involved in a given case is comparable with the typical profile of conflicts these sanction rules are made to handle – i.e., mostly, inter-ethnic and nationally motivated historical and political conflicts. In the specific case you mention, the issue seems to be much less political and more of an internal language-related kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Doremo (party to dispute)

Geographers disagree on the eastern/central and Balkan/non-Balkan categorization of Slovenia. So it's difficult to say what the scope of the discretionary sanctions are in relation to Slovenia. User Fut.Perf. is correct that the dispute involves a language issue and not a political issue; that is, it does not have an inter-ethnic/national dimension. The slow-motion edit war ended on 8 September after I refused to revert. I've tried to summarize the issue at Talk:Slovene_dialects#What_is_this_fight_about.3F. In any case, the dispute appears to be inactive now because I was successful in soliciting a 3rd opinion as well as additional input from another editor at WikiProject Slovenia at the suggestion of user TechnoSymbiosis. The result is that consensus was achieved, user Doncsecz himself/herself reverted his/her changes, and another editor (Yerpo) restored balance (removed undue weight) from the article. Doremo (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Generally agree with FPaS that it would probably fall under the category of broadly construed. SirFozzie (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Future Perfect and SirFozzie, the sanctions apply in this instance as Slovenia is part of Eastern Europe and The Balkans, broadly interpreted. PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the original intent when we said "Eastern Europe" is mostly about cultural rather than geographical lines; and given that we gave leeway to construe the field broadly, then I agree with FPaS and my colleagues above that Slovenia is reasonably included. — Coren (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also concur. It's worth noting, incidentally, that the question of which set of discretionary sanctions is applicable here is essentially an academic one, as any particular sanction may legitimately be imposed under the terms of either case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this can be archived. –xenotalk 14:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed amendment to a sanctions remedy

A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW (Talk) 20:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: WP:ARBMAC — expand / clarify existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Initiated by — Richwales at 06:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Richwales

This decision currently authorizes discretionary sanctions for "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted". I am requesting a clarification, stating that Cyprus is included in the scope of this remedy. Although Cyprus is not geographically close to the Balkans, it is intimately tied (historically and culturally) to both Greece and Turkey. Thus, I propose that Cyprus-related articles naturally fall under this topic area.

Cyprus-related articles have been subjected to continual edit-warring for years from tendentious editors on both sides — including, in particular, the disruptive activities of the banned user Justice Forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his long list of socks — and I believe further options should be made available to help administrators keep these articles better under control.

I am particularly concerned that the dominance of sockpuppet investigation as the primary tool for keeping this topic area under control not only limits enforcement activities to a relatively small group of users who are experienced and confident sock hunters, but it also creates a risk (level currently unknown and possibly unknowable) that opinionated (but innocent) editors who might decide to get involved in the Cyprus topic area could be mistaken for socks and chased away from the project.

Affected articles would include Northern Cyprus, Nicosia, North Nicosia, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Makarios III, and presumably every other article in Category:Cyprus and its subcategories.

I'm not imagining that extending discretionary sanctions to this topic area will magically make all the problems go away. However, with a subject as contentious (IMO) as Kosovo, Northern Ireland, or Barack Obama's presidential eligibility, it seems to me that adding this additional level of supervision over the Cyprus topic area can't hurt and may very possibly help. — Richwales 06:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If (per Jclemens' suggestion) we were to have a wide-ranging "disputed territories" sanctions category, one additional region to which expanded sanctions could reasonably apply would be Georgia, due to ongoing editing disputes over the disputed territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If the blanket sanctions idea doesn't fly, I may consider requesting something for Georgia after we're done here. — Richwales 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on Future Perfect at Sunrise's comment: While the current (and probably the main ongoing) point of irritation at Northern Cyprus has indeed been the incessant disruptive socking by Justice Forever, there have been other incidents in the past — such as some low-level edit warring and lengthy talk-page arguments revolving around at least one pro-Greek editor — activity which did a lot of simmering without really coming to a full boil, but which (IMO) could easily have escalated out of control. I didn't bring this up earlier because the worst of it ended several months ago and it didn't result in any outside intervention at the time, but if ArbCom feels this additional material should be cited in order to give a larger view of the overall situation, I can supply diffs. — Richwales 07:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm appreciative of everyone's comments. Assuming (as seems likely now) that my original request is not going to get approved, what would people suggest as a next step? Requesting an arbitration case against Justice Forever would be silly, to say the least. Should someone come back requesting arbitration on the very next disruptive incident (involving someone other than Justice Forever) at Northern Cyprus, Nicosia, or any other article dealing with this general subject? Is there any proper way to suggest adoption of a "politically disputed geographic areas" sanction without a new test case? Any other ideas? — Richwales 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

