Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Moderation box

Resolved

I copied the core of the moderation box from WT:SLR to the top of this page. If there are any objections, please discuss here. — Sebastian 23:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Further change: Since I believe that it is important to take a rest of the individual options of the Ireland naming question until we agree on a procedure, I will add a note to that effect there. — Sebastian 23:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we highlight the moderators in the members list some how Gnevin (talk)

Sure! For things like this, which are unrelated to any controversy, I'd encourage every project member to be WP:BOLD (or more specifically, follow WP:BRD) and just do it. You might also want to add it to the box on top of this page. — Sebastian 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just go ahead and do that myself. I will also change the wording from "Members can moderate the discussion ..." to "Moderators can moderate the discussion ...". Once we resolved the Ireland naming question, this needs to be changed back, unless members decide to elect moderators from among them. I also put the note "Please consider using {{OT}} for clarity." in a comment, because moderators know this already, and it's not necessary in the box, which addresses everyone. — Sebastian 17:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Moderators

Resolved

ArbCom now officially announced moderators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Admin moderators:

• User:Edokter
• User:SebastianHelm

If I may make a suggestion: Would the members of this project agree with having the third moderator from this project? I would like to propose Gnevin. While Gnevin is not an admin, I don't see why that should be a problem. What we need to consider is if the community can trust a moderator to be moderate. This seems to be the case with Gnevin; their contributions here so far all show a sincere desire to resolve this issue fairly, and I haven't noticed any controversial edits by this editor. Are there any objections? — Sebastian 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone is expecting three uninvolved administrators. From Remedies, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names: "If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure." Two so far. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I've seen that one before. ;-)

That's not a problem. If the community agrees, then why should ArbCom be against it? (I mentioned it in a half sentence in a mail before, and they didn't object.) I haven't asked Gnevin himself yet, so this may be moot. I, for one, would like to have him as a moderator; it's not easy to find good moderators for this case, and I rather work with someone who's dedicated than with someone who had to be talked into this. Since we'll be three moderators, we'll watch over each other, so I'm not afraid of much going wrong. But if you're concerned about anything he did before, then I will respect that. (You can also send confidential e-mail to Edokter and me.) — Sebastian 08:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest while I would love to help out here. I have already voted on this issue at least twice and while I'm not saying I wouldn't be able to be neutral. This issue has gone on for so very long I want to be sure of a closure everyone can agree on without one section or the other claiming a systemic bias in the resolution by my involvement Gnevin (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your involvement is welcomed. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That of course settles my suggestion. But just for the record, it is certainly possible to have an opinion in conflicts and still work as moderator. (An example for that is user:Taprobanus, who just received the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award from all sides of the conflict.) — Sebastian 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Options for decisionmaking

Resolved

Let's collect what options we have. So far, I'm aware of the following:

1. Voting (e.g. with 50% majority.) Concern: Tyranny of the majority
2. Consensus of Collaboration Project members. This actually works surprisingly well at WP:SLR. I think the main reason why it works is that we do not accept mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT objections. All objections have to be reasons, based on logic and existing consensus decisions (which includes WP polices, and the decisions of our project members).

Any others? — Sebastian 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil, in general and more so in relation to the Irish issues. That is why I stopped watching the discussion. Voting in the manner in which it has been carried out in the past has only served to highlight the differences and contrasts between the 2 sets of editors. I think this Collaboration would be wise refrain from any voting , straw polls or what ever name you want to call it and instead discuss issues .

1. Polls should be used if needed only after a agreed time limit.
2. All users would agree to the abide by the poll
3. All users would agree to not repoll for a set period again .
4. Also that users who where not involved in the discussion votes be ignoredGnevin (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That would work well with my proposal #2 above. I could agree with most of your points, but I want us to think about if we need that level of detail. I prefer KISS over instruction creep. Remember that the vote is only the fallback, and we may never need it. We might even say "let's cross that bridge when we get to it". In my experience, we always could solve our problems without votes. But admittedly, it sometimes took longer than two months. Remarks to your individual points:

