Look here.

That's obviously a direct personal attack on me. Given that this editor was already blocked for similar personal attacks when he wrote that post, this simply cannot be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it can. We traditionally give blocked editors leeway to vent at their talk page. If he does this again after his block expires I will block again, for longer and longer until he either stops doing it or gets blocked indef. Either way we solve the problem. --John (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So right now, you're happy to leave an attack on me (and many others) sitting there unchallenged? I don't understand. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sitting on the talk page of a blocked editor. When you were blocked, didn't you ever lash out in anger? If you didn't, good for you. I am serious, it is time to stop looking for reasons to take offence and complain about unequal treatment. This is what equal treatment looks like; I am truly indifferent as to the naming used in these articles, but I have an interest in helping you guys to sort out your dispute. Let me do it; trust me as I trust you to act in the best interests of the project. Macktheknifeau is blocked; stop looking at his talk page. I will do that for you. I am watching all the players and if you see more incivility that you think I have missed please ping me again. I decline to take further action against Macktheknifeau at this time. Let's stay positive; I bet that on 1 April we are not still having these arguments. Wouldn't that be worth it? --John (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not now? The problems are not new. The repeated insults from blocked and recently blocked editors are not new. The dishonesty is not new. By restricting conversation right now you are allowing untrue statements to stand as facts on your Talk page. It might all be new to you, but it's not to me. This process is not pleasant. And it has all been said before, for years. It should be obvious to anyone who can be bothered researching this a bit for themselves where the problems lie here. How are you going to sift the truth from the lies anyway? Do it now, please. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't enact a consensus where the meaning and implications of the previous consensus are being reasonably challenged, which, once you strip out all the anger, is what's happening. Once we finish the process everyone will know what's what and there will be no more conflict. If you help me, I am confident we can get there by 1 April. I'm sorry you're finding it stressful, but it really can't be rushed. It's been festering for years, so what's a month now? --John (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly curious. You have conflicting claims of fact. How do you intend to determine what is true? HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can write a decent RfC to clarify the previous one. That's what I am doing above, and you are all helping me with. A good RfC has a clear and neutrally-worded question; what do you think the question should be? I'll launch the RfC on Friday, unless it's possible to get there earlier. --John (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, stop playing the man and play the ball here John is going out of the way here to offer a civilised forum where we can discuss what is the issue here and avoid more unnecessary nonsense. I would advise for the sake of your own sanity after many years of going round in circles with different editors that you respect the olive branch that is being offered here for a mediated discussion before this gets to ARBCOM and it winds up with a result that no one is happy with. You have your chance to actually flesh out what is a well thought out answer here and not just a single sentence. It is not beyond you to think a bit more rationally. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling the world that you don't believe I think rationally enough. I cannot comprehend how John can allow such nonsense, especially from someone who has just come off a block. John, please stop this. Now. I cannot have a civilised conversation with a person who says I have to think more rationally. I'm pretty sure you gave Orestes a "final warning" yesterday. And now he declares that I need to think a bit more rationally. I already think very poorly of a lot of Admins here. If you don't do anything about that, you will have lost my respect completely too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking "personal attacks" a bridge too far when there was no intention of one, you know and everyone else knows what I meant. You've spent many hours supporting your position. I was stating that you should use this opportunity wisely and not get wound up by other editors here. You can choose to interpret that with ill will but it's not me that is offering any malice here. Moreover my comments that were removed were broad enough that it requires anyone to selectively interpret what I was saying in order to come to any conclusion it was about them in particular. I do not want to pick fights here so I'd suggest we both leave it at that. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John issued you a FINAL warning. Then you said I need to think a bit more rationally. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing that post as John was closing the thread, so I was unaware of his action. I want my post to stay. I feel I am being let down appallingly by administrator behaviour here. John, I am not fighting. It must be someone else. And precisely what IS a FINAL warning? HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is this edit, not completely uncivil? I really don't want to go around in circles with this and I think as I said above we should remain on topic but part of that is keeping things civil here, looking at things logically and desisting from comments that could be interpreted purely as being hostile towards one side of the argument here--Orestes1984 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of getting along here is learning when to ignore people who are saying things you don't like. I wish you and HiLo48 could do that more. Please, let's focus on the solution, not look for reasons to fight. --John (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You gave a FINAL warning. It was breached. Providing no follow-up guarantees that the bickering will continue. How can I have faith in a process where YOUR words don't mean what they say? HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to trust me here. I am not going to block for that. I am sorry if you don't like that. See the section just above; bickering, once established, is a hard habit to break. Try to ignore minor incivility. --John (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I trust you? I WAS putting my faith in you to sort this out. You gave a FINAL warning. You won't follow up. Again, why should I trust you? What on earth does FINAL mean? HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been showing good faith here. What have I got in return? More insults and weak administration? Do try to put yourself in my position. I have not breached any rules or instructions. I have got nothing in return. I have lost faith in this process. It's becoming much harder to be constructive. Did you note the brevity of my most recent response above? You are not supporting me. Do you think I can be bothered trying harder? HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are upset. It is up to you if you want to withdraw from the process. If you see more insults, please ping me. --John (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still watching though, what were the three RfCs you mentioned above? --John (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This type of behaviour is exactly why so many editors have ongoing problems with HiLo48... I have been stating this for long enough, and if HiLo is going to complain about my 2 blocks in the last 8 years vs. his countless LONG infractions because he simply will not listen to the directive of administrators around here, he's going to wind up blocked again. This is exactly the type of behaviour that leads me consistently to being fed up with this editor and this place... I'm sick of acting passively while we have a 300lb gorilla in the room John... Even when I do act passively I get put in a position where I am charged with falsely offensive behaviour... This has gone on for more than long enough... --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you seriously both need to cool it. Telling someone to act more rationally isn't very helpful, but neither is it a personal attack. Just answer the questions as best you can and leave rest to me. If you have energy left over, try to use it to imagine a compromise that would leave everyone happy, or as close to that as we can get. What would that look like? Now, HiLo, I asked you a question about RfCs above. Other than that, I don't want to continue this here. John (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, surely you realise by now that I see nothing wrong with the three RfCs we've already had. They weren't line ball calls. The results were 100% clear. The process each time was perfectly correct. Asking us to go through it all again is not a pleasant thought. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about what you see, or what any one other individual sees for that matter and it's not how wikipedia works, this is a community and part of that is respecting the fact that people are entitled to hold views that are wildly different from your own rather than simply proclaiming based upon your or anyone elses's own gesticulation and flapping of hands around in the air, that you're right and everyone else is wrong. As you were told elsewhere, let due process take its course and if I or anyone else here IS wrong, there is no harm done. The real problem here in all of this situation is that there has been no chance for discussion of anything anyone here has stated yet. I don't think that's fair, and I don't think it's reasonable to fillibuster discussion with pointless claims of non-existent personal attacks.