While it is undeniable that Cyprus is an area for contentious claims, it is also undeniable that it is not Balkan, and extending definitions to the breaking point could mean we should add a host of such areas to that same title <g>. If ArbCom decided to, it could, by motion, add Cyprus to almost any decision, I suppose, but I question the wisdom of doing so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The scope of Wikipedia rules, including Arbcom decisions, should be dictated not by the scope of this or that geographical concept out there, but by the necessities of Wikipedia-internal situations. Given the connectedness of conflict areas and the similarity of situations, I see no problem with treating Cyprus in the same context as Greece and Turkey, of whose overall historical conflict lines the Cyprus conflict is a mere appendix. This is no different than treating Slovak or Hungarian issues under WP:ARBEE. Geographically, both countries are not in Eastern Europe either, but in Central Europe by most definitions. But what counts for us are not these geographical delimitations, but the nature of the conflicts in question. WP:ARBEE is essentially for post-Soviet-era and post-WWII ethnic conflicts; WP:ARBMAC is essentially for post-Ottoman ethnic conflicts. As such, Cyprus falls naturally under the latter, if we want it to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Risker's oppose vote: I'd actually agree that an extension to Cyprus is not an immediate, high-priority necessity. The main source of disruption in this field, as far as I can see, is the perennial socking problem of a single banned user, for which standard admin procedure is of course applicable, and apart from that the disruption levels don't seem to be those of a current virulent hotspot. But just to respond to your point about "expansionist" treatment of the sanctions to areas you never reviewed, and that are not "the same" as the original one: well, that was never a problem for ARBMAC sanctions in general. What you reviewed back in that case was a small set of disputes between Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian editors. From there, the decision went straight to a discretionary sanctions regime that covered all of the Balkans. The Balkans are a big place. This rule has always been applied to dozens and dozens of unrelated disputes that you didn't review originally – from Italian-Croatian stuff via Bosnia, WWII Yugoslav partisans, Kosovo, internal Greek politics, Greek-Turkish disputes, you name it. It's been an "expansionist" ruling from the start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Taivo

There are two reasons that I see why Cyprus should be included in the Balkans and the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions: 1) The conflicting parties in Cyprus are Greece and Turkey, which are both also involved in Balkan disputes, and 2) many of the same editors who were active in the Macedonian decision, especially from the Greek perspective, are also involved in issues surrounding Cyprus. Dealing with the same group of editors in a similar conflict area argues for inclusion in the WP:ARBMAC discretionary world. (But I hasten to note that the Greek-oriented editors actively involved at Northern Cyprus, for example, are not the source of the typical problems at that page.) --Taivo (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it all by Heim

To SilkTork, Risker and all the rest saying we need an actual case before discretionary sanctions: You do realize this is exactly why editors like me would rather have our toenails pulled out than get involved in dealing with nationalist troll-infested areas? When it comes to an actual case, while the nationalists may get banned, you will also be desysopped. You guys taught me a lesson in ArbMac2: get involved in a nationalist dispute that makes it to ArbCom and you are at risk of desysopping, and I've learnt it well and not gotten involved in any more. Plenty of nationalistic areas of Wikipedia may have gone to hell because of the people you've driven away, but who gives a crap? Procedure's been followed! Yay us! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response in the arbitrator section below. (Temporary IAR derogation from the edit-your-own-section rule to make sure Heimstern sees this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NYB, I'm having a hard time thinking we even edit the same Wikipedia. I have not once seen a nationalism-related RFAr that didn't look like hell to go through. The Senkaku Islands one was reasonably nice to the admins who weren't pushing POVs, but even so, people got pushed around by the nationalist policy-abusers during the case and before, it too. And that's the real issue; it's not just having to go through the case, it's running the bloody gantlet required to get a case accepted in the first place that burns admins out and leads to the very incivility that gets their butts roasted when the case finally does come to be. As for ANI, I have not once found a consensus can arise for sanctions there on any topic not widely discussed in Anglophone countries for simple lack of interest from most people who are not the nationalists themselves or one of the rather small band of editors trying to rein them in. (Hence abortion, yes; Britian-Ireland, yes; India-Pakistan, no. There may have been one or two exceptions, but in general, we can't get sanctions without committee approval.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give this some more thought. The general problem needs solving, for sure. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belated statement by bobrayner

I firmly agree that there is a "Cyprus problem" in the same way that there is a "Macedonia problem", a "Kosovo problem", and so on - many of those problems are currently under the ARBMAC umbrella. Cyprus-related articles get exactly the same kind of problematic editing. However, looking at it from other angles, the problem is different (different articles are a battleground, different sources are used/abused, &c and most problematic editors are more focussed than Justice Forever). Roberts once wrote something clever about how several seemingly-separate national conflicts are arguably just fights over different parts of the Ottoman succession; I'd include Cyprus in that. ARBMAC is focussed on the problematic editing rather than on the other angles so in that sense it's sensible to stretch it a little and I strongly support RichWales' proposal. However, I would also be happy with responding under a different banner if other editors are unhappy with the geographical shift - as long as we can improve how we deal with the nationalist editwarring and pov-pushing, I'm happy. Sorry for the belated response; I realise it's probably a moot point by now. bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Hi Rich, I would have thought that Cyprus is already covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that Cyprus is part of either "the Balkans" or "Eastern Europe" as those terms are currently understood, and I don't think that we can redefine Cyprus's geographical location by fiat. That being said, I'd welcome input into what is the best way to proceed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To HeimsteinLaufer, please note that a case does not necessarily have to be a months-long, drawn-out cataclysmic disaster area. If a case is filed with the recommendation that we authorize discretionary sanctions as the remedy, and evidence is presented that this would be helpful to the admins keeping an eye on the topic-area, then we will do it, without threats of deysopping anyone or anyone else. Alternatively, a request for community-imposed discretionary sanctions could be made on AN/ANI. In other words, I agree with you that "procedure for procedure's sake" (and driving away good editors and admins in the process) is very rotten—but this Committee running around imposing sanctions regimes in areas we haven't examined would be problematic too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that we've got discretionary sanctions in place for almost every other contested geographical area in the world, maybe what we need is a blanket, worldwide list of such places? I agree with NYB that it's not really covered by either of the cited geographical categories... but the problems are probably such that similar conduct expectations and remedies should apply. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problems placing Turkey and Cyprus under the ARBMAC sanctions; Greece is already included as being on the Balkan Peninsula, and the conflicts in the area are similar if only as they present themselves through similar bad behaviour on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courcelles (talk • contribs)
  • In the interests of utility, I'd be happy to include Cyprus under the same conditions rather than wait for a new case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a benefit in replacing the Balkans DS with a fresh set covering the geographical area of the former Ottoman Empire but that would need greater review than a request for clarification.  Roger Davies talk 08:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the concerns raised above regarding the various unpleasantries involved in a full-fledged arbitration case, would it perhaps be beneficial to consider a request whose scope would explicitly be limited to examining whether discretionary sanctions should be imposed, and which would not examine the conduct of individual editors beyond that? Kirill [talk] 00:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (Macedonia)

