User talk:Snowded/To BI or not to BI

Draft protocol

The use of the term British Isles has caused contention across a range of articles, including edit wars, blocks and several failures to observe WP:AGF and WP:Civil. recently a page has been set up to centralise these discussions which has had partial success. Most recently one admin got involved with the issue but lost patience. Participants in the page have expressed frustration at the stalemate position of several discussions, others feel that the change is being pursued unnecessarily.

Agreement

• No change to insert or remove "British Isles" from any article will be made without first posting the item on the specific examples page
• Any proposal to change will be notified with a link on the talk page of the article concerned (a template will be created for this)
• If discussion on the specific examples page does not produce agreement within a week of notification then an arbitration panel will be asked to make a decision
• Decisions will be made on the basis of citation and common sense and the arbitration panel will be permitted to request evidence before making a decision
• The arbitration panel will compose of one editor who represents a nationalist perspective, and one who represents a unionist perspective along with a neutral editor with knowledge of the history of the term. (the idea here is for each "camp" to have someone who they respect on the panel)
• No arbitration panel member can nominate change, or take part in discussions about change. They should also have a track record of accepting the legitimate use of BI as a term, and of accepting that it is inappropriate in some cases. (Obviously this qualification will not apply to the neutral editor)
• A small group of admins will be approached who will agree to watch the page and take actions on abuse as necessary. Any breech of WP:AGF or WP:Civil or any edit wars or direct changes without agreement will result in a minimum block of 24 hours. WP:BRD will apply, no reversions of a revert.

Process

Get agreement to the above and then seek the support of a group of admins to assist, notify the agreement at ANI to get community agreement

Comments

OK that is a first draft, comments please --Snowded ^TALK 11:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How would the three arbitrators be chosen? I'm guessing they would be nominated then voted on? I'm also wondering if each "camp" will be allowed to choose their own whether or not those with an opposing view agree with the choice. Jack forbes (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering the same things. It will be difficult getting everybody to agree on the three arbitrators.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Each side nominates and agrees their own, neutral is agreed by all was my feeling --Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a simpler approach. Stop HighKing editing out British Isles. Voilà! Immediate and lasting solution. Mister Flash (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Or here's a mature approach for a collaborative project. Adhere to civility policies, stop making comments about other editors, think about the content objectively, stop personalizing the discussion, stop trying to defend every instance of British Isles in articles, and try to help to develop guidelines. --HighKing (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• We have to accept that not every insert/removal of British Isles would fall under the remit of this procedure. We could not lay claim to jurisdiction over every possible edit on the Wiki. I think agreement to follow the decisions of a procedure would have to be voluntary and on a per editor basis. That said, we should try to make this something that an admin could refer an editor to (either at the behest of other editors or at the request of the panel). And we should try to demonstrate legitimacy of the decision of made using this procedure among the wider community of editors.
• I think we should try to identify precedence in decisions, but - initially at least - not binding ones and document these somewhere. In future then, these precedences could be used to speed the process up.
• We should change the name of the "Specific examples" page to something more appropriate. Or (better) start a new page that follows this procedure.
• The panel would be elected initially by consensus? And the procedure would be treated as an evolving process, open to change/improvement, as it grew initially?
• We should advertise this proposal wider.
• Is three a large enough "panel" (bearing in mind that the "panel" will not be involved in most discussion)? I think an odd number is good but a larger number would give more room for discussion and a variety of views. A larger panel would also have greater legitimacy. Maybe two "nationalists", two "unionists" and one "international"? Participation from all members of the panel should not be necessary to make a decision (not all will be available at any time, even with just three) - but the panel should still act in good faith with respect to all of it's members.
• I'm not sure what to make of the terms for the panel members, I would have thought that "British" or "Irish" would have been more straight forward. (Do Welsh or Scottish nationalists have the same view of the term as Irish nationalists? Do unionists on GB have the same views on the term as Unionists in NI?)
• I know I've been involved in discussions around the term but I would like to nominate myself for the panel. I would also like to nominate Snowded. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that arbcom keep out of content decisions, or claim to anyway? I worry that admin, who are already reticent, will look at Black Kite et al (ie the received opinion), and groan out loud or whistle a little and look elsewhere. But they can do their job in other ways - like support a guideline!

I can see various problems occurring from the above draft as it stands. What if people disagree on the more subjective elements like trust? Effectively 'awarding' trust and power to particular editors/admin (remember that trust in admin is very low with many editors, not to mention trust in editors) can alienate other editors, and even other admin. And there are always people who are unhappy signing up to things they may regret later - a problem with all involved solutions like these.

Technically speaking, how will people know they shouldn't move the term without going to SE first? I'd worry the enforcement could just provide another reason to sock - and Wikipedia really has to find ways of countering that phenomenon.

Arbcom shouldn't create 'block rules' like these in my opinion – and I think blocking underpins the draft, whereas a solid guideline on BI usage would be the real foundation that will settle this. Blocks should be last-resort things. It is more effective surely to do something like neutralise someone's effect in a 3RR for a period, rather than give them a criminal record – or to do anything that is possible, in fact, before blocking. Wikipedia's primitive and far-too-discretionary 'legal system' ensures that blocks (to the more 'aggressive' admin especially) are basically more punitive on each subsequent occasion, regardless of what they previous indiscretions were. This simply 'labels' editors, often seriously upsets and undermines them, and too-often ends up making cynics/outlaws/ex-editors out of one-time positive Wikipedians. Plain trolling (like serially reverting consensus edits across Wikipedia using sockpuppets, as Wikipeire did for example) is a far worse matter than issues surrounding content, POV, verify and (most) 'civility' issues.

BI issues are a finite number of 'types' of content issues, which people often have different ideas about, despite the extremism that admittedly hovers around. We shouldn't be doing anything that is dependant on blocking – unless (theoretically speaking only) it is the creation of a solid guideline. We need people to believe in Wikipedia, not for them to eventually consider their account tainted to the point of worthlessness, simply because they are passionate about undefined issues like BI and Ireland. We all know that people can pretty much sock forever if they really want to, and they are dedicated enough. The tragedy is that open people are vastly more susceptible to being blocked, while those with more Machiavellian skills/desires can often easily avoid them, or encourage them to be dealt elsewhere (often cleverly referring to them when they've been made). We surely don't have all these admin just so they can use their tools – they are supposed to use their heads too, and persuade, enlighten, prompt, direct, defuse, absorb, mediate, show self-control – all the boring things they signed up to do, bless em.

I don't think we should go any further on this, but get back to creating the guideline of BI usage instead. Decent work in progress is sitting waiting to be finished at WP:BIDRAFT2. For my part, I'll try and get us to a conclusion regarding the Channel Islands inclusion/exclusion at the RFC page. The only way to deal with the use of 'British Isles' is via a trusted guideline that both editors and admin can accept. I just worry why so many people are worried about having one – it's like people prefer to fight this out in the trenches, rather than risk compromising what is so important to them. If admin or arbcom have any use here, it's got to be to promote the benefits of creating one. All encyclopedias have a mass of guidelines on definitions for their contributors to follow, it's all about uniformity.Matt Lewis (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. How on earth can involved editors nominate themselves, or each other? I think there are real problems here. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And if there's 3 panel members, which "side" is RA seen to be on? And which "side" is Snowded? --HighKing (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is good that people want to move past the disruptive behaviour, but I have a major bone to pick with the admins and some participators (you know who you are) to date. I believe that there are a number of pro-British-Isles editors that need to hold up a mirror to their behaviour, and I believe that the well-intentioned editors here need to accurately reflect on the nature of the disruption caused by these editors, and why nothing was done about it. Throughout BK's tenure (as well-intentioned overseer on the process), I adhered rigidly to the rules, always referred articles here, stated reasons, and uttered not one uncivil word, acting always openly and in good faith. The project was deliberately spoiled and ultimately derailed by the small handful of pro-British-Isles editors who stonewalled and disagreed without rhyme or reason to any changes. Despite this, no sanctions were ever meted out, which merely acted to encourage these disrupters. And we now see that much of the disruption was caused by a sock - even still, the disruption continues. Mister Flash and LevenBoy have no intention to discuss content changes, and I believe, based on their comments and behaviour to date, they should be blocked from further participation.

There's over 60 articles discussed on the SE page. I invite editors to take a look at the comments left by the Pro-BI editors and then ask, how serious were they on engaging? A handful of contributions from well-intentioned editors were too sporadic to genuinely make progress. BTW, I find it very odd and incorrect to be classed as a nationalist just because I find many instances of BI to be plain wrong. Please stop attributing motives to me, especially as I've never classed myself as nationalist and wouldn't do so.

Snowded, another well-intentioned (but sporadic) contributor, wants to set in stone the sacredness of the term "British Isles", effectively vetoing any changes without prior approval. Why? The SE page started well, but ended up being stalled when pro-BI editors kept pushing the line to stall and stonewall with nothing more inane than "I think it's fine the way it is" or "Nothing wrong with this". Would it not be far simpler to block the disrupters? I constantly wonder why this didn't (and doesn't) happen on this project, and I have to be honest and admit that admins simply don't block British editors for these things, but they're quick to block Irish editors for even less. My own block record stands testimony to this.

It's great to see Matt back, and I always saw the SE page as ultimately feeding into his guidelines page. Having a body of examples is a great start for the guidelines, and again, I believe this is the correct approach. There's little point in looking at individual articles unless we're attempting to understand the underlying logic about our decisions.

Therefore my additions/changes to Snowded proposal above:

• The objective is the creation of simple common-sense guidelines over usage of the term "British Isles" in articles
• Simple initial guidelines should be created as we go.
• It is recommended that editors involved in this project, or editors that make a lot of edits to insert or delete the term British Isles, must submit changes to the SE page
• Strict adherence to civility. A breach results in escalating blocks, no exceptions.
• All in Good Faith. If editors' contributions are stonewalling, this will result in being a series of escalating blocks which will prevent participation.

--HighKing (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, block the disruptors, or should that be disruptor, singular. As far as I can see you been at this for a good few years now, blazing away at British Isles, retreating, then back on the attack again. Do us all a favour, call it day and stick to organising complex events. Mister Flash (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all HighKing's changes apart from actually having pre-written block rules. It should be left up to the admin, as it normally is. Regarding punishment, do you think we can organise a better way of avoiding 3RR? Nullifying offending editors actual edits in the 3RR count (like IP edits) for example, when they are 'semi-blocked' (so to speak). The problem is that these kind of rulings normally have to be voted on. But maybe not - they could be part of an admin statment perhaps? I don't why action surrounding civility issues etc should be any different the British Isles - we should treat them as any other. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at two editors in particular, especially their comments, their behaviour, and their edit summaries. Look at the past 2 weeks from both Mister Flash and LevenBoy as they constantly and persistently make personal comments with no action or sanction from admins. Both revert edits with no discussion. Both stonewall with no contribution to discussions. Why do we put up with this? Why is no action taken? It is disruptive, unhelpful, and designed to frustrate. Until this project has proper sanctions in place, that will be policed, it'll result in more of the same with no progress. I firmly believe that if BK had been less gutless about sanctioning these editors, we would have made much more progress. With the greatest of respect for BK, he actually did more harm than good with his inaction and ultimate retirement. --HighKing (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got a bloody nerve boy! You really have! You are 100% responsible for all this mayhem and all you can do is decry other editors who try and stand up to you and your sneaky ways of gaming the system, cite tags where not needed, proposal for deletion, making your own rules up as you go along, and more. Mister Flash (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how many people won't want to get involved in this if this is the way it is going to progress. Jack forbes (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I love being well-intentioned but sporadic! I might say well intentioned but not obsessive as an alternative, that is to say I spend as much time as I can on often meaningless disputes with little good will from either side to reach a resolution. I think we need to get real here:

• Attempt to create guidelines have consistently failed over the last two years. I think one of the reasons is that we are putting the cart before the horse. We need an inductive not a deductive approach. If we create a body of case history based on multiple examples then we will be able to create guidelines.
• Getting admin attention to police behaviour on the page has not worked, in particular it has not prevented stone walling. Managing the degree of obsession (both ways) on this subject is a mind numbing task and we can see that in the recent withdrawal of admin who did for a period make a difference.
• Creating arbitration panels with representatives of both sides is an established method to resolve long running intractable problems, which is why I proposed it. Who those arbiters are is for resolution downstream, its premature to name them but whoever they are it would have to come with community consensus
• Creating a solution between the editors active on the page is one way forward. If this ends up in Arbcom you will end up with multiple topic bans and Troubles like restrictions. At the moment that is where this whole thing is going. We really need to do something different here. --Snowded ^TALK 15:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder if the subject is big enough. I worry about the extension of 'the Troubles' too (on Wikipedia I mean of course! Where else.). These are supposed to be more peaceful times. Maybe we should look for an admin none of us have ever heard of, which I don't think has happened yet (although I've missed a lot I know). Someone new perhaps, and not so jaded. Is there a page on new admin? Matt Lewis (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I believe there is enough body of work currently to distill basic guidelines that will cover more than 80% of usage. We can at least get the horse in harness and in position.
• Getting admin attention, based on the inability of BK to contribute and take action due to his RL commitments, shouldn't be used as an excuse. The job of the admin(s) in this case isn't to rule on content, but to strictly enforce existing basic policies. We've all seen in the past how editors have suffered from constant barraging of personal comments and how entire Talk pages are taken over with non-content arguments. This has to stop, and properly enforced. I predict editors will get the hang of it pretty quickly, or will lose interest and move on to annoy someone else.
• I'm in two minds about arbitration panels, having seen the "Republic of Ireland" fiasco with (once again) non-participation by those who have the mandate to take action (admins, Arbcom, etc).
• Perhaps we need to go to Arbcom to enforce some basic civility policies - they don't like to go near content. I'm pretty sure that they'll take a very dim view of those disruptive editors who only participate to cause trouble, and perhaps doling out a topic ban to those editors might be the only way forward if admins can't uphold the basic civility policies that already exist here.

I believe the SE page was well intentioned. It failed because BK failed. Many editors stay away because it turns into a very nasty page with lots of snide, sarcastic, personal comments. All I ask is that the page is well-policed. Can we not, at the very least, try a simple approach first without all the drama of panels and committees? Can we try an experiment of one month of strict adherence to civility on the SE page and see where we go first? If we can't do the simple, I see no hope for anything more complex. --HighKing (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Any new admin coming in should be told of the potentially stressful nature of the subject. Too often admins have volunteered to arbitrate on these subjects and departed within weeks due to the demands put upon them. As I think I have stated previously, I don't believe one admin is enough for this. I would also suggest that the admin(s) should live in the same time zone as it doesn't make sense to me having an arbitrator who can't respond within a reasonable amount of time. Jack forbes (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We need some heavy handed action at the Specifics page. Perhaps, HK, MF, LB and myself, should limit ourselves to 1-day a week at that page. As for MBM, he should be barred from the Specifics page, as he can no longer be trusted. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like MBMs barred hiself from everything! I'm stopping going near the SE page. HighKing is just a gamer. I've put a note on his page about a sock accusation, what was it about? Mister Flash (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Struck out my above suggestion. It's quite evident that the Specifics page is driving me bonkers. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the proposal above but i do have concerns about the selection of the panel. If in many cases the two from each side support their own POV then this basically puts the outcome in the hands of a single person. How can we be sure of neutrality?, if for example after 5 rulings the "neutral" panel member has voted to support the removal of British Isles in all 5 cases then i would certainly have lost all faith in the process. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BW, I was thinking that the two "representatives" would provide "reasoned advocacy" for a position and seek agreement with the assistance of their third. Stacking up a series of cases for first use would encourage a balanced approach so thanks for stimulating that. --Snowded ^TALK 07:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Snowded's proposal

I know there are other projects connected to this subject but, I believe this one in particular is important to this subject. Other than the fact that I believe that Snowded who suggested it is as neutral as you can get , by that I mean he says it as he sees it, I do believe this proposal can help towards an understanding between opposing views. I'm going to ask all editors interested in this subject to say for or against to Snowded's proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack forbes (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 December 2009

Saying it 'as you see it' really isn't the same as being neutral though. I'm very unhappy with elevating individual editors in this way - it has got (or should have) nothing to do with Wikipedia in my view. And I'm not sure any of us have been (or can be) neutral all the time, anyway - the subject has been too entwined with Irish matters. And we all have an idea on the UK, though in fairness Snowded puts his nationalism on his User page. I know this draft proposal is - in a sense - about being partisan, but I still don't like it. And being this punitive has never worked - people just create a new sock, and it creates even more of a paranoid atmosphere. We cannot ban every new user we see - or at least we shouldn't be doing that. The top-level problem is Wikipedia having the 'same old' editors in these matters year after year after year - we hardly ever see new involvement from the countless people who could theoretically join in. We should be doing anything we can to encourage positive friendly measures. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, do you have a suggestion on how we can bring in "new involvement" into this? Jack forbes (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• For Jack forbes (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• For GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Worth trying What Matt says has a lot of merit to it but as a means to establish precedence I think this proposal is worth trying. (Matt, this would mean that the eventual end would be the guidelines you want so badly.) My vision of it working is that we would take many examples and work through them methodologically (e.g. we would take the first 100 articles that link to British Isles regardless of what they are.) The purpose of working through them would be to decide whether that example was correct usage or not ... but more importantly: WHY and WHAT PRECEDENT we could draw from it. Any example that is still undecided would be put to "the panel" to call. BUT like Matt says, this is not a long-term solution. It is not how Wikipedia works and it is not how Wikipedia should work. What it can do, however, is establish bright rules that we can all abide by. So, at the end of each example (whether it was resolved by consensus of being called by the "panel") we would NEED to establish what was the precedent we could take from it (maybe in the form of a maxim). This would need to be written down. Then, quickly, the need for this process would end itself when enough precedents were established that every call could be made by just looking at it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s. could we move this page to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration to get that going. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, just to say, but I've probably already been over the first 1,000 or so of the really bad ones and they're on the SE page already. But I accept that I was looking more for incorrect usage than highlighting the perfectly OK ones, and that part of the exercise is just as important. I'm agree with Snowded's proposal but only if we've truly exhausted the SE page. I believe we might now make some progress with editors observing strict civility on the SE page. No harm if we tried at least, but it would require other editors suggesting articles and commentng on the ones that are already there, and perhaps we should add more good examples - there's only a small number of good examples (2?) there. --HighKing (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The purpose was to create precedence and resolve immediate conflict. I've asked for admin comment, and then plant to revised it in the light of all comments and move it over the the the WIki-project as a formal proposal at the weekend. --Snowded ^TALK 06:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't Mister Flash said he's going to back off for a few months? That could be seen as a development perhaps, as he was one of the 'in yer face' editors. Black Kite may have gone, but he just needs replacing surely. I really don't think things are so bad at this moment - and I'm at least one new extra voice around too. We just need a new admin, and to carry on. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Things aren't bad at the moment. So now is just the time to work things out, not sit around waiting for all hell to break loose again. A long long time ago, three editors decided that the county I call Derry would be called Londonderry on Wikipedia and the city that some call Londonderry would be called Derry. By making that calm decision in a time of peace, it saved all sorts of hell for six years and counting. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree and I've had some more comments back on the practical side - so will work on a revised proposal for more public posting later this week. --Snowded ^TALK 06:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)