1. The time limit is a neat idea! It might be a good way to address the situation here, where there seems to exist some impatience with the process so far. Only question is: How do you agree on the time limit?
2. This may not be necessary, as we are backed up by ArbCom.
3. Not sure what you mean by this.
4. I'm afraid this would backfire: It serves as an incentive to increase the discussion by people who may not have anything new to contribute. I can very well see myself under such a pressure. Imagine, you already expressed my opinion perfectly in a certain discussion. I now would have to chime in, to avoid - in case it comes to a vote - me not having suffrage. — Sebastian 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Was a typo meant All users would agree to not repoll for a set period again . Basically what often happens is that we have poll , a result is declared , then a other poll is opened right after either asking the same question or demanding a revert back to the status quo. I agree with you re 4 . Gnevin (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If this message is improper, please delete it. I was the editor who proposed one of the detailed procedures for arriving at a decision, and it is from my proposals that the evidence tables were drawn up. I made use of a variety of techniques I had had experience of using in an academic context to decide between different possibilities in somewhat similar circumstances. I did not spell out the detailed decision-making process, as I thought it was important to provide a well-defined structure within which to obtained evidence for the different issues thrown up by analyzing the nature of the dispute in the ways I suggested in my proposal on Talk:Ireland. In the prior uses of this technique, the detailed examination of the evidence in the structured and teased-out manner I describe often led to an obvious solution, so that little if no formal decision making between parties who had differing opinions at that time was required. In the other cases, the situations had been sufficiently well-analyzed that a consensus view was reasonably quickly obtained, and all was well. Of course, if the full procedure, or a modification of it, were adopted here, then we cannot guarantee that this dispute will be so tractable, but it could well be that asking for consensus, and, if that is not forthcoming, some outside considered opinion may be the way forward (I think voting would see people merely falling back into entrenched positions if they knew that voting was "on the cards" at some point, so to speak.) Sorry for this intrusion, as I said, if it is improper, please delete it and carry on as if I hadn't posted this message.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by any means, this is not improper at all. I am very happy with the “Solution table for problem(s) Mk II”, and I appreciate your role in creating them. It was my plan to, as soon as we agree how to make decisions, to move this toward being agreed. (If decisionmaking consist of having ArbCom make the decisions, I planned to propose it to them. If it is up to the panel, then Edokter, myself, and the expected third person would discuss this among ourselves. If decisions are to be made by the community, I would post Mk II on the project page (WP:IECOLL) as a motion, and go from there.)

It is a new idea to me that the table itself may already reduce the need for formalized decision making. That may be worth a try. This will be one of the first things we will discuss among the panel. — Sebastian 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I may have been a little unclear in what I wrote: the evidence table is important, but my view was (and still is) that it must be embedded in a set of procedures that systematically organize and search out, and then critically evaluate, evidence for the various claims of arguments that underpin each possible solution. What I suggested is that this could be done within the framework I outlined in Talk:Ireland#An Alternative Proposed Process which might be usefully combined with MickMacNee's good suggestions. It could be taken on it own, or combined with a related set of proposals by MickMacNee. It would minimize the amount of uncoordinated presentation of solutions with support of differing and uncertain power in which all kinds of spurious claims and counter-claims could easily go by and be accepted uncritically, thereby resulting in a sub-optimal solution to the overall problem or problems. So, the context in which the various tables were placed and proposed to be used should be taken into account: they only appeared at that stage in the discussion to give an idea of what would be required and that the stages seemed feasible, though we did not progress too far in "roughing out" the technique.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The MKII proposal table from the other article is a good one to use and covers all of the options available. I still think asking people to vote on the option they most strongly oppose or ranking each of the options in order of preference is the only solution. A simple support vote for one of the options will be a waste of time as it will be completly divided like on many occasions before. paragraph deleted BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted off-topic discussion, as this is the section for "Options for decisionmaking", and not about who prefers what name. Please wait till we get to that, and then repost in the correct context. — Sebastian 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

An option has been overlooked so far. Some confusion is encountered in relation to statistical info on the republic. People are presenting statistics that are specific to the Republic of Ireland as specific to Ireland. This appears like so:- Ireland. "Ireland" superimposed over the link to the ROI title. As set out in Irish law, describing the republic is best done without ambiguity. Discussion on preference does little to address this so far. ~ R.T.G 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth i found the evidence tables very helpful and it something i would like to see more of Gnevin (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear as to what has been resolved. Please summarise. DrKiernan (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking the "resolved" tag away for now. I think this section is resolved because we boiled down the gist of this discussion into two proposals, which are up for discussion at WP:IECOLL#Proposed procedures and methodologies. Do you feel there is anything we forgot? — Sebastian 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that DrKiernan has not replied in over four days, despite being active at Wikipedia, I'm concluding that my explanation must have been sufficient, and I'm adding the "resolved" tag back. — Sebastian 06:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pessimism

Resolved

I disagree with A1 and A2. There is opposition to voting because of the way votes have been conducted in the past on this issue which have not produced any results as its always been divided. The MKII proposal table lays out all the options and gives us a way of ranking all the options in order of preference as was proposed by someone on the Ireland talk page some weeks ago. If we ranked the options then it would make progress, unlike a simple support vote for which one has the most support that is never going to work as so many feel strongly against two of the options.

