Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:17, 26 June 2009

Option "B.1"

B1 was added very shortly before the beginning of the RfC phase and with little discussion. Since it appears to be similarly "non-standard" as the previous Proposal H, do we really want it to be on the RfC page? There's no discussion about its conformance with the rules or its perceived advantages or disadvantages so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - it should be removed. It was added after the deadline stated by Fritzpoll. Options that have not been discussed should not be put forward in the RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we removed H, I agree. However only the B1 option should be removed. Some of the other edits by this user deserve some thought before reverting them. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option C vs. G

What happened to proposal C? Balkan Fever 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they eliminated it when they reduced the number of candidates from 5 to 4. It had no first preference votes, that's probably why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yea, really what? Proposal C was the second choice of more than half the participants here. Hey if I knew that at least one should have placed it first for it to go through I would have placed it first. Macedonia (country) is a perfectly Ok proposal and as seen in the parallel Ireland case. I am going to be direct: removing this proposal has a seriously consequence of inflating the probability of A to pass since it now is the only proposal that uses the name Macedonia for the country without having any of the potential problems of D (which has Macedonia (country) as one of its options).

I request that C is reinstated in the page. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked J.delanoy for clarification. Perhaps he meant to remove proposal G :)Balkan Fever 08:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing G would have made more sense since it could be thought of as the one that would only satisfy the ARBCOM mentioned "faction" more than others ...right? But by removing a perfectly good proposal (C) and keeping a proposal that is unlikely to receive any significant support (G) solely because of a minor voting technicality is strange to say at least. It is not justified by anything that was stated from ARBMAC2 to here. Removing [C] will just force every single supporter of "Macedonia" as a name of the country to accept [A] as the only choice. Why did we tie the common name to the primary topic clause? These two can exist apart from each other.