The last move process was on the discussion of whether to move the article to football in Australia which has nothing to do with anything that I am suggesting and not much to do with what other editors are suggesting here. I'm personally not even suggesting an RFC at this very moment, I'm just using this as a fair and open ground to state my case. What we do need to do is have a discussion without people telling us all why we shouldn't and I think it's fair time you respected that. My discussion here has been and remains civil, there has been no personal attacks directed at anyone, I suggest you play the ball and not the man. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard being told I need "to think a bit more rationally" as a terribly civil comment. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read a few articles on appeals to logic rather than appeals to emotion. You are creating a Gorgias like figure out of a mole hill... --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for HiL048s continuos ill will towards everybody that takes up a contrary position to what he does... This type of behaviour is nothing new and yet consistently administrators let him loose again and again to say whatever he feels like and most recently let loose a barrage of hostility towards yourself both here and on other users talk pages as well as myself.

I've done my time for what I felt was an appropriate comment, I'm pretty much more than fed up with the lack of any administrators response towards this behaviour... At this point an AN/I or RFC/U is absolutely pointless as it is only going to resolve the point that HiLo can do whatever he feels like doing and come back guilt free to do it again. How this user is let free again and again to act out like this really is beyond any reasonable explanation. It's almost completely explicable that he is even allowed to edit here at all --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from discussion page) The 2004 decision is the point John based on substantial weight of evidence that should not be ignored simply because certain editors here are heavy handed with their responses. My previous response to a certain editor was out of pure frustration that after multiple infractions for the same type of behaviour that this editor was not called up for it. I've been here 8 years and never once have I had to put up with an editor that is given such weight to bully and harass users into submission and that is exactly why I have placed myself in this position. I am losing faith that Wikipedia sanctions mean anything quite frankly, that when even after a user has been warned about this type of behaviour and received countless excessive blocks they are allowed to return to acting in exactly the same manner. It seems administrators didn't get the point so I was left previously to state it in my own openly frank way. My count them if you will, two infractions, over 8 years are simply as a result directly that this has been allowed to go on for so long... I'm fed up with administrators who let this editor loose again and again to say whatever they feel like that if not verge on crossing the line, explicitly step over it. This is why I decided to also leave this place in the first place --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC) (end of moved text)[reply]