It is going to be impossible to reach a consensus through discussion on this matter, its been gone over so many times in the past people have nightmares on this issue. If theres not going to be some form of voting or ranking then we may aswell just skip to A4 and A5 to let the moderator panel decide. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not the same. You're overlooking one important difference. We will not accept opinions or simple contradictions. I am planning to propose (pending the other moderator's approval) to evaluate the arguments based on their value in the pyramid to the right at WP:IECOLL#Graham's pyramid. Seeing how often people accused each other of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, that will make a substantial difference. If you need more evidence that it is possible, consider that we have employed a simple version of this for two years with about 80% success rate at WP:SLR. We shall see what the other moderators say, but I think I refuted your objection. It will not be impossible. — Sebastian 10:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well i hope you are right, There are strong arguments on both sides for two of the options. Holding the discussion is going to help inform the moderators panel on which option is the best solution so i agree it needs to be done, but i still think consensus will not be reached and we will have to wait for a ruling by the panel unless we can eliminate the two highly controversial options. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I struck out part of the statement that is a pure personal opinion, which is not backed up. — Sebastian 11:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, time will tell i guess. My comment was based on the past debates and attempts to resolve this problem which have always shown strong support and strong opposition to two of the options. Anyway im not against the method you suggested i think its just going to end up having to go to A4/A5 but perhaps im too pessimistic. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the person who drafted the MkII proposal, and I did so in the basis that it could be used as a tool for focusing consensus based agreement, or as a framework on which to host a poll. I actually favored a poll of justified preference, where one would express an order of preference and justify why (to avoid IDONTLIKEITs). The closing admin (or panel) would then balance the justified preferences to find that which is most acceptable to everyone. I favored this because I agree with BritishWatcher that A1 and A2, while ideal, is unlikely to succeed based on empirical evidence. That said, perhaps with a more formal moderating framework things will be different this time. Time will indeed tell. Rockpocket 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am really getting annoyed by people who say "It won't work" without showing any evidence - in the face of overwhelming evidence of dozens of cases we resolved in the Sri Lanka conflict. Just look at WT:SLR and its archives; you will find that the majority of issues got resolved quickly; at least as long as there was there a moderator around. While Ireland is not Sri Lanka, this is the only evidence we have of a similar situation that actually worked. And even if we had a mix of good and bad evidence, wouldn't it still be worth a try?

I certainly don't want to discourage you from voicing constructive criticism, and you have already been very constructive so far. The reason why I felt I needed to put it so bluntly is this: The other day, I heard a radio feature about a psychological experiment, in which they gave three or four people a task to solve together. One of them was an actor, who played three different roles: (a) A slacker (b) an aggressive egocentric, and (c) a whiner who kept saying things like "We won't make it". They found that all three had overproportional effects on the performance of the group, but the whiner was worst.

Anyway: I'm actually grateful for all you've done: I like the Mk II proposal and I'm happy that you put your proposal on the project page.

I also think that your proposal of a poll of justified preference has merits; but there are two reasons why I'm currently not all for it: (1) I haven't seen any evidence for it to work in a situation like this, and more importantly, (2) most project members seem to agree that they don't want voting and polls. If you can sell it to them, I won't object; I will be very interested to learn a methodology that's new to me. — Sebastian 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason for our pessimism its rather self evident. That there was nothing near consensus the previous n times this was tried; if it had we wouldn't be here! Furthermore, this particular disagreement is just the latest in what is very likely the most persistent, bitter, entrenched and wide-ranging ethocentric dispute on wp:en. I'm sure I can speak on behalf of the few of admins have been attempting to deal with this for, literally, years when I say its very difficult to imagine those entrenched editors moving from their entrenched positions. That said, I take your point about dominant negative effects on problem solving. I don't mean to whine: I hope this strategy does pay off, and am certainly willing to get fully and enthusiastically involved. Rockpocket 03:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) No, it's not a reason. It's a cause. I empathize with that; pessimism is a completely normal human reaction in such cases. But we got here because people's normal reactions have failed us so far. We're caught in a vicious circle: One bad situation causes another, which eventually reinforces the first. The only way to break out of this is by fighting the causes with reason.

That's why I'm so stubbornly demanding reasons from people, instead of opinions. This will apply to the Ireland naming question when we get to it, but it also applies to people's pessimism. — Sebastian 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. A major reason it may not work is because a proportion of those people involved have no interest in achieving that. There is plenty of evidence of this on the talk page (for example, the refusal to even discuss any option than their preference). Ultimately everyone is not going to get what they want. Until people accept that and be willing to compromise, then all the moderation in the world will not help. There are ways around this obstacle (by marginalizing those people from the decision making process), but this entire process rather requires participants have a willingness to work towards consensus rather than simply expressing a preference for it as a mechanism. Rockpocket 07:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good points! I agree with your observation that there are relatively few cases of embracing at least a grain of good in options other than one's preference. I also agree that that can be a sign that people are not willing to achieve a working solution. But it can also just be because people honestly can't believe that there is a working solution. It's hard to distinguish. From your talk with me so far, I am confident that you're an example for the second group. You are also right that marginalization by success can do the trick - but it requires that those who are willing to cooperate are the majority, and that they don't get discouraged by the coalition of the uncooperative and the pessimistic. Your last sentence makes me aware of a distinction we need to make. Of course, we can not achieve consensus just by writing "consensus" on our banners. That's what I meant by "reasonable consensus": Reason (as assessed using Graham's pyramid) is our tool, and consensus is the goal that we will reach with its help. — Sebastian 08:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am still worried about a permature leap to getting people to express an opinion about the overall solution when not enough time has been spent specifying the problem clearly, and then gathering evidence and critically examining and assessing that evidence. [...] Part of reply by  DDStretch  (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC). Rest of text moved to section #Another proposal