For the purposes of enforcement action under this case, the discretionary sanctions shall apply to the Balkans, Turkey, Cyprus, and the generally unrecognized state of Northern Cyprus, all broadly construed.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Copyedit as necessary, but essentially broad enough to put anything regarding the Cyprus dispute under this case. Courcelles 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, but again, just as we have "standard discretionary sanctions" for topic area, I suspect the time is right to have a list of "politically disputed geographic areas" and place all such features under a consistent set of restrictions. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm ok with this, however it would be preferable just to say 'the island of Cyprus', which would include the British bases that are neither part of Cyprus the country or North Cyprus. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We are refusing to expand the discretionary sanctions to this obviously problematic sub-topic because there has not yet been a full case. However, if such a case was opened, the result would almost certainly be to authorise discretionary sanctions anyway. We are not talking about customised, targeted remedies, but our catch-all, standardised DSs which are designed to allow chronic problems to be handled through enforcement. Although some clear differences exist, there is enough overlap between these geographical entities for me to feel comfortable in taking the short route; we don't need to arrive at the obvious outcome by means of a protracted, difficult case. (I wouldn't go as far as JCl. and say that we need to start authorising DSs for every nationalist dispute; the community can do that should it see fit.) AGK [•] 13:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I can in no way support an expansionist view here. None of the statements made above indicate that this is the *same* dispute expanding into a new area; instead, the impression is that it is a different dispute, one which Arbcom hasn't adjudicated at any point. I'm not prepared to put the Arbitration Committee imprimatur on sanctions for disputes we've never reviewed. Disruptive editing is just that, socking is just that, and all the discretionary sanctions in the world aren't going to affect either one of them any more than normal blocking will. Risker (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In part per Risker. This does seem to be a different dispute, and I reject FPaS's assertion that this is already an expansionist topic; yes, that particular case began with a somewhat localized dispute, but the finding of fact notes that the Committee at the time was taking past cases into account as well. The Balkans-wide restriction was simply a consolidation of multiple cases and not an over-reaching grab into areas that had not been reviewed. Further to that, however, if the major source of disruption centers on a single user violating existing policies, then I don't see the need to extend discretionary sanctions (which could be applied to ANY user) to this topic area. That seems to be punishing the largely innocent users who are simply trying to protect the topic area from a sockpuppeteer. I can understand the concerns of misidentifying new users as socks, however I really don't see that this would prevent that from happening. If anything, it'll only make it worse. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I appreciate the WP:BOLD approach in the motion, as well as RichWales' concerns that there are problems in this topic-area, but on balance I find myself agreeing more with Risker's and Hersfold's points, at least at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm also not prepared to either expand existing sanctions to include new geographical areas without a case or to expand the geographical bounds of the Balkans so radically that it includes Cyprus.  Roger Davies talk 08:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If there are concerns which the community cannot deal with then let us have a proper case to examine the issues. If the concerns are not yet sufficient to involve the Committee then I prefer that we do not summarily or pre-emptively use Committee protection. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Silk and Risker. Applying the same remedies to different issues without a case seems like a good way of enflaming the issue rather than addressing it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I was going to support in the interests of utiliity but the more I think about it, the more I think we need to hear a proper case about the issue if concerns have arisen, rather than expand sanctions from a geographically similar but non-identical scenario. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Croatian language

Edit war again, now at 3RR. — kwami (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: ARBMAC (May 2013)

Initiated by Nyttend (talk) at 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Nobody in particular


Statement by Nyttend

Looks like this page isn't exactly for the kind of clarification I need, but I couldn't find a better place to go. Is WP:ARBMAC meant to cover Serbo-Croatian issues too? I've stumbled into a long-simmering dispute related to their language, so I thought of Arbmac, but the remedy #3 makes me unsure (I don't want to find that someone says that it's inapplicable because Croatia is too far north to be in the Balkans, for example), and the talk page shows that at least one user has asked whether Arbmac should be applicable. I'd just appreciate (1a) a statement by the Committee saying that yes, this is definitely included, (1b) a statement by the Committee saying that no, we didn't mean to include it, (2a) examples of arbitration enforcement being applied to Serbo-Croatian issues on ARBMAC grounds, or (2b) examples of Serbo-Croatian requests being denied because ARBMAC doesn't apply to them. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orlady