Noted both comments. I may reply more substantively when I have time. --John (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate that. Let's see. We have "HiL048s continuos ill will towards everybody that takes up a contrary position", "say whatever he feels like", "a barrage of hostility", "multiple infractions for the same type of behaviour", and "bully and harass". Wow! HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for your input here again and neither did anyone else at this stage --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. But John did invite us to his Talk page, and when I saw my name up there I just couldn't resist reading about me. I'm glad I did. it was fascinating. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John invited us here to mediate this nonsense, you seem consciously unwilling to refrain from creating more drama or actually to discuss anything with those that don't hold the same view as yourself, or with well reasoned "anti-soccer" editors. You seem to believe that these editors hold the view that they do simply because they don't like the word soccer rather than listening to the weight of evidence or doing your own research on the historical divisiveness of the term, the cultural divide in this country, the collapse of the NSL and soccer Australia, the Crawford report or the reasons why soccer became so problematic. You seem to believe that the weight of your opinion is worth more than the weight of evidence that shows a clear administrative decision that was made in order to end all of this nonsense. You seem not to believe the same problems do not exist with "old soccer" that the governing body of the sport decided existed after an in depth commissioned report, otherwise known as the Crawford report. You seem to believe I am putting this case forward simply because I don't like the word soccer. Pretty much nothing could actually be any further from the truth. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, I think it would be fair to say that there is more than a touch of irony to Orestes1984's comments here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure no one asked you for your in depth analysis of a discussion you've only stumbled on either. I'm pretty sure sticking your nose in front of a barking dog does nothing to help either your or anyone elses cause here either. I'm pretty sure if you wanted to actually help out here rather than throwing rocks at barking dogs you might actually spend a little time with a cup of coffee to actually read through what the problem is here rather than coming here to make declarative statements that only serve to create more tension than is necessary. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orestes, you have every right, if you wish, to ask people to leave your own Talk page alone, but this is John's talk page. Others have as much right as you to comment here, until John says otherwise. As for your repeat history lesson on soccer, doesn't that history apply to all of Australia? Yet, in Aussie Rules territory, "soccer" is used as the natural name of the game today, by fans and players. I know many such people. Schools such as mine, that have many representative soccer teams, call the game precisely that, "soccer". Why are the feelings on the name so intensely negative where you come from, but so positive where I live? HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long and in depth report outlining the state of and the health of the game that was commissioned in 2004. You seem willing to offer your popular opinion and hearsay about the fanfare of soccer but that doesn't really represent the position of those who explicitly support the FFA and the decision deemed necessary by the Crawford report, the Australian government (indirectly) so as not to see us expelled from FIFA (again) and those who are broadly part of the "football fraternity" within Australia. I'm also pretty sure that A-League players call the game football and I'm also actually pretty sure that the National Premiere League that is also about to come online also calls the game football as do all administrative levels of the game, I'm pretty sure, I've been through this with you and while you seem to suggest that there are countless fans that call the game soccer. I'm pretty sure the majority who attend and support the A-League, and Australia internationally and watch football regularly know that the official statement is otherwise. You seem to believe what your mates call soccer in the park is relevant to what the administrative and governmental decision is to call the game football... There is a long list of evidence that you are ignoring simply because it doesn't agree with your perspective. As with everything there is more than one way of looking at things and I'm pretty sure based on the weight of evidence there is more than a substantial argument to support my position. I'm pretty sure that it is a lot more thought out and rational than most of the people you seem to have problems discussing this with --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your statements here and elsewhere about the state of affairs is that your apparent position seems drawn entirely from within the soccer fraternity. I don't doubt that many people (although nowhere near the majority) think as you do. However, I would also suggest that they are almost exclusively from within the that same soccer community. You grudgingly admit to the state of affairs in other southern states where soccer is the common word, but you gloss over the fact that except for those within the soccer community the situation is in fact much the same in NSW and Queensland. Ask anyone who is not a soccer fan what would they mean if they said they were going to watch the football. It won't be soccer. Sadly for your position, soccer does not command any sort of majority following in NSW and QLD, nor indeed any other state in Australia. Rugby league is by far and away the most popular form of football in NSW and QLD and the word football is understood by the overwhelming majority there to mean rugby league, in much the same way that the word football means Aussie rules in the southern states. Ask the average Australian what is "Association football" and you'll get a "huh?" response. I am quite sure you are acting with the best of intentions but you are mistaken in your apparent belief that soccer is supported by the majority of Australians above the other football codes. We may well barrack for the Socceroos, even have a favourite team from the UK or the European league (mine is Arsenal) and even have a passing interest in the A league, but it is only a secondary interest, and most Aussies probably would not even notice if soccer was no longer played here. It simply does not command the level of support you seem to think it does amongst the general population. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you don't know what my position is, particularly if you believe that I ever stated "soccer is the most popular football code in Australia" or anything like that, apart from maybe once every 4 years as we'll soon see with the upcoming World Cup this year. I'm pretty sure as a result you've stumbled into a situation where your comments on my position are largely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure I'm not actually arguing that this is about common name or anything of the sort, I'm pretty sure your intentions are well meant, but they're way off the mark. I'm pretty sure you're late to the party here and your assumptions about my character are mostly incorrect and unwarranted. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately for you, I did "stumble across" this discussion, or rather it was shoved in front of me by the incessant AN/I BS that this soccer/football nonsense has spawned. If John asks me to leave his talk page I will of course comply, but until then I will comment here as I deem appropriate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure if you want to stay around here, rock throwing wont help your case... I'm pretty sure a number of those AN/I cases brought up resulted in boomerangs. I'm also pretty sure what led to the "incessant" AN/Is in the first place is a number of cases as John has previously stated of other editors being deemed not allowed to make a reasonable and constructive point. I'm pretty sure I've actually had a number of my own edits scuttled by HiLo48 and his supporters despite the fact that they were good faith. I'm pretty sure none of this demonstrates how Wikipedia should be working. I'm pretty sure if you actually dig a little deeper you might uncover the fact that there is more to this than the recent issues that have resulted from me being fed up with this place, but feel free to choose to believe whatever it is you decide you want to believe. I'm pretty sure diving into an argument head first without clearly ascertaining what is actually going on and what has gone on over a number of years is actually a really silly thing to be doing. I'm also certain that you rubbishing the majority of soccer fans and stating "no one cares" in this country is far from a bright thing to do as well. It only serves to alienate your position on the fringes of "I don't like soccer." --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what I may or may not understand. It is precisely because I do understand what has been going on that I decided to become involved. The situation is nowhere near the way you describe it, but I do not expect you to recognise that. I have given you the benefit of the doubt that you are acting in good faith as you see it, however, you may find that in the end the community does not see things your way. My ability to extend AGF is not unlimited, remember AGF is not a suicide pact. Making snide insinuations about my motives and what I may or may not have done to inform myself of the history of this debate borders on NPA territory. I will let it slide for now, but consider yourself warned. Oh, and be careful talking about boomerangs, lest you get hit by one yourself.

I have had enough for tonight, see you later. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect the other side of the argument to recognise any of the ongoing scuttling that is going on of anyone who doesn't agree that "soccer is the only unambiguous name for the sport in Australia" is a reasonable response... I've tried a number of different times to discuss this matter reasonably to the point where any semblance of AGF has worn through with HiLo48. As you have stated AGF is not a suicide pact, nor do I have to put up with the terse language that has been thrown about at me ever since I entered into this discussion... the countless "who do you think you are" and "fuck offs" and etc have driven me to the point where I pretty much have no good faith to give to HiLo48. I am far from alone on that footing as well. My good faith meter is running on empty when it comes to dealing with HiLo48 and that is exactly what this is about --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "fuck offs" here. There is a statement from you that you're "pretty sure" I'm wrong about how things work on my side of the Barassi Line. That's bad faith, and a major problem here. I am right about what I'm describing. I do know what I'm talking about. The school I'm at has produced a Socceroo, and several other top level players. The game is only ever called "soccer" here. Melbourne media almost exclusively calls the game "soccer". From memory, I don't think you've ever spent any significant time in Melbourne. To tell someone who lives here that they're not telling the truth about what happens here is a huge problem. You are accusing me of lying. I am not a liar. You have to face the fact that lot of soccer people exposed to the same history as you comfortably use the name "soccer" every day. As you know, the game is doing fine in Melbourne. Yes, the official name within the sport is "football" (not "Association football"). But the common name outside AND inside the game is "soccer". That's why I see no reason to change to anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, there's a bit of me that enjoys this banter with its undertones of hostility and conflict. Can I just remind all of you that

a) we are arguing about terminology on an encyclopaedia article. It should be as good as it can be, but nobody will die over this, and

b) the hostility is the reason we are here in the first place. We won't solve the problem by continuing the hostility.

• Please read and internalise the advice I gave you at the real discussion. Normally I have a higher-than-usual tolerance for what I think of as masculine posturing (and I don't mean to insult anybody by that; I think I would enjoy going for a beer with you all), but on this one it simply isn't helping. The real discussion is moving forwards; why not turn your energy to framing a really good RfC question which will settle this once and for all? Or realistically for the next year or so, which would satisfy me. --John (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, some of us said earlier that we see no need for another RfC. We've had three. What do you think we can achieve with another? It would surely only lead to more tension. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it is done properly. --John (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we can't just repeat the previous questions, surely. So what is there to discuss? You must have some idea. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some ideas, and I am looking at the four suggestions in the summary table. I am not feeling 100% tonight though, so I doubt I will get it done tonight. I will try for tomorrow. I am sorry to keep you waiting. Meantime see if you can help me. I am looking for a question (or possibly questions?) that, when answered, will put this to bed for a good long while. Any ideas? --John (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that there are strong feelings in the discussion. One of the strongest is the feeling among some editors that the name "soccer" is unacceptable, anywhere, any time, no matter what. However, that name is used by a majority of Australians, including many fans and players of the game, and me. In some parts of Australia it's virtually the only name used in the media and general conversation. Any other name for the game is confusing in those parts of Australia. This obviously includes the name being pushed by some of those who don't want "soccer", "Association football". (Just to add to the confusion on that front, the second level Australian Football competition where I live was called the Victorian Football Association for over 100 years.) It's a core issue. Without tackling it, I don't think we can get far in making this a peaceful place. My approach, which I know upsets some others, so might need to be moderated, has been to simply ask "What really wrong with the name soccer?" I think −we need an answer/resolution, but maybe through asking the question in another way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, I strongly believe HiLo48's approach is not the one we should follow. Stamping the name "soccer" for the sport on Wikipedia and moderating this will only creat more tension. We're going to see a lot of users receiving blocks for one thing. I am not saying to give in to the "die hard soccer fans", in fact this is what I think first needs to be discussed. Is this change reasonable, is it warranted? So what I suggest we first do is to openly discuss the renaming of the sport in Australia which occurred in 2005 and the subsequent changes in media, the sport and it's organising bodies. This is what we must first discuss and determine the legitimacy if this.--2nyte (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the formal renaming of the sport by FFA is certainly relevant. The question is (and maybe this can help John frame his question(s)), how relevant? Obviously some people feel common name is more important. I won't try to answer here. Just offering the question. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both "soccer" and "football" are common names for the sport in Australia now. The main point is that the change has been towards "football" and away from "soccer" - there has been nationwide move away from "soccer", granted some areas have not been to such a large extent, but still there has been a very real change. Where you HiLo48, question "what's wrong with soccer?", I question why not show this very real change on Wikipedia?--2nyte (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick, but I'm trying to follow John's request to just talk about the question(s). HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

likewise it has been the general perception that the common name soccer can stay purely on the basis of popular opinion that soccer is the only name that is out there or that football is now not a common name this is purely nothing more than Wikipedia:IRONY. John has stated that common name cannot stand on its own, this is just the type of outcome that I was looking for from this discussion so lets put this one to bed and ask the relevant question.

Why should the word soccer stay as it is despite efforts for good reason to shift away from it?

I've pointed out the many evidence based positions for this shift, the list of them is far to long and there is no place for arguments made of straw just because I cannot keep all of that information in my head. I've directed other editors to read these well thought out and logical conclusions that were taken from an independent commissioned report.

It seems all in well faith is ignored here and a strawman is constructed often by other editors here that the move was made purely out of a statement of oneupmaniship and that the FFA is plotting an evil plan and therefore that Wikipedia editors who support the FFA's position are somehow unleashing the forces of evil. These editors should be reminded that Wikipedia is amoral. Trying to predict how people will use a given piece of information can be rather difficult so the claims of widespread confusion from a shift to "anything but soccer" should be seen as irrelevant. Wikipedia's place is to merely provide useful information about what has happened what people do with that information is entirely up to them if they want to be confused and bewildered by it than that is only a matter of their own choice. Making decisions based on such predictions of confusion in order to "protect" an entity is questionable.

Further, if Wikipedia was to censor on moral/ethical grounds, it would be necessary to choose a particular morality or code of ethics, but this would violate Wikipedia's neutrality Policy proposals to censor on the aforementioned grounds have been made (and rejected) thrice

I am reminded by wikipedia policy that editors as with articles can be as "malevolent" as they like AND furthermore that "causing confusion" does not rank highly on the list of Wikipedia problems. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the words there do not address the issue, and I cannot see why it is so important to change "soccer" to "football". The gov.au website proves beyond any doubt that the word "football" does not mean "Association Football" in Australia—even in the Football Federation Australia section, "(soccer)" is added after every instance of "football" (except in the caption for a picture showing a game being played). There could be no better proof that COMMONNAME requires "soccer". Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing some impartial common sense into this discussion. Editors who keep on arguing for "football" instead of "soccer" as the common name are doing so from a position of invincible ignorance. Afterwriting (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It addresses a key issues here that Wikipedia is not here to protect users from confusion, or bewilderment because of this perceived "problem." Wikipedia is here purely to provide information what people do with that information is entirely up to them. If they decide to be confused, more power to them, but the choice to be confused is a conscious choice. I am reminded here of neutrality through accuracy the position I am putting forward is nothing more than this. You may not like the alternative, that doesn't make the proposal invalid or put forward a position that the consequences of my proposal are in any way relevant to how someone might feel as a result. Wikipedia is amoral perhaps if you don't like that you should become the lord of your own domain, they're cheap to register.