Did you even read what I wrote two paragraphs above? What part of "reasons, not opinions" don't you understand? — Sebastian 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Of course I did. I was emphasizing the matter and making the point that a relatively well-worked out method had been proposed before (which I had already mentioned a while ago on here), but which had been seemingly buried in the general mass of edits. Sorry if you felt peeved (I got that from the phrasing you used in your second sentence), but I do not consider that the necessary steps that I think need to be carried out had been thought through enough here yet, even though there was talk of reasons and evidence. I was merely supplying the link to a process that had been the subject of much discussion on the original talk page, and with which I have had experience of real life use, and which, as I said, had been mentioned on here, but seemingly forgotten about. Sorry if that irritated you, and I will withdraw completely from this process if you feel it is not helpful for me to make these points in this discussion.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Of voting, IP addresses, and fire

Resolved

The following discussion spun off from a reply to 89.101.216.172's message of 13:14, 1 February 2009

[...] However, please note that the past problems with votes won't repeat, since we won't be voting on this question this time.
About your name: You can also contribute with an IP address. But if you want to be a member, why don't you not sign up with a user name? Contributing with your IP address is actually even less anonymous. There are so many nice user names still available! How about User:Blarney Stone? I bet you'd become a very eloquent contributor with that name! — Sebastian 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd hold fire until everything is in place. (re: User:Blarney Stone ... thanks but no thanks. I'd prefer not to.) --89.101.216.172 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's up to you. We're all volunteers here. But if you choose to not participate putting things in place now, please don't fire at them later. — Sebastian 17:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarify: I meant for us all to hold fire until the panel was complete. --89.101.216.172 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the whole talk of "fire" somewhat disturbing. The reason why this was escalated to ArbCom was precisely that people were not able to solve this with the mindset of firing at each other. The whole point of having mediators is to move people from a mindset of fight to a mindset of cooperation. We have a problem, and we want to solve it together. We don't need a third mediator to clarify what matters to each of us at #Goals and expectations. Again, I invite you to participate constructively. If you choose not to, and you come back later to fire at the result of a cooperation of the community, then it will not be tolerated. — Sebastian 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"hold fire" = wait - no more, no less. You say, "Maybe we should start publicizing this already despite the panel not being complete" I say, "I'd hold fire until everything is in place." (= "I'd wait until everything is in place.") --78.152.239.73 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry about the misunderstanding! — Sebastian 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you know consider using an user name, as IP votes in discussions are often struckout . You can Vanish afterwards if you want Gnevin (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The end of the world

Resolved

We are going through the worst economic crisis any of us have ever experienced; scientists say we're heading towards a climate catastrophe from which we will not recover for the next thousand years, and people here say they're experiencing a Götterdämmerung - a war of the gods which brings about the end of the world.

Well, it would be a bit of an exaggeration to say the end of the world is near just because we have some economical and ecological problems. The world will live on. So what is it that brings about such gloom? Drum roll, please ...

Introducing ...

The Ireland naming question!

Shudder!!!

People, please!! Wake up!
The world doesn't revolve around you!

I spent many hours trying to appeal to people's sense of reason, but it seems that many just don't listen, and those who do don't have the guts to speak up against such nonsense.

To be honest, it wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't also have to fight at the home front. I described to an ArbCom member that having to wait for a committee to agree makes mediation much more complicated, according to a former professional mediator I spoke with yesterday. The reply only worsened the problem in my view.

If you think I've done a good job before, then please give me the trust I need to do something similar again. If not, then it will be a waste of time for everyone. There are real life threatening problems in this world that need to be resolved. — Sebastian 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I trust you. When I proposed this for ArbCom I was hoping we would get some sane heads into this debacle. Having said that... what is happening? I see talking about talking about talking about talking. (I see little actual talking.) Is there something I (for instance) as a member of the Collaboration project am supposed to do? -- Evertype·✆ 06:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are getting co-operation Sebastian and the odd touch of humour (please don't loose your sense of that, its easy on these pages and note which interpretation of Götterdämmerung I referenced, the one that brings about the end of the Gods and the start of responsibility). I think however that people just want this to move forwards with some structured process. You can get some basic rules agreed on behaviour (and you will have to enforce them), but this issue reflects one of the longest standing political/ethnic (even which you choose of those two words has implications) conflicts in Europe. Moving people into that process will hopefully build trust. If we are waiting on action from Arncom then just say so and halt until we have it. --Snowded TALK 06:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'm feeling much better already. I wrote today's messages hoping to clear up the stuffy air here, but I realize that I may have gone too far. I know I already lost Ddstretch with one of them, but I hope it's not too late for other people to forgive me; I'm only human, too. I'm not going through an easy time myself, and I realize that the disheartenment I criticized in others is what I'm fighting in myself with equal vigor.

