Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Confusion

Did any of the rest of you like me vote F by accident, when instead you meant to vote Pat Buchanan? Or am I the only one? Fmph (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw that episode of Futurama this afternoon as well. MickMacNee (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

State of Play

OK, "Explain it to me like I'm a sex year old": Where are we in this process? - Bogger (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We are still awaiting the official declaration that F is the winner and that there will be no change to the article titles for 2 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand it: we had a vote. It produces the same result however you count it, but have not yet had an official declaration of the result. I'm not clear at this stage whether

1. the poll was binding
2. the moderator(s) may choose to use the poll as indicative, and reopen discussions
3. IECOLL members will decide whether to run with the results of the poll

Additionally, it seems that some editors reckon the poll was conducted in such a way as to invalidate it. I have no idea either way how much validity those claim have. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The poll should certainly be binding, it is unacceptable to go back on the clear statement on the polling page which from the start said the result would be binding for two years. I am not prepared to support a compromise on the article name issue, its time we moved on and addressed other matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on consensus, we do whatever the community decides. The poll is indicative, whether we go with the results is another matter. Tfz 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was there would be a poll, that poll has happened.. the polling page states the result is binding for 2 years. It is totally unacceptable to choose another option just because some people dont like the outcome of the result. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"It's the people's will; I am their leader; I must follow them." as Jim Hacker said. 91.106.12.133 (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Indicative poll? Eh, no, it's a binding poll as per an Arbcom resolution. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing binding at Wikipedia, that is the way it has always worked here. Nothing, not even a poll can trump the 'consensus' of editors. Intelligent logic is alway a better course to follow on these matters, in my experience. That's why I believe Ireland (Sovereign Country) is the best solution to the crux. Tfz 11:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was to put this to a poll because consensus through debate was impossible. Its done, the Ireland articles will not be moved for two years. I guess it will be time for some people to find a new hobby. I hate to provoke a response, but Sarah has been rather quite, i expected a comment by her here. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no surprises with the poll outcome, it was a fait accompli, and a quite response from editors was only to be expected. Sorry it's not more exciting for you.) Tfz 11:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends a bit if the moderator wants to moderate, or simply to close the issue. I suspect the latter and hope for the former. --Snowded ^TALK 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope for the latter: close the issue. This whole saga has already gone on long enough, and I see no evidence that a failure to accept the poll result would produce a more stable outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a software solution to this impasse, and it can be found here [1]. Tfz 12:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a human solution which has already overcome this impasse, and it can be found here. Now let's move on and deal with the few outstanding issues. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, give me logic any day! Tfz 13:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

TFZ, we took that solution seriously and went to the village pump for input, the response was many objections.. it just would not be suitable, too confusing to have two articles with the same title. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Logic? You should read what is meant by Garbage In, Garbage Out, Tfz. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about, maybe you should read the article again.) Tfz 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Software "solutions" vs. human solutions. Though reading it again, did you mean "logic" in general? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem, are you using a pen and paper to work out the results??? or will there be no formal announcement? Just joking, but it would be good to know if there will be a formal declaration or not please. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm double checking by hand; I don't want anyone to say there was a significant math fault here. So far, there's nothing to dispute ra's analysis and tally, it appears spot on. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, i just wanted to find out what was happening. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough of the effing gloating

BritishWatcher, your attitude of gloating is truly sickening. Your continued arrogant stance (no compromise for anyone, now that you have in your mind worked out that you have "won") is as predictable as it is sad. So why don't you just keep nagging Masem? He has doubtless observed that those who NARROWLY failed (in a poll of less than 300 people) to achieve a move away from a problematic article name are not actively participating in further discussions. Yes, NARROWLY. It was no landslide. You, BritishWatcher are not prepared to support a compromise on the article name issue. Well, fine. I for my part (not that you will care) am not prepared to support any further compromise of any kind on any of the related topics with mean-spirited, close-minded gloaters. Masem: take note, if you care about the opinion of one person who tried to make the Wikipedia a better place. I'm disgusted. -- Evertype·✆ 16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A compromise was on offer, which the opponents of RoI declined to go with. The failure to agree that compromise led to this poll. Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I do have to agree that those that felt like they "won" this poll need to step back and realize that this was a final solution because people couldn't compromised before; while allowed by ArbCom, it should not be seen as a victory (remember, WP is not a battleground). Similarly, those that felt they "lost" should not be sore losers and instead should try to help resolve the remaining issues as quickly as possible (which is being done on the IECOLL page). --MASEM (t) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(to EverType) Please don't rise to his bait. the result was a foregone conclusion. it was just a matter of numbers. nothing is solved. the best we can hope for is that divisions don't get deeper. So please don't ClemMcGann (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If divisions get deeper its not my fault. When i first got involved in this debate about 6+ months ago, i fully supported a change backing what is now option D. However after 6 months involved in this, the offensive claims of British POV pushing, the lies and misleading comments by others and as more facts became clear which back up the use of ther term Republic of Ireland, my position has changed.. however all the way to the very end i made clear i would accept a compromise with certain conditions. Hardly an unreasonable position to take, it wasnt until 14th of september i made clear i oppose all attempts and compromise and the poll which is valid must be respected. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Im getting sick and tired of people disputing the result here. I wanted confirmation as to if the result is declared or not. If its declared and finished, then there is no need for any of us to talk on this page again and we can move on. Its been days and ive not heard the final declaration and i wanted to check there would be one and that we are not all sitting here waiting for nothing, i hardly think i have been "nagging", just seeking clarification about what is happening. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are, BritishWatcher, darling. You're tooting your horn and nagging everyone and talking as though now it's all nice and solved, which it's not. -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We have known for some time which vote was going to come out on top. After the vote closed, i made clear i was still prepared to accept a compromise, however that changed so i striked out my comments above and made that comment you have attacked, just letting people know my position had changed and that i strongly oppose going against the wishes of the poll / the statement on the poll making it binding for two years. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The poll was no landslide; it is disingenuous to talk about "the wishes of the poll". What was your proposed compromise? Make it now, in detail. I'd be interested to know what it was. -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have stated some of the conditions that i had to supporting a compromise on several occasions. One of those conditions was a declaration by the Ireland Collaboration project that "Republic of Ireland" is not British POV to help soften the blow following a change of titles, which some editors would certainly be gloating about had the vote gone the other way. The other point was option D is the only reasonable compromise, Option E is strongly opposed by many people. But as i have said before, i strongly oppose compromise now. Its over thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're a big tease. You teased me during the poll about compromise. You teased everyone afterward. Now you've "changed your mind" and will refuse it. One hardly believes you. Having said that, I can live with D. And I voted for it. But you're going to dig your heels in, are you? -- Evertype·✆ 17:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was honestly prepared to accept compromise back then, although part of it was through fear the vote would change and F would lose. When i said some time ago that your comments came very close to cracking me, i was not lying. When i did offer the compromise, which mentioned people accepting Republic of Ireland is NOT British POV, i thought that was a small price for people who want change to take, in order to get the article name changed which is what this was all about.. but there was not support, i was told it was unreasonable. Sarah said she agreed, then less than 10 minutes later was shouting "British POV" as usual. But now, yes i am digging my heals in, and that was the reason for my post which you posted part of in your original comments.. That was not me trying to gloat, and i am sorry if it came across that way, it was me saying i am no longer prepared to accept compromise to send a hint that attempting to ignore the vote was not going to be easy as there are people who are not prepared to accept compromise on this matter. We must respect the wishes of the people who voted. Sure its a small number of people, but out of the millions who have viewed the republic of Ireland article over the past few years, only a handful have seen the need to complain! BritishWatcher (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem: Are you suggesting that I am a "sore loser"? I am not. The loser is the encyclopaedia and this project, unless you make it clear what you as moderator intend to do. This has been discussed above, and weeks ago. Do you (1) take the results of the poll as "indicative" and are you willing to encourage the IECOLL to work towards a comprehensive solution which might in fact include a change of article name? or Do you (2) intend to lock the article name for two years and hope for some sort of clean-up of the remaining issues? Please give a ruling here, as moderator. -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Careful evertype, you dont want to be seen as "nagging". BritishWatcher (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not aim that statement at you, nor meant to be targeting you. I'm saying that there are both sore winners and sore losers going on about the results - the editors should know who they are. It's nothing bannable, but it is potentially damaging further progress. And as I've said before, personally I would like to see all sides use the results as a means to decide to go forward, possibly coming to a consensus on a non-winning result from the poll as long as the poll's results are considered reasonably well - but that seems less likely to happen with the in-fighting, so we do have the fallback position that this poll was used to assess majority position on the naming issue as per ArbCom's request, so we can accept that result as binding. I can only push so much on attempting other consensus but if there's serious resistance to it, then it makes no sense to try to even chase that down. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem - that is the most sensible summary of the current position I have seen, it would be interesting to see you expand on the possibilities --Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First-past-the-post notwithstanding, sometimes in conflict resolution it's good to see what percentage of options people "can support" and what percentage they "cannot support". I'd like to see a complete count of how many people voted for each of the options. -- Evertype·✆ 17:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I ranked all six options, placing F first. This made sense given the stated procedure. We cannot reinterpret my intentions now. I cannot support anything but F. My ranking was designed to prevent those other options I cannot support the most from beating those I cannot support the least. It's too late to go back and change things ex post facto. It's offensive. Srnec (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree - there is no going back we have a result. There are no "winners" or "loosers" here; but that does not mean you can null what you don't like or simply detest. Djegan (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get the results I'd hoped for, but I'm accepting the results. Recommend others do the same until 2011. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Read what Masem says. Which is what he has always said. -- Evertype·✆ 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand how people can talk about interpreting the result of the vote. Wanting to throw out the vote and start a new discussion is one thing, trying twist the result of vote into something deemed more palatable than the winning outcome is another. There are numerous common sense reasons why using the voting data for anything other than a STV count would be something of a fallacy. A few examples:

1) As the ballot was not secret users may have decided not to rank less popular options which were clearly not going to win towards the end of the poll.

2) As the vote was not secret later voters may have decided not to rank further preferences if their first preference was clearly going to reach the final round of voting.

3) Preference votes were made in an STV system which does not give any merit to an option unless all preferred options are eliminated.

4) There is no way of telling how much or little any user favours any preference over another, only the order in which they favour them. One user may find their second preference only as acceptable as another user finds their fourth.

5) Voters were informed they were taking part in a "formal vote", using STV, the result of which would be binding for two years: "As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.".

6) Tactical voting could have been employed - it was discussed when the poll was opened - tactical voting makes sense in the context of an STV vote but not in terms of a consensus discussion.

7) The argument for discussion relies on the fact that most of the people who had F as their first preference gave further preferences, it is possible (in my opinion probable) that voters would not have given further preferences if they knew it could effectively count against their first preference - an impossibility when using STV.

If there had been no mention of counting or STV (or IRV) and comments and discussion had been allowed (like an RfC) then trying to interpret the results would make sense, however that was not the framework under which the votes were made. I agree the gloating has been distasteful but frankly a) one user's comments shouldn't take away from a process that lasted more than a month and had more than 200 contributors b) with over 200 contributors, there are probably people who would have acted in a similar manner had any other option won. Guest9999 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I say, accept the results & move on. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nature abhors a vacuum. We tried for months to reach a consensus or a compromise, and it was nowhere in sight, so a poll was set up to find an outcome. Now that the poll is over, further discussion about the core decision only serves to bring us back to the acrimonious circularity of all those previous discussions. Enough: please, moderator, declare the result officially and close this part of the process. Then we can all move on to the next phase, of clarifying any consequential issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Nature abhors a vacuum.", and that's why all the water left the Moon. The outcome of the poll was never intended to be anything but indicative. Masem should take his time over this decision and wait some time to get a feel for what the current consensus is on this page. Tfz 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

rubbish, i find it very difficult to stay silent when statements like that are made but im trying my best. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The poll itself clearly says: "You are about to vote on the names of the Ireland articles. This is a poll of the Wikipedia community that will be binding for two years." Nothing on there about it being "indicative" instead people voted on the basis it would be binding. Valenciano (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Results of the vote are final and binding for a period of two years." vs. "The outcome of the poll was never intended to be anything but indicative." This part is over. There are more substantive issues about which we all mostly agree. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not so, Tfz. The intro to the poll clearly says "As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter." Not "use the results a poll as one mildly interesting factor to feed into a further round of discussions in the hope of achieving the consensus which could not be found before.

What Masem said before the poll was that "we don't have to blindly access the STV winner as the answer, if there's clearly evidence that a solution, simply due to the STV process, would otherwise be more preferred even if not the first choice of all voters".

That's a very long way from your claim that the poll was only intended to be indicative.

If you don't want the poll result to be accepted as is, then where is the "clear evidence" that another solution would be preferred? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To BHG, you have to realise that I objected to the poll from the beginning. Then I went along with it, and it was to be notified to all European state pages. When I realised that the only state notified was the United Kingdom, and the other European countries were dishonoured, I withdrew my vote. I still consider that the poll is void of any proper legitimacy, and that's my opinion on the matter. Tfz 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish, there was never agreement about informing all the different country articles. Masem clearly stated that there was no need for individual european country projects to be informed, except the two countries involved the UK and Ireland which share the island of Ireland. To not inform the UK project would have been totally unacceptable, its why i wanted assurance from a very early stage that it would be informed.. there was no justification for informing all other country projects. And the list of locations the poll was to be advertised was clearly presented for all to see on the collab page, we even had a mini poll before this main poll where only these locations were informed. It is simply incorrect to suggest you were somehow misled into thinking the other European country projects were to be sent the message, when it was mentioned on the talk page myself and others strongly opposed the idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, do you have to be so bombastic, 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease', eh! Anyway this is the link[2], and my interpretation was that it was to include all European countries. Tfz 11:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol, well you obviously interpreted it the wrong way because that mentions advertising on wikiprojects for Europe, but clearly says no other countries. It certainly does not say advertise to european countries. Also thats not like the only statement on the matter, a list of locations that were to be informed was on the page several times, including one placed in a preserved box so no other places could be added. Following masems statement a Europe project was added, but there was no further mention. You should have raised it again then, however when it first got mentioned it was strongly opposed, so you knew it would be rejected anyway. There is no way i would have supported advertising to countries projects that are not involved in this debate, id have strongly opposed and several others did at the original mention of it.

Its not like the UK / Ireland were the only places informed anyway.. there was lots of neutral projects / locations informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, did you even read that link before you gave it? Here's what it says:

BritishWatcher: This matter only involves the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

Masem: We should include ... no other countries.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the piece I was alluding to, "We should include all general European Union and Europe-region WP and noticeboards, but no other countries.". I read it at face value to include countries of the EU. Those countries would be relevant to the poll. Tfz 13:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RA has the intent of what I was saying. The WP projects that deal with Europe/EU as a whole are fine for this, but no WP that deal with specific countries of those save for Ireland and UK. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of "but no other countries.", was no other countries outside EU or Europe, I wasn't fussed between either once EU specific countries were included, and I argued for that at the time. Anyway, that was my major reason for leaving the poll. I still cannot catch why the naming of Irish state is the reserve of UK editors, whether it be Ireland (state), Ireland (country), or whatever. Tfz 14:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Because this has been about the naming of Ireland articles, which includes the island. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shares the Island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland, there for clearly both had to be informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

When I voted I was under the impression that the results of this poll were to be as binding as anything on Wikipedia can be. I do think that users engaging in their own running counts, in discussions and in pre-empting Masem's annoucement either-way have been at bit irresponsible... I'd really like to blank the discussion on this page from the 13 September onwards with a big notice that says 'SHUT UP AND WAIT'! But I guess that'd be interpreted as vandalism, even if its more helpful than all this 'discussion'. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with 'blanking' all the Post-Sept 13 discussions. We could atleast 'collapse' them. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We could have a vote on whether to conduct a vote to decide whether to accept the outcome of the ballot ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So you vote against having a vote on whether to conduct a vote to decide whether to accept the outcome of the ballot.;-)

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Observations

Without wanting to introduce any baggage:

• ArbCom ruled that there should be a process. After much failure through discussion, it was decided to vote.
• The vote is binding, and only so because the usual consensus-forming processes has failed. Using it as a starting point for further discussing the titles is therefore futile.
• A result has been achieved. This result is still to be ratified, but it is better than no result at all. The result may be bad, but it is better than no result at all.
• This serves to temporarily resolve the issue of article titles - nothing more, nothing less - and it remains to be seen whether it will even do that.
• There is a small number of editors who do not like the process, and have made, and continue to make, accusations, as yet unsubstantiated, of "anti-Irish" or "pro-British" POV. These accusations are at best unhelpful and at worst disruptive. These accusations extend beyond this poll.
• There is a smaller still constituency that seems insistent on baiting the aforementioned editors. This behaviour is at best unhelpful and at worst disruptive.
• In the immediate term, the events here change nothing. Editors preferring the unfavoured options (A, B and C) who have previously shunned compromise should not suddenly start seeking it. However, editors who previously wanted a compromise and preferred the favoured options (D, E and F) should not necessarily stop.
• Transferable vote tallies are notoriously unintuitive, and thus people that don't know how to read them generally get it wrong. The highlights: E isn't necessarily the second most preferred option just because it's last to be eliminated. The last round ends 54-46: this does not mean it was a narrow victory, but it does mean there was a substantial difference of opinion. The closeness is shown by the state of play in the round before 50% is achieved - this is round 3, where there is no clear second place option, so the lead is clear.

In summary, as I look upward, the sky is decidedly still there. Patience on all sides is probably a good idea. Fighting the real-world dispute on Wikipedia is probably not. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Question - if as you say the last round ended with 54-46; what would have happened if Sarah777, TFZ, HighKing, BigDunc, Domer, and SSWONK had *not* absented themselves from the process? ClemMcGann (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

E: 104, F: 126, exhausted: 9. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bizarrely, that makes it 55-45. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick observation. Even in the aftermath of the Essjay controversy, Wikipedia did not adopt any system for verifying whether any editor is telling the truth about any claims wrt their identity and experience, and that includes their nationality. So, for example, an editor who claims to be Irish may in fact be a Lithuanian living in Japan, and one who claims to be British may actually be a Mongolian resident of Alabama.

That may be relevant to some of the comments that have been made on the outcome of the poll. Whilst we should accept in good faith editors declarations as to their nationality, those declarations do remain unverified. Doesn't that suggest that some caution is in order when trying to analyse this process wrt to the nationality of the participants? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It takes a lot to make me feel sick, and that's the way I feel right now. That Ireland is not allowed to call itself by its proper name is something that galls me deep down. I was prepared to compromise with brackets for 'state' or for 'country', but not for a British imposed pov. It hurt me even to talk like that for I know that some British based editors thought that my country should be called by its proper name too. I have a feeling that many Irish editors will not get over this abysmal situation, and things will never be the same at Wikipedia again. Tfz 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, if you care to read back on previous discussions at WP:IECOLL, as well as all the various renaming proposals over the years, you'll see that views on this issue do not divide neatly on British/Irish lines; I am one of a number of Irish editors who support option F. Dismissing "Republic of Ireland" as a "British imposed pov" is not only inaccurate and divisive, it's offensive to a number of Irish editors. Please can you try to WP:AGF? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And I find it offensive for my country is to be misnamed yet again here on Wikipedia, and with misguided ArbCom sanction. Those Irish editors who you say I have offended don't seem to have any qualms about getting their way using the help of a broad and general British point of view. I have offended nobody, as a 'point of view' is not an offensive charge to make, many people have that. Anyway, I have said my piece on this aspect, and maybe other editors can add. Tfz 11:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, you are quite entitled to disagree with someone's POV. The problem is your labelling of those you disagree with as "getting their way using the help of a broad and general British point of view". That's offensive and unnecessary. Why can you not accept that Irish people can take a different POV to yours and be no less Irish?

I'm proud to be a citizen of a republic, and I don't have any problem in disambiguating the name using a phrase which is widely used by the Irish govt as a name for the state, and which is also the state's legal description. You take a different view, and I respect that ... but please can you have the manners to show similar respect to those who don't share your view, and in particular to stop trying to pin some sort of "British stooge" label on those who disagree with you. The Irish editors at who you repeatedly sneer could easily reply in a similar tone about Irish people who have a problem with the word "Republic", but that sort of bickering would get us all precisely nowhere. Please stop . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And I find your "and I don't have any problem in disambiguating the name using a phrase which is widely used by the Irish govt as a name for the state" offensive and disingenuous because it is plainly untrue, and I have seen you write that before. I see you are stalking some of my editing here at Wikipedia. Tfz 13:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There you go again. I have provided plenty of refs to support the assertion that RoI is used by the Irish govt and by the Oireachtas. You may disagree about their significance, but please don't simply call them untrue.

f you choose to find it offensive that someone disagrees with you, that's entirely a matter for you. There's nothing anyone except you can do about your choice to be offended by things you disagree with.

And I am not stalking you. Some of the pages on my watchlist, to which I have previously contributed, may be ones which you have also edited. If you think that this amounts to stalking, take it to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your main reference for Irish Government usage? And not Shiela again please, or a TD quote. Tfz 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Tfz: among Irish(*) editors only, the most popular option was F. You, and previously Sarah777, need to accept that you are not the sole arbiters of valid Irish opinion. And re-hashing arguments that were first aired (in the current debate) over nine months ago, such as "my country should be called by its proper name" is pointless. Please - the vote is over, move on, the article names are settled. There are other issues to be sorted out, and spending time on that would be far more constructive for us all. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(*) Accepting BHG's caveat above. I, in fact, am a naked, 300lb, one-eyebrowed half-Tongolese, half-Samoan...

(after EC). Please Tfz. Really. Stop it. If you really want an answer to that question, go read the position statements linked from the poll page. Several of them contain the links/references you're looking for. Didn't you bother reading them first time around, or are you just trolling now? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well ArbCom did say a community wide poll, and didn't say the 'exclusive' of UK editors to determine the page name. I am staying true to ArbCom on this, although I disagreed with the poll above consensus. Clearly consensus is missing. Tfz 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, does that help, folks? GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If true <Once again, Tfz: among Irish(*) editors only, the most popular option was F.> I am surprised, and wonder why ClemMcGann (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not lying here. R.A.'s count (up to 8th August), my own tally (unpublished) and Valenciano's tally (mentioned above) all confirm an Irish preference for F. Sarah777 was the only person maintaining the opposite (and that was based on a... unique... way of analysing an STV vote. As to why? Well, I can only speak for myself - RoI is a natural, real world disambiguator in common use in Ireland and abroad when disambiguation is necessary. Evidently, more Irish agree than disagree. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It also depends how we define British POV? I mean for instance while Tfz passionately caricatures Republicanism in Ireland on here and obviously presses that position (including Britophobia), he actually said he was born in London to Jza, which is obviously the capital city of the United Kingdom and is eternally British (more British than eating tea and scones, while wearing a pith helmet and listening to God Save the Queen). Maybe the national inquistion should include four categories, for clarity; (1) British (2) Irish (3) Neither (4) Angry Diaspora Caricature-ish?

In any case, polls are folly and I can't see that it is even going to stop this dispute. Pleb democracy shouldn't decide such a thing, especially since Wikipedia is not a democracy. If the project is as a whole reduced to a democratic plague, where ordinaries get to "vote" to decide whether something should be in an encyclopedia or not, without any rationale at all, then it turns into an anti-intellectual shambles. Ireland is the only state in the UN which has something like this in place, a contemporary state is infinetly more significant than a geographical entity. An admin should move "Republic of Ireland" to Ireland for a trial period and see if it improves the quality of the project, if it doesn't it can always be moved back after a few months. But its worth trying it first. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I find a coarse incivility coming from some new voices on this page. Please refrain, as this page has been very civil this last eight months, and let's keep it like that. Tfz 20:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Coarse perhaps, but not incivil: realism is a good thing. I'd describe incivilty as a London born editor claiming in a collaboration orientated project that there is an elaborate British conspiracy to assert a so called "British POV", when in this poll the majority of actual Irish people voted for F. Crass chest beating nationalisms (and embarassing diaspora parody variations) shouldn't feature in empirical debates on educational information for a serious enyclopedia. This isn't a pub, think of it more as a library. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I cringe at the arrogant pomposity of my British cousins, and this case is no exception. I never said there was a British conspiracy, I said there was a British 'point of view'. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a 'point of view', it's the most natural thing in the world. Wikipedia requires a NPOV. If you find that offensive, then maybe you have been too long in the pub. Tfz 00:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sometimes I cringe at the arrogant pomposity of my British cousins" Nice attack on all British people there thanks, although like always it will be ignored. Imagine someone making such a statement about black or asian people. I thought Yorkshirians comments were very good, they did not make me cringe, just smile :) BritishWatcher (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, this needs more explanation. Option F was favoured by a majority of Irish editors, so why exactly do you persist in chanting the mantra that it is a "British POV"? Are these Irish editors somehow less Irish than you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is Tfz, you are claiming there is a collectivist "POV", allegedly devised in secret based on an island that people live on (the irony that you yourself are from London and thus British is not lost). This sort of inane concept of the world doesn't exist in reality and is a complete far-left, post-French Revolution negation. Lets take for instance you and me, we were both born on the island Great Britain, we both (apparently) have atleast 1 parent from Ireland and yet metaphysically we are polar opposites. If there is a big collectivist GB based "POV", how are you, from London, not part of it? - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't anybody praise or complain about allegeded 'Canadian PoV' in the Poll? PS: When are these discussions gonna be collasped? GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any separatist Quebecers on Wikipedia? Maybe we can roll one of them in to make puppy dog eyes, howl that they're "opressed" "victims" and rage at "Canadian POV" haha. Are they still pretending not to speak English? Maybe that explains it. :p </cultural insensitivity>- Yorkshirian (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)