Serbia and Croatia are both definitely in the Balkans, so ARBMAC should apply. Additionally, I notice that the log of ARBMAC-related warnings includes several warnings related to Croatia, and a couple related to language differences between Serbia and Croatia. --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot to look in the log at the bottom. Thanks; this is just what I needed. How do we close this request for clarification? Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help. We probably need to let an Arbcom clerk close the discussion -- I'm afraid I might break something in Arbcom space. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you just look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Area of conflict? :) It can hardly get more clear, with an explicit mention of a Dalmatia case (which was about Italian stuff, even). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Glad that this was all sorted. Archiving is not too hard; you just move it to the talk page of the relevant case. I'll take care of it for you guys. NW (Talk) 19:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months (January 2019)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by FkpCascais at 00:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
AN
Notification of Sanction
Note: This appeal is of an enforcement action under Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions. AGK ■ 13:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Diff
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Suspension of the topic ban or at least allowing me to edit football, an area I am highly active and productive and that had nothing to do with the cause of this problem,

Statement by FkpCascais

Dear Wikipedians, for the ones that don´t know me, allow me to shortly introduce myself. I am 39 years old proud Wikipedian from Portugal, with Serbian and Czech parents who grow up in Mexico. As only child, encyclopedias were my company since I remember. When I discouvered Wikipedia it was love at first sight. I have been around for more than a decade and I have created over 900 articles. Although I work on something completelly different, my main hobbie has been editing football here on Wikipedia. My passion for football has nothing to do with hooliganism or tendentious editing towards teams I support, but rather about history of football, specially in Yugoslavia and Austro-Hungary, with lists and statistics, and with migration of footballers. I also edit history, aviation and automotive industry, ammong others. I got involved in a content dispute at Talk:Skanderbeg#Skanderbeg_origin,_sources. I presented numerous sources to back my point. My intention was just that the view expressed in those sources was properly added in the article, not even highlighted, but just not dismissed as obscure theory as it was pretended by the other editors. When the other editors decided to dismiss my concerns, I tried to ask for help at ANI (diff of the end). User:Deb had an extremelly constructive approach, however User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, with which I had several disputes in the past, made a total turn and sugested boomerang, which was imposed by Sandstein. I can admit I could had been more patient, I could have dropped it earlier, I even troughout the ANI showed regreat. It was a content dispute, I had numerous reliable sources, it was just needed someone to help us solve it. I believe I was punished too severily. I asked several times Sandstein to at least allow me to edit football during the 6 months, an area I never had problems and had nothing to do with the issue in hand here, he denied me that as well. This was a content dispute basically solved by punishing me for not giving up. And the punishment is way too excessive, 6 months in which I am forbiden to work on the numerous projects I am working at. I ask please the community to reconsider what happened here.

May I just say that the sandbox text is not mine neither reflects my views. I found that text oarticularly interesting cause highlightes how the myth of "centuries long Serbian-Albanian conflict" is a modern-times fabrication. It is a text from a different oeriod with some views which may differ from nowadays ones, but regarding the history of Albanian-Serbian relationshios is correct. It uses unfortunate language from the time it was writen, as saying as "unfortunate" the choice of crating a Muslim country in Europe, or giving Istabul/C9stantinople to Turkey. Those were all matters that at certain poiint were being discussed. I found the texyt interesting and brought it to a sandbox. It doesnt reflect my personal views neither I have forced them at any article. It is not fair that I have a 6 months ban based on on some sandbox of mine that users just guess what I use them for. I am actually a very much peacefull editor with good collsbotation with many nationalities as seen by my barnstars and talk-page.. Presenting me as nationalist is extremelly unfair. FkpCascais (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank User:SportingFlyer for having tryied to help. After all, this was all a content dispute in which I presented numerous reliable sources and once opposing editors started restoring their prefered version which ignored my concerns, I went to ANI to ask for help. Certain admins interfered directly in the dispute by punishing me with a 6 month topic ban which they perfectly know unables me to work in all projects I am involved to. Since the content dispute was no reason enough for a sanction, they came up with this brilliant idea of digging in my sandboxes a text I have there, which is not mine by the way. The text is simply a text ammong many I have and doesnt represent my view. I just found interesting certain aspects in it. Presenting it as if that was my political belief was a brilliant strategy to get me punished. Nevermind. I will not edit eating habits of chinchillas despite likeing them. I will abandon this project for at least the next 6 months. Thank you all. FkpCascais (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SportingFlyer, you are a testimony of how absurd the occusations of me being Serb thus being biased are. You followed my edits, you followed the numerous creations of articles on Croatian footballers, my contribution to historical Croatian clubs, despite being Serbian I made all those contibutions with pure passion. The insinuation some here are making without even knowing my editing historial are really insulting for me, and hurt a lot my feelings and leave me sad. FkpCascais (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sockpuppets making fun of the situation at my talk page because I was the editor who fought against their insertion of POV edits. Wikipedia cannot deal with socks of indef-banned users, but decides to ban me for 6 months. Thank you for showing how litte serious this project is. I will not edit chinchillas. Good bye. FkpCascais (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, when I refered as "mosqueteers" to the editors, I had no bad intention besides indicating it was again the ones same editors creating a conflict. English is not my primary language and I often use expressions translated from other languages I speak better. In Portuguese it is often used for pointing out when a particular group hangs and acts always together. What I meant by that was that it was always the same editors that opposed me all time at Albanian-related articles. I had already pointed out prior that that a problem regarding Wikipedia:OWN was present with those same editors acting as group in order to control the content in the articles that are prioritary for WP:Albania. Having called them mosqueteers had no other intention on my behalve than just pointing out how their editing style was militaristic and how they acted in group. Other administrators often noteced this same pattern of behaviour and call it travelling circus, an expression I find much more offensive because (in)directly suggests editors are clowns.
Even so, I apologised at ANI to the other editors for the expression "mosqueteers". I promised to stay away from controversial matters (an editor from Balkans certainly knows which they are), but any of these seems to have been taken into consideration.
I have to point out a major flaw that I find in the way Wikipedia works. I cannot believe people here are naive to think there are editors without bias. Of course, I can have no bias when I wrote Zmaj aircraft. Why would I? There is nothing controversial there. However, articles such as World War II in Yugoslavia obviously are complicated articles in which events are seen trough different perspectives depending on one editors nationality, and even ammong the ones of same nationality often there are different fractions. Editors are inevitably biased, that is a fact Wikipedia would work better if assumed from the very begining. The problem is that at present, Wikipedia favours the ones that act and hide better their bias, against the others that believe things they were told that way, and are honest. I am fed up of seing good actors faking their unbiasness having their way. Editors from all Central and South-Eastern Europe are biased in favour of their nations. The lowest behavior is when editors group themselves by the rule "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Then ironically a false perception of consensus happends, with the other side accused of battleground mentality. We set this project to be a collaborative one where decitions would be made troughout consensus. We also highlight that what counts are the arguments, not the numbers. But what in practice happends more often if that becomes easier for a group pushing its POV to get the lone annoying guy eliminated from the project rather than accepting his valid points. Besides, the issue often becomes a matter of pride where winning or loosing becomes a matter of honour. In my decade long history I never e-mailed an admin, but I noteced certain groups when in trouble make a huge fuss off-wiki, something which becames notorious even if they think they are being discrete.
I am not OK with this. Most of this cases have been solved by force. Higher number of editors wins, they can perform more reverts, regular admins run as a devil from a cross when they see this cases, and the ones involving are the ones already having a long historial, with clear (unofficial) preferences. Sources are ignored but suddently a word someone used in a edit-summary is what decides the dispute. While often clear disruption is dealt with warnings, this cases are sealed with hardest punishments, of the kind "you are not welcome here and dont you ever dare to touch that issue again even when you return". This is wrong. Very, very wrong. This is not the proper way of solving the issues and sooner or later something will have to change. Wikipedia credibility is what is the main subject here. If Wikipedia is just a tool of the strongest, well, its entire purpose comes under question. Instead of the admins reacting badly by calling circus to this disputes, they should understand this disputes are real, and instead of just punishing the participants from "making problems" they should just ask for sources from both sides and after seing them crating a text that would properly represent the view historiograohers have over the events, even mentioning all options historiographers consider.
I think that if there was real good will, this project would be easy to run, and even unite opposing sides by creating eways of displaying realities where the views of all sides would be considered. RS, NPOV, Verifiability, UNDUE, ammong others, they all gives us tools make fair solutions that would be as fair as possible. All other behaviors seem suspicious and tendentious. FkpCascais (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend declining this appeal.