You are right, there's been too much meta-talking, and it would be best to jump into action soon. I have to go to bed now, but I will sleep over it before I make any big decisions. — Sebastian 07:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Och, I have a terrible cold right now and it was a fit of coughing that had me up at dark o'clock so naturally I came to this page. Heh. *cough* Anyway, I don't see what you've done wrong. The thought of a ten-point winnowing process causes me some despair. Will this never be over? I don't know whether some people's desire Not To Talk About Ireland Until The "Process" Is Agreed is genuine, or if it is passive-aggressive delaying tactic. This topic is no stranger to trollery, certainly. -- Evertype·✆ 09:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian, it would be really great if you were to get DDstretch back on board. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, DDstretch has been a constructive contributor here overall; and I left them a message. — Sebastian 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for 3rd moderator

Resolved

I trust BrownHairedGirl (who was or is Irish) and NewYorkBrad and Rockpocket and Tyrenius. If we asked for one or more of these to be the 3rd moderator, do you think that might be allowed? I know BHG has done moderating / discussing / PR in real life. Of course they would have to consent. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Before talking about individual people, I need to explain what is the biggest problem for me: The fact that I can't just do what I'm good at - mediate a conflict - but that I have to follow a bureaucracy. (Search for "wait for a committee to agree" above.) That has multiplied the effort for me, and catapulted this assignment beyond the limit of what I can fit in the rest of my life. The reason it is a problem for me is because I don't know how to reconcile the demands of moderating an ongoing discussion with my desire to incorporate my co-moderators' ideas and expectations in all moderator actions.

The easiest solution seems to me if there were one head moderator, who defines strategies and makes the quick decisions needed in ongoing discussions. I would love to work under an arbitrator as head moderator here. Taking a subservient role would allow me to relax. Before you mentioned NewYorkBrad, I had already proposed this to another arbitrator, but he unfortunately recused himself. As for other people, I would need to clarify our roles and mutual expectations first.

So, about the other people you proposed: I haven't had any contact with them before. I would appreciate if we had someone who knows the subject. Are there any objections from others? — Sebastian 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence, Kb, but I feel I have probably been too deeply involved to take on a neutral mediating role to everyone's satisfaction. I've expressed my concerns about the likelihood of success elsewhere on this page, but now is the time to put all negativity behind us and start moving this forward. I have trust and confidence in those mediators already appointed and if there is any specific task that I can do to assist, please let me know. Rockpocket 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Further to the wise responses of Gnevin and Rockpocket above, and whilst I have the greatest respect for BrownHairedGirl, having a moderator who is either of evidently British/Irish extraction and/or who has a history of prior involvement in the dispute is something to be avoided in my view. The fewer reasons for anyone to justify a post-resolution complaint the better. Ben MacDui 15:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BHG has more knowledge of the entities involved here than anybody. Furthermore she is not marginally partisan in any direction. We truly need her. This is not just Ireland (island) vs Ireland (country). If the solution arrived at does not embrace most rational perspectives (and BHG is rational and understanding) it has little chance of sticking. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Aw come on guys. You can't pick Irish to mediate and you can't go "Will all the Irish shut up about Ireland?" You can't say such and such is not trained in guerilla warfare and is it not best to seek a person of good standing with no prior knowledge unless you can get Brian Cowen himself to say whats what? ~ R.T.G 03:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Each of those are already involved in the dispute (except of NewYorkBrad, maybe). We need uninvolved mediators. --89.101.216.172 (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Or Mary McAlesse would be better authority than Brian Cowen being that she is so respected a lawyer all over the island before being president. Chime in Mary!! Yes impartiality is good form in mediation. At a wild guess some African, Indian or Chinese may be good editors here with little familiarity of Irish topics (Italian? South American?). I was going to suggest asking Jimbo Wales but his big Irish Donal name probably puts him out. :D ~ R.T.G 15:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to ask on th WP:AN for admins who have not edited Irish articles before? ~ R.T.G 15:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to find someone who has never in some way edited an Irish related article. I think you are looking for a admin who has never been heavily involved in Irish related articles Gnevin (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We also needs someone who understands the historical nuances of language - BHG has shown herself neutral and aware --Snowded TALK 21:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The following was originally posted at #Status.