Association football is the most accurate term that can be used in lieu of the fact that football cannot be used to describe the sport on Wikipedia. Soccer does not represent the current status of the game nor does it deal with the past problems involved with the word soccer in Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Government uses Football in various websites and discussion on the sport, for example the "Strategic Review into the sustainability of football in Australia". The Australian Institute of Sport calls it's programs for the sport "Football - Men" and "Football - Women" as do a number of the state institutes that actually have a football program. The Australian Olympic Committee uses the word "Football as well. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Thorne and others, please stop stating that only "close followers of the sport" or only "soccer fans" call the game "football" - this is simply incorrect to state when various local/national media refer to the sport as "football".--2nyte (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. Football means almost exclusively one thing there, and it isn't the round ball game. It's Australian football. And for that reason, there's no point proving that anybody calls the round ball game "football". We can't. "Soccer" is the only unambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. Until a good reason is provided to not call the game "soccer", all of that argument is irrelevant. (And I apologise to John for again writing a comment off the topic he sought of what the RfC question(s) should be, but the conversation had yet again drifted into the realm of possibly good faith but unsubstantiated claims by people with a very insular view of the situation.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No HiLo48, this is what frustrates me. It almost appears you are trying to push an agenda by repeating false information. National media on the "Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line" do call the game "football", SBS, ABC, Fox Sports, Sky News, The Australian, The Australian Financial Review. Not to mention Football Federation Victoria, Football Federation Tasmania, Football Federation South Australia, Football West and the hundreds of clubs with the name "Football Club". Whether you think it's right or wrong, whether you think they should or shouldn't, the fact us they do - it doesn't matter if they call Aussie rules "football", that's completely irrelevant, because the only thing that matters is they call association football "football - that is the only relevant information to this discussion.--2nyte (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National media on the non-Barassi Line side also call the game "soccer". The ABC usually call it "soccer" in news reports etc regardless of which state the broadcast is in. When they don't they usually use the name of the specific league ~ "A League" etc. Afterwriting (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? We can't call it "football" anyway. (There's a much more comprehensive response I could make, negating much of that post, but John doesn't want us to. But I do wish he would explain how he plans to eliminate false and misleading claims.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "so what"' (and restating your opinion) I assume that means my point has some validity. So for the sake of the discussion, could we use the unambiguous term "soccer" in the article title and "football" in the articles content?--2nyte (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the brevity of my reply was that John has asked us to concentrate on the wording of the questions for his proposed RfC. I only went further than that because you repeated what I regard as at least misleading statements of facts. And to me, that's one of the biggest problems here. We cannot even agree on facts. I don't know how we can get past that problem. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure John won't mind us discussing the issue. So could you explain what facts/statements you find misleading or untrue.--2nyte (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's all been said before anyway. And that's another part of the problem. With no new evidence, a group of editors including you repeatedly argue against a repeatedly agreed consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, the censuses only decided that the article Soccer in Australia would not be move to Football in Australia, nothing else. And to that I 100% agree. I have never argued against that censuses and I see no reason to argue it. I have always said Football in Australia should be a disambiguation page - I have recently attempted to re-write it, though failed due mainly to your (HiLo48) opposition.

Now that is agreed, can you please answer my question: What facts/statements in this edit [1] do you find misleading or untrue?--2nyte (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's all been said before, and this is the wrong venue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, people, relax willya? The main reason for using a term is so that people can find the articles they want and understand them when they do find them. That's why we call things by certain names. It's not matter of one term "winning" the "honor" of being our preferred term.

If it's the case that significant numbers of readers are looking for information on whatever-the-heck-they-do-with-balls-in-Australia and not finding the articles, or if finding the articles are flummoxed and unable to understand what they are about, then we have a problem. Do we? Are many readers looking for information on Australian rules football and instead arriving at the article Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? Are many readers reading the entirety of Football Federation Australia and, because of the terminology we are using, coming to the conclusion that the article is actually about the Franco-Prussian war?

If it is happening, is it not possible to address this with judicious application of redirects and turns of phrase such as "soccer, also called football" (or "football, also called soccer" which amounts to exactly the same thing)? And if this is not happening, how about everybody involved chill out, take a few steps back, think about what's important in life, and go work on something else for a few months? Wouldn't everybody be happier if you all did that? Herostratus (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, I was originally going to post a 4 paragraph assessment of the situation and a suggestion on matter which I can only describe as conservative. Instead, I have chosen to delete it and post a rather to-the-point suggestion on matter. I did like the approach you were going in mediating the discussion, but what has continued above is what I hoped to avoid - it's something I hope you put an end to.

So my suggestion is, as I have previously mentioned:

If an article is in context (only about association football, e.g. Western Sydney Wanderers FC, Football Federation Australia) then the article should use the term "football" throughout to refer to the sport (with a hyperlink to association football in the opening e.g. Football). On the other hand, if an article is not in context (about more than one Football code, e.g. Football in Australia, Sport in Australia) then the article should use the term "association football" throughout. Additionally, article titles should use the term "association football" (e.g. Soccer in Australia → Association football in Australia, Australian soccer league system → Australian association football league system).

--2nyte (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia, "soccer"? Western Sydney Wanderers play in a league without any sport mentioned in its name (ever wondered why?), against several teams from where "soccer" is by far the most common name, and where "football" is NOT ambiguous. It's just wrong, because it means Aussie Rules or rugby union. And nobody knows what "Association football" is. But everyone knows what "soccer" is. Why propose an unknown name when we have a perfectly acceptable common name? (Well, perfectly acceptable for a majority of Australians.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity and confusion here are not the issue here. Wikipedia is amoral and only a source of information. Editors can be as malevolent as they like when they edit here, particularly when they are following NTAC and providing information. Association Football is the most accurate description of the game in lieu of the fact we cannot use football. Soccer is not the most accurate descriptor for the game in its present state whether you like it or not.

Ambiguity and common name are not what is being discussed here, it is your choice to be confused here. As John stated this argument cannot be solved with common name we must look at ENGVAR and other solutions to come up with a decent alternative name to Football. If you cannot make a valid contribution to what John is asking for, please feel free to come back and make a valid contribution when you can, but not until. --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask it again, because it matters. What's wrong with "soccer", the name used by more Australians than any other, now? We have a popular, common name. We would need a very good current reason to not use it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is not common name you cannot make a valid contribution to what John is asking for, please feel free to come back and make a valid contribution when you can, but not until. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone can explain what's wrong with the common name, it IS about the common name. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is not common name you cannot make a valid contribution to what John is asking for, please feel free to come back and make a valid contribution when you can, but not until. John stated what he was trying to do here, it would put you in good stead if you actually listened to what he wants to achieve, otherwise you are simply being an impediment to this discussion. Please feel free to come back when you actually feel like discussing what John has suggested. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we disagree, apparently even on what John has said. But repeatedly telling me to go away is just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you know how everyone else feels now then hey? do I detect a sense of irony? --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John definitely doesn't want bickering. HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No he doesn't, so this kind of one sidededness where things just go round in circles and nobody listens to each others point of view is completely unacceptable, that goes for you as well... And my comments above to illustrate poignantly this kind of behaviour, which have been quite deliberate in taking up exactly the same stance as you HiLo. Your and my circular nonsense must stop and a little bit of listening to what is being said would not go astray... I have stated my position enough times, if anyone else would like to hear what I have to say in particular... call out, otherwise I'll be on the orange lounge chair out the back --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have told me something I already knew, several times - that Australia's peak body for the sport was ultimately reincarnated as FFA because of mismanagement and other problems with Soccer Australia. (Although your detailed knowledge of the complete process is certainly better than mine and very impressive.) And that the FFA would like the game to be called "football", again something I already knew, but that is impractical for the whole of Australia. And we cannot call the game "football" here on Wikipedia, because that name means other things to a majority of Australians. What you haven't explained is why Wikipedia cannot call the game "soccer". We wouldn't be renaming the FFA. We wouldn't be renaming those clubs and associations that have chosen to known as football clubs. We would simply be using the single name that all Australians understand as meaning the round ball game, and that's still used by all bodies as part of the name of the national team. (Try Googling "Socceroos". The weblink to the team's home page is called "Official Socceroos | Home - Football Federation Australia".) HiLo48 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]