Insofar as the topic ban as a whole is contested, the comments by FkpCascais in the original AN discussion and in the appeals to me (I remember several, but can now only find this one) and to AN leave me with the impression of a person who is more emotional and impulsive than most other editors, and who is set on portraying Balkans history from a particular point of view. As such, they are not well-suited to edit in this tension-laden topic area.

Insofar as an exception for football-related edits is sought, I am of the view that it should not be granted, at least not initially, because football in the Balkans is often a focal point for political tensions. As I wrote in the ban message, I would like to see a relatively long period of collegial, productive editing by FkpCascais in other topic areas before I am open to relaxing the topic ban, first as relating to football and then entirely. Sandstein 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Just to note, an appeal of this ban was filed by FkpCascais at WP:AN on 22 December. [8] It was archived without being closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer - Some of the commenters on the AN thread supported allowing editing in the football subject area, but changed their minds when FkpCascais made edits in that area while the lifting of the topic ban was being considered. When the appeal was archived without being closed, only two people had made formal bolded !votes, and both of them opposed lifting the ban in toto, without an exception for football. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SportingFlyer

It's difficult to defend this editor based on those sandbox posts, but they have contributed positively to the football WikiProject over the years, and I see no reason to extend the ban that far. As many of the users on the ANI thread supported not blocking football articles, I would modify the TBAN to any Balkan-related topics (any topic relating to: Slovenia; Croatia; Albania; Bosnia & Herzegovina; Serbia; Montenegro; Albania; Macedonia; Kosovo; Bulgaria; Greece; Turkey; and Romania - and if I missed anything obvious, my lack of listing that country is not an excuse) with the exception of any Serbian-related football article for an arbitrary amount of time, possibly shorter than the six-month TBAN (in which case any football article would be fair game for editing.) Historical Yugoslavian articles would be okay as long as the player or team is Serbian; edits on Yugoslavian leagues or cups would be okay; edits on any non-Balkan league, player, or cup would be okay. as they would be currently. Any violation of this restriction during the time frame would result in a full ban for disruptive editing. SportingFlyer T·C 06:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken - I saw that. It's a terrible look. That being said, I'm satisfied the week long block handled the situation properly. I see this as a situation where we either lose an editor, or give the editor one final chance to comply. That's why I'm setting the restrictions to be crystal clear and proposing a total site ban if there's any non-compliance. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside to some comments above regarding the politicalisation of football in the area, I edit primarily football articles, especially Croatian football articles, and am familiar with the region. I see absolutely no problem with what I've proposed above with regards to politics. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Updated notifications so they are Permalinks/Diffs, and included both the AN implantation and the --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My default position for this sort of thing is that "decline where an uninvolved administrator has acted within the bounds of their discretion". Simply, I do not see that Sandstein has acted incorrectly here, and I am not willing to overturn his decision. Although I am willing to consider further, at present, I'm a decline WormTT(talk) 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as Sandstein said, that football related articles can be a flashpoint for Balkans related issues, I do not feel it's wise to lift the topic ban for this area. Therefore I must decline this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as within administrator discretion. ~ Rob13Talk 19:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline both requests. The ban was within Sandstein's discretion and has community consensus behind it to boot. FkpCascais has given us no good reason to lift it and indeed seems to have little understanding of why it was placed in the first place. I see no pressing need to make an exception for football. – Joe (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Mkdw talk 23:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as above, this is within normal admin discretion. As a piece of advice, FkpCascais, the idea behind topic bans like this is to encourage editors to direct their efforts to other, less contentious topic areas, and to appeal the topic ban after accumulating a history of unproblematic editing elsewhere. Not editing at all for six months is unlikely to result in a successful appeal at that time. But if you like chinchillas, editing about chinchillas would be perfect :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Amongst the misconduct that led to sanctions, FkpCascais even adopted a nickname (mosqueteers) for the opposing disputants. Clearly, this topic ban was necessary and proportionate. AGK ■ 13:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope (February 2019)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by RGloucester at 16:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Eastern Europe
Macedonia

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

Statement by RGloucester

This is a matter of housekeeping, and I hope that the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee can assist me by providing some clarification. Recently, I filed a request for arbitration enforcement relating to the article "Origin of the Romanians". In making preparations to file that request, I came across the strange situation whereby I knew discretionary sanctions applied to the relevant article, but I was not sure which of the two related and existing discretionary regimes was most appropriate to use. I expect that's somewhat confusing, so let me explain a bit further.