And still waiting. Have ya'll considered asking Jimbo Wales, to be the third moderator? Surely, nobody will question his 'neutrality'. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You are free to ask Jimbo. In fact, everybody is free to ask any admin that fits the criteria laid out by ArbCom here. — Sebastian 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo has refused. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Durova, would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Have asked Durova if (s)he is interested Gnevin (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid, she's turn down the offer. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have asked User:Theresa knott and User:Bduke. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If they refuse we should ask at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal Gnevin (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Theresa has refused. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please ask. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to volunteer, however I'm not sure if I'm considered neutral. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why you wouldn't be consider neutral. Is there any particular issue we should review? Gnevin (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. However, I have occasionally been involved in administering ArbCom enforcement, so I'd completely understand if somebody with a fresh perspective was required. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that experience could be useful and I have no objections too you Gnevin (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, so we're finally complete. Welcome aboard, Phil! Please also put WT:IECOLL/P on your watchlist. — Sebastian 00:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No objection here, Phil. As long as you're not involved in content issues, and as Gnevin daid, the experience in enforcent is actually a plus. — Edokter • Talk • 01:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo, we've got our third moderator. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not reply. I have been rather tied up and wanted to explore the idea before answering. I also had some questions and asked them of Kittybrewster by email, but I did not get a reply. I hope the project works, but I think I'm best out of it for now at least. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Form of discussion

Another option I have been contemplating is the form of a closed debate; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Methodology. Please reply here with your thought. — Edokter • Talk • 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the current proposals?

My apologies for not bringing this up sooner: What should happen with the two proposals that are currently on WP:IECOLL? I had thought they were agreed, since there was no objection. I only now realize - thanks to the discussion below about the IP account - that by "the arguments that carry the most support" in your Methodology, you actually seem to mean counting votes. This is not how I understood the wishes of most editors here; I was under the impression that almost everyone was concerned about vote counting. This is why I proposed what I called "reasonable consensus" here, and what I wanted to achieve by the proposal WP:IECOLL#Graham's pyramid. Are we on different pages here? — Sebastian 06:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, what should happen wit the proposals that have been brought forward on this discussion page? Should we consider them they all as resolved? — Sebastian 06:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, Edokter didn't want a million comments every time he retuned while you want some decent references . I think this has happened in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDrkiernan and it will be up to the moderators to guide the process and comment to which comments the feel are the strongest and rate them on the pyramid Gnevin (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreements

Upon rereading the above, I see a common thread among all messages posted here so far. Is my impression correct that all agree on the following:

• A1 We want to avoid voting.
• A2 We want to make decisions in consensus.

To make this workable, we need to say when consensus is reached, and what happens when consensus is not reached. When I mediate, I am fortunate enough that people usually trust my judgment on this. However, since we are a panel now, we may need to write some rules for that, too. I will propose it on /Panel. Since there was no objection to the Mk II procedure when it was proposed at talk:Ireland, it seems that there is agreement, too. I therefore propose the following:

• A3 We will first follow the Mk II procedure.

  DDStretch, or any other member who is up to the task, can you please copy the procedure from talk:Ireland to our project page WP:IECOLL, with the preliminary note "proposed procedure", so people see what they're agreeing with?

Also, the following is a combination of Gnevin's and DDStretch's ideas, with some addition by me:

• A4 Upon request, (when someone fears that consensus may not be reached within a reasonable time), the moderator panel will set an appropriate time limit, after which some outside considered opinion will decide the question.

Finally, I would like to see if there is an objection to the following agreement:

• A5 A unanimous decision by moderator panel counts as outside opinion.

— Sebastian 08:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This has become partially obsolete now, at least A3, which has been superseded by #Carrying out Edokter's plan. There were no objection to the other items (other than people who said they feared there will be no consensus); so can we check these off as agreed upon? — Sebastian 01:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after seeing the great way Red King used the Mk II procedure in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRed King#Expression in terms of the pro-forma template, I realize that it is possible to combine the two without any conflict with Edokter's plan. So, are there any objections to counting all of the above as adopted? — Sebastian 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal

[...] I still return to the original procedure that I suggested which resulted in the tables (including the evidence tables) being produced, and which I know is grounded in techniques that have been used in the past with success. It is given in Talk:Ireland#An Alternative Proposed Process which might be usefully combined with MickMacNee's good suggestions and its 10 steps I include now as a summary:

1. Step One: Specify what the problem is. (This is something to do with the content of the article named Ireland, with related issues to do with the names of articles that deal with the state of Ireland and the island of Ireland if certain decisions about the content of Ireland are decided upon.
2. Step Two: List all the possible solutions that have been proposed to solve the problem.
3. Step Three: Muster all arguments and claims in support of each argument that have a bearing on the solution to the problem. So, if one claim is that Ireland as the state has primacy, then list that claim.
4. Step Four: In a table, indicate whether each argument and/or claim identified in Step Three would support, would undermine, or would be neutral about each of the solutions identified in Step Two. Do not try to identify, until the next stage, the kind of evidence that would allow us to see whether the claims and arguments are valid or not.
5. Step Five: Identify what kind of evidence would count as "good evidence" or "strong evidence" in favour of each of the claims identified and classified in Steps Three and Four. List them.
6. Step Six: Try to find the specific evidence identified in Step Five and provide it in the table by means of suitable footnotes or other means.
7. Step Seven: Do a final round of discussion (not voting) about the quality of the evidence found in Step Six. This represents an overall "quality control" of the evidence.
8. Step Eight: Under the more direct guidance of the independant administrators assigned to this task by ArbCom, consider the possible ways in which the different verified claims could be combined together as objectively as possible to arrive at an overall decision about which of the possible solutions identified in Step Two has the greatest support in the literature and in the argument. Identify these aggregation strategies and list them so all can see them. (There are a number of standard strategies within the expert literature about this sometimes classified under the scheme "Multiattribute decision making".)
9. Step Nine: Discuss which of the aggregation strategies identified in Step Eight seems to be the best one to use in the light of wikipedia's policies of undue weight, not being run by votes, and so on. If necessary, list the relevant wikipedia policies and evaluate each strategy on the relevant policies to come to an overall idea of this. This might require an opinion poll. The output of this stage is the aggregation method to be used.
10. Step Ten: Implement the aggregation strategy. The output of this is the solution to the problem.

We roughed out a way up to step 2 as a means of seeing how feasible it was, but people thought we were "jumping the gun" a bit, and so it petered out. You will note that it lays great store by the gathering and mustering of evidence and reasoned critical examination of it, which I think has been done in a somehat uncontrolled way so far. In effect, it lays out a plan of action to achieve a well-specified goal, and it reduces the otherwise dominating role of assessing people's opinions in an uncontrolled manner, which is a situation where entrenched positions and unreasonable reasons can prosper. I still think we need to explicitly return to a procedure very like it.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pessimistic, and I've stayed away a week or so being busy. I've read all this page. Um. When is something going to happen? -- Evertype·✆ 09:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cascading levels of agreement

I’d like to suggest a simple description of a “cascading” process for decision making that might be helpful. The cascade is straightforward. If you can’t achieve the highest and most desirable outcome, you go on to the next one, et seq. until a decision is reached. From top down the sequence is;

• a) Unanimity. The most desirable outcome. Highly unlikely in the present circumstances, but included for completion.
• b) Consensus of Collaboration Project members. Now, the trouble here is that Wikipedia:What is consensus? seems to carefully avoid being specific about what this means (as opposed to what it doesn't mean). In my experience it tends to involve anything over a 60/40 majority being so described. For the purposes of this collaboration, something more specific may be helpful.
  • b i) I have seen a definition along the lines of – “consensus is reached when everyone either agrees that the proposal is the best outcome, or, although not being so minded, agrees to go along with it”. Let’s call this “full consensus” for the lack of an obvious shorthand.
  • b ii) A definition more in line with the spirit of WP:Consensus but more rigorously defined might be “consensus is reached when 75% of those taking part can support the proposal.” Note that this does not necessarily mean the 75% all think it is the best idea, and that more than one proposal could, in theory, reach this threshold. We might call this “consensus”. The 75% figure is in some sense arbitrary, but it would mean that any minority view would have to be outnumbered 3:1 (rather than by 1%) for any proposal to pass.
• c) A majority voting. I include this for completeness too.
• d) Arbitration i.e. determined by the moderator panel. Clearly unanimity here would be ideal and command the greatest respect, but in principle the same cascade above could apply.

The above is a broad description. To summarise my own view, the process could be:

• 1) Unanimity, failing that
• 2) Full consensus, failing that
• 3) A consensus of 75% level of support, failing that,
• 4) Arbitration.

Sebastian above suggests that the mediation panel decide when consensus is reached. I think that’s fine when it comes to deciding what does and does not count as a valid input, because there may be all kinds of nonsense such as sock-puppetry and name-calling going on, and I’d be more than happy to accept this. However, I’d like to know a bit more about the basis on which this consensus might be defined. I accept that 75% could be some other preferred number, and that ideally this should not be a numbers game, at all. However, I think clarity is helpful, otherwise there is a lot of room for confusion and contributors experiencing what was being described as consensus as just arbitration by another name. Ben MacDui 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see two related problems with this list:

1. It does not take into account the discussion above, which yielded in proposal to consider outside opinion.
2. Most of its options are votes, which does not address the overall unease with votes here.