At the parallel Ireland case almost all proposals are in the form of Ireland (something). Georgia (country) is already used and accepted. This is very peculiar that one of the proposals that were less likely to cause any problems was removed like that. It wasn't against policy nor was it influenced by any "block" effect (quite the opposite). If the voting details were disclosed prior to the selection - especially the clause that every proposal should have been the first choice of at least one user - I am 100% sure it would have passed. I would have placed it first, I only voted B first by a very small margin.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out B1 since it appears that late addition was overlooked. As far as G vs C, lets wait for J.delanoy - I have to admit I don't know the math behind the voting system used. Shell ^babelfish 09:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as G goes, I'll have to emphasize the point that was made by J.delanoy, it is a proposal that was the first choice of more than one person. Any further refinement of the number of choices should be done by the greater community itself. --Radjenef (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- We wanted to aim for about 4 proposals or so, and on the preferential system used (STV), the results came through as (in order from the top of my head) BADC, followed by G if we expanded to five proposals. Because G is the "hot potato" of the bunch, I think I agreed with J.delanoy that we bump C and include G instead. We maintain that five proposals or above is an excessive list of options and compromised to four - we can always replace G with C if it is desired. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is four the magic number? If both proposals had significant support they should both go through. We could also include Macedonia (country) as the other WP:NAMEy option under B and call it a day. B is about Macedonia being a dab page. We can emphasize that Macedonia country is also a possibility that is compatible with having a dab page at Macedonia. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of course partial here, but if I my nevertheless register my opinion, I believe that the STV counting method reflects something quite sensible here, in honouring the fact that C had a very large number of second-choice votes, being regarded by many a reasonable compromise candidate while not being very sharply distinguished from B; whereas G is the hardline position preferred by a minority but with little to no chance of gaining an overall consensus. Why serve us the "hot potatoes" by preference? I think following the STV method would be more conductive to finding common ground rather than further polarisation in such a case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, am beyond a doubt convinced that the two who put proposal G as their first choice were not acting in good faith. By allowing this proposal, the referees are basically asking for the canvassing to continue and for the discussion to be derailed by new nationalists. If you're going to discount opinions not grounded in policy anyway, why have a proposal that is only attractive to opinions not grounded in policy? Balkan Fever 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did it pretty much for the reasons that Fritzpoll listed, but if you want me to remove G and add C, I have no problems with that. Also, new accounts, cf. accounts that were created after the start of the arbitration case, or after the start of this particular discussion on June 12, will be given the weight that they would be given in any discussion, so I don't think that canvassing will be a big issue. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and replaced G with C. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we have both? There are really good arguments in support of both proposals. The initial consensus was that we would only be removing Proposals that are supported by one person. I really do not see why we should narrow our choices that much at this stage. If the community truly doesn't support G, then that will show through their comments! It isn't really fair to agree on a method, vote and then backtrack and change the way by which this process works! --Radjenef (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only included G in the first place because I thought it would be less of a hassle if I did. To be completely honest, I included it assuming that it would not gain much support. If it had, I feel that it would be my duty to reject it, as I do not believe it lies within policy to use such a long, confusing name when three other choices, including one that is indisputably unambiguous, are available. I apologize for including it in the first place. I should have just gone with my original thoughts (don't include it at all), as now this creates even more drama than it would have if I had simply not included it to begin with. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a valid reason for not endorsing it, but it doesn't justify not allowing the community to consider it. The original plan was to vote in order to leave out the options that weren't supported by at least two people. This is the only reason I hadn't objected to the winnowing down of proposals. It isn't exactly fair to (ex post facto) go back on what was agreed before the voting began, at least not if we want this process to remain credible... --Radjenef (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this exercise is to try to achieve some kind of consensus. Besides the fact that G was not compliant with any of Wikipedia's naming policies, the possibility of any consensus forming over G is as close to zero as one can get without actually being zero. (Taivo (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Fairness? Is it fair to allow the community to consider a proposal that I believe I would have no choice but to reject? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid J standing on his own on this issue, I would like to indicate my concurrence that in my interpretation of the Arbcom case, specifically the aspect cited by J above, proposal G would be difficult to acknowledge as having consensus even if it had significant local support. In this respect, I am happy with J's action above. (after e/c) The original plan was a preference voting system, not the system you describe - that system is enacted properly by J's alteration Fritzpoll (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The referees are all in agreement on this issue. While I understand that editors may strongly feel their point of view is best in this case, we have to be guided by community norms and existing policy. Shell ^babelfish 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A non-referee would have any right of not endorsing proposal G, but I do not think that it would be fair for G to be ruled out by referees as "not compliant with policy". That is particularly so since it does provide a policy rationale and since evidence has been provided to prove that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a more common term than "Republic of Macedonia". There is also an argument, albeit contentious, about de facto self-identification. If anything, community norms and especially existing policy make proposal G a very valid thing to consider. How can we even judge difficulty in acknowledging G as having consensus if we don't allow the greater community to consider it? This is what some people had to say about winnowing down proposals [1], [2], [3]. I do not see who and on what grounds decided on leaving out a proposal preferred by more than one user. By that same reasoning, perhaps proposal A should also be removed for violating wikipedia's disambiguation policy! --Radjenef (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration decision indicated explicitly that we had to consider community consensus in line with existing guidelines, conventions and policy. There was no point presenting to the community a proposal that had no significant support (it was fifth in the rankings of support) and had an excessively dubious foundation in Wikipedia's practices, whilst for the others that is either less clear or non-existent. I understand and empathise with your frustration, but at the end of this process, someone was always going to be unhappy with the outcome. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It feels a lot better to know that someone at least empathises with my frustration. I would have been perfectly ok with it if the proposal had gone through, only to be rejected by the wider community. It's just that I don't understand why we can't have 5 proposals; is it really that irregular? A large part of rejecting it has to do with complaints by the same "block of editors" who have accused other editors of stonewalling. Does it really have a dubious policy foundation? ...and if you think it does, is it really for the referees to make such a call, or for the community? I thought the purpose of refereeing was to maintain decorum and enforce !vote by making sure that all endorsements were backed up by a policy rationale. Assessing that policy rationale is a completely different thing, as is preventing things from being considered by the wider community. I am really disappointed. At least as far as I'm concerned, the results of this discussion will never be truly valid, because options were kept away from the community's consideration. --Radjenef (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radjenef, read the ArbCom decision more carefully. These referees have much more power and responsibility than just traffic cops. They are specifically empowered to remove proposals and discussions that are not relevant or compliant. They are not here primarily to "maintain decorum" or to "enforce a vote". Indeed, this isn't even a vote, it is a means for them to get input on forming a consensus and a final decision. They are not bound to even follow the majority here if another proposal has stronger policy foundations. (Taivo (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