There are discretionary sanctions regimes in place for articles related to Eastern Europe, and for the Balkans. Unfortunately, the definitions of both 'Eastern Europe' and 'the Balkans' are ambiguous and potentially overlapping. This produced a strange result whereby the relevant editor had originally been notified of the Eastern Europe regime, but was later notified of the Balkans regime in relation to his edits of the same article. In any case, this ambiguity is really not desirable for discretionary sanctions. The definition of 'Eastern Europe' specifically has actually been a matter of substantial dispute on Wikipedia before. One can easily imagine a situation whereby one could 'wikilawyer' about the validity of a notification of the existence of one of the regimes, in an effort to avoid sanctions. I wonder if the the Arbitration Committee can do one of two things: either clearly define the scope of each regime, or merge the two. This way, administrators enforcing sanctions and editors seeking their enforcement will not have to grapple with the ambiguities inherent in the terms 'Eastern Europe' and 'the Balkans', and will be able to avoid a bureaucratic nightmare. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.

@AGK: In response to your question, I endorse the analysis by Thryduulf. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki: Romania is considered part of the Balkans and Eastern Europe in most definitions of both terms. The use of "broadly construed" means that there is no doubt that Romanian-related topics are presently under sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: I respect your judgement. Here's the problem I foresee. In the specific case of Iovaniorgovan, he was notified of ARBEE sanctions almost as soon as he started editing here. When his participation in the debate at Origin of the Romanians became increasingly problematic, an administrator DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) notified him of the Balkans sanctions, seemingly unaware of the previous alert, or otherwise disagreeing with the scope of the alert applied, therefore delaying the enactment of sanctions on Iovaniorgovan, and causing other long-term editors to be swept up in his messes. In addition, we now have a strange situation where the page-level restriction that was applied at Origin of the Romanians was logged under the Balkans case log, but the topic bans on Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca are logged under ARBEE. It's simply a bureaucratic mess, and it should be cleaned up. No one should have to roll the dice to decide which of these regimes to apply in a given case, and logging should make coherent sense, not be scattered all over the place. These sorts of messes make it harder for editors understand DS, and indeed, harder for them to participate in DS areas, for fear of falling into a Kafka-esque trap. We owe it to our editors to have a rationalised system of enforcement. That's why I'm asking for clarification. RGloucester — ☎ 22:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a further example for Mr Johnston, here is a hypothetical. Let's say that someone was editing a Romania-related article, like Origin of the Romanians, and received an ARBEE alert. They then go on to make substantial and problematic edits to articles about the Yugoslav Wars. Would that ARBEE alert still be valid, or would a new Balkans alert be required? These sorts of grey areas...are really not desirable in a DS regime. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to thank the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee for taking up this matter. In response to Future Perfect at Sunrise, whom I greatly respect as an administrator, I'd like to say that your approach is indeed the best one. However, because the nature of the DS scopes implemented by the cases does not align with the specific disputes that brought on the cases, such a methodology is difficult to implement in practice. In as much as the scope of the sanctions is not "conflicts that – directly or indirectly – stem from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the mix of nationalities that was left behind", but "anything related to the Balkans, broadly construed", &c., grey areas quickly become apparent. I presume that the intent behind the broader scope of the sanctions, relative to the locus of the disputes that brought about the cases, was that the disputes that occurred provided evidence to suggest further disputes in the broader topic area were likely, and that it would be best to implement broader sanctions as a preventative measure. Whether that was a correct course of action is not for me to decide, but I will say that, in particular, the existence of the ARBEE sanctions was of a great help in controlling the outbreaks of disruptive editing that occurred at the time of the Ukrainian crisis of 2014...despite the original case not having had anything to do with that topic. In any case, I would advise the Committee to be more careful in its crafting of DS scopes in future, making clear whether it intends to limit such scopes to the locus of the dispute that occurred, or apply sanctions to a broader topic area as a preventative measure. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AGK: I understand what your motion is trying to do, but I think you need to clarify the logging procedure. Will the logs be unified, or kept separate? RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: I find your proposed change more undesirable than even the present mess, in line with what was said by Mr Rob. As for why, it will do nothing to solve the problem about when to apply each regime, will do nothing to sort out the scattered logging procedures that I described above, and will in fact only make this whole business MORE confusing. The goal of a merger was to eliminate questions about which regime to apply in areas of geographical overlap, like Romania, as demonstrated by Thryduulf below, and also to centralise logging so as to avoid the situation of having multiple sanctions related to one particular article logged under different regimes. Your proposal will leave parallel bureaucracies in place, seemingly for no purpose, and leave behind a mess for others to sort through. The idea that updating templates, &c., is too much work is very sad. ArbCom established sanctions, and has a responsibility to the community to maintain those sanctions in a rational way. If you need my help cleaning up templates, I can offer it, as I have experience in that area. In any case, I support Mr Rob's motion as the most sensible approach. The other alternative I can forsee would be to clarify the scopes of the two cases to make them easier to differentiate, but the merger seems to have more support, and is easier to implement. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