I agree that I was not clear about how to use Graham's pyramid to assess "consensus", and I understand that that caused you some pain, trying to get a hold of what "consensus" means. It just occurs to me that, given the confusion about the term "consensus", it would be better if we gave a distinctive name to consensus achieved by assessing reasons. Let me call it "reasonable consensus". I will initiate a discussion about this in a separate section #Reasonable consensus later today. (Past midnight UTC, I'm afraid.) — Sebastian 18:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Unless I have misunderstood something, arbitration = consider outside opinion.
2. It is not in any way an attempt to be a comprehensive description of the process, but rather of how decisions are reached when that is required.
3. To be clear, I am not (currently) experiencing pain - rather I am trying to avoid any for all concerned in future by attempting to find a greater degree of clarity than may currently exist. I look forward to reading the "reasonable consensus" material in due course. Ben MacDui 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're not disappointed, as there isn't much to write about. It’s basically just that people trust me when I say "this is not a reason, it's just an opinion. Please provide a reliable source for it." That is only possible due to the mutual trust we enjoy at WP:SLR. That grew organically over the course of at least a month before we even started the project, and then it took two years until the last person came aboard. Of course, since we don't want to wait months or years, that is not an option here. I was hoping that I'd enjoy similar trust here due to ArbCom's recommendation, but that may not be the case. (See #Should I step down? above.) I'm still thinking about how to formalize this; maybe the best would be to use Graham's pyramid; what do you think? — Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the pyramid is a potentially very valuable tool. If it has a disadvantage it may be that what is my well-sourced refutation might be your poorly researched and largely irrelevant comment. As I am sure you can imagine, it is possible that this is the sort of territory it may be necessary to negotiate. To me, the advantage of being more objective about what we mean by "consensus" is that it may then be harder for those who don't subscribe to it to cry "foul". Perhaps not. I am not attached to any of the above, which I offer purely in a spirit of attempting to be helpful. If it isn't so, feel free to ignore it. Ben MacDui 12:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, this is a potential problem, and it deserves further consideration. Please remember, though, that we won't have the old "he-says-she-says" anymore. We're here as moderators. I think I can say for both of us that we're honestly trying to be fair. My hunch is that it is hard for any group to agree on specific criteria for terms such as "well-sourced", "refutation", and "relevant". We have a better chance for success if we make best use of moderators: Use moderators' judgment as a first approximation, and ensure that moderators remain accountable. I am, as an admin, already open for recall, and I am just as open to take back any individual decisions I make here. I promise to examine every criticism, and I ultimately submit all my actions to the scrutiny of the other moderator(s) and ArbCom. — Sebastian 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive this?

Should we archive this section with its subsection? This seems to have become superseded by #Carrying out Edokter's plan. — Sebastian 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How to get there?

Resolved

This section is for proposals how to achieve our goals, once we agree on the #goals and expectations. For now, I'm also moving a message here that was apparently posted under the assumption that we already have that agreement.

the following is part of a reply to BritishWatcher's message of 10:50, 2 February 2009:

Agree with BritishWatcher, but I would add that it is critical that Arbcom engage with the nature of evidence presented. This is not a matter of majority votes etc. The mediators also need either direct, or easy access to people with deep knowledge of the political and social history here who have not engaged so far. User:Alison and BrownHairedGirl come to mind, both admins, both disengaged from the debates but with knowledge of the subtleties. It should also be noted that we have some of the same issues (and editors) as resulted in Arbcom sanctions over the Troubles. --Snowded TALK 11:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your first sentence to mean that you want us all to consider evidence, as opposed to counting votes. This has been discussed at #Options for decisionmaking, and I think the consensus is clearly with you. By "Arbcom", I assume you mean moderators. To my knowledge, there is no plan for direct ArbCom engagement.

Thank you for the pointer to User:Alison and BrownHairedGirl. Ideally, I would like them to contribute here. It sounds like they would be good candidates for the open moderator position?

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. — Sebastian 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I meant the moderators - thanks for the correction. I dn;t think you will get either to accept the third position, but please try! However I think they might be prepared to act as advisors and they have considerable knowledge of the issues. In respect of the last sentence there has been a series of issues with a range of Irish articles such as those on the Troubles, the Provisional IRA and many others. The net result was Arbcom placed specific sanctions on several authors, including some active on this issue. I made the point as I think (sorry to suggest this) that you might want to have a look there to see the level of passion and intractability of some of the problems involved. --Snowded TALK 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications! Would you have a link to the sanctions? I don't see them at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Final decision. — Sebastian 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded is probably referring to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Remedies. Beware, though, to read them all the way through (particularly the former) is soul destroying. Rockpocket 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. And for the warning - I'll put on some uplifting music to make the soul want to remain in my body. :-) — Sebastian 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is what I expected, and why I accepted the nomination as a moderator. It is about as bad as the Sri Lanka situation was before we started SLR. Interestingly, now I remember that back then, it wasn't easy to get people to join in, too. Admittedly, one big difference that made it easier then is that we had much more time. Before the project itself, I was mediator in a related case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), and I remember how hard it was for me to even get a single person to speak for one side of the conflict. I think that was, similarly to this case, because many people were still licking their wounds. There had been all sorts of RfCs and such, and some people had been permanently banned. (I'm not too sure about all this, since that happened before my time.) Anyway, our list of warnings became much shorter (although admittedly part of that is because eventually people stopped the practice), and we're not worried about sockpuppets anymore. — Sebastian 04:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

can I suggest you try Götterdämmerung but the interpretation which sees it as redemption through sacrifice, freed from the tyranny of Gods etc. Given that we have had interpretations of the Ring which take it into the Stalin's psychology hospitals, one situated in Ireland in the closing decades of the last century is only a matter of time. It is as Rockpocket says pretty soul destroying but I would have hope. Just tell us what you need us to do and apologies for not providing the diffs. --Snowded TALK 08:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm marking this as resolved, as the original intention of the section has been superseded by #Carrying out Edokter's plan, and the other issues touched seem resolved, too. If I overlooked something, please feel free to post it in a separate section. — Sebastian 01:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)