Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Disruption?

I would suggest that anyone who has objections to the process the moderator chooses to determine consensus go re-read Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Moderation. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that if a moderator makes a suggestion and editors indicate “oppose,” to the suggestion, editors may be banned from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month and told they are disrupting the collaboration process? Per Remedies #2, though Remedies #1 still valid. I would find that hard to believe, when one views the efforts which are being made, with clear signs of progress. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. BW wants RoI included in the vote, so he opposed. I opposed the oppose, but didn't find it disruptive.

Saying OMGNothingWeveDoneForMonthsHasDoneAnyGoodSoLetsKeepDoingIt -- that's disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's grand, I thought for a minute that an editor could be banned for responding to a suggestion. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it's not my call on what's disrupting the process -- it's the moderator's. He may disagree with where I drew the line above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is clear consensus here to move RoI to Ireland (state). Can't see why a vote is required for that part of the process. I also disagree with SarekOfVulcan templating the page, it appears to be a lack of Agf. It's not the first time that this particular editor has initiated a crises in this area of Wikipedia. This could all end very sour if SarekOfVulcan doesn't withdraw the menacing. Sad. Tfz 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Templating which page? *looks confused* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what I call this [1], maybe there's another term for it. I'm not hanging around this page much longer if this is the future. Tfz 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No template involved. Hmmm... About the only thing I can think of, besides "reminding people about Arbcom sanctions", is WP:HARASS -- though I'd dispute that that's what's going on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

@Tfz. I for one oppose "Ireland (state)". We know from experience that this leads people to believe that Ireland is a state in the American or Australian sense, i.e. part of a larger entity in the same way as Scotland and Wales, e.g.[2] That is a far more serious misconception than what is the exact, official name. DrKiernan (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that this is credible. "We know from experience" that people think "state" means what it does in America? I don't believe this is the case. Plus Bunreacht na hÉireann uses the term "state". -- Evertype·✆ 09:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I agree. However the suggestion is that if that is what's voted for that's what we get. Regardless of the arguements, references, and supporting evidence. It's numbers that count, not WP:V, WP:NPOV etc...IMHO --Domer48_'fenian' 08:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan where were you? I wanted 'Ireland (country)' as the compromise, "but that's not perfect either, the purists maintained", but got no support, and that was a "compromise". My first preference is "Ireland", because it's the name, and because it covers 85% of the island. I'm pretty well finished on this page for a while, as it's going nowhere good, and now we are voting on a compromise. But the other side of the argument refuse to compromise at all. The solution will not be perfect, but I can see this ending up in a whole load of unwanted scenarios. Tfz 08:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A vote for "Ireland (country)" may be in your favour, since my understanding is that the main objectors to its use are Irish nationalists from Northern Ireland, who are the smallest of all the interest groups.

My current favourite would be "Ireland (republic)" as that seems to have the least number of opposers and the least number of valid opposing arguments. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Comment refactored to remove "they". DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a new one on me, "Ireland (republic)" , should the "r" be captalised? A community wide poll would lliminate doubts there. Tfz 10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

With STV we can express our preferences and so can "they". -- Evertype·✆ 09:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there is support for a compromise where the article on the country moves to Ireland (state), but those wanting that need to understand that compromise is only going to be possible if ROI becomes a redirect. This idea of creating some new article at ROI or having it redirect to a damn Act which we all know most people wont be looking for is going to make compromise and consensus impossible. People want the country moved from ROI, fine.. atleast accept that ROI should remain a damn redirect to the country article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that. If the others can't then at the very least the page should be another disambig page with links to the country, the act and the football team who use the name. I agree most will be looking for the country however.MITH 10:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And I don't accept that either. BigDunc^Talk 10:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Most looking for the country type "I-R-E-L-A-N-D". British watcher is politically concerned with a British political POV that should have no place here at Wwikipedia. My interest is that Wikipedia should educate and not be at the mercy of pov-pushing. Tfz 10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about keening again. -- Evertype·✆ 10:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't realised you had stopped.) Tfz 11:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not TFZ, Republic of Ireland is how many people especially in Britain know the country in southern Ireland. Just because you dont like this fact doesnt justify us not having a redirect to it. Your refusal to be reasonable on this matter proves that consensus or compromise is impossible and why we have to put it to the vote. Its so funny that u declare we are close to compromise, but when something is mentioned which u and ur friends dont like u raise hell and refuse to accept compromise. Compromise is clearly dead, bring on the vote BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with BW to a certain extent. The term is used for the country in the UK. Just because you don't like doesn't mean its not commonly used over there. It's just a redirect, I don't see what the problem is. It not being used as a title is a huge step forward, ROI being used as a redirect seems fair enough to me. A redirect does not suggest any political POV, it is just a redirect.MITH 11:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. RoI Has been the article on the state for years. That is unacceptable to some with a certain PoV. Now that there's a real chance of the article on the state moving from RoI, even to the extent of some mish-mash article combining the topics of the island and the state, they're still not satisfied, and seem to be intent on expunging the term RoI altogether. Bastun^nutsaB 11:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I had compromised for RoI becoming disambiguation page for the term, but not redirect. Bastun, MITH, fundamentally I don't disagree with what you are saying. Do we have to call Ireland by RoI to suit some people in Britain. Wikipedia is a farce if that's the case, and certainly not a serious encyclopedia. Tfz 11:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What would make WP a farce is making RoI redirect to an article on the Act, rather than redirecting to the article on the state. Bastun^nutsaB 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You know full well that RoI for the State is British/Unionist POV. Even the British Government will not use it. In fact no country in Europe will or can us it and state quite clearly Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’. This is the English languge Wiki not the British. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is disgusting how one sided the ability to compromise is. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying you have compromised on what? Changing the name from ROI to Ireland is not a compromise it is upholding wiki policy, it is NOT the name of the country simple. BigDunc^Talk 12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a big compromise from the current position which has remained for years. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, just out of curiousity, where did you get the idea that "Republic of Ireland" is a British/Unionist term? It was introduced by the Irish parliament as the official description of the state. Plus, as I've noted above, it's commonly used by Irish nationalists and republicans in the six counties. ~Asarlaí 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Any new user not knowing about these side shows and simply voting on the ballot paper is going to interpret the litte arrows depicting moves/merges as meaning that Republic of Ireland will become a redirect. This is just standard Wikipedia practice. If anybody wants a change to that, that needs to be explicitly added/stated on the poll. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, STOP - you are arguing around each again and again. This is why this process is taking so long, and it is not going to be resolved any time soon with consensus. Nearly every name option given is a valid choice, unfortunately, there can be only one named article where the country information can reside, with all other valid options being redirects to it. Consensus has tried to figure out what the best valid choice is, but all these discussions, as above, break down into "my valid option is better than your valid option", which is exactly why this process is been dragged on so long. Consensus is not going to change minds, so the only way to solve this - unless everyone is willing to wait out another 6 months - is to seek full community opinion on what they think is the best valid options. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But this is not on the naming of the article its on the redirect. You say that "with all other valid options being redirects". That is all that i ask, i accept the article on the country needs moving and i think consensus could be reached on this without even a poll taking place, but there must also be consensus that Republic of Ireland which is certainly a valid option will become a redirect and not used for some weak article on "the term", it should always be a redirect to the country article but some people dont seem to want to accept that, yet they are the ones arguing for the vote to be cancelled so written consensus can be found. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rules for the vote

Seen as it looks certain this is going to be put to a vote, what are the rules going to be and the sanctions for those who break the rules? In a recent dispute over the title of the article which is now at Military history of Britain after the campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia won a victory, there was clear evidence of vote rigging with external canvassing on an Irish forum. How is this sort of abuse going to be prevented in the up coming vote, are IPs going to be stopped from voting, what about new user accounts? Will there be regular checks for WP:SOCKS? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for a vote. Tfz 12:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say there was consensus, i said it looked certain this is going to be put to a vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an alternative proposel to voting, we could try that. You asked me to clarify a point on the Straw Poll solution, care to register your opinion? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer you and a few others are unwilling to compromise or even try for consensus on matters relating to what happens with the Republic of Ireland article, there for we should put it to the vote as suggested. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a poll, can we have three questions rather than two? "Ireland (state)" in the first question could be changed to "Ireland (state/nation/country/republic/etc)", and then the third question could be to choose the bracketed disambiguator. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On State / nation / country etc, i think we could have a mini poll on that before the main vote, the clear majority wants it to be state so i think we should probably stick with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with BW per DrKiernan above. BigDunc^Talk 12:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave the article as it is, it is just dandy. --De Unionist (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy with restricting the voting to users registered before say, the end of April. If this poll goes on the watchlist notice, it will be seen by all registered Wikipedians, that is more than enough potential input to settle what is essentially an internal debate over policy, after the length of time this debate has run, the opinions of newly registered accounts, who arguably are just as likely to have no knowledge of Wikipedia policy as to be fast learners, are not going to add much. MickMacNee (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A vote carries no weight on Wikipedia, it is consensus that counts. --De Unionist (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is impossible to reach by the looks of some of the debate above, there for a vote is going to have to be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Another matter which needs to be cleared up before the vote goes live is where it is going to be advertised. Is a notice going to be placed on certain wikiprojects informing people there is an ongoing vote? If a notice is to be placed on the Ireland wikiproject, it seems only fair to place one on Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shares the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland there for this involves UK wikipedians too. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly object to WP:CANVASS on Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as I object to the vote in the first instance. Tfz 18:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and a poll can only be seen as counter productive and therefore not the way forward. --De Unionist (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonders will never cease I agree with De Unionist. BigDunc^Talk 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of help! --De Unionist (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I will point out that as laid out above, the results of the vote will be analyzed, and there may be more to consider if there are interesting patterns in it. For example, let's say that with STV, that a given option X "wins" 51% of the vote when considering first choices, but if we considered the second desired option of each voter, an option Y "wins" 95% of that vote. (and for the sake of argument, every voted submitted a second desired option instead of opting for none) I would be inclined to suggest that we implement option Y over the "winning" option X since there's wider support for that even if it is the second choice - this is why STV is very useful here. There is still room for discussion after the vote to use the results of the vote to decide on the best option among this group's contributors. Mind you, it may be absolutely clear that in the first choice round, X wins with 95% of the vote, leaving little question where consensus lies. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem it is obvious that there is no consensus for a Poll. Even if there was there is no consensus for which type of Poll or what options should be included. The fact about a poll is it all comes down to numbers. Arguements, and the strenght of arguements go out the window. Our policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV ect.. go out the window. Being positive, there has been movement. If I try, and put forward a proposel will you be willing to at least to look it over and give an opinion. I know we are not going to get 100% agreement, but I know that Wiki is bigger than this issue, and we already have the tools to address this, built up by the community over a number of years. We just need to be willing to apply the same standard for this discussion that we would expect for a Featured Article. All I'm asking is that you have an open mind to alternatives? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems it is discriminatory to begin with. --De Unionist (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If certain editors are prepared to accept compromise on all issues to do with this matter (Not just the new location of the country article, but the fate of ROI and how we describe Ireland in certain articles where its clearly ambiguous) then consensus is possible without a vote. But considering the strong opposition from some editors above to the future of Republic of Ireland as a redirect, unless that changes i dont see how a consensus can be reached and the poll is the only choice we have left. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem, im sure the suggested pattern you mention will indeed happen with the clear majority of second votes going for Ireland (state) however we need to be confident about the rules before that vote takes place to avoid a dispute happening during or after the vote is counted. So if you and the other mods have views on Who can and cant take part in the vote, where it should be advertised etc, it would be really helpful if this could be detailed in the coming days. Also we need confirmation and agreement on punishments if someone is caught cheating. We are going to need to do regular sweeps of certain forums, and i hope admins will be doing regular SOCK checks because i have concerns about atleast one recent new user that contributed to this page a few days ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Where: WP:VPP, WP:CENT for two as definite, as well as maybe getting a watchlist notification (doubtful, too small an impact). An RFC drop can't hurt either. Possibly WP:NC. Definitely, any WProject that deals with Ireland or the UK or such related topics. Also notification at the ArbCom case.

Who: No IPs, and to avoid socking, only to users registered before June 1, 2009. (I would alternatively allow for users registered before the end of the first week of the vote, as to prevent vote stacking at the end of the day, but I think it's easier that, by this point in the discussion, there are few new voices to be heard, and acceptable to limit it to existing users. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Masem, that clears up alot of my concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In what universe does a poll showing 12 for and 4 against a vote show that there is no consensus for a vote?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(or maybe 13, depending on how you count Peter cohen's comment)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

@Domer: 12 in favour of a community-wide poll, 4 against. 3/4 in favour looks a lot like consensus to me.

@Masem: Those in favour of a poll seem to favour Single transferable vote. Above, you seem to be suggesting something else, some modified form of that. Assuming no option reached 50% + 1 in the first count, the least popular option would be eliminated and the #2 votes of those who'd voted would be transferred to the remaining options. And so on, until 50% + 1 was reached. That's how STV works (for a 'single seat election', anyway). What alternative are you proposing instead? I think everyone would want absolute clarity in advance.

Presumably you will be able to get permission to have a Watchlist hatnote set up to advertise the poll (aswell as a notice placed on various talkpages/project pages). There will presumably need to be some sort of statement or explanation of the various options, rather than just having participants face a list of options such as "Option X: state article to remain at RoI; island article to remain at Ireland", "Option Y: state and island articles both merge to Ireland; RoI redirects to Republic of Ireland Act 1948", "Option Z: state article moves to Ireland (state), island article moves to Ireland (island), Ireland becomes a disambiguation page", etc. If I'm correct in this, who will draw up the summary statements promoting each option? Participants here, proposers of options, you yourself? Bastun^nutsaB 14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's 75% in favor. At an RFA, that would be considered within bureaucrat discretion to go either way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What I propose is a mix of polling and compromise. Certainly if the 1st choice STV winner is one by a clear margain, there's no benefit for further discussion and we can move to the next step. But in the WP environment (where we may not be able to track votes easily, and thus there's certain +/- %ages for results), a 51% majority would sit uncomfortable with me unless we validated that that truely was the best option when you start processing the STV votes. And again, in the example I give, if everyone's split on a first option but their second option is strongly in favor, I would propose (not state, we're still a group consensus) that that's the best choice. In other words, this poll is not to absolutely resolve the issue but to validate what the community thinks of the proposed solutions. If the community clearly favors one option, then the choice forward is clear, but if they are nearly equally split, further discussion is merited. It still may be the 51% first choice option is the solution picked, but at least I personally would feel better that we agreed that was the case.

(Personally, I don't think we're going to see it that close, but I don't want to preclude this as a possible route). --MASEM (t) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the format, please see User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox which really only needs a lead section to describe the basis of the dispute. I disagree about any need for "summary statements promoting each option"; a lead statement can identify what the issues are, but being a vote and not a RFC-approach, we don't want to encourage discussion on that page (however, any discussion can be put to the talk page, and used in the evaluation if there's new options that someone puts forward). --MASEM (t) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

May I remind voters that this voting process is practically irreversible, so if we are stuck with a heap-load of pov, don't say you weren't warned. Tfz 17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I wouldn't recommend "messing" with any established voting system. Once you deviate from the formula there are hundred of possibilities for how to make up the "95%" from your example above. (For example, if A got 51%, but we could get as far as 80% for B using some people's 2nd prefs, then what if we could get to 90% for A using other peoples' 3rd and 4th preferences? ... which would we choose?)

I would recommend setting a required super majority instead. The quota for winning a "one-seat" STV vote is usually 50%+1 but it is possible to set a higher quota e.g. 65% or 75%. (Note however that once any option reaches 50%+1 it is unbeatable by any other option so there is no point in counting all ballots to the very end.) It is possible, however, in that case that there will be no "winner" - but then again a "winner" of merely 50%+1 is not in the best interest of WP or resolving this issue.

There is also benefit to having multi-round voting. So we could for example have a first round of balloting by STV that will result in 2 (or at most 3) options being nominated for a second round. Then have a second round of voting on those 2 (or at most 3) options using simple majority voting (maybe with a requisite of a super majority e.g. 60%). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rules for a vote written up by Fmph

Just a couple of comments on the PRSTV ballot paper in your sandbox:

1. I'm not sure the 12 month block is necessarily enforceable just on our say from the project. It may be that other admins and bureaucrats would not view things the same way and enforce such a draconian punishment. Given that, I'd suggest that the project should not try to pre judge the outcome of any disciplinary action. I'd remove that note entirely.
2. I think one thing that is missing is any notice of how the ballot will be conducted. It should say

• • is there a minimum number of participants required to validate the ballot
  • who will announce the result
  • how it will be announced
  • if a simple 1 vote majority will be sufficient?
  • will the vote transfer processes be open for peer review
  • who will execute any necessary page moves
  • when will they be performed (I'd suggest 7 x 24 hours after the result is announced)

Just my thoughts Fmph (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're bang on:

1. If we were to have set punishments, we would need to get ArbCom to agree to them and enforce them. My reasons for having set (draconian) punishments in there was to warn off any attempts at manipulating the vote (there is already bad blood, I'd like it cut out on all sides - having draconian punishments no only warns off possible frauds but, more importatnly, reassure each "side" that the other wouldn't try it and that they have a come back if they did).
2. I think a detailed (but not too overly lawyerly) "what will happen" section is a great idea. I is important that we all are on the same hymn sheet about what we can expect. I didn't write one because I didn't want to clog up the "ballot paper" with rules, maybe they could be written up on a subpage. Maybe you could sandbox one up? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no special insight into ArbCom, but seems to me that if we come up with a blocking criteria through consensus pursuant to their instructions to settle this, they'd probably accept it as valid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right. But frankly I think a blocking policy/criteria are the least of our problems. Fmph (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm just addressing the point as you raised it -- ArbCom has delegated the content dispute to us, so if consensus says this is necessary, it probably wouldn't be challenged. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Whaddya think of this? Fmph (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good. Especially using software to calculate the result. It will take a lot of the trouble out of it. I have two comments though:

• I think there are simpler ways to vote than "A6 B1 C2 D4 E3 F5". I would have difficulty remembering what rank I put 'A' at, for example, if it was far down the line. I would prefer to vote "B, C, E, F, A" for example. However, I think we should allow either method for voting. If a person's vote does not follow one of these methods then I think an assigned moderator should be allowed to reformat the vote so that it conforms to a style (if it is intelligible) or strike it out and ask the user to recast their vote (if it is unintelligble) to avoid confusion among the tellers.
• I agree that three tellers should tally the the ballots but I don't think that all three should calculate it. This is because there are times when STV requires random selection (for example if two options have the same number of votes but one needs to be eliminated). Therefore the three tellers may come back with three different results despite recording the ballots correctly. I think instead three tellers should independently collate the ballots into three independent ballot files for OpenSTV according to a pre-agreed format. An assigned moderator should then check that these ballot files are identical using a diff utility. If the ballots files are identical then the moderator should run the results and upload the ballot file they used and a copy-and-paste of the output of the results to WP. The first result from OpenSTV is final (should there be any discrepancy between random selections etc.)

Finally, should we set a minimum quota requred by a "winner"? e.g. must have 1st prefs or transfers from 66% of "electorate"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Adds: I also think that most (if not all) of the "rules" should be hidden using a Template:Hidden ... this is so as not not put people off voting by hitting them with a load of text. We should still show a "how to vote" section because people may not be familiar with STV. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to try and move thing forward

Following on from my comments above, I've attempted to provide a proposal here, considered opinions would be welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought ur proposal was going to be based around the China solution not the Britannica one. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer. You have managed to confuse me even further. You say "following on from my comments above", yet above you proposed a solution by stating: We’ve had three suggestions which all revolve around what could be called the China solution. It has been broken down by Tfz above into five points, reduced to four leaving discussion on the RoI till we have gained consensus on the other four first. Among those five points was:

• (1) Ireland be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc.
• (3) Ireland (state) refers to to Ireland, the modern state.

So if that was your preferred so-called "China" solution, why are you now proposing:

• To create one Ireland article, by merging the current article at Republic of Ireland with the Ireland article.

These are clearly very different proposals, so how does one follow on from the other? Moreover, if the former was "China" what is this? Perhaps you can understand why I am wary of supporting any "named" solution, because it is entirely unclear what exactly the name refers to at any given time. Rockpocket 02:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple really, I took three suggestions which all revolve around what could be called the China solution. Out of that, I formulated a solution based on all three of them. Don't worry about being confused your not alone, having gone a step above the Britannica solution, to the China model, BritishWatcher still can't get it, it is the China solution. I'm a bit confused also, having provided a section titled "Comments against:" on this proposal here, you along with two others, place your comments in the "oppose" section. A simple format, with simple instructions, and you can't get it right? You sign at "oppose" and you place your comment in the section titled "Comments against," GoodDay managed no problem to get it right. Now Rock just one question, you say in your comment "Nope. Ireland is ambiguous." Please give us the Diff to were the consensus was reached on this, lets see "The way we address ambiguity" and how the Community dealt "with it in a neutral and sensible manner," I've asked you before so please don't just "ignore it" because both myself and MASEM can't find it, and it would help. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah I think I see the problem with the Comments against section, Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions. Is that what's wrong? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the proposal you made does not sound like the China solution to me it sounds like the Britannica one. China solution is a basic article about the region / area known as China at China and a link at the top of the page / a mention in the intro linking to the article on the sovereign state. Now i find that method reasonable, but its not what u proposed. What you proposed is to have a single article on the country / island which is the Britannica solution which several people made very clear they strongly opposed.

The China solution in this case would be ... A general article at Ireland about its history, geography, division as two countries etc with a link at the top to the main article on the sovereign state which would be at Ireland (State) and a link to Ireland (island) which goes into detail about the island itself. That creates another article which im not sure we need. The simplest solution to all our problems would be to do the following things then we can all go home, before everyone withdraws from the process as is happening below.

1) Move the country article to Ireland (state)

2) Republic of Ireland redirects to Ireland (state)

3) People agree to the previously mentioned proposal on when Republic of Ireland can be used in text (like on articles talking about Northern Ireland).

Thats it, thats all that needs to happen as far as im concerned. Now im being attacked below by certain editors who have gone out of their way to push their own agenda here and yet im fully supporting the above compromise. Its not like im being difficult and saying the article on the country MUST remain at Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Insult

This page is an insult to Ireland. It really is difficult to endure. I am out, and this is my last post here. Do what you want, go to a vote with people who don't care, and forget the folks who do care. Tfz 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bye BritishWatcher (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tfz I can understand your concerns, but I do have hope that common sense, or the Community will step in a some stage. Here is an Admin, whom I've had disagreements with, and find myself now agreeing with, "Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a vote holds no merit. Consensus and reliable sources is what matters, not voting. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC). I know this process turns all of our policies on their head, and that this process is pandering to POV's but consensus and reliable sources is what matters, not voting.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time I made my last post on this subject the response from BW is typical of the editor go ahead and push through the pro british POV, I too refuse to take any part in it. Not one valid reason on policy has been made and force of numbers is being used to achieve british POV, shame on editors who I thought at least had a neutral bone in their body but I was sadly mistaken. BigDunc^Talk 08:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bye BritishWatcher (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Might I just add, my POV is I'm an Irish Nationalist and I don't think BritishWatcher is, or the process is, too unreasonable.MITH 10:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is funny, because I originally thought BW was an Irish nationalist (i.e. he would be watching the British lol). As for this section, all I can say is, Don't feed the divas (it would of course need to be modified to deal with storming out of a process, not the whole project). MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I’m caught between a rock and a hard place here. While I feel like a member of the SDLP under the old Stormont, lending creditability to a corrupt institution, walking away means nothing changes. What’s being done here, turning this whole project on its head, subverting the policies of the Community such as WP:V, WP:NPOV and providing for a POV charter in the form of a Vote, other Admin’s and Editors are presented with a choice. Do they sit on their hands and ignore it, or do they step up to the plate. Yes we have had to contend with personal attacks, snide remarks and inane arguments, condoned by both Admin’s and Editors but that just illustrates how devoid of arguments they are, and rely on numbers. While I think this whole process has provided ample evidence of this to date, it still has the potential to show much more. The better the arguments, the more irrational they become. I’ll stay on the proposal page, and see how it goes while just ignoring this farce.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, your opinion here seems to be that consensus is fine, as long as it comes out your way -- otherwise, it's votestacking/meatpuppetry/nationalist POV. That's hardly conducive to getting this resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite agree and I resent those comments by User:Domer48 concerning Stormont. This is simply WP:NPOV gobbly-gook..if the boot's on the other foot and all that! --De Unionist (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Second humble request from your moderator

Ok, right now, there's too much confusion to push the above vote suggestion that I gave, so let me try something else:

I am proposing, based on everything I've read, that the following likely has the best chance of gaining consensus without approaching a vote.

• The island remains at Ireland
• The 26-county state moves to Ireland (state)
• Republic of Ireland redirects to Ireland (state)
• The disabmiguation page remains at Ireland (disambiguation)
• Blue-Haired Lawyer's means of how to refer to the state when potential confusion arises with the island and N. Ireland should be used. (see [#Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland in articles|above] for the details but primarily using "Republic of Ireland" when confusion may arise particularly with "Northern Ireland", "Ireland" alone in all other cases.
• Hatnotes for dabs and additional redirects will be added as necessary (eg, Ireland (state) may need a Northern Ireland dab hatnote).

I'm not necessary saying that this is the best solution or my preferred one (I'm staying neutral), only the one that as I read everything seems to be the one that all answers gravitate towards.

Now, here's my request. Below are "Support" and "Oppose". This is NOT the final resolution on this matter, I am only trying to judge if there's a chance of gaining consensus on a solution or if a vote is really necessary. Thus, this is not committing you to this solution (I will ask a more binding "do you agree to this" at a different time).

Vote Support only if you agree with everything I list above with absolutely no cavaets. Think the country should be at Ireland (nation)? Vote Oppose. Did I miss a critical aspect that needs to be resolved? Vote Oppose. If you are still voting Support, please don't comment further. However, if you do vote Oppose, please explain why, and be explicit - explain every reason you feel this is not the right solution. Let's use this to see how far we are for a possible consensus that may be buried beneath everything. Please do not comment on people's Oppose votes in the Oppose section, if you feel the need to comment, use the Discussion section below.

Again, your vote here is not binding, this is not the final resolution on the issue, only a means to judge what the next best steps are. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

Please do not add any comment besides signing your name here. If you disgree even with one tiny part of the above recommendations, please vote Oppose and explain in detail

1. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
2. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
4. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Redking7 (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Rockpocket 00:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
7. De Unionist (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
8. ras52 (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

If you are voting here, please explain why you disagree with the above steps; please explain all reasons you disagree, if you have multiple concerns.

1. I think Ireland (disambiguation) should be at Ireland. Also I think Ireland (country) would a better title. MITH 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
2. "Ireland (state)" sounds like a state in the American or Australian sense. DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Republic of Ireland for the state and Ireland for the island have worked fine for years and there has been no consensus to change; I would not favour any change to that if it was brought in by a select few editors here rather than by a community poll/RfC-type procedure. Bastun^nutsaB 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
4. I oppose this poll because in putting it in the field, the moderator has himself made choices about which options might or might not pass muster. For everyone in the community to feel they have had a fair say, only an STV poll can lead to a result that everyone can consider to be inclusive and fair. Even if I might be able to accept the options in this poll, there are others which I might prefer, and I object to those options not being given a hearing. Please let us finalize the STV poll and hold that. -- Evertype·✆ 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Having said that, and given Masem's comments below, I believe that Ireland (disambiguation) should be at Ireland, and I disagree with the suggestion that "state" would be interpreted as a US, Australian, or Mexican "state". Ireland is a state, and "nation" and "country" are less appropriate in terms of a formal description. -- Evertype·✆ 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
5. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Just let it remain at Republic of Ireland. The term is incorrect and I do not like it but it is a term that is used and it is much better than Ireland (state) which has a different meaning in different parts of the world. The anti-ROI editors cannot even agree on a solution. (formerly user T*85)76.118.224.35 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
7. "Ireland (state)" sounds stupid. Either Republic of Ireland or Ireland would be better. FF3000 (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
8. State is very poorly done here on Wikipedia, and gives all the wrong impressions. Either "Ireland (country)", or "Ireland (sovereign country)" would be more indicative. Tfz 12:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm unhappy about this process. This isn't STV. It is you crystal-balling the result of the STV. Now STV allows everyone to express his or her favourite preference and to rank other options in terms of acceptability. In my view, if we have an STV poll, everyone will be able to express their preference. No one can say it was rail-roaded. So... why should I vote in this poll, which begs the question of the STV poll? (Note I am not saying anything about my opinion of the accuracy of your crystal-balling. But I saw consensus for an STV poll. Did you not?) -- Evertype·✆ 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus for an STV poll. However, there are a couple of people screaming loudly in an attempt to drown out that consensus, so he's trying this instead.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw editors strongly against it, and if we had gone through with it, using the results of the STV poll, those editors against using STV in the first place would likely continue to complain that it wasn't a proper solution. This current poll is by no means meant to displace the STV, but right now, based on comments, there is a hint that a consensus may be much closer than it appears. If we can reach consensus without the STV, great. But if this present solution shows no chance, then the STV is still the next best route, with the assurance to those against the STV that we tried a consensus driven solution and it failed. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable editors strongly against STV? Who? What cogent arguments have they offered against it? I can say, for my part, I don't like your poll here because it doesn't offer what I consider to be appropriate options. I think there are preferable options. Since those options are not on offer, I feel that my views will not be heard. See? That is why I have supported Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's STV poll. I saw more consensus for that poll than against it. It seems to me that the STV poll is a superset of what you have offered, and therefore it is that which should be polled. It may whittle down, even to what you crystal-balled, but in good faith I think you have jumped the gun here, and I would request that you proceed with the STV poll. (I have seen two editors quit the process entirely because there was going to be an STV poll. Why would they quit? Because they were shepherding it into something that they preferred? I think STV allows us all to really say what options we can support, and that's they way to determine consensus. Accordingly, I feel that I should not vote in your poll, but wait for you to you should hold a proper poll which is in fact more inclusive. -- Evertype·✆ 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that many more people supported the STV poll than opposed it. -- Evertype·✆ 15:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) With the exception of the decision to not vote, I agree with everything Evertype has said. There are 75% of us in favour of a community-wide STV poll, which is as close to consensus as makes no difference. Only 25% are opposed, and three of those four are pushing a solution that would never get community consensus in any case. I appeal to you to reconsider this poll and proceed with working out the details of the STV poll. Bastun^nutsaB 15:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that the majority supported the STV poll. The 25% against however felt that consensus was not sought first; I cannot predict their behavior but the last thing I want are people to continue to argue that whatever solution results is invalid because they did not agree to that method of selection. Their call for an attempt to gain consensus is fair; I am making one last check to see if that's even possible. If this request (again, not a binding final consensus) clearly shows that core differences are insurmountable to achieve consensus (a fact that I do believe may happen, but let's let it speak for itself), then I can then say, without reservation, that the STV process is the only reasonable option opened for us, and those that naysayed it will need to understand that we've tried consensus and failed. In otherwords, this is a simple check of dotting our i's and crossing t's to make sure that if/when we use the STV poll over consensus that we have a valid reason to do so.

Also, I will remind people that both consensus and STV polling seek to find a resolution that nearly all participants agree to but not necessarily their first choice. The above may not be your ideal solution, but it may be one you can live with. If it turns out we can gain consensus on that, then we've met the goal. STV will result in the same; the ultimate winning solution may be the 2rd or 3rd choices for some editors, but this implies everyone can live with it; the only difference is that we introduce some hard numbers to the equation to undeniably show support one direction or another. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true that after an STV poll we may end up with the solution you have proposed, as I said. But the community deserves to make that determination via the STV poll. I'm not comfortable with your having done so. -- Evertype·✆ 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As suggested with the STV poll, that result is binding since it will be a community wide poll. And note, I am not proposing this solution, this is the solution that seems to have the most support from all comments that I've read. Also, I'm not saying that what I've written is the final solution that consensus must agree too. Maybe it's clear that if I changed one provision to something else, then that will be closer to consensus; I'm putting down a possible solution that is the lowest common denominator but if there were to be consensus it may shift from that. So don't take it as a be-all to the end solution. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

From a process point of view, it is you as moderator cherry-picking, when Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's matrix is far more inclusive and allows everyone to express their preferred set of options themselves. -- Evertype·✆ 16:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain. I am 99% confident that achieving consensus is not going to happen and that we will be going to the STV poll. But, there is 1% that says "maybe there's a chance". Given that it is not a snowball's chance and that there are legitimate concerns that going to STV bypasses attempts to build consensus, this quick poll is to help make sure we have done our homework and that the STV is the only way to close this process. After this is completed, presuming no consensus is met, then those resisting the STV and insisting on consensus building will have to realize that it is just impossible and that this is the next best solution. As it input is going now, that 99% confidence is still there for me, but I will wait to see what happens. Also, I needed some baseline solution to start with, and I picked the one that I believed based on reading comments has the most likely support from everyone; it certainly isn't cherry picked (it's basically one of the options on the STV poll) and I have no opinion if its the best solution. The oppose input that gives me what changes needed to be made from this baseline solution are more useful than continuing to ask everyone to say what their solution is; it's a means of mapping the same information but from a more concrete point. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I have accordingly modified my opposition vote above. -- Evertype·✆ 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I won't oppose the proposal, but I don't support it either. I will accept the will of the community if that be it. Fmph (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto - in a way - I supported the proposal because I think it is a fair compromise to those who (for whatever reason) can't bear the article being at Republic of Ireland, but we've already been over this. There is no more to discuss because we've been around in circles many times already. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer the disambiguation page be named Ireland & the island page be named Ireland (island). However, my primary concern, is the RoI page being moved to Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bastun has a good point. Republic of Ireland has worked for many years. "Ireland (state)" sounds absolutely ridiculous, it should either remain at "Republic of Ireland" or be moved to "Ireland". --FF3000 (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Closure

Since I've got the major opinions of the parties involved, and the "oppose" positions are pretty clearly not a position that can be made compatible (two different directions in which to name the 26-county state), I will consider that any chance of consensus happening to be beyond measure. In otherwords, any attempt to achieve normal, discussion-driven consensus on this matter is not going to happen in the immediate future. This means that polling is our next best solution. Unless anyone has anything contrary to this to offer, I will propose a revised schedule for the STV in a day or so (it won't start Sunday) and we will go from there. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, the discussion here is beyond repetitive. Is this going to be based on user Rannpháirtí anaithnid's sandbox?[3]76.118.224.35 (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, yes. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the STV poll proposed by Rannpháirtí anaithnid is the only option now. ~Asarlaí 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to offer something contrary to this to offer. Voting and polling based on Editors particular opinions/bias runs contrary to the stated polices of the project. My proposal and process is based on a number of long standing policies of the project. They include consensus, neutral point of View and verifiability based on reliable referenced sources. This is how the project deals with content disputes and that is what this is per ArbCom. Again, per ArbCom there has been no discussion on the proposed suggestions to see the extent to which the current article titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view.

There has been to date, no policy based process offered as a solution. ArbCom have stated in the section titled Purpose of Wikipedia that "use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. On the section titled Conduct and decorum ArbCom state " Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." I hope with the process I outlined that I have addressed that and prevented this type of conduct.

ArbCom make specific reference to Naming conventions in their "Final decision" and include both a link and quotation:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a longstanding policy, provides that:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

In my proposal I have addressed this and offered a number of verifiable reliable sources to support my proposals. This format, both the process including the "guidlines" in addition to a proposal is open to all editors to copy. In otherwords, any attempt to achieve normal, discussion-driven consensus on this matter is not going to happen in the immediate future, unless it includes a policy based solution. That requires the application of Wiki's long standing policies. Editors must support their opinions with verifiable reliable sources, and discussions should not be driven by simple POV pushing. I'd like the mods to consider this process, considering it has never been attempted throughout this process, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would really love it if there was a consensus driven by policy. From reviewing the background of this, that was tried and failed because there are multiple valid solutions that are driven by policy, but the division to pick between these options is tied into nationalistic issues that go beyond WP that make any attempt to achieve consensus effectively impossible. We cannot sit and wait for consensus to eventually form - this will just drag the issue further and further. However, as a near-majority of all parties involved agree to use a STV poll to end the debate, that's the best route to go after. It is a completely fair option given the breakdown of achieving consensus by normal routes without resorting to implementing the failsafe option of the ArbCom resolutions. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem please provide a diff for were this consensus driven by policy was tried and failed? I've been unable to find it. ArbCom have said this is a content dispute. So please show me were are the multiple valid solutions that are driven by policy? All that is being offered is a poll based on every editors personal POV, with the most editors "winning"! That is the term that is being used "winning." I know for a fact that if you remove all the POV and bias, insist on references this will not drag the issue further and further. If you forget about my proposal, and just look at the process it allowes for no room for time wasting, no room for nationalistic issues, no room for off topic discussions, no room for point scoring, no room for incivility or no personal attacks and just sticks with the facts. Wikipedia has developed policies over a number of years to provide us with a "a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia," and prevent groups of editors from pushing an agenda. If you try to put your own POV on spin on things, the first question an editor is asked is to back it up. I'm not willing to conceed that Wikipedia's policies have failed, but I accept that editors have. I'll attribute this then to those who are supposed to be here to uphold Wikipedia's policies and have failed. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Redking7s violating rules laid down by arbcom

He keeps trying to start or continue a debate at Talk:Republic of Ireland on changing the article title there. In the message from Arbcom it said "Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process." Could a moderator please check the history of ROI and see if Redking7 needs warning or banning. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not breached any such rules. As per my posting on the RoI talk page (Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC):

According to the above, the reason the "title" discusion was archived was because, apparantly Arbcom state:

"Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."

The above has no baring on the discussion that was archived:

1. it did not concern the naming of "Ireland articles" - it concerned the naming of one article, the "RoI article" - which discussion was raised in the appropriate place, the talk page of the RoI article; and
2. the above discussion in no way "disrupted" any discussion taking place on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Therefore, the above discussion should not have been archived. Can some one "de-archive" it? This appears to be an attempt to impose censorhip. Regards. Redking7

What a joke. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider Redking7's actions in violation of what Arbcom has stated, though 1) I will check with them on that and 2) consider this the only warning since one could read, in some degree of good faith, that there was reasonable action to start the discussion. However, I will consider any further attempts to try to start a discussion about Republic of Ireland, which is clearly one of the potential targets for a move or redirect per this project, to be disruptive. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem - I strongly disagree with what you have said but take it in good faith - I understand you are a moderator. Have you asked Arbcom? I am confused about what you say about the above being the "only warning" when you are not even sure whether there has been a breach of ArbCom rules...but I guess you will square that off in your own way.

More generally, Does ArbCom wish WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to be used to censor article-specific discussion on article-specific talk pages? I would find that extraordinary because:

1. it is a golden rule of Wikipedia that matters concerning an article (including its title) can (and should) be raised on the talk page of the article concerned - this is really important;
2. WikiProject Ireland Collaboration relates to the naming of lots of articles - it is much easier to reach consensus on one article than it is on a whole range of articles - it would be bad for the community if progress on one article was linked to conensus being reached on a whole range of articles;
3. there is no reason why WikiProject Ireland Collaboration cannot take place in tandem with article-specific discussions on their talk page - thats the best way to ensure progress is made and a "win win" is created for all of the community;
4. on what basis can WikiProject Ireland Collaboration be used as a way of "censoring" discussions of article-specific title matters;
5. many editors feel that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is now being used as a way to supress the discussions which have taken place on "Ireland" articles for a long time - and simply "park" the ouststanding issues on one page visited by fewer and fewer editors (as the Project's credibility has ebbed away over the months);
6. similarly, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration has been in place for quite some months now (its first three Moderators resigned); it has made no demonstrable progress; and has not set a deadline for when it will conclude (i.e. it could continue to run and run with no decisions around article titles (i.e. imposition of the status quo));
7. such "censorship" type-restrictions would be fundamentally undemocratic and ultimately don't pass the Wiki "smell test" or whats right and wrong. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

PS Masem - Could you give me the link to the ArbCom page where you are asking (or have asked them) so I can raise this with them directly. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with some of those sentiments above RK. --De Unionist (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Redking, im sorry but i dont understand how you can continue to believe such nonsense. How can this project be successful here in resolving the Ireland naming dispute if another poll is being conducted on the Republic of Ireland talk page aswell with the intention of moving the article. :::: Now its debatable if there should be complete censorship, simply ignoring the crap on the talk page and preventing any attempt to implement the outcome of the vote there would be enough but following the previous attempts by certain editors to bypass this process ArbCom ruled very clearly that this is the only place to resolve these matters.

It is simple fact, pushing a debate about article titles on the Republic of Ireland talk page is violating their ruling, there is no way what you have been doing isnt that, the question is what should be done about it. The best of it is thats all such a waste of time, because the people here would vote there against any change on the Ireland page until this is resolved here anyway. So why bother? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the request for clarification to ArbCom which I just put up. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher - I think my above reasons are more than enough reason to show ArbCom has not prohibited discussion of any aspect of an article on its talk page. You seem to think its nonsense to think things can proceed in tandem, but in particular: the Project page concerns a number of articles - not just the RoI article - some Editors may have no view whatsoever on where the Island of Ireland page is located etc...but they are entitled to express their view here on this talk page on where the RoI article should be located. They are very separate questions. As the above reasons I gave show - progress on one article should not be held ransom to a consensus being established across a whole range of articles. The sort of censorship you are advocating is simply not the "Wiki" way. Regards.

Use of sub pages of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

I do not know if there is a general rule on these matters, but are there restrictions on what you can and cant do with new pages created at Wikiproject Ireland collaboration? Right now , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/proposal for Ireland Article is being run like a dictatorship or as though its the users own space. Is this fair or even acceptable? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored various comments per WP:TPO. I would think that further removals would constitute disruption of the process, and hence be ban-worthy. Masem, your opinion?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Two of the people that are removing content said they were not going to continue to be involved in this project earlier, they must of both changed their minds. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jumpers, my comments have been deleted from that proposal page. Is there somebody peeved at me? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found them. They were moved to that page's discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of the multi-party edit warring, I've protected both subpages for 24 hours. Get a consensus here over whether comments can be freely removed before the protection expires, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, where to start? Um... questions, comments and points of and for clarification should be allowed? Per WP:TALK. Bastun^nutsaB 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Per ArbCom: community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancour as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement.

Now the same editors who have turned this discussion into a carnival are attempting to do the same with the process I'm trying to develop. Having clearly indicated on each section on the proposal page "Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions" and equally clear guidelines on the talk page "Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time." Editors have attempted to turn this attempt at a proposal into another point scoring match, and add comments which have nothing to do with the proposal. Now since this is my attempt at a proposal I've tried to moderate the discussion in an attempt to produce a productive and disruption free area in which to work. I wish to be able to proceed hassle free with this process but have had it blocked by an editor who has do nothing but snip at me, and had a block place on me which had to be overturned. All editors are invited to help, but they must do so in a way that does not attempt to undermine or stifle my efforts. The guidelines are reasonable and conducive to rational and informed discussion. The alternative is the type of discussion that has taken place on this discussion page. When this process has reached a stage were it is possible to present it as a formal proposal I will. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could 'at least' have the proposal page's talk-page unlocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, there was edit warring on both pages. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Your the one edit warring. And abused your tools again. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We have opened up a new discussion, its HERE. It sounds as though you are trying to create a rival process rather than just making a proposal in an attempt to get consensus. I havnt seen any violations on that page, many reasonable comments are getting removed. As i said before its like a damn dictatorship on there, how on earth do you expect to develop consensus in that kind of hostile environment. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps (Domer) it's best to move all the content of that proposal page, to this WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Domer, you are not a moderator - you do not have the power to remove others questions, comments or requests for clarification - especially when you are making comments, asking questions and requesting clarification yourself. And you also appear to be addressing the editors, rather than the comments. Bastun^nutsaB 20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments which were removed from the proposal page, and added and commented upon on the talk page. [4] [5] [6] [7]. None of which addressed why they opposed the proposal. They ignored the guidelines, and Rockpocket edit warred [8] [9] to put them back on.

Comments removed from the talk page, [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Notice how two of the comments are from editors who agree with me.

Bastun edit warring to make a point when the question I asked was clear an unambiguous. [16], [17] and had to use incivility to make a point.

SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put the comments back in: [18], [19], [20], and on the proposal page, [21], [22] and then protecting the page. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page.

This is the type of conduct which has plagued this process, and it really needs to stop. My genuine efforts are being undermined and I need to be able to at least try to resolve the issue free from this type of conduct. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In the intrest of fairness this post should have been moved to the Proposal page. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) But the we have Rockpocket another Admin, ignoring the block on the page to again [23] [24] inserting their comments which the section which was removed has nothing to do with the proposal. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your deleting my 'conditional support' at the talkpage, is understandable. I was concerned about my comment being 'moved' on the mainpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The guideline clearly states: "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (bold in original)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the WP:TPG, and tell how your contrabutions helped.

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
• Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject.
• Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal).
• Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.
• Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article.
• Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out. Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal-to-noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation.
• Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion.
• Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article.

Guidelines I prepared: "Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions" You abused your tools again, and have done nothing but snip at me, you were told to leave me alone. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• SarekOfVulcan is WikiStalking you, I have noticed it, but naturally did not want to bring it up, but now that it's mentioned. Tfz 21:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• LOL. Just LOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Domer, either this is a proposal you are putting forward, in which case the moderators can remove comments/questions/whatever if they deem it necessary and the page will otherwise operate under WP:TPG - or its something you're preparing privately that isn't yet ready for "public consumption" - in which case, move it to a sandbox off your userpage. Bastun^nutsaB 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't mind Domer removing my comment, get over it. 'Collaberation', is that a joke? Tfz 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Tfz, i thought you had left us. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have, to the overall process here, which is dead in the water, unless some enlightenment hits the page. Tfz 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to offer the missing verb here? -- Evertype·✆ 21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I could offer a few missing verbs, but I don't want an enforced wikibreak. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor of your experience, Domer, is well aware that, personal attacks or libel aside, it is not acceptable behaviour to alter another editors comments to change their meaning. Move or refactor if you must, but do not change. Now, if you consider my comments problematic, I have a talk page you can contact me on. However, it is not acceptable to simply change my comments to suit your own agenda or interpretation. That subpage is not in user-space, therefore it is not yours to police. If you continue to edit my comments by adding or removing words, I will move that you be blocked until you stop. Simple as. Rockpocket 21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As per my comments above: You edit warred [25] [26] to keep your snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. You removed a block to carry on with this, and now you want me blocked! You just could not stand the fact that I was making progress in a genuine effort to move this on. Per WP:TPG "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." So you work away, and scupper my efforts, at least I tried! --Domer48_'fenian' 22:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, you honestly think you were making progress? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was not aware the page had been protected when I made that edit. Not that it matters. Even if I had known it was protected I would have still made the edit, I will not tolerate anyone changing the meaning of another editor comments. Its extremely disrespectful. If you are not familiar with what is acceptable refactoring and what isn't, suggest you leave name space policing up to officially appointed moderators in future. Or if you wish to moderate yourself do so on a page you don't have an obvious conflict of interest.

Finally, if you genuinely think editing other's comments to suit your agenda is "making progress in a genuine effort to move this on" then you are clearly deluded. Once the page is unprotected I'll be withdrawing both my !vote and my comments and I encourage everyone else to do likewise. Then you will be free to edit the entire page at will. Rockpocket 23:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here, otherwise, as happens here, it looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive. Thus, I urge you either to avoid doing this (you're free to put stuff in your own sandbox and then propose it here), or if you feel you need to, be blatant that you have done so as soon as possible. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem was this not clear enough? Was it not blatant enough? The part highlighted is the part of Rocks contrabution that was removed. "Nope. Ireland is ambiguous. The way we address ambiguity is to deal with it in a neutral and sensible manner, not ignore it." So saying "I will not tolerate anyone changing the meaning of another editor comments" is about as beleivable as saying you did not know the page was Blocked. That you admit that you would knowningly abuse your tools in a dispute is telling, but to say I edited "other's comments to suit [my] agenda" is a joke. Why, because you go on to say "Once the page is unprotected I'll be withdrawing both my !vote and my comments and I encourage everyone else to do likewise." So you admit you abused your tools to insert your snide remark, but will wait till the page is unblocked to remove them. I've provided all the diff's above, so why not explain to editors what my agenda was, because you've all ready show them what yours was and that's to "encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, and so scupper my attempt to move things forward. It looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't give a toss whether Domer, Masem or anyone else moves my comments from one place to another, even from project to talk space, if it justifiably assists the process and they inform me why they are doing it. What I do care about is this type of bullshit whereby the meaning of my comments are altered. I wrote and signed a statement (that should be blindingly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of English), and Domer changed it to appear as if I was making the exact opposite point (i.e. questioning the verifiability of the same statement). This is a serious no-no anywhere on Wikipedia (how would you like if I went to your userpage and changed all your Pro-Irish rhetoric to Pro-British, for example?) It takes a fair amount to upset me, but that is seriously uncool. I hope our moderators will make it explicitly clear, going forward that sort of behavior will not be permitted. Rockpocket 03:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this discussion

Reviewing this discussion I agree with Rockpocket. Domer's edits have been provocative at best, disruptive at worst. I regret to say that as he shows no contrition, a sanction might be in order (assuming that ArbCom and this process have any teeth). -- Evertype·✆ 07:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure don't you know that's whats on the agenda, and we will get more like you lined up to say the same. Will get consensus to block an editor from the likes of you, quick enough. The thing is though, the diff's are there and the project page I was working on to illustrate what I was trying to do, but letting the evidence get in the way has never stop any of you before. Why should now be any different? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"The likes of" me? You might recall that I initiated the request to have ArbCom deal with this unholy mess. I think it's hilarious (in a sad, sad way) that I have both you and Tfz on my back. Seems to me that you both have preferred solutions and want to "win". This is why I support STV and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. It allows ALL OF US to express our favourite preferred solution and then also to rank other solutions which might be acceptable to us. Everyone will have a fair say. No one will have to vote on a poll that doesn't offer his or her preferred solution. It's the only balanced way forward, as far as I see it. But you're not interested in a compromise, just in your Fenian ideal. (And no, my noticing that you have a Fenian ideal doesn't indicate to you what my view is about Ireland or partition or anything.) At the same time Tfz has bitched about me more than once; indeed on your own Talk page Tfz has said "Certainly BW, EverT, or the editor with the peculiar long name (as Gaeilge :-) offer little positive"—which seems to be more a personal attack because we favour a poll that offers all of the options rather than a cherry-picked poll that presupposes "consensus" based on what "intelligent interested editors" decide on ahead of time. Since I "offer little positive" I must not be an "intelligent" editor in Tfz's view. But I "offer little positive" because I share the consensus with others that a STV poll makes sense—and since Tfz evidently opposes that, I get to be damned. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Evertype, you have been noisy as BW has been, that's not a personal attack, many of your inputs have been belligerent and arrogant imo, and you have attacked today again. The editor with the long name has attacked in the past, by calling me and another editor a troller. BW has been libelous on a least one occasion and is belligerent in many of his posts too. So much for collegial collaboration. There is a menacing approach on this page by many of the editors, and spurious claims without citations are allowed to remain so as to muddy the waters. As I said the page is going nowhere good, and quite obviously you do not like my efforts to move things forward, and get consensus from the "intelligent" folk here. Veiled, and not so veiled personal attacks by Evertype to the integrity of other editor's inputs into this page. I have listed only a few, as I don't have the time on hand to list other ones. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] -- Tfz 10:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, most of the things you consider "belligerent" of me seem to me to be more or less defensive, such as my taking offence at Domer's "the likes of you" comment, which lacks civility. Menacing? What's menacing about advocating an STV poll which allows everyone to put his or her favourite configuration of article names first, and to rank other options accordingly? It is simple. It is easy to list all of the options. It ought to be easy to get people to express their opinions, whether Unionist or Nationalist or whatever. What's wrong with this? What are your own efforts leading to? I don't see any specifity in much of what you have been saying, though you talk about "consensus". Can you be specific? (And I do see you saying snide things like I and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid "offer little positive", and I remember the bit where you mocked me for saying I reserved the right to keen—though you were nice about it this morning). -- Evertype·✆ 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• My words were changed by a so-called pro-Brit editor while I was on my holidays about ten days ago. Did I get mad? No! Did I get even? No! Did I get sad? No! You guys, thanks fore reminding me to change back his edits, as I had forgotten all about it. But maybe I won't bother, depends. Tfz 09:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

lol why is it people are always picking on me, im starting to get the impression some people here dont like me very much :( BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You're ok if you didn't shout so much when you want to make a point. If ET wants to quote private conversation here, then he opens the door one more time, that's all. I can leave it there. Tfz 17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't private. And you're the one who lumped BritishWatcher (with whom I may have often disagreed) in with me and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid, evidently just because we differ with you. Note, please, that I really have not been pushing a "this is the only solution" POV. I have been advocating a means for getting to a common denominator. -- Evertype·✆ 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)