I recommend the committee make a motion of clarification here. The articles on Eastern Europe and Balkans are both unclear to whether Romania is part of the region. Neither of the disputes leading to discretionary sanctions particularly apply to Romania; the Balkans dispute primarily involved Bulgaria, Greece and the former Yugoslavia. The Eastern Europe dispute primarily involved Poland, Russia, and the Baltic States; the more recent crisis in the Ukraine has also fallen under those sanctions.

I'm not certain that Romania falls under any Discretionary Sanctions at this time. An explicit list of countries affected (rather than a region name) may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re: Eastern Europe/The Balkans)

Looking at our articles about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, there is indeed overlap between them. Taking a reasonably (but not excessively) broad interpretation some or all of the following countries are included (sometimes depending on context):

Country Eastern Europe Balkans
Albania Yes Yes
Belarus Yes No
Bosnia and Herzegovina Yes1 Yes
Bulgaria Yes Yes2
Croatia Yes Yes3
Czechia Yes4 No
East Germany Yes5 No
Estonia Yes6 No
Greece Yes1, 7 Yes8
Hungary Yes4 No
Kosovo Yes1 Yes
Latvia Yes6 No
Lithuania Yes6 No
Macedonia Yes1 Yes
Moldova Yes No9
Montenegro Yes1 Yes
Poland Yes No
Romania Yes Yes3
Russia Yes10 No
Serbia Yes1 Yes
Slovakia Yes4 No
Slovenia Yes Yes3
Turkey No Yes2, 10
Ukraine Yes No

Notes:

  1. Geographically (sometimes) South Eastern Europe if this is distinguished
  2. Usually only in geographical contexts
  3. Only in (some) political contexts
  4. Geographically usually Central Europe when this is distinguished, Eastern Europe when it isn't
  5. Prior to reunification only
  6. Only in Soviet/Cold War contexts
  7. Only in religious contexts
  8. Only the mainland in geographic contexts; included in only a few political contexts (most notably Macedonia naming dispute)
  9. Very occasionally included in political contexts, but should not be for discretionary sanctions purposes
  10. Only the European part

Based on this, Eastern Europe (when South Eastern Europe is not distinguished separately) is a near complete superset of the Balkans, so merging these into a single authorisation of "Eastern Europe including the Balkans and the Macedonia naming dispute." would resolve all the issues the OP raises. No actual restrictions would be altered, only the case they are logged under would change. Possibly those who are formally aware of only one scope would need to be informed they are now formally aware of the newly combined scope, but not definitely and this would only be a one-time thing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree completely with RGloucester - either the scope of both restrictions should be clarified so there is no overlap, or the restrictions should be merged into one (and Rob's proposal is a sensible way to achieve this). AGK's proposal is the worst of both worlds as it increases the bureaucracy and makes the confusion worse: at present there is no ambiguity that sanctions related to Poland should be logged under the EE case, if this proposal were to pass then there would be as sanctions could be placed under either or both cases; all the while it would not resolve the existing ambiguity over issues related to e.g. Romania. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Agree with the views of User:AGK. There is little upside to modifying the existing sanctions, and a possible downside. Even the present request doesn't give a persuasive reason why a change is required. In the recent AE about Origin of the Romanians nobody made the argument that the topic wasn't covered under WP:ARBEE. Even if ARBEE and ARBMAC do overlap, it's hard to see that as a problem.