(outdenting) While there might have been some value in putting proposal G to the community in order to get a firm consensus against it, the fact is that - as others have said - it's fundamentally incompatible with existig policies and guidelines. There's a standing rule that "consensus does not trump policy" and there is simply no point in putting a proposal to the community that could not be implemented, even if it had achieved consensus, which this one certainly wasn't ever going to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal G included a policy-based rationale. You obviously disagree with that rationale, but that is your POV on the interpretation of policy, not necessarily that of the community or NPOV. If proposal G were included, then there's a chance the community might agree with me that it doesn't "trump policy" and that the policy rationale is valid. Whether they would support it is another question, but I guess we'll never know unless it is added back to the list of available options. --Radjenef (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter whether you or I think that Proposal G was policy-compliant. The three arbitrators/referees did not think that it was. Their opinion is what matters here. (Taivo (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If the arbitration committee clarifies by saying that this is acceptable and not out of line, then I am willing to drop the whole case of arguing for Proposal G's reinstatement. I will still view this as a discussion whose credibility was lost, at least in my eyes, but I'll stop in recognition of the fact that there is nothing further I can do about this. --Radjenef (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radjenef, if you will scroll up the page just about 4 inches you will see all three of the abritrators saying that they were in agreement that Proposal G does not comply with policy and should be excluded. (Taivo (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

He's asking about arbitrators, not our three referees. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom has already given the referees this authority. Might I refer you to the text of WP:ARBMAC2? "In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline." The onus is clearly meant to be on the panel - the referees - to make this judgement. Since they're all very experienced editors and admins, with experience across a wide range of topic areas, it's not unreasonable to defer to their judgement on this. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Fritzpoll, there is no reason to put up a proposal that does not follow wiki policy and guides. Let's take an extreme example, if user group A says "let's write a version of article X that totally supports our view and ignores others even though they have solid factual support for their view", this would clearly violate NPOV guides and should not even be considered. Problems arise when people don't agree on if a version is in violation (example: is edit X a BLP vio or not?). If the consensus is version G is not in compliance with policy, it should not be offered, esp if 4 other options are viable options with a fair amount of support. And ChrisO is correct, the referees have the authority to decide this, so stop the squabbling and get this settled by the deadline. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 :::::He's asking about ''arbitrators'', not our three ''referees''. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 ::::The ArbCom has already given the referees this authority. Might I refer you to the text of [[WP:ARBMAC2]]? "In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed '''to disregard''' any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, '''or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline'''." The onus is clearly meant to be on the panel - the referees - to make this judgement. Since they're all very experienced editors and admins, with experience across a wide range of topic areas, it's not unreasonable to defer to their judgement on this. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
+::::::I have to agree with Fritzpoll, there is no reason to put up a proposal that does not follow wiki policy and guides. Let's take an extreme example, if user group A says "let's write a version of article X that totally supports our view and ignores others even though they have solid factual support for their view", this would clearly violate NPOV guides and should not even be considered. Problems arise when people don't agree on if a version is in violation (example: is edit X a BLP vio or not?).  If the consensus is version G is not in compliance with policy, it should not be offered, esp if 4 other options are viable options with a fair amount of support. And ChrisO is correct, the referees have the authority to decide this, so stop the squabbling and get this settled by the deadline. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)