Many of the existing DS are about nationalism. In the ideal case, we would have some kind of universal sanction that could be applied to nationalist editing anywhere in the world. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf

Speaking as somebody who has helped enforcing both sets of sanctions numerous times, I think there's rarely be much of a problem in determining which rule to apply, even if they overlap. For me, the crux of the matter is really not a mechanistic application of what country counts as belonging to what continental region. Those are pretty arbitrary attributions, and to take just one example, you will rarely find Greece described as belonging to "Eastern Europe", even though obviously its geographical longitude is well within the range of other countries that are. What matters is really more the nature of the underlying political struggles motivating the disruption we find on Wikipedia. Speaking broadly, "Eastern Europe" sanctions have mostly been invoked dealing with ethnic/national conflicts that broke up – directly or indirectly – in the wake of WWII, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. The "Balkans" sanctions have been invoked dealing with conflicts that – directly or indirectly – stem from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the mix of nationalities that was left behind. I'd personally be opposed to merging the two sanction rules. It shouldn't really matter in practice, if it wasn't for the practice of some admin colleagues (unnecessary and not really advisable, in my view, but still common) to hand out sanctions whose scope is always automatically identical with the entire set of topics covered by the DS regime. For instance, instead of topic-banning somebody from Serbian-Croatian conflicts, which might be entirely sufficient in an individual case, they always automatically reach for a topic ban from all Balkan topics, because that's what the DS rule applies to. I'd find it regrettable if these colleagues were to take a merger of the two DS rules as indicating that in the future all such sanctions should be handed out straight for "all of Eastern and Southeastern Europe", which would almost certainly be overreaching in most cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope: Clerk notes

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

Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • On an initial review, discretionary sanctions in Macedonia pertain to the Balkans region, which is the Southeastern Europe peninsula. Treating the Balkans as part of Eastern Europe seems to be a stretch. Are you sure that the two overlap? The article seems to be a bad test case: it relates to the distant origin of a people, which involves by its nature a broad range of geography. While awaiting comment, I'll say generally that I need to be convinced of good reason for changing any discretionary sanctions remedy. The changes can themselves cause short-term dispute and confusion, and defaulting to no change is a sensible practice. AGK ■ 17:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special thanks indeed to Thryduulf for sharing a useful, methodical assessment of the area. To move us towards a conclusion (one way or the other), I will draft a motion shortly. AGK ■ 11:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. logging and RGloucester: I have proposed amending each case separately, without a disruptive "merger". In practice enforcement requests are always made in the context of a single arbitration remedy – ignoring all others – and so having two with the same scope will have no effect. At the same time, it avoids the need to update a bunch of notices, insist that existing sanctions are still in effect, and change how daily enforcement is carried out. AGK ■ 18:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Thryduulf's assessment, merging the two DS areas into something like "Eastern and Southeastern Europe" sounds like it would make enforcement a bit easier. But that does highlight their extremely broad scope: the history, society, geography, etc. of half a continent. Both motions seem to have been based on the actions of a handful of editors and the Balkans case is now over a decade old. Perhaps it's time to consider rescinding or refining these. – Joe (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging the two makes sense to me as it doesn't increase the scope of the two DS simply puts them together for convenience and clarity. And it would be helpful to include a list of the countries involved. I am comfortable leaving the DS in place as it does not restrict editing, but is there to be used in case of future problems, and there may well be future problems. SilkTork (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think merging the two as SilkTork said would make sense for clarity sake. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Thryduulf for your extremely useful table. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thank you. I want to note that it was extremely helpful in parsing this situation. ~ Rob13Talk 04:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motions: Eastern Europe and Balkans scope

Proposals withdrawn in favour of (3). AGK ■ 20:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Proposed:

At Amendment II in Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe is replaced as text by Eastern Europe or the Balkans.

Support
  1. Proposed. I take Fut.Perf's point, but this topic has been trying for the Wikipedia community. On balance, I am content with drawing the lines slightly more broadly than may be required in every case. AGK ■ 10:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer option 3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
  • Appeals or sanctions under the EE case should continue to be logged as Eastern Europe. The scope of other cases or authorised discretionary sanctions has no effect. AGK ■ 18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Proposed:

At Remedy 3 in Macedonia, the Balkans is replaced as text by Eastern Europe or the Balkans.

Support
  1. Proposed. AGK ■ 10:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer option 3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
  • And here, appeals or sanctions under the EE case should continue to be logged as Macedonia. The scope of other cases or authorised discretionary sanctions has no effect. AGK ■ 18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Proposed:

At Amendment II in Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe is replaced as text by Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Remedy 3 in Macedonia is superseded by this amendment.

For these motions there are 9 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 5
2–3 4
4–5 3
Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This seems like the neater solution. – Joe (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This overall seems to be the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I prefer this. It's a bit more effort to deal with the existing notices, but should make things simpler going forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I explained in the arb discussion section why this is undesirable. AGK ■ 07:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC) Switched from oppose. Reconsidered based on community comment about the difficulty that might be caused by two remedies covering the same area. AGK ■ 19:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
  • Proposing as an alternative to 1/2 without comment on whether we should do this at all, to avoid the odd situation of authorizing the exact same discretionary sanctions in two different cases. That just seems like a mess waiting to be cleaned up when some future Committee changes the sanctions in one place but forgets about the other. I hope to be able to look at this situation and actually support or oppose in the near future rather than maintaining my current inactivity on the matter. ~ Rob13Talk 04:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've placed my votes after a review of the situation. This seems to be an improvement to me, reducing the overlap while not "losing" anything. Whether the DS should be removed entirely seems to be a separate question, and one best answered after we know how these DS operate when enacted in a less confusing manner. As a point of clarification on awareness, note that editors who were "aware" of the Balkans discretionary sanctions will need to be made aware of the Eastern Europe and Balkans sanctions before they can be subject to DS. This is a small hiccup, but it actually is rather sensible, since Eastern Europe and the Balkans is a superset of the Balkans. I consider it a happy accident that this merger would likely result in editors being made aware of the sanctions active in the broader topic area they're editing. ~ Rob13Talk 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia"