Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:41, 25 May 2009

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
Home	Discussion	Related projects	Members	Templates	Statements	Ballot page
Project main page	Discussion	Related projects	Members and moderators	Useful templates	Statements on the problems	Also: Intro text and position statements
Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here. The discussion will be moderated by a panel appointed by ArbCom. Moderators can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links. Please, for the moment, refrain from discussing the individual Ireland naming options until we agree on a procedure.

Shortcut

WT:IECOLL

General and housekeeping

	Archives
	Nov 08 - Jan 09 Feb 09 Mar 09

Archiving by bot?

Should we rely on a bot for archiving this page? See details at Wikipedia_talk:SLR/H#Bot.2C_again. — Sebastian 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? (It's easy for you to say, as long as you don't have to do it!) — Sebastian 07:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we're just following the no rebuttal plan here. Someone proposes a good idea, and all it takes to oppose it is the little word "no". This is not what I had in mind when I signed up as a moderator. — Sebastian 18:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

Status

ArbCom now officially announced moderators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Admin moderators. — Sebastian 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're still waiting for a third moderator. — Sebastian 08:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And still waiting. Remainer of post moved to #Proposal for 3rd moderator. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a third moderator since Feb 19, so we're complete. — Sebastian 01:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users have been informed 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC), deadline to submit statements was agreed below as one week after that time, which is now. — Sebastian 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, there are objections currently discussed at #Deadline for submissions. — Sebastian 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying out Edokter's plan

(Headline inserted for better visibility. This was a reply to Sebastian's message of 00:20, 6 February 2009.)

When I volunteered for this job, I had no idea about the complexities behind the whole affair. Until the ArbCom case, there was much discussion with plenty of proposals, but sadly no consensus. Since Remedy #2 started, there has been only discussion about discussion, and I feel we're not getting anywhere. I made one proposal above, which has no responses to date, which is not very motivating. If I am to continue as a moderator, I am going to insist on a procedure that is simple, concise and to the point.

This discussion needs to be based on fact, not opinion. I am going to go ahead with what I proposed above and hold a non-rebuttal debate; I want statements which members can either endorse or oppose, nothing more. I need a structured exchange of ideas, because I do not look forward to have to dig through pages of open talk each day and even try to understand the current state of consensus. I expected to steer the discussion, not to discuss the steering.

When this was sent to ArbCom, people expected a ruling. I believe most members still want a ruling at some level, if only because they are tired of discussion. We can not rule as moderators, but we can guide the discussion, and I think it is time to do so by simply setting the rules instead of asking for them. That is my proposal, and my role as moderator is tied to it. I will say this now before it's too late; I will fail as a moderator and will retire if I am not expected to guide this discussion toward a satisfying conclusion. — Edokter • Talk • 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Its time we tried something, and this is as good an idea as any other. Rockpocket 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thank you for stepping up to the challenge. Since it's your plan, I have no problem letting you take the lead. Are there any objections? — Sebastian 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. A moderated/closed debate is fine. I think the most important point isn't so much what the process is as that whatever process is followed it be controlled and enforced and that it be conducted with an understanding that there *will* be a conclusion reached at the end. I don't mean to say that any old process will do--just that ultimately someone is going to have to say "This is going to be the process.", pressumably having incorporated the best ideas from the different suggestions made. Nuclare (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur eith Edokter's suggestion. (Yes, I expected a ruling.) Just tell us where to debate and what the rules are. -- Evertype·✆ 14:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Ben Mac Dui 15:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal also seems fine to me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan, i fully support it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had understood that to be the original plan. Remedy#1 was that we would come up with our own way to reach a decision. (Although, I must add that I had also understood that we had reached the same decision on this matter time and time again since 2002.)

Remedy#1 failed. Remedy#2, I thought, was that ArbCom would tell us how to reach a decision and that decision would be binding for two years. Let's have it (... and lo! we might even arrive at the same decision again for the 7th year running!). --89.101.216.172 (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I see Gnevin has already set up the discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement process

In order to keep this page tidy and readable .Please create you statements at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyYOURNAME. When you have add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements in the correct subsection Gnevin (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be similar to RfC pages, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have just one page for all? — Sebastian 06:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the AFD style of discussion so I can watch or unwatch discussions and see the related differences between discussions not every change that happens, this page may get quite active. This way is easier to follow Gnevin (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General statements

Should statements be limited to just the problems or is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Statements#General_statements ok ? Gnevin (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used 'general' because I had a little trouble categorizingRTG's statement. — Edokter • Talk • 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important ! This a no rebuttal process

I've had to remove 3 comments with in the last day. Please read WP:IECOLL-NOREBUTTAL's. User are requested to indicate their support or disagreement on the statement pages by signing their name. Use the statements talk if you wish to discuss a statement Gnevin (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ~ R.T.G 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I challenge the erroneous assumption in the propositions that Ireland (country) is the same as Ireland (state)? [because it isn't: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRed King#Ireland (country), if it has to exist at all, should redirect to the new master article ] --Red King (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk page if you really want to discuss it Gnevin (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the talk page... Or is there another talk page? --Red King (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I wanted to discuss a point about your statement i would do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRed King Gnevin (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is not to discuss, but to gather viewpoints. You can create your own statement page (which you've already done). — Edokter • Talk • 23:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "votes" of editors self endorsing their own statement. Otherwise it's a bit pointless. If it is agreed that one should be able to self endorse for whatever reason, my changes can be reverted back.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Index of statements

I created WP:IECOLL/watchlist with the links to the 4 pages that are currently in this list. This allows to watch all of them together via Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:IECOLL/watchlist. The problem, of course, is that that page doesn't get updated automatically, as the above list does. I just thought I'd post this here in case anyone finds it helpful. — Sebastian 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related changes, this will show the related changes as statements are added Gnevin (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That helps a bit, and I now transcluded that page in the watchlist, so at least the WP pages get automatically included. However, the talk pages are still not in the list, which is not good, as can be seen at WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRTG. — Sebastian 02:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is remedy #2

Because the Arbitration Remedy #1 failed is this supposed to be Remedy #2? There is no indication this is the status of this collaboration because it deals with the content not with the naming. It seems no action, or any other progress, has taken place on the Remedy #2 front and this collaboration stands independently from Remedy #2. Am I missing something? Where is Remedy #2 for the naming of the Ireland/Republic of Ireland articles, or has it fallen off the radar? ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have formulated a preliminary procedure and are executing it right now; see the #Index of statements section above. — Edokter • Talk • 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this process just a ruse?

Is this process just a ruse to ruse to stop the "disruption" caused by the RoI/IRL dispute by pretending that a process is in place to resolve the conflicting viewpoints? I hope this is a genuine process that will lead to a prompt decision but it looks unlikely to me. In particular, the ground rules on the project page state "Decisions for the WikiProject will primarily be based on the consensus of members". Is some one seriously suggesting a consensus will emerge? If no consensus emerges, does that mean there will be no decision (or another decision to make no decision as before)? What reason is there to think a consensus will emerge when it has not done so before? Is there a timeframe for this process? How long will it run? What is the deadline? I think those running this process should answer these questions and set them out on the project page. Participants can then take a view on whether this is a credible process. After all, who runs a project without having a clear timeframe? It goes without saying, I hope the project is successful. It should have credibility. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF much? The 3 Admin's here have offered their time and developed a process to help sort this issue, if you have question feel free to ask them but ask them in a polite way Gnevin (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was not polite about the above? They are direct questions - I am asking - Isn't this the place to ask? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redking7, this process originated here, I don't honestly believe it was intended as a ruse, more of a back up plan. That said, I think setting a timeframe for this process is a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great - I am glad some one agrees with setting a timeframe. I will open a sub-section to ask those concerned re what an appropriate cut-off date is. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline discussions

Deadline for submissions

March 12

(Below is taken from the discussion at #Hello.)

[...] Anyway perhaps we should post on all the Ireland articles linking to this page again (and statement page) and give people a deadline to submit their statements. Because at the moment there seems to be just strong support for one statement, and if thats the case progess could and should be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think setting a deadline is a good idea. Should we give editors another week? PhilKnight (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Id support some form of deadline like a week, and if agreed someone should really post an announcment on all the Ireland articles so no one is left out and doesnt find out about it afterwards that leads to more disputes. There seemed to be alot more people with problems about the ireland naming issue and in previous debates than here now. I understand some have clearly had enough and a few retired because of it but i do worry there might be some who arrive at the last minute when it looks like the issue is close to resolution and cause all sorts of problems. We need clear announcments on all of the pages to try and reduce the chances of something like that happening. from the page i saw it seemed to get bogged down in long debate about arbcom, so this link isnt very clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "1 week after it has been announced"? (See Gnevin's statement above and section #Publicity / notice.) — Sebastian 01:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were a lot of statements to get Arbcom to take the case but they did not take the case... AfD also maintains a poor show of opinions. One week is cutting it fine if you do not announce it on each previously concerned editors talk page and that is often done to provide interest in discussions like this. ~ R.T.G 11:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Below was posted as reply to the announcement that the deadline has been reached at #Status.)

Hold on!

As I posted below, when editors were notified that the statement-taking process was open, there was nothing in that notice about a deadline. There was nothing at that time in WP:IECOLL about a deadline, and there is still nothing there. If a deadline is to be applied, then please give editors prior notice of it by displaying it prominently at WP:IECOLL. A deadline noted only in the middle of a talk page under a section heading of "Hello?" is a sneak deadline in effect, even though I AGF and have no reason to believe that it was sneaky by intent. This no way to apply a deadline.

I have specifically held off making the substantive statement I wanted to make because I wanted to read through the discussion on existing statements and reflect on them before weighing in with my own. There was there was nothing at WP:IECOLL or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements process to indicate in any way that any deadline had been set, and a

I intend to make my statement within the next few days (I'm travelling, so time is short), and I hope that there will no attempt to procedurally exclude my statement because of a hidden deadline.

For the benefit of any others contemplating making a statement, there should be clear advance warning of any deadline at WP:IECOLL#The_statement_process. Given the length of time this process has been open, I see no reason why there should not be at least 7 days notice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the confusion, Sebastian has been on indefinite wikibreak since 4 March. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I had taken some time off, and when I got back I sprang somewhat hectically into action. I am sorry about the confusion this caused. There is no rush as far as I'm concerned. — Sebastian 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So what's the current situation, then? Can I take it that as of now no deadline has been set, and that there will be clear and prominent warning in advance of any deadline that is set? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there is no harm in suspending the deadline at least until the other two moderators get a word in. I also agree that it is only fair to ask for clear and prominent warning in advance. As a "prominent" place, I propose the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statements and the body of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements process. — Sebastian 16:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

At #Deadline for decision of the dispute below, March 31 has been proposed as a deadline for submissions. This has been seconded by several people, but opposed in the "vote" section below. — Sebastian 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote about deadline for submissions

The deadline for statement taking shall be the 23:59:59 (UTC) 31/3/2009. Please indicate your agreement below

Support Gnevin (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The right result is preferable to the timed result. I havent a clue what is going on here. At the moment we are taking statements with a view to agreeing on a procedure. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kittybrewster, this is not a viable alternative. "The right result" seems a highly subjective criterium to me. Or do you have a definition for "the right result" that is likely to garner general support? — Sebastian 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The right result is one that works for people. At the moment I am unclear what the statements are being made about or what happens to them. Oppose seems to me a valid response in a vote. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I would have no problem with a deadline of 31 March (assuming that it was properly notified, as Sebastian has promised above), but only if it was clear what happens next. I may have missed something, but I have seen no description of what the next step(s) involve, and it's important to clarify that so the editors know what needs to be done at this stgae to ensure that the maters which concern them are addressed at later stages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not clear about that, either. I will bring it up at WT:IECOLL/P and will get back to you. — Sebastian 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There are no plans for further steps. I am very sorry about that. — Sebastian 18:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Please, let's get this show on the road. Everything seems to have ground to a halt.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline for decision of the dispute

It appears there could be some support (per the above) for setting a deadline for a decision at the end of this process. I propose May Day 2009 - i.e. 1 May 2009. If you support setting this decision deadline, please say as much below? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 months seems fair Gnevin (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 months seems like long enough to reach a resolution. Ive forgotten and i cant see it on the page but did we ever decide a deadline for all statements to be completed? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we say 31 March to end statement taking? And 1 May for a decision? Gnevin (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Id be ok with that although the statement process has been open for quite some time already and i doubt many more would be taken. Someone suggested the other day perhaps it should be 1 week after the notification messages were sent out, so 1 more week would seem reasonable to me. That gives much more time for a choice to be made and it doesnt have to be rushed or pressured. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with a deadline, and 31 March for statement taking and 1 May for a decision seems fair. One week is rushed, seeing as proper notice only went out recently. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't support a deadline for a final decision. I would support a deadline for the end of the statement-taking process, and 31 March seems fine for that, but too many issues have arisen in statement-taking for the rest of the process to be artificially guillotined. I do not know how long it will take to work through those issues, but this dispute has been going on for years. It's more important to make a decision which is clearly reasoned, and in which the issues have been considered with sufficient care, than to make a quick decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this discussion is not about the deadline for submissions of statements which was agreed to be a week from the announcement, but for the overall discussion? I wrote a note about the former at #Status, please correct me if that was wrong, or if there is a consensus for extension. — Sebastian 03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your presumption is correct Sebastian. This is about fixing a deadline for a decision on the substantive questions. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re User: Brownhairedgirl's statement above - As per Sebastian, "Users have been informed 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC), deadline to submit statements was agreed below as one week after that time", i.e. 12 March - so the 31 March deadline suggested is no longer relevant. The deadline for submissions has now expired. The Arbitrators now simply need to finish considering the submissions and make their decision. Arbitrators - Could I ask you to confirm a deadline for when you will be issuing your decision? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did you all become March_Hare's ,are you all rushing out some where , where is the fire? The Ireland question has dragged on for years and people want to have a week for statement. Have some patience, I think the 31st is a fair deadline Gnevin (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well im ok with the 31st if thats what others want but 1 more week seems reasonable enough to me. Statements have been open over month and if we say one more week then thats 2 whole weeks since the notes went out to peoples talk pages / article talk pages. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement may been open for a month but I only informed the majority of users 7 days ago. We probably should have informed them sooner but we need to give these people time. Don't worry , you won't be late for the tea party ;) Gnevin (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When editors were notified that the statement-taking process was open, there was nothing in that notice about a deadline. There was nothing at that time in WP:IECOLL about a deadline, and there is still nothing there. If a deadline is to be applied, then please give editors prior notice of it by displaying it prominently at WP:IECOLL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support 31 March 2009 as a deadline for the decision. Arbitrators - Please announce what your decision is. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is 1 May the deadline ? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#What_are_the_User_names_of_the_3_arbitrators seems to indicate it is Gnevin (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to "Is 1 May the deadline ?" - It is. See User PhilKnight's (Moderator) response below. The timetable set out on the project is now agreed. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timetable

I added the following section to the text of the ProjectPage because, I believe it reflects the timetable agreed by the Moderators above:

The following are important dates for those concerned with this process:

31 March 2009 - This is the date after which no further statements may be made; and
1 May 2009 - This is the backstop date for this process. If a consensus has not emerged before this date, the three project moderators will close the discussion on this date.

User:Kittybrewster reverted this addition (I've put it back up for now). Am I missing something. Is the above timetable not agreed by the Moderators - Moderators, please let me know if I have misunderstood - the timetable needs to be cleraly spelled out on the project page. Thanks. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Statements are being taken - dunno about what (yet) as a result of which a procedure will be proposed by the moderators and then discussed; that may involve further statements. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As BrownHairedGirl wrote above, it makes more sense to talk about deadlines when it is clear what happens next. I brought it up at WT:IECOLL/Panel#Status; Plan on main page, but we haven't reached a conclusion yet. Since these deadlines are only proposed and not agreed yet, I moved it under the section {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing, which is the same as we did with the other proposed procedures. I also moved them under a section {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing as these deadlines only apply to that question not to the project as a whole. — Sebastian 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but be a bit disappointed with this Sebastian. Setting a timetable is a basic ingredient for any credible process - and its not as if 31 March/1 May was an ambitious timetable either. My humble advice is that you and the two other Moderators need to first set the timetable, then work to it - you can decide the outstanding issues after you have set the timetable. Its always impressive how a timetable helps people achieve things. Remeber too that you and the other two Moderators are the leaders here and we are all relying on you. You may need to give the other two a telephone call to thrash things out after the timetable is set. Best wishes and regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP Statement

Just clarifying, are IP's allowed to make statements, vote etc? I know I should have more good faith, but in something as important as this, I think its quite suspicious.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the IP to be wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/archive2#Of_voting.2C_IP_addresses.2C_and_fire who doesn't want too create a user name for some reason, I think this IP is ok but no others should be accepted Gnevin (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to AGF in the case of anon IPs, given the many bans in place on socks around Ireland-related issues. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Two completely different answers. Maybe it's best if a moderator sorts this out?MusicInTheHouse (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing IP addresses brings disadvantages to the community such as that we have to deal with names nobody can remember, and that there will be possible confusion with the accounts Bastun mentions. The only argument I can see for allowing the IP editor in question would be some view of "equal opportunity", but I think this is specious since the opportunity to create an account clearly exists; in fact, I am not aware of any reason not to sign up. I would be open to change this assessment if the IP user sent me (or any of the other moderators) a reason why it is not possible for them to set up an account. — Sebastian 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the idea of an explanation is a good one, but I am concerned about the notion of it being only a private explanation. There may be elements of detail which need to be private, but if the moderators do conclude that there are genuinely pressing reasons why an editor prefers to reveal more about themselves by using an IP address than a username of their choice, then I think it would be fair for the moderators to explain this strange situation as far as can be done without breach of privacy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as a matter of principle. Any information that a person wants to keep confidential, and that I would not have known without the person entrusting it to me, is confidential to me. Releasing that information or a single-handed synthesis of parts of that information would be a violation of my pledge of confidentiality. — Sebastian 05:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this sort of situation arises frequently, and can usually be handled quite simply with a brief generalised summary which is agreed with the person concerned. For example, if the reason is "my husband will kill me if I get so far involved in wikipedia as to register a username", summarise it as "family concerns" --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting discussion from which I can learn a lot. I am moving it to Wikipedia talk:Pledges#Is it OK to summarize statements? and will reply there. — Sebastian 16:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong Sebastian but is this not academic now because as you said "Users have been informed 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC), deadline to submit statements was agreed below as one week after that time", i.e. 12 March. No further statements can therefore be made. Its now a question of the three Arbitrators making a decision. Above, I have suggested a timeframe. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote that statement, I assumed that the deadline was a done deal. It was only later that I realized that there are objections against it. See #Deadline discussions above. — Sebastian 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by IP not getting a username, but submittng a statement and not becoming a member. Others have become a member but that is it. Never mind; I guess the whole process is bumbling along with feet being dragged. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. I really can't see any reason for that; my intention was only to be open to any such reason. — Sebastian 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying, are IP's allowed to make statements, vote etc? This has been discussed before on AN/I ... in fact even in relation to this very debate. Of particular irony is that on that occasion the username-editor that said IP-editors should not be allowed to contribute (because they may be socks!) was, in the course of the discussion, exposed to be a sock himself. In fact the first part of that discussion is that username-editor talking to one of his socks.

I think that the idea of an explanation is a good one ... OK. Why do I not sign up? Because Wikipedia is not a social club. It is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". I don't sign up for an account because, in my experience, username-editors loose focus on the aims of the project. Their contributions to WP become a social activity and, unwittingly, their engagement in discussions and attitude towards contributions become tainted by a lack of objectivity.

It is clear to me that by not signing up I arouse suspicion among username-editors. Is there any objective reason to be suspicious of me? No. Is there any objective reason to dismiss my contributions without reference to them? No. So why did discussion of me find its way onto this page? Because username-editors don't judge contributions on their merits, they judge them by who they were made by. I arouse suspicion because you "don't know who I am" (in fact by contributing under my IP I am far less anonymous than a username-editor). Who I am is an irrelevancy, just as who you are is. It is the contribution that matters, not the contributor. I don't sign up because I don't want my judgement clouded by the same distractions that I see plaguing contributions by username-editors across the encyclopedia. --78.152.249.182 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who you are is of course an irrelevancy; we are all anonymous here, unless we choose to reveal our real-life identities.

However, registering a username of your choice is a mark of commitment to the wikipedia project, and also a device which makes it easier for other editors to identify you (a name is easier to remember than an 11-digit number). Registering a username also ensures that your contributions are identified as yours regardless of what computer you edit under, and regardless of whether your Internet Access Provider changes your IP address (most IAPs do not guarantee a fixed IP for residential connections).

For all these reasons, IP addresses are routinely discounted in other decision-making procedures on wikipedia. I have yet to see any reason why this process should be an exception to a principle applied routinely at AFD, CFD etc; instead the IP denounces the whole process of registering a username. That argument may or may not have merit, but in substance it's a call for abolition of the registered-user system, and this is the wrong place to raise that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope (was: Remit of this process)

As I noted in my statement, I am very concerned that this process is not fit for purpose, i.e. it only defines the problem in terms of the names of two WP articles: Ireland and Republic of Ireland.

How will a decision on the names of these two articles resolve disputes about how to refer to the 26-county state in other articles; or how articles such as Economy of the Republic of Ireland should be named?
How can a wide dispute be resolved if it is so narrowly defined?
What cognisance has been taken of the Ireland disambiguation task force, which appeared to be reaching a consensus on a compromise solution that covered all areas of issue and which, notably, attracted considerably more participation by editors than this process?

What thought has been given to any of these questions? Mooretwin (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just articles. There are also hundreds of categories which use the phrase "Republic of Ireland" to refer to the 26-country state, in order to distinguish it from categories referring to the whole Island. There appears so far to be no mechanism in this process for addressing the consequences for all those categories (and for the useability of Irish categories as whole) if the head articles are renamed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make a personal comment here: Someone complained about "feet being dragged" above, and I think the above posts are a good example how that happens: A decision is made (in this case by ArbCom as described below), and nobody says a word that they sees a fundamental problem with that. Only two months later, after some people developed a process based on that decision, someone uses brings up this problem to remit the whole process, and immediately two others jump on that bandwagon, and nobody speaks up in favor of the process. ~~This pervasive, destructive attitude is what's holding up our progress here.~~ — Sebastian 19:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that anyone who has seen the level of BrownHairedGirl's contributions to the project could ever accuse her of feet dragging. Lucian Sunday (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who suggested feet were being dragged towards a conclusion. Being dragged very constructively by BHG who seems to be fantastically well focused on the process. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great reply. I suppose I misunderstood the meaning of the original "dragging" comment and remit my last sentence. — Sebastian 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was not trying to remit anything, just to ensure that the process includes consideration of the consequences which a decision here will have for other articles and for categories. There is a principle with categories that they should if possible follow the naming conventions for the relevant head article if any, and if the two articles under discussion here are renamed then there will be an arguable case for a consequential renaming of the categories. When applied to articles, category names carry no explanatory text or footnotes or hatnotes: they are just bare titles. At the moment we have Category:Ireland covering the whole island, beneath which we have Category:Northern Ireland and Category:Republic of Ireland, dealing with the 6 and 26 counties respectively. This category structure intersects at many deeper levels (e.g. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sport in Ireland includes both ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sport in Northern Ireland and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sport in the Republic of Ireland as well as 32-county categories, many of which are in turn sub-categorised into ROI/NI).
Some topics have been covered by all-island articles, some by a 6/26 county split, and some by all three; this structure of thousands of categories allows for logical categorisation of 26-county articles, of 6-county articles, and of 32-county articles, and the existing nomenclature is both unambiguous and consistent with article titles. However, since some editors are determine to remove the phrase "Republic Of Ireland" from article names, we need to consider where this leaves all these categories, and what impact any changes would have on readers trying to use the category system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Yes indeed. And what we have works well. But I understand that we are not yet allowed to address whether ROI would become "the Irish country", "the Irish state" or whatever. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not our decision; it was decided by ArbCom at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names#Community asked to develop a procedure on 4 January 2009 that the goal is to solve the problem of "appropriate names for Ireland and related articles". Since then, there was ample time to raise an objection, but I'm not aware that anybody did so before we decided on this process. — Sebastian 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way these things are decided is rather obscure from my perspective and I suspect the perspective of most WP editors. I don't recall being given the opportunity to object at that time. Mooretwin (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your objections with the ArbCom process, but that is something you have to bring up with ArbCom, not here. It seems to me the process at ArbCom provides for people to make such statements, and you made use of that opportunity already. I'm not sure if your statement contained that point back then, if it did and was not understood then you don't need to ask for permission to speak: We're all humans here (except for the bots, of course), so if you really don't know what to do, you can always leave a message on an arbitrator's talk page; there has to be at least one of the committee that you trust enough to take such a fundamental concern seriously.

As far as we are concerned, we have to go with the ArbCom decision. If you really feel the decision was wrong then it seems like Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_general_clarification is the right place to bring this up. — Sebastian 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the scope of "appropriate names for Ireland and related articles" cover Mooretwin's concerns rather well? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be seen to cover it. But it can also be read differently, as those of us did who took it to mean only very few articles. In hindsight, it would have been better if we had started with an agreement on the scope of this effort. — Sebastian 18:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about a proposal that hasn't been submitted here yet?

(This was originally a continuation of a comment at #Remit of this process above.)

That said, I think you did good work at the task force, and your proposal there met no objection that goes beyond the level of mere "contradiction" in WP:IECOLL#Graham's pyramid. If it also addresses the concerns you are raising here, then I feel it should have a good chance of being adopted here. — Sebastian 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying it could form part of the outcome of this particular process? Mooretwin (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope so. The process has to be decided by all moderators together, but I feel any good process needs to allow for such an unrefuted plan to form at least part of the outcome. — Sebastian 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add, from what I can see Mooretwin's proposal did not gain complete consensus and as that was so long ago and due to the fact consensus can change, I think only this process should count towards the process of solving this problem. That is why we are doing all this statement taking in ultimately!MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my previous statement was misleading! I thought that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyMooretwin was the same as his Proposal for an all-encompassing solution. Indeed, that proposal needs to be proposed here according to WP:IECOLL#The statement process in order to be considered; we as moderators can not admit any proposals through the back door just because we like them. — Sebastian 18:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same! Why do you think it is not the same? Mooretwin (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I see that now. The reason why I thought it was different was the preamble that you added. — Sebastian 18:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is constructive it should be welcomed no matter how, where or when it gets into the wiki. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we want to include all good ideas here. But I regard it as part of my task as a moderator to insist on the agreed procedure. ~~It shouldn't be so hard to just put it here.~~ — Sebastian 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic text added by Purple Arrow was removed from this section by SebastianHelm. For the original text see [1].

What are the User names of the 3 arbitrators

I understand there are three arbitrators mandated to make the decision. What are their user names? As I have not hear any response from them on this page re a deadline on this process, I would like to post the question on their respective user pages. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Top of the page, in the green box.~~ Sorry, I thought you were talking about the moderators. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't 3 arbitrators mandated to make the decision, there's just the 3 moderators. PhilKnight (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight - Are these the three moderators?

SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) (Moderator)
PhilKnight (talk · contribs) (Moderator)
Edokter (talk · contribs) (Moderator)

I appear to be a bit muddled. I originally thought this was an arbitration process and that at the end a binding decision would be made. If they are not Arbitrators but Moderators - Does that mean they cannot make a decision but merely act as moderators in facilitating yet more discussion? Perhaps you could give me a steer on what this process of posting "statements" etc will lead to. If you are one of the three Moderators, perhaps you could give us your view on the deadline dates proposed above (31 March and 1 May also). Thanks. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redking7, yes the moderators are SebastianHelm, Edokter, and me. The process originated with an ArbCom decision, however neither Sebastian, Edokter, or I, are arbitrators, although we are admins. My view is the role of moderator here is to facilitate discussion, and at the end of the process, close the discussion, in a manner similar to an admin closing a debate about deleting or merging an article. There's some discussion over at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel about how the moderators are going to close the discussion, however if all this sounds somewhat vague, that's because we haven't worked out all the details yet. Lastly, I think the overall deadline of 1 May is about right, and I'm ok with giving until 31 March for statements. PhilKnight (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting the deadlines (although the one for making statements has apparently already expired - see Sebastian's notes above). But frankly, my initial scepticism has, it appears been found to be entirely correct. This is just another discussion forum - no decision will emerge from it - you three are moderators and will have no mandate at the end of this process to make a decision. Lots of editors appear to be under the delusion that this process will lead to a decision "one way or the other" on the IRL/RoI dispute. Clearly, all you three are going to do is facilitate yet further discussion. I will try to let other Users know this so the wider community is not under a delusion (I know some are are). Thanks. Redking7 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Regards.[reply]

Redking7, the deadline for statements has not expired -- re-read the sections above.

As the closing of the debate, PhilKnight did not say that the mods had no mandate to make a decision. AFDs, CFDs etc are supposed to be closed by the admin weighing the arguments rather than vote-counting, and PhilKnight's comparison with XFD processes implies that the same practice is intended here. However, in the discussion at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel I see Edokter talking of vote-counting ("a poll") rather than argument-weighing, which is just about the worst way to conclude any decision-making process on wikipedia. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a brainstorm. We look at every method possible to establish consensus. — Edokter • Talk • 01:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration another ruse?

By way of clarifying matters, I asked a number of questions re the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration on the project's talk page. Some editors (me included) suspected that the process was just a ruse to to stop the "disruption" caused by the RoI/IRL dispute by pretending that a process is in place to resolve the conflicting viewpoints. While it might be unfair to call the process a "ruse" (it is well-intentioned) - the process has little prospect of resolving the dispute. It is simply a discussion forum with three moderators. The three moderators have no authority to make a decision. Broadly, they view their role as facilitating discussion and then closing the discussion. For editors who are frustrated with current Ireland article naming arrangements, my advice is not to simply weight for the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to make a decision as a substantive decision is not in their mandate. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think, to the extent it describes the remit of you and the two mediators etc, is a fair summary of things? Am I missing anything? Thanks again. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a mandate to "establish a procedure" that will help the community in reaching consensus. But if these procedures fail, the procedure could well mean that the moderators decide the outcome. I just hope it doesn't come to that. — Edokter • Talk • 01:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking7 seems to think that "closing the discussion" is some sort of passive act. At AFD and CFD, it is far from that: the closing admin takes a pro-active role in weighing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks BrownHariedGirl and Moderators - Yes, I did misunderstand "closing a discussion" - It sounds like the moderators will be able to make a substantive decision on 1 May after all. Well I am glad to hear it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for result, other articles

I thought we were meant to be keeping the articles stable as they are now and only make changes when the result here has been decided. However, over at Irish nationality law User:Blue-Haired Lawyer has ignored me reverting here potentially controversial changes as I said we should wait for WP:IECOLL to finish. The page said Ireland and the editor has changed this to say Republic of Ireland. I reverted this a couple times over the past few days, thinking that it was standard practice to wait for this to be over until making changes. He/She continues to revert and I'm not sure what to do? Does this process have any affect on what the articles are saying now? Were my reverts justified or is he/she perfectly entitled to change Ireland to Republic of Ireland at this stage?MusicInTheHouse (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are encouraged to pledge to no more than 1RR per day . I believe articles should stay at their current titles till IECOLL has made a decision ,there is no point in having move/terminology discussions all over the place Gnevin (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a title though, this is prose in an introduction. Blue-Haired Lawyer has broken 1RR, I have not but I'm not sure what to do in order to keep the article at its stable version.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am sympathetic MusicInTheHouse, I think BHG is "perfectly entitled to change Ireland to Republic of Ireland at this stage" etc at this stage. This Project process does not even have an agreed timetable at the moment. It is hard therefore to expect Users to buy into this process - After all, who knows how long this will go on? It would not be realistic to expect Users to end "editing as usual" in the (indefinite?) interim. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation

In the last two weeks, I have been trying to take a wikibreak. When I saw how many people put their effort here I felt bad about it and came back a couple days ago. But I feel my hands are tied. I had accepted the moderator role because I thought we could use the kind of reason based mediation that I’ve done successfully in the past. When I was unable to convince the community of the benefits of that approach, I readily accepted a different plan. I now realize that that was a mistake, because that plan fundamentally differs from my approach and my values, and I feel like a round peg in a square hole here. I therefore believe it is best if I hand in my resignation as moderator here. — Sebastian 18:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why with all the drama? You're not required to do much. You just have to help make a decision on what to do after all the statements have been made. How is resigning going to help anyone here? I think you should put a stroke through your above post and get back moderating.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on here? I don't remember any approach being rejected let alone anything "reason based". Also I think its very difficult when you commit to a process to back out at this stage without first finding a substitute. --Snowded (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is difficult to back out, and I value commitment - that's why I kept hanging on. But please remember that this is a volunteer outfit. I have put other things in my life aside for this, Wikipedia has become an addiction, and I need to reclaim my time.

By the other approach, I meant what I called "reasonable consensus" here and in other places. I do admit though, that I never presented a consistent plan for that. I wanted us to build up the plan from basic agreements. I got agreement on Graham's pyramid, which made it onto the main page, but it has no relation to the current plan. In fact, the current plan, by explicitly ruling out rebuttals, diametrically contradicts the very aim of the pyramid of refutation. I went along with that because I thought there was a bigger plan, but I see now that that was a mistake. To answer MusicInTheHouse's statement "You just have to help make a decision on what to do after all the statements have been made". If there is consensus that all that's needed is a team of unbiased arbitrators to pick and choose from among the presented proposals, then I will be happy to cast my vote; but I have to get used to this idea; it's not what I had thought was required of me, and it doesn't square well with my preconceived notion of what's fair. Also, I want to add that I have put in much more time than MusicInTheHouse seems to think. Work others do always seems little. — Sebastian 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer for many things, I hope I don't back out without finding a substitute. I think the statements of fact is going well, but what is now needed is for that to be summarised to identify issues and confrontations (that needs a small independent team but critically needs someone with knowledge of the politics of this) and present them for creation of evidence tables and then move to make decisions. That small team could be appointed representatives of the different parties (active editors) or outsiders. Overall there has been so much drift here and what is really needed is leadership. Given Arncom's knowledge of Irish issues (the Troubles and elsewhere) I think we all assumed they had appointed someone who would have been comfortable with the (shall we say) difficult environment here. From what you have said above and elsewhere is was not fair to ask you to do it. In your shoes I would ask one of Arbcom members who knows about Irish issues to drive the next stage --Snowded (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe then you're smarter than me and you simply don't volunteer for commitments without knowing how long they would take, or for jobs that are so hard to sell, that finding volunteers itself is a full-time job. You said it was unfair that I was asked, but I think it's hard to find people that are more qualified for this job. One reason that this job was so hard to sell is that it is very restrictive in the conditions about applicants: Candidates have to be administrators to begin with; which is not a practical necessity, since so far I think none of us has ever used any admin privileges. On top of that, canditates have to be interested enough to participate for months, but get rejected when they actually edited Ireland related articles. This is the squaring of the circle!

I share your value that if you make a mistake, it's not simply enough to say "I'm sorry", but there is an obligation to minimize the negative effect. That said, I don't really see a negative effect. I've held all along that we are too many moderators. I think the leadership problem you mention is a direct consequence of that. I have held a leadership role for two years (minus a wikibreak) at WP:SLR, and can tell you first hand that it's hard to lead here. The difference is not that Irish people are more antiauthoritarian or more argumentative than Sri Lankans, or that the disagreement is deeper rooted in the country's or Wikipedia's history: The difference that makes leadership here hard is that we are three people, who've never met before, and have to work together for months, towards a backdrop of continuously changing situations, such as the one brought up in the previous section. Nobody would head an army with three equally ranked generals. I asked a professional mediator, who said she'd never have accepted such an assignment.

That said, your idea of asking ArbCom is good; I will do that officially. — Sebastian 00:15, March 19, 2009 (UTC)

Done - no reply so far. — Sebastian 16:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable to feel that the current approach is a mistake. It has no means to reach a decision. It's slowness is, however, useful because of the cool matter-of-fact nature of the statements. Before, arguments were pilled in on top of each other. We Irish are excellent at rhetoric, the current process pins us down to logic. What is necessary to move it on is dialectic. If we allow free discussion we'll find ourselves back at rhetoric again, so let's keep the current non-rebuttal system, but move on to a rebuttal stage. By this I mean one where those that stated their opposition a current statement statement, state why below it (keeping Graham's pyramid in mind). Then editors can state that the support or oppose the rebuttal, but without engaging in a rebuttal of the rebuttal themselves (in the same way that we don't allow discussion below the statements now).

I know that this is a very slow process, but slow is not necessarily a bad thing. We want a conclusion we all can live with. If it takes time, so be it. I don't see a Wikibreak of two weeks being anything to worry about during that sort of time frame. --78.152.238.198 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points! I'll have to think about that. — Sebastian 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My idea behind the non-rebuttal process was exactly that; to stop the piling up of arguments. Anyone sane trying to deduce consensus from that would go mad. I agree that slow is better then nothing at all. Sebastian, I hope you reconsider. — Edokter • Talk • 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will give it some more thought. If we proceeded with the IP editor's proposal then I can imagine there will be a moment at some point when more moderators are needed. I'd be happy to come back as an assistant moderator to assess the rebuttals (or "refutations", as Graham calls it) - similar to WP:3O. — Sebastian 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The value to this exercise in the contributions from the level-headed User:BrownHairedGirl are immense. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a long time ago that she be asked to lead and structure the debate and her statements indicate an ability to do that. --Snowded (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderators - Timetable please?

Can we take it that the Timetable which has been labelled "under discussion" for some time now is agreed? This is a question for the Moderators. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a rough consensus the dates are ok. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a closing date of 31 March for the taking of statements, but I still have some doubts about it in practice because its unclear what comes thereafter. Setting a closing debate for the rest of the process seems to me completely wrong at this stage, because there is not yet (so far as I can see) a clear statement from the moderators of exactly what further stages are needed to complete the process.

After all this time, I can see little merit in rushing any further stages of this exercise. From all that the moderators have written, it seems that the process they are applying is a somewhat novel combination of various approaches, and I suspect that even they are unclear aboiut where some of the further steps will lead us.

Rather than applying some arbitrarily-chosen deadline as a final cutoff for the whole process, it would be much better for the moderators to now say clearly that there will be no final deadline set at this stage. If this process is going to create the sort of coherently-reasoned answer that the moderators have been seeking, then they will have to be clear that the process will be completed when all necessary stages are complete, however long that takes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

concur, lets have a deadline for each stage (31st march for statements seems fine), then go step by step. If nothing else its not clear who is running this show! --Snowded (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too concur. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Concur as well. — Edokter • Talk • 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "I have no problem with a closing date of 31 March for the taking of statements, but I still have some doubts about it in practice because its unclear what comes thereafter." I will clarify: Statment process closes. Moderators (the three of them, chosen after all, as independent persons) will decide if a consens has been reached. Clearly, no consensus will have been reached (in that regard, see the statements made to date). The 3 Moderators will then have a full month to consider the statements that have been made and make their own deliberations. Then they make their decision on or before 1 May 2009. What is unclear about any of this? Its a very simple process. Re being against "applying some arbitrarily-chosen deadline as a final cutoff". The real deadline (1 May) is certainly arbitrary but without it this "process" could needlessly carry on forever. Indeed, those attacking these not very ambitious deadlines are not even suggesting alternative deadlines....just let the process "run" and "run". The Moderators (3 persons) have to make a decision. There is no reason why a full month after statements have closed is not enough time. Without a deadline, the process has no credibility. Moderators please agree your position on the exact deadlines and set them out here so we can move on. Redking7 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see the position among the Moderators is:

All support the 31 March for end of statemnts.
Support 1 May final deadline - PhilKnight;
Against setting a final deadline - Edtoker;

Sebastian - You are the last Moderator whose position I am not sure of. You appear to have the casting vote. Are you with PhilKnight or Edtoker? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gather Sebastian resigned as moderator. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unanimity or majority??? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the hurry Redking7 (but it's not just you)? After more than 3 years what's another few weeks, or even months if we get a solid solution? Hang loose man. Let the moderators tell us what their timetable is instead of having people pushing all the time. That is a part of the problem in the first place, people always attempting to fix this issue quickly and it never succeeding. Apparently people have forgotten what patience is? ww2censor (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so there's a consensus for the 31st March date, but not for the 1 May final deadline? PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the 31st of March but i dont think we need to set ourself a limit of one month after that to resolve everything, it puts more pressure on everyone. I think what happens after the statement deadline passes is more important than setting a deadline to complete everything by. Have the mods agreed what will happen after the statements are all in because i dont understand or know what happens next. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (to PhilKnight). Also RedKing7's statement does not reflect the process as I understood it so some clarification would be appreciated. --Snowded (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem for me setting a deadline for May 1 is not knowing the next step in the process. We need to think about the next step. Once we know what to do, then a deadline is fine. — Edokter • Talk • 13:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edokter/PhilKnight - I am disappointed. A credible process has deadlines. Frankly, not having them is makes the process a joke and no one has given good reasons why there should not be a straightforward timetable. Also you mention that "we" - need to figure out the next steps etc in the process. My suggestion is this - you and PhilKnight need to decide things - not we. This is essentially the Three Wise Men procedure (though we are down a man at the moment - I've nominated myself below!). The three Moderators assess the statements and make the decisions. As always, my simple practical suggestions (like having a deadline and Moderators taking leadership) will presumably not make me popular but there you go. Keep in mind also that one Camp in this debate is very happy for no decision to issue - after all they want the status quo to remain - so appeals for "more time" (as if it was needed) should not be seen as necessarily impartial contributions. Only those who want change, like me, want a decision. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking7, I dislike the assumption of bad faith in that comment: I don't see anyone here arguing that there should not be a decision. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that a) some editors want no decision to be made, and b) that the moderators will choose a particular course of action for the next stage. I personally do want to retain most of the status quo, but I also want a clear decision from this process to settle the issue and produce a workable and stable solution. What I don't want is a decision rushed against an arbitrary deadline, because that runs the risk of producing an outcome which lacks the clear basis for a workable and stable solution. I think it's a great pity that you have repeatedly chosen to cast this process as some sort of ruse to buy time.

As to the "moderators take statements then make a decision", I have not seen such a process agreed by the moderators, who have discussed other options. I dislike the way that you appear to be to be trying to railroad the moderators into that option, because it seems to be only one of the possibilities at play. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that I have "repeatedly chosen to cast this process as some sort of ruse to buy time" etc. I think that is unfair. I think my notes on this page have asked fair and probing questions that have pointed out where the Moderators are failing to give leadership right now. I have encouraged them to take the lead and make decisions - about things like a timetable - things that will make this a more credible process. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third moderator

I formally propose that User:BrownHairedGirl become the third moderator in place of Sebastian. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has my Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose User:BrownHairedGirl being chosen as a moderator. A moderator, as I understand it, is supposed to be as non-partisan and independent as possible. Clearly BHG holds (as she is entitled to) clear and strong "partisan" views on the substantive issues - so I do not think she fits the criteria for being chosen as a Moderator on this topic. If "partisan" candidates are being welcomed, then I nominate myself (though I admit, like BGHG, I am not impartial nor independent). I suggest there must be a procedure in place somewhere for picking independent moderators. Edokter and Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose, don't know anything about BrownHairedGirl but I saw she has made a statement on this process, I think best to try to have somebody that has not been involved incase that is used as an arugment against the final outcome of this process. --T*85 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very flattered to have been nominated, but as others have noted, I do have strong views on the substantive issues. So I think that I would not be a good choice as moderator, and that it would be best for the moderator to be someone from outside these islands.

AIUI, the moderators were appointed by ArbCom. So shouldn't the task of appointing a replacement for Sebastian be entrusted to ArbCom? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I withdraw my candidacy as well and agree that only genuinely independent persons should be picked as Moderators. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarity, who is the third moderator? Is Sebastian still on board? If not, may we have a Lord High Substitute? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a moderator anymore. After some people encouraged me to reconsider above, I wrote that I would do so; but when another moderator took me off the list, it made my decision easy. — Sebastian 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think the next thing is to appoint a third moderator. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happens after the statements

Just curious what happens after the statements? I had been following the process up until a few weeks ago, what I am confused about is what happens between March 31st & May 1st? I have looked at the statements and it appears people for the most part agree that "Ireland" is disambigious but many of these statements are open to interpreation. How is the process going to come to an end? How are you going to measure the votes of the statements when there appears to be no simple way of doing that? --T*85 (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Just curious what happens after the statements?" - Normal procedure, should as I understand it, apply - The 3 Moderators take some time (I suggested a month but the timetable was rejected) to make a decision. No further involvement is required by non-Moderators after 31 March - we should just wait for the 3 moderators' response. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that 'normal'? I have to say that that was not clear to me before the process started. In fact, non of the process has been very clear to me. Looking back at ArbCom, the suggestion was that the moderators role was to facilitate the decision making rather than to make the decision themselves. Fmph (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what happens after all the statements are in but it would be nice to know. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then we all make statements about what should happen next. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes then we can all make statements about everyone elses statements =) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on IPs

There have now been 5 IP addresses which have in some form participated in this process.

I'm guessing that one, two or three of these are the same editor who's made a statement and who has been around for a while but refuses to register. But what about the other two? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful, if a returning un-registered user, would inform us of his/her previous involvement. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs that want to be involved but are unprepared to Register should sign all their statements with a name or code just so we know whos who and whos saying what even if its just IP-A or IP-B BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming ridiculous. There is no need for some magic code, because there is already a perfectly straightforward mechanism by which an editor can demonstrate that they are the same person who made earlier comments: register a username. No persuasive arguments have been put forward against registration, so the simplest solution would be ignore comments from IPs. Let's make this simple: if someone wants to participate, they can register a username, and use it; but registration means no voice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those contributions were are made by three different people. 78.152.-.182/163/197 (me) connects with Vodafone, which is a DHCP connection, thus the different IP every time. 86.44.111.162 is Eircom and 78.16.4.12 is BT.

On the other hand there is no way to determine if Blue-Haired Lawyer/GoodDay/BritishWatcher/BrownHairedGirl (or whoever you are/choose to call yourself today) is not one and the same person without performing a CheckUser ... which, and I'm sorry to demystify it, means simply checking if he/they contribute from the same IP range under different usernames. With us honest IP folk, you get that for free every time.

Lose the paranoia and concentrate on contributions not contributors. --78.152.249.17 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the IPs concerned are dynamically allocated by a mobile telecoms company, which means they could be used by anyone passing through a given area. That means there is no way of knowing whether the edits from that IP pool even come from people resident in or staying in the area, so the contributions history of those IPs tells us little. By contrast, the checkuser process is a lot more sophisticated than you give it credit for ... and if you have any reason to believe that Blue-Haired Lawyer/GoodDay/BritishWatcher/BrownHairedGirl are one and the same person, then please hop along to checkuser and lodge your request now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem isnt that they may be the same person using different IPs on purpose, its that we dont know for sure whos who. The 86.44 is clearly a different person but 78.16.4.12 and 78.152. are not that much different and could have been considered the same person, we shouldnt have to do whois check ups to find out its a different person. So where is the harm in IPs who want to contribute and are unprepared to register, to just include a code at the end of their comments, like IP-A for 78.152, IP-B for 78.16 and IP-C for the 86.44 guy. That way we all know whos who and their past contributions without having to check up on all the different IPs and without those IPs having to register an account. I dont mind them not registering, but each IP contributor needs a nickname or code so we know whos who. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are prposing is effectively that the IP editors choose a name, but don't register it. What's the point in that? Anyone can use that name, and because it's unregistered there is no way of checking who is using it.

We have a straightforward and simple registration system which takes care of all this. Why indulge those who choose not to use it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beside which, it seems the anonIPs wish to remain anonymous but fail to realise that the majority of registered users still remain anonymous by choosing a username that does not identify them personally. So we should ignore all non-registered posts here for the reason mentioned above by BHG and others because the very reason used to remain anonymous is still preserved by registration. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until the rules are changed and registration is mandatory contributions from ip's should not be ignored. Be honest everyone, how many of you contributed to Wikipedia before actually registering a user name? Jack forbes (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few contributions before registering, but as soon as I realised I wanted to get more involved and wanted to be able to join in wider discussions, I registered a username. That's all that's being asked here: the anon IP is quite entitled to edit as an anon, but anon IPs are routinely discounted in debates on deletion or policy, because of the risk of vote-stacking and/or sockpuppetry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having a username makes for an easier time on wiki for everyone involved, but until the rules are changed it has to be lived with. The problem as I see it is, if for example there is a straw poll or discussion that could decide consensus and a number of ip's are involved they would be ignored for the reasons already given. What is to stop a number of these ip's from taking it further and objecting to this, because as far as I know there is no rule to say an ip's opinion is any less important than a registered users. Jack forbes (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not so much about the importance of editors opinions, more the old dictum of 'Vote early and vote often'. Oh dear, I've gone and used the V word. RashersTierney (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) There's one thing, that's certain. The IP(s) will never create an account & sign in. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BrownHairedGirl that this is becoming ridiculous. Wikipedia is set up to allow IP editors for a reason. If you don't like it, go to Citizendium. (This paranoia is similar to the sock puppet scare.) — Sebastian 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it, but I accept it. I know the IPs-in-question, will never register-in. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to drag this out because it is not ridiculous. The issue is not whether anonIPs should be have to register or not; they don't have to and that is unlikely to change. The issue is whether we can trust the statements made by similar (or even completely different) anonIPs are made by different people or by the same people because we know that registered users statements are from distinctly different individuals. We don't know if one or more anonIPs are trying to sway the opinions here by making multiple statements; maybe that is the case, maybe not. If we could somehow verify each anonIP statement comes from different individuals there would be no problem. Until then anonIP statements are a problem that I think should to be addressed in some way. What that way is I don't know but forum shopping may indeed be going on here. Besides discounting the statements of anonIPs I don't know of any verifiable solution. ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I object to, isn't that there are IP participating in discussions, or even making statements, but rather that two IPs: 78.16.4.12 and 86.44.111.162, seem to have sprung into life solely for the purposes of voting. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above replies, I realize I came across the wrong way. I didn't mean to criticize anyone here in particular. I believe the sock scare is a collective hysteria; once a critical point is reached it's hard for any single editor to swim against the current. I believe what should count is not who says something - which would be rather futile, given that everyone can hide behind any user name they choose anyway - but what people say. Why make our life complicated? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, so I decided to refer to any IP editor simply as "an IP editor". — Sebastian 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life gets complicated when some IPs are very similar. obviously it doesnt matter when we see one with an 84. IP and one with a 78. IP, but if we have two editors that have 78. IPs it would be nice if we could tell them apart for sure. Its not a case of thinking either of them are lying but it would just be easier if we always knew for sure which were which. Until the IP commented, i thought we had just two IPs one with the 78 and one with the 84, i didnt know there were two different IPs starting with 78.

It would also help if IPs would be listed on the members list. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Life gets complicated"? It's not that you're a hapless victim, like someone struggling to survive the Great Famine! It's your own choice. IP editors only make your life complicated if you choose to differentiate them. As I said, you can make it easier, if you want to. — Sebastian 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that when a proposal for mandatory registration was brought up it was rejected. and not for the first time. Not many users actually took part in the discussion I saw, but then if it was advertised throughout wikipedia that the debate was taking place it would probably be seen as forum shopping. Jack forbes (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this talk about registration not be compulsory (and sod-off-to-Citizendum-if-you-don't-like-it) is a red herring. Anon IPs can edit, which AFAIK has always been the case, and it will continue to be the case unless a decision is made to change things. (Although anons are no longer allowed to create new articles)

But the reason this is a red herring, is that we are not discussing here the editing of articles. This is a decision-making process affecting a huge number of articles, and it seems to me very surprising that we are not following the rules of XfD debates, where IPs tend to be ignored, or of Arbcom elections, where IP contributions are struck out altogether.

Can the moderators please explain why they want this process to be be more open to IPs than an XfD debate? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm not a moderator anymore; my word has no more weight than yours, or probably less, since I have not been active in Ireland related articles. I take "edit" to mean any action where you click the "edit" button, unless otherwise specified. One notable exception is voting, since it would create problems with counting the same person twice. I don't see such a fundamental problem in the case of proposing a solution or making a statement. That said, there are some inconveniences, as I pointed out earlier, such as having to refer to a statement with an awkward name such as "Statement by 78.152.253.163". That could be overcome by renaming statements to names that are independent of the proposing account. That would be a good idea, anyway, since it would help people focus on the proposal, not on the person. — Sebastian 21:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The red herring is discussing whether IPs should contribute or not. This purpose of the discussion on this page is supposed to be to reach a decision on where to located two articles. (Another red herring is to say that that would affect "a huge number of articles" because those issues are covered by the long-standing consensus agreed over at the WP:IMOS. That consensus is beyond reproach.) Please take it to User:Jimbo Wales if you have a problem with this being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (as opposed to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit so long as they sign up").

The basic principle that is being missed is that we are not voting. RashersTierney mentioned above that he fears that IP contributors (by benefit of DHCP and other technologies) can "Vote early and vote often". That might be a genuine fear ... if we were voting! We are discussing (the hint is in the text on the tab above). There is nothing to fear from "Discuss early and discuss often".

BrownHairedGirl, you mention areas where IP !votes are ignored. You mention Arbcom elections. There, IP contributions are ignored. IPs are ignored in Arbcom elections (and RfA elections) because - guess what - they are elections ... votes ... democracy ... where the fear of "vote early and vote often" is real and justified. IP !votes are routinely ignored in XfDs also because routine practice is for closing admins, without knowledge of the subject matter, to simply look to democracy when they make their decision.

If it is democracy you are after then the matter being discussed on this page has been voted on time and time before. Time and time before the result of those votes has been to keep the status quo. This page exists because some editors are unhappy with the result of the democratic decision. We are past democracy. We are not voting. We are discussing. If you have issue with a statement that was made please comment on it here. If you have issue with who made as statement (or that you don't know who made a statement), take it to User:Jimbo Wales because it doesn't belong on this page.

What might help, is if the moderators could point to 'what happens next'? If that is made clear then it will be visible to those editors with concerns that "vote early and vote often" is a non-concern. (the IP that has has posted here often before [78.152...., ...]) --89.101.215.249 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP, if you bothered to read what I wrote, this isn't about IPs being able to edit wikipedia. This is about IPs participating in a dispute-resolution process where a) people are asked to support or endorse statements, and b) everyone else has been asked to sign up to sign up to a few simple commitments relating to conduct. If an editor is not prepared to adopt a stable and unique identity for the purpose of this process, then both these crucila points are undermined. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it is stupid and unproductive that IP editors do not have to sign the members list. Although i do agree with IP89 about finding out what happens after the statements are complete would be useful. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is undermined so long as contributors comment on the contribution not the contributor. Whether an editor has an account of not bears no relation to the merits of their contribution or teh value that their perspective can bring to this process. Now, can we please get back on topic? --89.101.215.249 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the topic for this section of the talk page. We are still waiting to find out what happens next so whilst we do that perhaps we should address the fact that IP editors have not signed the members list? I dont have a problem with IPs contributing as ive said before but they should sign the list so we can atleast check how many there are. Until one of ur previous comments i thought there was just two IPs but apparently theres 3. Those 3 should atleast sign the members list so random IPs dont pop along weeks down the line. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For this section of the talk page" ... the question is should it be on this talk page? Regarding membership of the project, [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/archive3#Publicity_.2F_notice|I brought that up before]] but got no adequate response. In any case, participation in this process is no more restricted to "members" of the Ireland Collaboration project than it is to contributors with an account. --89.101.215.249 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did get an adequate response; it contained a pertinent question which you chose not to answer.

Back to the topic, I completely agree with your point that people should focus on content, instead of the user name. As I said before, the inconveniences can be dealt with. That said, you could more easily resolve all inconveniences yourself by signing up. It is a reasonable desire of any WikiProject, or, for that matter, most social organizations, to be able to address its members with an understandable name. By insisting on having the benefits of membership without accommodating to a reasonable request, you are not just making a point, you are making a WP:POINT. — Sebastian 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What now?

Statements have closed, but nobody seems to be clear about what is happening next.

Please could the moderators explain what their intentions/plans/idea/whatever are to move this process on towards a conclusion?

There may not be a complete plan in place, but it would help enormously if the moderators could give some hint about where this is all going. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Agreed. I made a suggestion in this regard before. From what I can see it is the only suggestion as to what to do next. --89.101.215.249 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly some people dont even think the statement process has closed yet. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one person, AFAICS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No the deadline has passed. There was clear consensus for this; why the sudden issue with it? Rules are rules you had plenty of time to do another statement.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it had passed and i thought everyone agreed it had passed until the recent added statements. Looking back at the actual talk page and the project page it was never officially announced. The project page simply says currently being discussed so perhaps the statement process isnt closed?

If its not then im going to be adding a statement - This process is a complete mess BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MusicInTheHouse, you just reverted the addition to the index page of my statements, without apparently checking their creation dates: the first was clearly within deadline, the other one was 30 seconds over, but per WP:BURO that's no reason to remove it. I have reinstated them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS the "one person" I was referring to above was Domer48 (talk · contribs), who second statement was created 20 hours after the deadline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't the Moderators "close the discussion" - there was no consensus....so now its time for their decision. Its as simple as that....No mystery...No "next steps"...They simply need to "close the discussion"....It makes a farce of things that there is no timetable for closure. Its not as if there has been any substantive discussion on this page lately....Very few postings were even made this past week...Its simply time for the Moderators to "close the discussion" (i.e. make up their minds on what the result is). Moderataors, your silence is letting us down. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no discussion. Just statements. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was away for the day, and also involved in a dispute of my own. Now that we have the statements, I'm going to call the mods into the panel and discuss what happens next. Please stand by. — Edokter • Talk • 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just made two further statements after the deadline (though I didn't realise that when I made them, of course). A moderator can feel free to remove them, if they like, I will not protest. Rockpocket 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) editors can still endorse/oppose statements or remove their endorsements/opposition; (2) there are some statements with very high or unanimous levels of endorsement. We need to take those forward. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When there is no sign of any decision having been made on what the next steps of the process should involve, let alone of it having actually started, I see no useful purpose in disallowing the post-deadline statements by Domer48 and Rockpocket. This is not a bureaucracy, and if either of the statements have something to add to next steps, it would be foolish to exclude them. Personally, I don't think that they add anything useful, but I'm sure that many would feel the same way about some of the statements made before the deadline (maybe including mine?), and the purpose of the statement process was put evidence on the table to allow it to be assessed. If the evidence added since the deadline does have relevance, how does it help the process to exclude it? And if it's not relevant, what harm does it do?

We'll have to have a cutoff eventually. But in the absence of any other activity from the moderators, I don't see how a rigid adherence to this deadline would help anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We also need a third moderator. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this process, as I understood it, was the address the three individual problems that need to be resolved. I have consistently made the point that an evidence based process is doomed to failure. There has been mountains of evidence offered over the preceding years, but how much value one puts on any given line of evidence vs another is entirely arbitrary, and varies greatly between individuals with different perspectives. We all know what the evidence is, we simply disagree on how much it matters in the face of opposing evidence. Therefore I offered a rational, pragmatic solution based upon the premise that a compromise solution that is acceptable to almost everyone, but favorite to hardly anyone, is the only solution that can ever reach a stable consensus. One doesn't need evidence to reach that conclusion, a simple appreciation of the positions of the opposing camps is sufficient. Rockpocket 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock, we also don't need evidence to see that ambiguity exists because the name of the state is the same as the name of the island, yet we have statements here demanding that evidence. Your compromise proposal is, so far as I can see, just a variant on all the other proposals which do not start from the primary importance of using as a name for the state a clear, unambiguous and non-contrived term in plain English. I'm sure your intentions are good, but I think that your proposal just creates a different form of mess to the other alternative messes. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its ashame that when we agreed the membership terms we didnt also have people agree to a few basic core facts which no sensible person can dispute, There is a country called Ireland and an island called Ireland, we might of got somewhere if wed all agreed that simple fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that my proposal only addresses the name of the article and there would still require a discussion on a clear, unambiguous and non-contrived piped term, for distinguishing between the state and the island in articles. Rome wasn't built in a day, however, we solve this article title issue and then move on to that one.

This whole issue is a mess and I'm certainly not claiming my compromise proposal is perfect. For example, ONiH makes a very good criticism which would need to be resolved somehow. But here is bottom line, BHG: the aim was for this to be resolved by a consensus of interested editors, and my proposal (or a variation thereof) is the only one that has any chance of achieving that. We could go with the ROI solution, which you elegantly argue for, but that decision will not satisfy a reasonable proportion of interested editors. No matter how much evidence you provide for it being an accurate alternative, it will not override its perceived offensiveness for some. There simply is no quantitative way of comparing these disparate lines of qualitative evidence, so you are never going to convince a person who does consider it offensive. I said this before this process started, and its now even more clear a few months later: Either we all put our primary preferences aside and be willing to accept compromise or else we put this in the hands of a third party and let them make a decision for us. There is clearly no other way. Rockpocket 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket, it's very simple: I just want a solution which actually works, and you make no attempt to claim that your solution works. I'd be delighted if we could find an alternative solution which worked, but so far every proposal other than Republic of Ireland creates a bundle of big new problems. I'm astounded that you seem completely unconcerned by them, and that on my talk page you have denounced my "intransigence" for insisting on a practical solution.

Please think that through. If everyone in this process was intransigently insisting that whatever solution was implemented was a practical one, we'd have resolved this years ago. So it seems that what you are really saying is "please let's choose an impractical solution" just to end this dispute. I hope I have misunderstood you, but that's how it looks.

I think, though, that you are right to emphasise that the problem here is the "perceived offensiveness" of "Republic of Ireland" for some editors. I find that position bizarre, which is why I have suggested that editors should have a space to explain why they take such offence. It may be that we have here a gaggle of Irish monarchists, in which case the offence would make a lot of sense, but since that seems unlikely I'm curious as to why the prefix "Republic of" is such a shocker. This is what I posted about below, the elephant in the room: it's why this process became necessary, but it's the only thing we are not discussing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A space for explaining the elephant in the room

Having read all of the statements, and the discussion thereof both the statement talkpages and on user talkpages, I am still left puzzled.

One of the things that is very clear from this process (as well as from previous discussions) is that many editors feel very strongly that calling the state the "Republic of Ireland" is a terrible and offensive thing. Personally, I share that outrage when the state is called "Southern Ireland", but I don't share it when it is called the "Republic of Ireland" for disambiguation purposes, and the gap between the different personal reactions to these names underlies the strong feelings expressed in many places.

It has been important that this process is evidence-based, but the focus on evidence has prevented any explanation of the passions which this issue arouses. I think that a lot of light could be shed on this process by providing a space for some sort of personal "essays" in which editors could express in whatever way they like their own feelings on the subject, and/or their own understanding of why passions run so high.

At the moment, I feel that the absence of this material is like the elephant in the room; a central factor which may not be part of the problem-solving process, but which when unacknowledged weighs down on everything else. It seems to me that a lot of the discussion would make much more sense if editors were able to express some of these passions. Some of the material so far appears to me to be a rational expression of deeply-held views whose basis may not be so clear, and this has led in many places to speculation about the motives of other participants in this process (e.g. here).

It seems to me that rather than having this sort of speculation happening in corners, it would be much better to provide some space where editors could express their own personal feelings about the issues involved. My suggestion is that this should be a statement-only process, with support or oppose section, to serve purely as a place for editors to express their own views on these issues whether, those are based on evidence or on gut reactions. I think that if this turned into a debate or discussion, it could be destructive, with labels exchanged for pejorative purposes ("partitionist", "unionist, "imperialist", "nationalist" or whatever), so it might be best to ban discussion on the talk pages of any such statements. what I am suggesting is that editors should be able to explain their own feelings, not attack those of anyone else.

I am aware that this suggestion risks personalising the process, but so far as I can see that has sadly happened long ago, which is partly why we are in this mess. :(

None of the speculation I have read about about the motives for supporting the use of "Republic of Ireland" comes remotely close to the Tone or substance of my actual views, and I for one would much prefer to be able to put my cards on the table than to watch others speculating. Similarly, I would welcome some explanation of why passions run high amongst editors who take a different view to me.

I have drafted something myself, but will not post it unless this idea (or some variant of it) is approved. May I ask the moderators to consider this idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive proposal. I agree. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm i thought that is what most of the current statements were anyway. It was basically people expressing their views and people agreeing or disagreeing with them. There was very little "evidence" provided in the process most of which has already been done in the run up to gettin ARBOM to hear the case. I do not think another statement process is a good idea because at the end of the day you will end up with the same people voting for the same points of view as they did before, its just delaying matters and creating more work for after the statements close.

I have no idea how we move forward now which is why that should of been agreed before the statement process was opened in the first place. Sadly the only way this matter was going to be resolved in my opinion was a vote allowing people to pick 2 options or rank all choices in order. This would of removed the two positions that some people feel strongly against and resulted in a reasonable compromise to both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting any sort of vote on these statements -- quote the contrary, I think it would be a very bad idea. Nor do I think that anything else need be dependant on this exercise, so it needn't hold anything up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know u were not suggestion a vote but i think thats the only way this matter is going to be resolved unless the Mods simply pick which option they think is best. Seeing a full statement on peoples views would be interesting i just dont think its going to make the result come any quicker or make it any easier. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A vote will not resolve anything, neither will moderators picking an option. Best to spend time as necessary, We need to get the statements summarised and I think it would be useful if BHG extended her statements by way of summary? Getting a series of statements including what is held not to be acceptable and then allowing the essays is a good idea. --Snowded (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deadline for Statements ended some days ago. User:BHG - Why are you adding new suggestions etc - Why did you not include them in your statement. Wasn't that the idea of the statement process? Its now time for the Moderators to assess the statements and close the discussion. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded and BHG are 100% right. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking7, the statement-process was evidence-based, so I stuck to that. My suggestion here is for something else.

Snowded, what do you mean by "extended her statements by way of summary"? I know that sounds like a silly question, but extending and summarising are usually different processes, so I'm a little confused. Maybe you could spell out what you have in mind, 'cos I think I've missed something :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

⬅ Sorry I should have been clearer. Many of the statements represented a "position" and we had the usual agreements and disagreements. Yours on the other hand was a series of shorter statements, some of which said the same thing in slightly different ways which had the potential to allow a solution to emerge. In asking you to extend that I was in effect asking you to complete the process by summarising elements from the other statements. --Snowded (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, I see now what you mean.

I set out a substantive position in my two later statements (second statement and statement on 2.1); the idea of the first set of propositions was to see if we could establish some baseline facts to work on. My idea was to try a further set of such propositions building on the first ones, but I didn't pursue that idea.

I shied away from it, because I didn't think it would achieve anything, having been astonished and rather depressed by the outcome of the first attempt:

Two editors don't believe that the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 does what it says on the tin. It's one of the shortest and simplest Acts of any Parliament that I have come across, yet two editors don't agree that it does what it says.
Two other editors don't believe that the "Republic of Ireland" is not the official name of the 26-county state.
One editor believes that it was false to say in 1798 that "Lough Neagh is a lake in Ireland". (was it on a gap year in China at the time?)
5 editors disagree with the proposition that "An event which happened in Belfast in 2008 could accurately be described as having happened in Ireland"
3 editors disagree with the proposition that "A person born in the Bogside area of Derry in 1950 was born in Ireland"
5 editors believe that Omagh is no longer in Ireland

I'm afraid that the main conclusion I draw from that bit of the process is that a non-trivial number of participants in this process have either parted company with reality or are playing some sort of game; I'd like to find a more benign explanation, but I can't see one. That impression was further reinforced in a discussion on my talk page where one editor involved insisted that the huge number of uses of the phrase "Republic of Ireland" in Acts of the Oireachtas and in statutory instruments is not a "name", but a disambiguator+name ... yet if wikipedia uses that phrase to disambiguate an article title, the same editor insists that it's an inappropriate name. Elsewhere, another editor insists that evidence is required for the assertion that "Ireland" is an ambiguous word meaning both the 26-county state and the 32-county island.

So at this point, I don't know what's going on. I haven't seen you doing any of those things, Snowded, so I'm sorry to appear be throwing this back at you. That's not my intention, but I am hesitant about putting any more energy into trashing over the details when there appears to be something strange going on in quarters. When 5 out of 21 people disagree that Belfast is in Ireland, I don't see how we can possibly reach consensus on anything more complicated.

So far as I can see at this point, ROI is widely used around the world, including in Ireland and by the Irish govt whenever a distinction needs to be made between the state and the island. The only coherent objection I can find to its use is that the UK govt used to insist on using it for all purposes, even when no disambiguation was necessary, causing long-standing offence ... but much of the rest of what I see in the statement process is a series of elaborate (and deeply flawed) efforts to come up with other reasons to underpin a basic position that some people don't like the name because of the way it was misused by the UK. If it wasn't for that, I seriously doubt that we would have five Irish editors banishing Belfast from Ireland and (in Proposition 12) three editors defining Martin McGuinness as non-Irish (I chose 1950 precisely because it is his date of birth).

With such a wide reality gap, no wonder the moderators are staying away!

So I dunno. Snowded, I appreciate your willingness to work for a solution, but I honestly don't see how a reason-based process can work when such outlandish stances are being taken by a significant minority of participants. Have you any ideas? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the essence is in your summary of statements and the various responses. One way is to take each one and modify a bit, I disagreed with you one for example not because the statement was wrong, but because it failed to record subsequent context in the use of the term (The UK Government use of it and the GFA agreement to use Ireland) which is one area where we may disagree. That said I don't object to ROI for disambiguation in limited circumstances if the article is renamed, most of the time I think the context makes things clear. So an additional statement would allow me to say yes on that one. I think the same could happen with the others, to the point where nonsense was clearly exposed as POV editing. By the way the idea of a loch being on a gap year in China cheered up an otherwise depressing Sunday in thunderstorm plagued Singapore so thank you for that. Coming back to the subject, we could ask those editors who reject a proposal to make a secondary statement as to why. That would allow subsequent refinement until we got to a series of statements that have clear majority support. I think that is stage one, it needs support of the moderators and if it takes another month then so be it. --Snowded (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demand to stop

Re. BHG -"Redking7, the statement-process was evidence-based, so I stuck to that. My suggestion here is for something else." - The statement process was where you should have set out your "suggestions". You appear intent on reopening discussions. We could all start setting forth our "suggestions" (just as we have already don on our "Statements" and in many many previous discussions) like you appear to be intent on doing. Lengthy discussions could ensue. But thats not the process that was set up here. The statement page was where you should have set forth your "suggestions". Why didn't you set them out there? Please respect the process - the statement process is now over. The deadline has expired. I for one do not want to have to discuss your "suggestions" or have to engage in making "counter-suggestions". We had ample opportunity in the statement process. Note to Moderators - Have you abandoned this project? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking7, please calm down.

Yes, the statement process is now over. The moderators will be the ones who decide what happens next, and I am making a suggestion of something that might help the next stages -- it will be up to the moderators to decide whether to pick up on the idea.

However, the evidence-based statement phase was not the place to set out suggestions on the process by which this should be taken forward. Suggestions on process belong here, just like your repeated demands for the moderators to brong the whole thing to a close right now. Those are legitimate here, but would have been inappropriate as part of a statement.

I can see several ways in which this process could proceed, and no doubt there are other possibilities I haven't thought of. You have your view on what should happen next, but right now you give the appearance of trying to shout down any other ideas. I hope that I have misread things, but that's how it appears. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BrownHairedGirl. There was a proposal to have 2 deadlines, of 31 March for statements and 30 April for the overall process, however only the the 31 March deadline was accepted. In my understanding, the deadlines weren't merged, it was just the second deadline wasn't accepted. PhilKnight (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Ireland_.28the_sovereign_country.29_naming_issue. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leading on from BrownHairedGirl's comments on the bizarreness of some of the voting, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyMooretwin (Problem 2.2) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRockpocket (Problem 2.2) are essentially the same. However, Kittybrewster and MusicInTheHouse have endorsed one but opposed the other. I think perhaps "!voters" need to read statements more carefully before leaping to endorse or oppose, and would urge everyone to re-visit the statements and change their endorsements/opposition where appropriate. DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Some of the !votes made during this process simply don't make any logical sense. People are !voting because they don't like the question (or the questioner) rather than addressing the specifics of the statements themselves. Rockpocket 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit one of !votes is wrong. I miscalculated the context of the statement and it wasn't brought to my attention until now. My talk page is always there if people are a bit confused by something I've done.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Process is Over - Moderators Action please

Moderators - The Statement Process is over and there is no further substantive role for us participants - When will you close the discussion? Please do not allow the process to disintegrate into yet another unwieldy discussion where every one makes yet more "suggestions" etc. We all had our opportunity to make a Statement. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator action ... next step

It seems relatively clear where this needs to go now. The statements of the most involved editors have made it clear what the options are. There are now two things to do: 1) Launch a binding (as far as the ArbCom ruling allows) community poll on article locations; 2) depending on the result and based on the involved user statements, devise terms that govern how each article will be linked, disambiguated (in text) and how sub-articles will be named. The matter of the disambiguation page will be clear from the result.

1) We should take Talk:Gdansk/Vote as the model for the article name poll. On this model

i) the Island of Ireland (currently at Ireland) should be called:

Ireland

Ireland (island)

ii) the state of Ireland (currently at Republic of Ireland) should be called

Ireland

Republic of Ireland

Ireland (state)

In the case of Ireland being the most/more popular location for both, the option with the more votes wins and the one with the lesser vote number takes the next down. In the extremely unlikely event of a tie, either the island gets it (force of default) or the community is repolled with that one remaining question (use of the page Ireland), with resultant location being determined by the next more popular in the first poll.

2) As is clear from the Danzig poll, options about the specifics of terminology can be clearly polled, though there may be no need as it already seems like there is rough consensus on some points. The statements made already should make it clear what the questions needing to be asked are, though I won't make suggestions on this point for now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60 million people in UK versus 4 million in Ireland? I don't think so. If a vote is going to take place then a Irish vote should count for more than a vote from a UK editor based on population and I think that is stupid. The moderators of this whole thing screwed up. The statement process is over and yet nobody knows what is going on. --T*85 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To secure the vote gets the legitimization necessary to secure stability, it has to be widely advertised, precisely so contributions are not limited to one geographical area. This is what made the Danzig vote so successful. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This should not be decided by !vote but by weight of arguments. First thing is to have three moderators. Second is to ask for statements concerning feelings. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To have a vote is to make a mockery of the whole process. Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV not the bigger numbers gets their way.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a popularity contest - it should be an accuracy / npov comparison ClemMcGann (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will this never end? Jaqian (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically speaking? No. There'll always be editors who'll disagree with which ever namings are decided for the 3 articles-in-question. Wiki life would've been easier, if the Republic would've chosen another name for itself. Then again, Northern Ireland could've chosen to be named Ireland aswell (YIKES). GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight guys, you want this to be decided by the few most committed members and deprive the general community of a say and a chance to make their own conclusions about the statements? No no no. The arguments are clear, and exclusive on both sides. The only way to decide it is with numbers anyway, so why count only the numbers who happened to turn up here. This won't secure a respected decision. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, British & Irish editors should be barred from participating in such a vote. That way Political PoV accusations, would be nulified. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure both sides would agree that's fair, but totally unenforceable (i.e. you can't verify the nationality of users). The national bias I suspect is only partially accurate, partially tendentious. Seems to be an internal island of Ireland thing as much as anything. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outsiders are needed. Those of us who've been in the thick of the Naming discussions (these last few years), are collectively guilty of ownership. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we were going to have a vote, we could have done so ages ago, but for all the reasons set about above it's a very bad idea. This process was launched by the moderators as a reason-based process, where contributions would be assesed for their importance and their relevance to the core problem; if that principle is to be be abandoned now, then we have been wasting our time with the statements.

I look forward to the moderators' assessment of the view that Lough Neagh was not in Ireland in 1798, that the ROI Act 1948 does not do what it says on the tin, and that Martin McGuinness was not born in Ireland, as well of the editor thinks that evidence is needed that the word Ireland may mean either the state or the Island, and all the other bizarre notions which have been advanced in apparent seriousness by editors. Maybe we should have a whip-around for some headache cures for the moderators?> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've formulated the options now and now, if it wasn't before, it is clear what we have to put to the community. The statement process was carried out pretty much because they didn't really know what else to do. But you can't go forward with this without putting it to the wider community. The users here are not representative of the community, but represent only the most extreme and committed element of it in relation to this topic. GoodDay said it above. I do not accept any process that avoided doing that would result in a legitimate change. Thousands of redirects and links are going to be changed, and only then with the majority of the community hear of whatever coup has taken place here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looks like I had misread your proposal as being a poll of those who showed up here, including the Lough-Neagh-not-in-Ireland brigade ... and I think that would get us nowhere.

However, since you are proposing a wikipedia-wide poll, I think that may be a better idea, since it does seem to have settled some other disputes. It would certainly be much better than a poll of the 30 or so people who have signed up to this process.

But for any such poll to work, I think it needs clear statements setting out a case for and against each option. Those statements could either be drawn up the moderators (if they still exist) from the statements so far, or be drawn up the supports of each option. If it's done in either of those ways, then the statements process won't have been wasted.

In fact, the more that I look at this, the more I think a broadly-advertised poll will produce the most stable outcome, because it will have the widest support. If we do follow this path, how can it be widely advertised? Could we have it linked from one of those hideable boxes which appears at the top of each page? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the 2 moderators are going through the statements now, they'll be well placed to draw up summary arguments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. Let's see what they come up with.

Any chance of a last-minute compromise solution along the lines of Gdanzig? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It going down at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Panel. The Gdanzig is obviously the best next step. The result of the latter vote has led to years of stability, when originally it was an issue even more disruptive than this one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited User:Chris_73 to become 3rd moderator. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybewster, I'm sure that was a well-intentioned move, but I'm not sure it was a good one. Chris_73 may well be a great person (I don't think I know anything about Chris, but I am AGFing that ze is an intelligent and objective person who would strive to understanbd all sides of an argument) ... but tensions are running so high around this issue that if any IECOLL participant were to nominate this guy or this one or even the sandal-wearer, they would fall under suspicion because of who proposed them. I do think that since arbcom established this process, arbcom should appoint a replacement for Sebastian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw he led the gdansk stuff and I have never heard of him so i reckoned he would be impartial. But he has declined on grounds of time. I wish arbcom would get on with appointing a third person. Maybe they don't know sebastian has stood down. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know whether Sebastian or any of the other moderators has actually notified arbcom that they need a new moderator? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Yes, here. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Phil. Pity that there's still no sign of a response from arbcom. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On disambiguation pages

Doesn't it appear from the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Panel that a disambiguation page has the least resistance? Could we not try to work on this and see if we can come up with something? Maybe a short version of the statment process where people give their arguments for or against a disambiguation page and people can vote to support or reject their arguments. This way people have to give a valid reason why they would object to a disambigation page. My opinion is that a vote where we try to get people who might not know much about the subject to vote should be a last resort.--T*85 (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was supposed to be an evidence-based process rather than an attempt to find the line-of-least resistance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is any evidence available that will satisfy all of the editors involved. So how can it be an evidence based process when people choose to accept or reject, or interpret it this way or that, based on their own opinion? Also a disambugation page it is not only an attempt to find the line of least resistance, it is an acknowledgement that both sides have valid arguements and that the island and country share the same name and it is not possible to come to a conclusion which should have precedence. --T*85 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The first vote should be whether to have a disambiguation page or not - then we can decide exact article titles. A result on a vote on using a disambiguation page is almost already known anyway; all of the statements back up the fact that there's ambiguity and neither article is more important than the other.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. There are indeed only a few people who deny that there is any ambiguity, but a significant number of editors have argued both that the broader, longer-term article (which currently covers both Ireland up to 1922 and the geography of the island) is a more important article. There is also the option of the Mick McNamee solution, and a binary choice on whether or not to have disambiguation page obscures the other options.

As I noted before this process began, the order in which questions are asked has a bearing on the outcome ... so the best way of avoiding such structural bias is to put all the options on the table together, as Deacon of P proposed above.

There have of course been arguments made on both sides, and the two sides are unlikely to satisfy reach other. That's why it would be much more effective to put the proposal before the wider community, who can see what they make of the evidence collected. Don't forget that the process which led to the Good Friday Agreement was achieved by the heavyweight participation of uninvolved parties -- Bill Clinton and then George Mitchell. In a wikipedia context, we have already seen how the Gdanzig question was settled by a wider poll of the community. Why not do the same here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is what I'm thinking about. Voting doesn't equal consensus. Talking about the problem such as what we did with the statements I think is better. With voting, the island could be moved to "Cloud Cuckoo Land" if enough people voted for it. Editors could be put off because random members of the community could come in with no real knowledge and just vote for their own POV. Editors who have put effort into this Ireland Collaboration Project mightn't accept that leading to exactly what we don't want: a disputed result.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few posts ago you were arguing for a poll, now you say that "Voting doesn't equal consensus". Have you changed your mind, or does voting=consensus only when it is conducted amongst a small self-selecting group?

We were promised a reason-based promise, and that's what I signed up for. I for one certainly won't accept the result if it is to be resolved by a head-count of a small group which includes a significant minority of editors who advance daft propositions such as that Omagh has not in Ireland since partition, Lough Neagh was not Ireland in 1798, that the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (which has been neither repealed nor amended) does not define "Republic of Ireland" as the description of the state, that Martin McGuinness was not born in Ireland, and ven that there is no ambiguity in the term. That's no basis for a stable decision, so either we leave it to the moderators to assess the evidence or we put it out to the wider community for a poll to assess the quality and strength of the arguments put forward by those of us closet to the process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

The easiest thing to write is that Martin McGuinness is from Northern Ireland, and Henry Joy McCracken was from Ireland. I think we are getting too complicated on this. My solution is to treat everything to do with Ireland, as being Ireland, right up to present day. That is, except for the 6 counties that left the consensus, they should be treated as Northern Ireland from 1922 to present, and that is in fact where Martin McGuinness was born, and it's also where Stormont is, and Lough Neagh is in Northern Ireland too. -- Ireland the state, which controls a vast 85% of the area, which can claim to be the title-holder of the Greater Irish Nation, gets primary use of the term. So the nation goes from Early Irish History right up to 2009, in the Ireland article. For geological purposes, there does not need to be a "Ireland" article, the article can be labeled "Geology of Ireland", and the heading can say that it includes all of the Island of Ireland, ie including both Ireland and Northern Ireland. The labelling of the articles will not solve the naming difficulty, this can only be solved by finessing the application of information into a set protocol. There is no other solution, mark my words on this one. PurpleA (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Purple Arrow, this proposal could be of interest to you. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@PurpleArrow: No other solution? You gotta be joking.

"Martin McGuinness is from Northern Ireland" might be the easiest thing to write, but it's not what many people accept -- and it appears that many of those who object to it are those who also want "Ireland" to be the article on the state.

The article on Martin McGuinness currently says that he "is an [[Ireland|Irish]] [[politician]]". I suggest that you try changing that to "is a [[Northern Ireland|Northern Irish]] [[politician]]" and see how many milliseconds it takes for your edit to be reverted.

Whether from a Republican perspective or not, the status quo in the McGuinness article works because Northern Ireland is in Ireland -- a statement which makes sense only if the primary meaning of the term is somewhere in the nexus of the island and/or the historic unpartitioned nation. But if the primary meaning of the term is defined to mean the 26-county state, then this is wrong, and we will logically have to apply the phrase "from Northern Ireland" to all the articles on republicans in North Ireland. How do you think that's going to go down at Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism?

As to the historical situation, you seem to be suggesting that we should write [[Henry Joy McCracken]] was from [[Ireland]], linking to an article on a state which didn't exist when he was alive and whose territory does not include the area where he was born and raised.

For all that has been written in this process about the Good Friday agreement, this idea seems to me to fly right in the face of that, by subsuming the history of Northern Ireland pre-partition into the history of the modern 26-county state. We don't appear to have any unionists involved in this process, but I can imagine them having a few choice things to say about that.

There is a much simpler, more straightforward solution: to follow the example of the Irish government itself and of the international news media by calling the 26-county state the "Republic of Ireland" whenever disambiguation is required, and leave the name "Ireland" to retain its primary historical meaning as a term referring to the whole of the island of Ireland and its people and its history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to BrownHairedGirl; It would be upsetting to both Republicans and Unionists alike if my proposal was adopted? It must be a good proposal then. My basis of understanding is that Ireland the nation/state is the same Ireland of 800 years ago, when it were so rudely interupted by the next door neighbours. Don't get me wrong, history is history, and what happened happened, and also I have Irish, English and Welsh blood flowing in my veins. So this has nothing to do with national favouritism on my part. My point of view is that Northern Ireland left the Greater Ireland, and that Ireland is the very same country as it was 1,000 years ago, much the same way that Wales, England and Scotland are too, and that Ireland is "not" a new state, it's now 32 counties minus 6. My purpose here is to offer a workable solution to this naming difficulty, your solution is the only other workable one, and the second best one available. PurpleA (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But from a unionist perspective, it's the 26 counties which left, not the 6. Your entitled to your POV, but there is an opposing one, and there's no need to choose between the two views, and if we are following NPOV we shouldn't choose between them.

By keep the present structure of having Ireland as the name of an article in the island throughout its history, with separate sub-articles on the two modern states as well as on all the previous states, we have a neutral solution which doesn't need to define who left and who didn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still think ROI or Ireland(State) are a fudge. Nobody is going to be satisified by either of those choices, apart from a handful of fringe editors. PurpleA (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest this thread is discontinued? The whole point of the statements process was to avoid this sort of threaded discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jaw jaw, is better than war war"! Anyway, I can see why you want it ended [2], but I wasn't reading that in the discussion boards. PurpleA (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re BHG's "I look forward to the moderators' assessment of the view that Lough Neagh was not in Ireland in 1798" Is Hohhot (a city of about 3m) in Mongolia? Yes - but not Mongolia! Is Arlon in Luxembourg? Yes - but not Luxembourg!. Is Pago Pago in Samoa? Yes but not Samoa. Is Bouganville in the Solomon Islands - Yes but not in the Solomon Islands! Now lets put the question again - Is Lough Neagh in Ireland? - Yes but not in Ireland - Why should places in Ireland be treated any differently to those in Mongolia, Luxembourg or Samoa? A bunch of countries have geographic sounding names that do not correspond fully with their borders. Ireland is no exception and should be treated no differently to the others. Here we are, the process has crumbled and we are back to our own arguments again - or "suggestions" as some would phrase it. MODERATORS - You have let us down. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blame Arbcom for not having the guts to take responsibility and resolve this matter or atleast set the framework themselves, its really not the moderators fault for this mess which they didnt have to volunteer to get involved in. Some of the people do not help though, when certain people refuse to even accept that theres an Island called Ireland as well as a state called Ireland, its clear to everyone no method is going to make people happy or end this dispute. Only half a dozen bans from wikipedia will probably resolve it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britishwatcher, I thought the Moderators had the authority to "close the discussion", i.e. make the decision. Am I wrong? If they have the authority, they should make their decision. Redking7 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom have the ultimate authority and they could of sorted this mess out but they chose not to. Instead after weeks of taking evidence to get them to even hear the case after years of dispute, all they did was say to people.. Go and sort it out urself. Perhaps it should just be handed back to Arbcom with a little note saying "your problem, Fix it". BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Redking7: what I was trying to do with those propositions was to gather pointers to the different ways in which people us the word Ireland. Please look at them again, carefully, because I deliberately mixed ambiguous statements in with unaimbuous ones.

For example, take my proposition 8, which I worded very carefully. It says, in full:

“

The following statement was true in 1798: "Lough Neagh is a lake in Ireland"

”

That statement is true if the reader believes that their preferred primary definition of Ireland, from those available in 1798, includes Lough Neagh. That was 120 years before partition. So far as I am aware, partition was not even a glint in anyone's eye at that point. (Plenty of other big things were on various agendas, but not, AFAIK, partition). So forget Mongolia or anywhere else: please explain what sense of the word "Ireland" that was in use 1798 was Lough Neagh not in Ireland?

Or consider my proposition 11, which I worded very carefully. It says, in full:

“

An event which happened in Belfast in 2008 could accurately be described as having happened in Ireland.

”

It doesn't say "can only be described as having happened in Ireland". It very deliberately doesn't say which possible definition of Ireland (island or sate or historical nation) is being applied, but the sentence is structured in such a way that it is false only if the observer believes that no definition of Ireland which they would consider in 2008 includes Belfast. (It is similar to dealing with a person X of Spanish-Australian dual nationality: it is true to say that "X is Australian" and true to say that "Z is Spanish". Both statements are incomplete, but neither is false)

So those who opposed proposition 12 are asserting that that there is no definition of Ireland which they accept that includes the city of Belfast. They evidently don't believe that the word Ireland can in 2008 mean the island, not even as a secondary definition.

The same applies in reverse to Proposition 13, which reads in full

“

When Ireland was partitioned under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, Omagh ceased to be a town in Ireland

”

. Proposition 13 is true only if partition created a situation where no definition of Ireland includes Omagh. Now maybe some people believe that, but 3 of the five people who support the notion that Omagh is left all senses of the word Ireland in 1920 also supported Proposition 6, that "The official name of the state is the same as the name of the island". So the only conclusion is that either HighKing, Jeanne boleyn and MusicInTheHouse genuinely believe that in 1920 Omagh was physically removed from the island of Ireland, or they are not thinking coherently about what they are saying on this subject.

I could pick these contradictions apart further, but those points illustrate what concerns me about this process. Several participants either believe something bizarre or aren't thinking carefully about what they are saying, yet here we have Redking7 popping up to studiously miss the point again.

That's why I'm so concerned that a headcount of those of us close this issue will not produce a stable and workable answer, and why we need wider community involvement to assess the evidence presented so far, and why its is wrong to use a headcount of participants to exclude options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I cannot believe just you said I was not "thinking coherently" because I was not thinking like you! Sorry but that's quite arrogant. Did you stop to think about how the context of the statement might explain how several people disgreed with it? Did it pop into your head that when discussing things of a political nature that using terms like Ireland are also viewed are political and therefore 'Ireland' becomes the sovereign country in the context? With editors like you accuseing people of bad faith and/or downright stupidity, its no wonder its taken so long for this to be sorted out.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An accusation of bad faith is an easy way out, so I'll ignore that bit.

What you are saying, though, appears to be that after 1920 a contemporary use of the word "Ireland" has to be read as meaning the 26-county state, and cannot be read as meaning the island, even when that defines Omagh as being outside Ireland. I find that astonishing, because Omagh is still part of the Island of Ireland (can we agree on that?)

Article 2 of the constitution as adopted read "The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas" ... and Article 2 as amended by the 19th Amendment reads: "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation"

So even if you were referring to the sovereign state, "Omagh is in Ireland" was false in the from 1937 to 1998 only if you reject the original Article 2, as many unionists did. Do you reject the original article 2 as invalid claim?

Or do you believe that it was the 19th amendment, a consequence of the Belfast Agreement, which booted Omagh out of Ireland? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that using 'Ireland' in a political statement gives someone the means to interpret it in a political way. Politically Ireland is the 26 county country (thats a fact), while geographically Ireland is the 32 county island (also a fact). It's quite simple. It has nothing to do with my interpretation of an act or the constitution.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So when anything political or legal is mentioned, Ireland is magically redefined to exclude the whole of Northern Ireland?

The statement refers in any case to 1920. There was no state called "Ireland" for another 17 years. So if the 1920 Act removed Omagh from Ireland, where did it put it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland isn't magically redefined to exclude the whole Northern Ireland. It's defined by law; namely the Irish constitution and I'm sure some UN legislature as well. Ireland is the modern name for the Irish Free State which was the name of the same state after partition. So when the island was partitioned Omagh did indeed cease to be a part of the country whose capital was Dublin.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BHG - Following your logic, should Wikipedia rename the Mongolia article? Should Wikipedia rename the Luxembourg article? If not, why not? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Unlike MITH, I'm not surprised at BHG's response at name-calling anyone that disagrees with her opinion, or the emotive language in the arguments, etc. In response, I believe that BHG is failing to accept that the context of a sentence is often taken into consideration (as it should) in order to interpret meaning. In proposition 8, Ireland is used in a geographical context. In proposition 11, it is used in a political context. My answers are consistent with accepting "Ireland" as the name of the state - I would argue that BHG's usage fails to take context into consideration and is not consistent with using Ireland as the name of the state. --HighKing (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible way forward

Given the approach with the most support appears to be:

Ireland becomes a disambiguation page
state moves to Ireland (state)
island moves to Ireland (island)
Ireland (historical country) article created

the next stage could be to ascertain whether this has consensus. Possibly a second round lasting a week?

Which would lead to Martin McGuinness being born in Ireland (disambig)? Dublin was in (historical country) and is in (state)? Belfast was in (historical country) and is in (island)? (state) gets created when there is no encyclopedia in the world with an article with such a title and RoI already exists?

Incidentally why is the moderators page on the talk page and not on the project page? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, KB, that the option with most support amongst participants is the one that you outline, with all those logical flaws. That's why I hope that the moderators will stick to the plan which they announced to participants and on the basis of which I (and others) signed up to WP:IECOLL, of using a reasoned process to sift arguments, rather than than just doing a headcount among participants. Thereafter, once the various bits have been weighed, the results of this evidence-gathering process should be put before the wider wikipedia community for them to decide on the merits of it.

If the wider community agrees that Lough Neagh is not in Ireland and that Martin McGuinness was born in (disambig), then so be it. But such a far-reaching set of decisions should not be left to those with the most entrenched views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The "historical country" alternative is very undesirable IMHO. It would just create another page to war over. Surely the article, history of Ireland is the place for this anyway? And may I ask, why are they still producing travel books about this country if is so "historic"? (Maybe because the Ireland they mean at the Rough Guide as the same as the one we mean at Ireland?)

I also think we need some discussion about the disambiguation page proposal. I don't think it's possible to tot up endorsements for statements that contained proposals as endorsements of those proposals. I know that I endorsed statments that proposed to dab Ireland. I did so because I endorsed the statement as a whole, but not necessarily every part of them in particular. --89.101.234.155 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, there were statements which supported an outcome I like, but where I didn't support some of the reasoning along the way. Some of the statements raised a lot of issues, and it is not surprising that editors resopnded to those statements in a variety of ways. So trying to extract a single conclusion from statements is a bad idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're becoming vocal now that the consensus looks like it'll be against what you want? Please stop telling the moderators what they're doing is wrong and let them do their job. They are the neutral party and they know what they're doing. Let them sort it out.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:AGF?

I am being vocal because the moderators do not appear to be following the principles set out when editors were called upon to join this project, and because the moderators have provided no explanation of how exactly they are arriving at the support and oppose numbers which are set out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Totals. That's no basis for ruling options in or out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I signed up for

I and many other editors were notified on 5 March that this project was taking statements. (Gnevin (talk · contribs) kindly used AWB to notify lots of editors).

After taking my time to consider how the process was structured, I signed up as a member of this project 8 days later, on 13 March.

I don't think that the project page has substantially changed since then, but I am still going to focus on the version to which I signed up.

That page is explicit on a number of points, and for me the most significant of those was under the heading Graham's pyramid, which I will reproduce here in full:

Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments, moderators will use the pyramid to the right.

That is a clear commitment by the moderators not to simply count heads, but rather to assess the validity of arguments. That's why I signed up for, and that's how I expected this process to proceed.

Unfortunately, that is not what is now happening. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Preliminary_outcome, the moderators have done absolutely nothing to weigh any of the arguments or to assess evidence.

Instead they are doing the exact opposite of what was promised, which is making a headcount of the views of participants. And on that basis, they have ruled out several options: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Analysis.

How they arrived at those figures is another question, because the total number of supports and opposes counted on the major points at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Preliminary_outcome significantly exceeds the 29 currently-signed up members of the project. As one example, look at one of the figures under the heading "Total": Republic of Ireland: 41/41

That's a claimed total of 82 participants, more than three times as many people as have signed up to the project. There are several possible explanations for this:

that 56 people who are not members of the project have expressed views on these proposals, and have been included in the total
that the moderators have added crudely together the total number of supports and opposes for several similar proposals, even though there may be significant overlap between the list of names in each case. (This would be double-voting)

So on two key points, the path which the moderators are currently following is at odds with what was set out at the start:

They are counting heads, rather than weighing evidence
That people become members to participate

Over the last few weeks, other editors have expressed concerns about the apparent inactivity of the moderators, and I have tried to support the notion that they needed to time to come up with a way to make the next steps on this process. I assumed in good faith that the moderators would do what they had promised at the outset, and I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

But what I now see at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel removes any doubt in my mind, and it is clear that the moderators are now running phase 2 of the process in an entirely different manner to what was set out at the start. And to add the absurdity, they appear to be double-counting votes.

I hope that moderators will come here and explain both what they think they are up to, and how they plan to get the process back on the path which was advertised to those of us who committed our time and energies to participate in it.

But right now, it appears that the since the path they are following is so radically different from what the stall that was set out, that none of us need feel in any way bound by the outcome of this process. I hope that the moderators will be able to persuade me that I am wrong, and that we have not all been wasting out time for the last few months, but that's how it looks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is just head-counting, which is why it's totally impossible to reject my suggestion for a community poll, without appearing to favour the opinion of this dedicated minority over us in the rest of the community. On the other hand, the latest suggestion is that they put some proposal to a community poll. The "mods" have not "gotten around" to giving feed-back yet, so we are dependent slightly on speculation (but see the page). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that nothing has been decided yet; those are preliminary figures. I'll counter one poiunt hough: noone was required to 'sign up' for this project, so there being more statements then members has no relevance. I must also debunk the sense that the results merely ammount to a headcount, which is defenitely not the case.

It is the arguments that count, and it is the arguments that the community has had a chance to support or oppose, not the titles. The analysis extracted the possible titles from the statements and the degree of support each of those arguments have secured. The moderators were never intended to determin the validity of those arguments; we are only here to structure the debate and guide toward and outcome. That has been the whole idea behind the non-rebuttal process. — Edokter • Talk • 21:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does that tie in with "Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments, moderators will use the pyramid to the right."? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal was put on the back-burner in favor of the non-rebuttal process. It aslo has little use when there are no rebuttals. We can still use it in a second round. — Edokter • Talk • 22:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lord theres a second round? This is all so confusing lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and how have the mods "structured the debate and guided toward an outcome"?

what kind of debate excludes rebuttals?

graham's pyramid was and is under "agreed procedures". Kittybrewster ☎ 00:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say i think this whole things a complete mess, but i certainly dont think the moderators are to blame for this. Arbcom should of actually tried to be helpful and resolve the problem or lay out a clear framework on how the community had to resolve it. Instead they just passed it back to the people involved in the original dispute and said come up with something urselves, like people havnt been trying that for how many years??? :\

Im sure what ever method the mods come up with some people will oppose, and when the final verdict is handed out one side is either going to be very angry or both sides will feel like they have lost. Sharing the pain has gotta be the safest way forward. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is going on here? Preliminary counting of figures? Assessment of the arguments? Analysis of each person's NPOV? Refraining from discussing the individual Ireland naming options? Agreeing on a procedure? Adopting a third moderator? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All, some or none of the above :) Just give em time to sort it out. We can wait a few more months to resolve it, i bet everyones glad we didnt set that deadline of may, we would have failed to meet it for sure.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lordy :(

Edokter has confirmed that the structured analysis by the pyramid, which was the methodology set out when I signed up and which is still the methodology set out on the project has been "put on the back burner". That's a pretty fundamental change to make, yet I see no effort at any stage to communicate it to project participants (I wasn't even aware of the existence of the panel talk page until today). This is not a good situation, to put it mildly. It seems to me to be essential in any fair form of structured process that if the rules of the game change, then that should be clearly communicated to the players.

I know that this will sound like nitpicking, but to me its fundamental: the writing on the panel-talk-page currently suggests excluding a range of options on the basis of numbers of supporters and opposers. Yet Edokter's explanations above offers two slightly different versions of what those numbers: first that he "must also debunk the sense that the results merely amount to a headcount, which is definitely not the case", secondly that "the analysis extracted the possible titles from the statements and the degree of support each of those arguments have secured". That sounds like counting heads on different arguments within each proposition, rather than simply counting heads on different statements ... but either way it's counting heads.

Now maybe I've misunderstood this, but I'm listening. So please, Edokter, please explain what those numbers mean, and how they were arrived at.

Edokter says the the "moderators were never intended to determin the validity of those arguments", which I'll note is not the approach adopted at CFD or AFD, where closers are expected to weigh the arguments. It's also completely at variance with the pyramid which was the basis on which editors were asked to participate in this process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that de facto practice on WP:RMs and such things is that while all us admins who close such things harp on about the importance of individual arguments, such things are only considered after numbers. I.e. when the result falls within a certain range, arguments come into it. So head counting is the primary tool, and as thus will be here. Any attempt to actually use arguments primarily will lead to a paradox, namely that the closer/moderator was too opinionated to be classified as "uninvolved", and thus shouldn't be closing. All the more reason to leave the "argument strength" mantra in fairyland and have a binding Gdansk-esque community poll that keeps the decision in the hands of the community as a whole rather than leaving it in the hands of a band representing mainly the most extreme/committed element. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a deletion discussion, but more akin an RfC. We're still in the middle of going through the statements, and trying to get a third moderator. Chances are, we will be having a second, open round, where the pyramid will be centerpiece. This will be a short period. We do not expect to solve all controversies, but we all will have to make a choice. Please stand by. — Edokter • Talk • 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well nobody else was using the room so I have started the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Discussion. Enjoy. Kittybrewster ☎ 01:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Building on what we have done so far and getting to a conclusion

As per my other recent comments, I think that this process is now in a big mess. I don't think that our depleted number of moderators have a clear idea of how to proceed, and Edokter's comments above seem to me to show that the moderators have departed significantly from what was proposed when editors were invited to participate in this process.

But I think that there is a way forward which brings all these strands together, and it's based on Deacon of Pndapetzim's proposal above, drawing on the Gdansk poll.

We have now had the statement process. It has been very valuable, because all sides have placed their evidence and their arguments on the table. Personally, I have found that it has helped enormously, both to clarify my own reasons for the options I prefer, but also to better understand the arguments of those with whom I disagree.

The question now is what to do with this material to make it usable in a community-wide poll of the sort that DofP prosed. It's a bit of a sprawl; some statements cover several issues, some cover one issue, but in a different way to others reaching similar conclusions. But nonetheless, most of the evidence is there; it just needs to be re-organised for clarity.

And I think that there is a way of doing that which needn't place an excessive burden on the moderators, if we use an approach like that of the pre-trial stage of civil proceedings in a modern judicial system, where a lot of preparatory work is done: both sides prepare evidence bundles and produce a copy for each side and one for the court; and both sides also prepare skeleton arguments so that the issues can be considered in some sort of logical fashion.

The problem is that there are 26 members of this process, so we may end up with 26 sets of arguments on each of the questions to be addressed. But we can easily enough avoid that by giving members an incentive to produce joint statements. What I propose is simply that all statements appear on one page, and the order in which statements are presented is determined by the number of signatories:

each member may sign only one statement on each issue, but up to the closing date may switch their endorsement from one statement to another
the statements are presented in reverse order by number of signatories, with the largest number of signatories at the top
in the event of a tie in the number of signatories, the statement which reached that total first goes to the top.

The moderators need merely announce a deadline, and editors can do the rest. X drafts a statement, Y signs it; Z says they'll endorse it too if it is changed, and they discuss it until the statement is submitted. Then it's up to people to sign or not sign, as they choose. And if someone else produces a statement which they all prefer, then Z, Y and Z can all abandon the first statement.

This process will lead to a major consolidation of the sprawling sets of arguments currently dispersed over dozens of statements. My guess is that on each issue, we will end up up with two or three statements which each attract five or more signatories, and then a number of lone voices.

If we do this first for Problem 1, and put it out for a vote like that for Talk:Gdansk/Vote, we will have the best of all possible worlds: all the best arguments for and against each option, prioritised by the level of support they have received from those closest to the issue. So on Problem 1, we may have a statement recommending option 1A signed by 7 editors, followed by a statement recommending option C signed by 6 editors, or whatever. Some statements may not prefer a particular option, but may instead make general comments or choose to say "anything other than option X", or "whatever decision you make, remember these points". So far as the moderators are concerned, it wouldn't matter what the stance is of a statement, so long as editors endorse only one statement.

This will provide a strong incentive amongst editors to remove weak or false arguments, and to focus instead on the most important points which they want to make to the voters. If a group of editors want to argue that Ireland should be an article about milk quotas in Ballyporeen because Granuaile taught Nelson Mandela how to make space-rockets out of mackerel, that's their lookout.

Once this is done for problem 1, we will have narrowed down the options for problem 2.1, and can address it in the same way; then we can do problem 2.2

This approach won't be quick, but it will allow everyone concerned to focus the case they want to make, and will allow the wider community to assess the arguments made by participants in this process, without placing on the moderators the burden of making an analysis of their own.

My idea may need refinement, but what do people think of that outline? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. It is robust. It is wikilike. It builds consensus. Fmph (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approve. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly approve. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, i agree with the proposal and we should do it if the moderators are willing to support the move or are unable to come up with a reasonable alternative. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but would be even better if it could be done without re-inventing the wheel. We have most everything that has been said, and needs to be said, already here. We need participants to focus only on a solution, and resist the temptation to rehash the same old diverting arguments. Rockpocket 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Statenent process - The Rerun" - what a joke - Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this process ever reaches a conclusion, then it's a good move. The problem might be to get Irish editors interested again, otherwise the process will be skewed. Put the crisis in diplomatic language, create a new page named Irelande, let the argument discuss who has the privilege of using the new page. The loser gets the Ireland page. Mission accomplished:) PurpleA (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Redking7. My reading of things is that we are looking for guidance in agreeing a procedure to take us forward. The crumbs are on the table; we now have to push them into shape. There seem to be three routes. First that the moderators magically impose an acceptable-to-all answer (which they cannot and will not do). Second that we, the few, settle the issue (not easy). Third that we, the few, narrow, distil and express the options and arguments and then present them to the larger wiki community to determine the matter. I can’t see a better way of earning a Nobel Peace Prize. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absences of anything bar headcounting so far from the moderators, I too would support BHG's proposal. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approve. -- Evertype·✆ 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Noble Peace Prize - "First that the moderators magically impose an acceptable-to-all answer" - There is no possibility of a solution "acceptable to all". What is necessary is for the Moderators to weigh up the options and impose a decision. Its as simple as that - as for "distilling the options". Are you serious....Are you really saying they are not already distilled....its "Ireland", "Republic of Ireland", "Ireland (state"). Hardly any need for any distilling etc...Where have you been...See the project page...The "options" are perfectly distilled! Lets get a decision. Only Moderators have the authority to make one "one way or the other". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the Moderators?

I thought they were to weigh up the statements and if no consensus emerged "close the discussion", i.e. make the decision? Why have they not done so? Redking7 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is the 31st March deadline was always for the first round only. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Redking7, how and why did you form your view? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"First round?" What does that mean? Please explain? Which "round" is next? How many "rounds" will there be? Redking7 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That has not been decided. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi Redking7, this process originated here, I don't honestly believe it was intended as a ruse, more of a back up plan. That said, I think setting a timeframe for this process is a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC) " Why the change of mind PhilKnight? Now you don't think a timeframe is a good idea...Why don't you just set a timetable - a fundamental and basic part of any credible process. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to moderators...please endorse the bhg plan. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. BHG is not a moderator. Let the real moderators do what they have to do.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. You too can come up with a plan. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MusicInTheHouse - I do not support BHG's "plan" and I agree that it is for the Moderators to make the decisions. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on the what is going to happen? 14 days since end of statements. Maybe this process has failed?--T*85 (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A plan is being formulated no doubt. Why the impatience and pessimism? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking, it is not for the moderators to impose a decision. That was never agreed. If you want a decision imposed, then the matter will have to be referred back to ArbCom. DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DrKiernan - First off, may I ask are you one of the Moderators?

Second - Please read the following (copied and pasted from a passage above where I had asked, inter alia, whether the process was a "ruse" etc)....My understanding from the following exchange is that the Moderators can decide to impose a solution - You might set me straight if I am wrong - My understanding from the below was that as Edokter said, the Moderators can "decide the outcome". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a mandate to "establish a procedure" that will help the community in reaching consensus. But if these procedures fail, the procedure could well mean that the moderators decide the outcome. I just hope it doesn't come to that. — Edokter • Talk • 01:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking7 seems to think that "closing the discussion" is some sort of passive act. At AFD and CFD, it is far from that: the closing admin takes a pro-active role in weighing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks BrownHariedGirl and Moderators - Yes, I did misunderstand "closing a discussion" - It sounds like the moderators will be able to make a substantive decision on 1 May after all. Well I am glad to hear it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did "on 1 May" come from? My belief is that the moderators are merely considering where the procedure goes next. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its over a week since even one edit...Moderators!

The Staements Process is over. I don't think any "Endorsements etc" are going on. Not a single edit has been made on this discussion page in over a week.....MODERATORS - The process is over. Please now make your decision and "close the discussion". Why the delay? You are letting us all down. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol the moderators are not to blame for the mess we are in. Please direct your anger at ARBCOM which didnt have the guts to tackle this hard issue themselves and simply sent it back for the same people to try and resolve something that has been disputed for years.

The silence on this page is rather disturbing though. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderators - I do not like to sound melodramatic but perhaps you could each do the decent thing, resign and ask new Moderators to step in. You don't seem to be contributing anything to the process which now needs to be closed. (note to Britishwatcher - the Moderators took on this role and owe it to us to fulfil their role). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to recall as an admin, so I guess I should be as a moderator. So, if 5 members ask me to resign, I will. Otherwise, I'll find time tomorrow to post on how I think we should try and move forwards. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for patience. Thank you for your time and thought. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kitty. If 5 editors ask you to stay, will you stay? There is no reason to rush. All of us here are volunteers. The world has survived the current state of play. It hasn't contributed to the global recession, nor any death's. Hopefully any decisions made as a result of this process will be good enough to stand the test of time. Let's give them some time to develop. Fmph (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was calling for heads Phil, just some feedback of what might happen next and when , which you have now given. Everyone appreciates the time being spent on this issue by the Mods. RashersTierney (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least, the squabling has slowed to a crawl on the Ireland naming related articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay..the "ruse" I first referred to some weeks back (above) is working. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should take as long as needed to resolve the matter, till then the articles current names remain the same, they are accurate. Im strongly against any of the mods resigning at this point, bringing in new people would slow down the process even more. Just give everyone a chance to move forward. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forwards

To recap, there has been a first round, based around statements, which hasn't produced an especially clear result. The approach of making Ireland a disambiguation page probably has the most support, but there isn't enough consensus to declare a winner. Consequently there has to be, at the very least, some sort of second round. Given the lack of a clear result, in the second round, other rival approaches to making Ireland a disambiguation page should be allowed. Also, there has been some discussion about whether the next round should be a poll where votes are counted, or a discussion where consensus is assessed. From this discussion, the next round probably shouldn't just be a poll, and editors should be allowed to make comments. However, I doubt that threaded argument will get us anywhere. Accordingly, I propose the second round should be similar in format to Request for Adminship, where editors make comments under headings of 'Support', 'Oppose' and 'Neutral'. Some discussion is allowed, but longer threads can be moved to the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My oh my - so many weeks waiting for that! Please PhilKnight - resign (as I suggested above). A few lines of vague loose suggestions hardly counts as leadership and shows the time committment you have made to the process. Not even a mention a timeframe for the next "round".... Wow. How you can stand over that performance, I don't know. I suppose the other Moderators are even worse. They've stayed silent yet again. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that helps Redking. Why do you think his proposal is no good and what would be your alternative proposal on the way to go forward? Jack forbes (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I wouldn't regard the vague suggestions (lots of "some sort", allowing "rival approaches (?)", "probably shouldn't...have polls", "make comments" (on what?), "doubt that threaded argument...", "similar in format") as amounting to a "proposal". Answer to what should be done: The Moderators should close the discussion and choose where the island, state or DAB pages should be etc. Redking7 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will never be possible to get everyone to agree on a single solution, so the next best solution is to go with the majority. For problem 1 there seems to be a majority for Ireland to be a disambiguation page. On problem 2.2, everyone is agreed that the island of Ireland article should either be at Ireland or Ireland (island), so a decision on problem 1 will also decide problem 2.2. We should now check to see if there really is a majority for "Ireland" to be a disambiguation page. If we move forward on this point, at least we should be able to decide on two of the problems. In the past, polls have been opposed for the republic article because of concerns that UK editors will outnumber Irish editors. Are there such concerns for a poll/debate on the island article? DrKiernan (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remain in favour of BrownHairedGirl's approach. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the suggestion by Brownhairedgirl above might be the way forward. As for Redking, he needs to stop trying to pick a fight and actually contribute to the debate, not cause trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, given the (almost unanimous) enthusiasm for the BHG route, let's just DO IT. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Since when is one person 'almose unanimous'. I say go for what the real moderators want to do. I just hope they become decisive in their actions sooner rather than later.MITH 09:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were 8 in favour. We should do it, as it is the only option of the four proposals (mine, BHG's, Phil's and Redking7's) with more than two supporters. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the point is of having moderators if their ideas are dismissed. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait for the other moderators (or ask them) to give their opinion on the way forward? Jack forbes (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to try Phil's proposal, if that is the majority choice. DrKiernan (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The moderators are saying very clearly that it is for us not them to take this forward. It sounds to me that we have three proposals. First Redking7 who thinks the moderators should decide an outcome now and then Philknight should resign. Then edokter should resign being worse than phil. I am unsure how this works or takes us forward; it seems gently anarchic. Second solution ís philknight’s who proposes more statements. Not sure how that works either. Third solution is BrownHairedGirl’s which is constructive, purposeful and has broad support. My proposal is that Arbcom add Snowded and BHG as additional moderators, and that we proceed with the BHG route. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BHG has already emphatically shown her partisanship in this matter so proposing her as a moderator is a non starter. RashersTierney (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a certain extent with Rashers but I'd tolerate her now that you have recommended another editor to be a moderator alongside her. But her disagreeing with the apparent consensus from the first round of statements is a problem, without doubt.MITH 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to know what PhilKnight (and other moderators reading this) think of BrownHairedGirl's suggestion at the start of the Building on what we have done so far and getting to a conclusion section above? That seems to have all the same elements as PhilKnight's proposal here, but in a way that should reduce the number of possibilities that we are discussing / voting on to a manageable number whilst simultaneously allowing anyone to bring their own variants to the table. — ras52 (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong here but shouldn't moderators come in with no POV on the subject. I'm not saying BrownHairedGirls suggestion should not be implemented but perhaps not as a moderator. I can see the process stalling due to other editors objecting to this. If BHG'S suggestion is implemented then why not let the present moderators continue their moderating as before. To clarify, I'm not saying BHG would not be a good moderator, only that there may be some objections to it which would not be a good start. Jack forbes (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what "I'm not saying BrownHairedGirls suggestion should not be implemented but perhaps not as a moderator" means. BHG's suggestion doesn't require her to be a moderator if that's your concern. I don't believe that she is proposing any change to who the moderators are or what they should do. — ras52 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster above suggested bringing in Snowded and BrownHairedGirl as moderators. Jack forbes (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well that's not what I was talking about. As I said, I was referring to "BrownHairedGirl's suggestion at the start of the Building on what we have done so far and getting to a conclusion section above". That has nothing to do with who the moderators are. And I would still be interested to hear the moderators' opinions on that suggestion. — ras52 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you do understand what I meant when I said there was no reason not to implement BrownHairedGirls suggestion (which you mentioned in your post)? My mention of BHG's possible role as moderator was my opinion on Kittybrewster's proposal. Glad that's cleared up then. Anything else you don't understand just let me know. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need more moderators than we have (which is 2). That is a different issue from following the BHG proposal which also sounds good to me. I too would like the moderators' views on it. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how this process is going to solve the entire Ireland naming dispute. Changing the titles of two or three articles does not solve the dispute about how to refer to the state in the many hundreds or thousands of other articles throughout Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it's a case of one step at a time. Jack forbes (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. All the issues need to be solved together. It won't work otherwise. Mooretwin (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all the issues were solved together it would be a win win for everyone. Easier said than done though. If you believe that to be the case how would you go about it? Jack forbes (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mooretwin and Jack. Win win is good. BHG route should get us there and is consistent with PhilKnight's (rather less specific) recommendation. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DrKiernan's sentiments and the general expression of disappointment with the moderators. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would like the moderators to direct us to follow the BHG process. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the need for more moderators. Your suggestion of Snowded and BrownHairedGirl sounds fine to me. My only worry was that there may be others who would object, or maybe not. Would it be a good idea to put the possibility of it to Snowded and BHG and find out if they are even willing to do it if asked? Jack forbes (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JackeForbes - "My only worry was that there may be others who would object" - appointing BHG as a "Moderator" was floated before and the same logic applies - BHG is partisan not neutral - if she is being appointed, I want to be appointed to. Same applies to Snowded. Neither can be regarded as "neutral". (Note to Phil and other Moderators - are you each going to resign now please - you've proven you can't be bothered with the process). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only Arbcom can appoint mmoderators. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way this might work is demonstrated by: Statements Process IECOLL. I suggest a deadline of 15 May for the end of the statement drafting/endorsing process. DrKiernan (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was that the procedure/process used on Gdansk? If so I am inclined towards it. But not the deadline. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that was just a straight vote like this: [3]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the big differences are (1) supporting votes only (2) only one vote each. Do we start a fresh round of statements? Who removes existing support and oppose votes? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My version of the statement process says any editor can remove oppose votes. The endorse votes can stay as long as the statement remains unaltered, but substantive edits (as opposed to simple typos) require the agreement of all endorsers. For people who've endorsed more than one statement, I suggest removing the older vote. DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy about that but we need consent from Phil who proposed "editors make comments under headings of 'Support', 'Oppose' and 'Neutral'." without proposing the purpose behind his proposed Round 2. Can you get Phil, Edokter and BHG to contribute here??? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am confused. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your confused! Thank goodness, I thought I was the only one. Jack forbes (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To DrKiernan. Did the Gdansk poll work, and if so did the decision actually stick? If it did then I would be inclined to go with a tried and tested method. Jack forbes (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with any Vote, it worked for those who shared the majority view. RashersTierney (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rules determined by the vote still apply. DrKiernan (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Options for next phase

Extended statement process with no opposers and single votes per BrownHairedGirl and mock-up
RfA-style poll/debate per PhilKnight
Moderators impose article names per Redking7
community-wide Gdansk-like poll per Deacon of Pndapetzim but possibly for problem 1 only per mock-up

Choose an option.

What is the community participation rate on this page? I know that it has a number of people from each "side", but how representative is it of the interested community at large? Merely having each "side" represented does not mean that participants on this page are representative of the mood of the community at large. It makes for a good focus group but not a good survey.ny kind of vote is a non-runner (and neither should weight be attributed to the numbers representing either "side" here).

If we are to have a vote it needs to take place on Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland not here. (The regular contributor to this page.) --89.101.220.70 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, have it where you'll get the most participation. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is for BHG approach followed by community-wide Gdansk poll. I don't understand Phil's approach. I don't think Redking7's approach would stick. And I endorse Mooretwin's statement that we want all choices dealt with in a multi-commmunity-poll per Gdansk. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I invite folk to contribute on the DRAFT page Talk:Ireland/Vote. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eire? Seriously? RashersTierney (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that as well but it has been changed.MITH 20:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to reinsert Éire as an optsion per Names_of_the_Irish_state particularly because we have been forbidden to discuss such options by the presumably now retired moderators ("Please, for the moment, refrain from discussing the individual Ireland naming options until we agree on a procedure."). There is no agreed procedure. But by all means argue against it. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This process is becoming farcical. The Mods need to assert their role or stop the pretence. RashersTierney (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty, don't misrepresent me by altering my edits. You can forget 'good faith'. RashersTierney (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you RashersTierney - "This process is becoming [I would say has for some time been] farcical. The Mods need to assert their role or stop the pretence." Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rashers I was not meaning to misrepresent you. I understood from MITH that you and he find Eire offensive whereas Éire is not offensive. I had no plans to offend; I didn't know how to put the accent on. Redking7, I know what you mean. I am taking the view that they have retired and left it to us to work together. So let us do that. Unless Rashers prefers to do something else instead of AGF. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find either term offensive, in context, but changing another editors input is a big no-no. RashersTierney (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ui) Just to clarify, use of Éire is just an inaccurate as Eire in the English language.MITH 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the moderators were appointed. Why can't the arbitrators be asked to appoint new ones? Jack forbes (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a relevant thread here. PhilKnight (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospectively changing edits is not helpful. There is no consensus for any of the above options. This page is intended to be moderated and we should refrain from lobying until ArbCom have nominated alternative moderators. RashersTierney (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety, but it appears to me that ArbCom are being asked to impose a voting process. How does that work 'for the time being'? RashersTierney (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am stepping down as a moderator

I am sorry to inform all of you that I will resign as a moderator of this project. I have failed to provide any usefull contributions as such, and find myself unable to assign any more time and effort. The two main reason being that 1) I have no experience in such a big mediation, and accepting the task has been a mistake. 2) I have been involved in a dispute of my own that is consuming all my attention, making it impossible for me to focus on any other task that requires a long-span attention. I will inform ArbCom of my decision. — Edokter • Talk • 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making your decision in order for the project to progress. Can you also ask ArbCom to appoint another moderator in your place?MITH 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll resign as well. I'm sorry for not being to help. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The decision by both of you on this matter is understandable and i think its wrong for anyone to blame either of you for the current state of affairs. The only people guilty of incompetence and a failure to provide leadership are ARBCOM who despite years of disputes and months of attempting to get them to act simply passed it back to everyone here to try and resolve.

Its about time ARBCOM had the guts to decide something themselves instead of passing it on like a ticking time bomb. Edokter and Phil thank you both for stepping up to try and help solve this problem in the first place, most other people would of refused (even Jimbo Wales did).

Anyway we are back at stage one again, the current setup should remain and we should all just move on with our lives. Peace =) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare for the Arbcom to create & force a solution on such disagreements. But, they may eventually have to, in this case. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think ArbCom should just get User:ChrisO on the job. He wrote Wikipedia policy, the most notable of which is Wikipedia:Naming conflict. You really can't do better than that.MITH 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the decent thing and resigning Edokter and PhilKnight. I agree with those who would like to put this on ARBcom - clearly mediation has failed. Redking7 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the right thing? They buggered off for a month after the statements had closed and then after doing nothing they came in and quit. I don't see "thanks" as appropriate here. -- Evertype·✆ 08:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again - what was wrong with the solution provided by the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force? Mooretwin (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was IDTF's solution (I'm too lazy, to look)? GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here Mooretwin (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Actually mediation failed exactly 11 months ago and now moderation has failed too. The Ireland Disambiguation Task Force also failed because it was populated by too few interested editors. Arbcom needs to take this in hand themselves and make a final decision. ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDTF got more interest than anything else I have seen on the subject. Far more than this shambles. Mooretwin (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a note on User:ChrisO's page to ask his opinion. -- Evertype·✆ 08:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on content dispute resolution

There's a Request for comment on content dispute resolution which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movement

Reading this page, it seems like there is general agreement (although not unanimous) that BHG's proposal for determining the solution to Problem 1 is a useful way forward. If what you need is a thoroughly neutral party to assist with organization and to set a deadline, then I'm sure an appropriate and willing editor can be found. I'm happy to volunteer, but I'm sure that with such a simple job description many other neutral editors would be willing to assist. I think its quite possible that this method will lead, eventually, to a permanent solution; on the other hand, if the outcome isn't conclusive, then the exercise will have been valuable of itself. Nathan^T ^{(formerly Avruch)} 23:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see someone offering their services but in reality we're looking for administrators to take charge. They're alot more accountable for what they do then your average user. However I'm sure I can speak for us all when I say it'd be nice someone new contribute here day to day.

On a side note User:ChrisO - the admin who designed and wrote Wikipedia naming conflict policy has agreed to put some input into all this. He's currently pretty busy sorting out the Macedonia naming dispute but hopefully he'll post here sooner rather than later.MITH 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderators

Cross-posted from: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ireland collaboration.

The three moderators appointed by the Arbitration Committee for WikiProject Ireland Collaboration are no longer active in the project under that capacity. These disengagements occurred voluntarily and separately under individual conditions without controversy. PhilKnight (talk · contribs), Edokter (talk · contribs), and SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) are all thanked for their hard work and efforts as moderators. In response to the openings, the Committee appoints Masem (talk · contribs) and Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) as moderators, thanking them for taking on this task. A third moderator is not yet appointed, pending discussion with the participants.

For the Committee, --Vassyana (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of ambivalence towards the previous round of moderation. What had failed on the part of the moderators, and how do we now fix that? --Xavexgoem (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The failure was no clear process, we got bogged down in nice pretty little charts and tables but nobody had a clue what it all meant. We all submitted statements which people could agree or disagree with but as was obviously going to happen the people were divided over which had support and what they opposed. So after the statements were in there was no plan on what to do with them. Thats when it all broke down, the moderators were certainly not to blame we just jumped into statements too soon without thinking of how to come to a final resolution. For this not to be another failure we all need to know very clearly what will be decided, who will make the final decission, how it will be made and when it will be decided once and for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous round we agreed on the problems, and agreed that a statement process was the best way to proceed at first. However, at the end of the statement process there was no clear consensus on (1) what they showed or (2) how to proceed next.

On point (1), this is because the statements are wide-ranging, numerous and various, and sometimes unfocused or lacking a certain clarity. In future, we need to ensure more focus on the problems and a smaller number of more specific statements, where the arguments on each side and the number of editors supporting each side are clear. This is suggested as option 1 of the four #Options for next phase. While this may not provide consensus either, it should at least make clear the majority view, or produce clear potential statements that could be taken forward into discussion or used as the basis of a poll.

On point (2), I fear it will be too difficult at this stage, with a set of unclear statements, to agree how any future decisions will be reached. Option 1 does not prejudge any future phases of the process but it does provide a stronger base from which to proceed. Clearer statements with clear numbers will make it easier to discuss the shape of the next phase. DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On point 1, the moderators did identify what they showed. Right here in fact.MITH 10:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but we need to confirm that it is the consensus or majority view. Otherwise, the arguments over page names will continue. DrKiernan (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be reading this wrong, but Ireland as a disambig seems to have the broadest appeal (31 for, 10 against). Am I correct in assuming that the larger problem, broadly speaking, is the naming of the articles the disambig could/would point to? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I'm still collecting all the info, so for the moment I might be a bit slow[reply]

In a way yes, though in my opinion, I'd say there already is consensus for Ireland (state) and Ireland (island). The problem is the previous moderators never really took any action to confirm it or implement what they said was consensus or anything. They took statements and a rough consensus could be seen, but left it at that.MITH 11:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note: my previous question still stands for anyone who wishes to answer) What are the likely results of a moderator implementing those changes based on that rough consensus? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If those results are intrepretated as consensus it would involve Ireland being moved to Ireland (island), Ireland (disambiguation) being moved to Ireland, Republic of Ireland being moved to Ireland (state) and a new Ireland (historical country article being created. The moderator would also need to clarify the situation what would happen with related articles. ie. Would History of the Republic of Ireland be moved to History of Ireland (state) due the parent article move and all that.MITH 11:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you impose "Ireland (state)" when there are 21 votes for it and 41 votes for "Republic of Ireland", according to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Totals. (I'm not saying these "Totals" are correct, in fact I think they're incorrect, which is why we need them confirmed.) DrKiernan (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't, which is why I ask. Any result will be unpopular, but it's been asked for a moderator to go through with what they determine is the consensus. Does this project want moderators who keeps discussion civil and are therefore unpopular because they do not implement anything, or does this project want moderators who are unpopular because they implement a weak consensus? Or is there hope that a near-100% consensus is attainable? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is more opposition to Republic of Ireland; there is also 41 votes against it. Ireland (state) has 15 votes against. Thats what consensus is about, finding the solution that the least amount of people disagree on. The whole case started due to the disagreement of Republic of Ireland. It didn't have consensus itself for being the title it only remained as it was the status quo. This process has shown there is not much objection to the use of Ireland (state).MITH 11:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have all known from the start and the statement results prove it as well that there are two options with huge opposition which are unacceptable to different parties. Ireland (the country) at Ireland Is unacceptable because it ignores the fact theres also an island called Ireland and its shared with another country. Ireland (the country) at Republic of Ireland is unacceptable to some people because its not the real title or commonly used title of the country. These are the two options which cause the most conflict.

The other choices are less of a problem such as having a disam page at Ireland or keeping the article on the island of Ireland at Ireland. It would probably be easier and result in a resolution sooner if we removed the two choices which clearly cause conflict and decide on the moderate options which are reasonably acceptable to all people. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The whole case started due to the disagreement of Republic of Ireland. It didn't have consensus itself for being the title it only remained as it was the status quo." ~MITH. This is disingenuos and not entirely accurate. Many editors strongly prefer the status quo as a favoured option. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of it being 41 for and 41 against ROI in this collaboration would prove my point. I'm not denying there's a number pro ROI, but there's certainly no way you can say there was ever an overwhelming consensus to keep it in the last 18 months or so. Back then (this is before on I edited on Wikipedia) I saw there was move requests every second month nearly and it always ended up being a stale mate leaving the status quo. With Mooretwin's proposal there was a large majority to move it away from ROI, however that broke down due to lack of consensus in other areas. Looking through the archives of the talk page the last vote I can see was 12-11 in favour of ROI in August 2008. That's not exactly an obvious consensus is it?MITH 18:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One point that I saw when looking at the history was not just the impact on the naming of the country article and the geography article, but also the impact on the naming of "Something of X" articles. Does anyone have a list of what articles may be affected in naming only by the results of this collaboration? Is it worth considering how those are to be affected by this? --MASEM (t) 13:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closest you'll get to a list is Category:Republic_of_Ireland, however there are some sovereign state only topics which just use just 'Ireland' in the title and they are located at Category:Ireland. My own thoughts are that I thought that related articles would just simply follow suit in the naming of the sovereign state article and that a seperate discussion wasn't necessary.

However I know that there are other opinions. Some feel Ireland should be used for all related articles for the state as they feel there is nothing so notable about the island by itself to have its own articles and break the mould of having articles relate to the sovereign countries like elsewhere on Wikipedia. Then there are a few others who wish to have Republic of Ireland in related articles even if the main article moves to Ireland (state) for linguistic and aesthetic reasons. The previous moderators didn't acknowledge this issue and it would be up to yourself to say what you think should be done on the matter.MITH 16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly do-able, but very early yet. It occurs to me that [[Ireland (island)|Ireland]] and other piped links will work when the context is obvious in text. It can be worked out in a case-by-case basis where it isn't. Is that a good solution? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is familiar with piping, especially when it comes to the Ireland naming issue (check out WP:IMOS), so I think that's a perfectly acceptable solution.MITH 10:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree that a separate discussion should not be necessary but it is worthwhile to consider what impact the result here has on the names of the related articles. There is some confusion between an aspect of the geography and an aspect of the country, particularly with overlap (there's Category:Economy of Ireland and Category:Economy of the Republic of Ireland, for example). Thus, I think it's worth a bit of extra effort to make sure the end solution propigates well to any Ireland-named article. (Inline links will have to be worked out separately). -MASEM (t) 13:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're going over ground that's already been discussed in the IDTF. Mooretwin (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to give a link to this discussion that took place on related titles to help the moderators? I'm not seeing one myself.MITH 14:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion in the IDTF page that I linked earlier (in the post to which you replied at 12.00 today). Mooretwin (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That links to the discussion on your proposal which failed to gain consensus not to a discussion about other related articles. Xavexgoem says he/she sees it, I don't. Could you provide a link to the discussion about how related articles would be affected and which are not about the moving of the main articles. Thanks.MITH 15:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it (Republic of Ireland → Ireland (state)). There is still the option of using that compromise, too, although it looks like opinions have shifted. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discussion

A third moderator has not yet been appointed. Some participants have indicated that the presence of an arbitrator on the project could be helpful. In general, how do members of this project feel about one or two arbitrators taking a more active role here? If one or more arbitrators take part, should they officially be project moderators? What sort of role should they take? Should they be directly active, as would be traditionally considered for a moderator? Should they take a more distant role, focusing on occasional advice and oversight? What would you expect from an arbitrator looking to assist this project? Thank for your time and consideration of these questions.

For the Committee, --Vassyana (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an arbitrator with a brief to manage and structure the process and prevent constant repetition of the same points/arguments, focusing on securing and recording agreements progressively. Limited discussion to agreed issues as the process unfolds. One of the issues here is the degree of knowledge of the issues necessary. Some language to an outsider may appear inconsequential but will carry historical baggage (to just take one example). I think some knowledge of the historical context, the tensions before an around the Troubles and the GFA will be necessary. --Snowded (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly support one or two arbitrators taking an active role in trying to resolve this long standing problem. The main focus as said by Snowded should be on sorting out the process fully before we proceed to make sure there is a final resolution, what ever that may. Otherwise we will end up with a process like before where we all spend weeks agreeing to statements with no idea what to do with them after. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also very much support an arbitrator getting involved. What I would like to see is someone who sets out whats to be done, how we're doing to do it and what it'll mean in the grand scheme of things. They wouldn't have to been involved day to day but for example if they've set a deadline on something, then they'd need to be involved in that process making sure everything was adhered to etc. MITH 23:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitrator would be cool. Also (hang on to your hats) a non-Administrator would be acceptable to me. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we just take the Ireland disambiguation task force Ireland Disambiguation Task Force to its conclusion? It came very close to reaching consensus on ALL issues, but was supplanted by this crazy process. Mooretwin (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin if there was consensus obtained elsewhere it would have been implemented. You're the only one who keeps referring to the task force as the piece in question was your proposal. You're becoming a bit of a broken record on this. Notice that no one else think consensus was gained there and no one else is mentioning it. The task force happened, it failed and we moved onto arbitration. People are now putting their effort into that rather than looking back over the same old arguments and debates where consensus wasn't reached. There are moderators here now. Let them do their job so we can move forward once and for all.MITH 12:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why "arbitration" or "moderators" couldn't implement the Task Force proposal. Have you actually read the page? Have you seen the extent and breadth of support it achieved? Why are you scared of it? Mooretwin (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link is actually very helpful to us. It at least tells us that there is a strong incentive to have Ireland refer to the island, and not a disambig to both the island and the state. --Xavexgoem (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IDTF proposal was implemented[4]. That's what led to the RFAR. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't implemented. You're referring to an arbitrary attempt to implement one aspect of a solution whose very purpose was to be comprehensive. The IDTF proposal has to be agreed and implemented in totality. Mooretwin (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merits of Ireland as disambiguation compared to merits of Ireland as the island

I have seen two broad-ish consensuses - which my spellchecker is informing me is actually a word - that either support moving Ireland to a disambig, or support keeping it in its present form as an article on the island. I want to start with this, since this seems to be the less troublesome divide. Assuming for the moment that Ireland will be either of these two choices, what is your opinion on your preferred choice over the other? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC) This isn't an exercise in consensus; I just need to nail down why some people prefer one over the other so I can move from there[reply]

In my opinion this is largely covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements#Statements on problem 1. DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Touché ^^; Alright. I'd still like to hear the opinions on the other option -- that Ireland should refer to the island -- particularly from Mooretwin and others. --Xavexgoem (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation per the overall agreement of my statement.MITH 12:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point in repeating the process of asking everyone for their opinions again? This has been done countless times. For the record, (i) the primary meaning of Ireland is the island (has been for centuries) and not the state (so-called (controversially) for a mere 72 years). The state takes its name from the island; and (ii) having Ireland as a disambiguation page just means thousands of WP users are sent to a useless page rather than the one they want (which is most often the "island" page and not the "state" page). Mooretwin (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Point 2 is easily addressed with a bot and/or hardwork; that can be handled by the moderators. That leaves point 1: Ireland is primarily referred to as the island. I myself, when thinking of Ireland, think about the state. Can you be swayed, Mooretwin? --Xavexgoem (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would a bot address point 2? If it by-passed the disambiguation page what would be the point of having a disambiguation page? And where would it direct users to? You may think of the state when you think of Ireland, but 1.7m people living in Ireland but outside "the state" do not. Nor do most others in my view, such as the authors and readers of travel guides. It is rare, in my experience for people to distinguish between the two - when I travel I am from Ireland, people don't care if it's North or South. Mooretwin (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No bot then; it will have to be up to us to implement any changes. Bypassing a disambig is reasonable if the correct article can be linked to from context.

My main point was that you hold a minority position, the merits of any position notwithstanding. If most say do this, and a few say do that, what happens? Nothing can come of this if there isn't a clear consensus. Is there any concession here? --Xavexgoem (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says I hold a minority position? The answer to your question is you seek a comprehensive compromise such as that at IDTF, which involves everyone agreeing to a package, elements of which they like and others they don't. The compromise on IDTF involved changing the name of the "Republic of Ireland" page, which I do not agree with, but am willing to accept as part of a compromise package. Mooretwin (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin could you please stop trying to push your 6 month old proposal? Frankly nobody cares about it other than yourself and it wasn't mentioned once during this process which has gone one for a few months. To help this along I will quote Wikipedia policy on disambiguation pages: If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".It seems clear to me what should be done.MITH 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can say it wasn't mentioned once during this process when his proposal forms the substance of his Statement submitted to this process (endorsed by a number of people), which means it is as much a part of this process as any idea. Nuclare (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise his previous proposal formed his statement. It wasn't really mentioned as having the potential to be something which could gain consensus in this whole process. Only 3 supported it while three times that number opposed it.MITH 13:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not get consensus, but that doesn't justify statements like "nobody cares" and "it wasn't mentioned once". As much support as your statement seems to have had in the statement process, it doesn't follow that even that will ultimately get the consensus needed for your idea to be implemented either. I think both your proposal and Mooretwin's are reasonable and, frankly, (although it may not seem so at first glance), they really aren't all *that* different. You support a disambig page for "Ireland"; Mooretwin proposes a trimmed down 'all-island' page (a disambig page--it should be noted--*is* an all-island page, just, pressumably, a much shorter one). You both support removing "RoI" as the title of the state's page and both acknowledge the need for use of "Ireland"/"RoI" in text (not just titles) to be addressed, and both believe that RoI does need to be used sometimes in text. Nuclare (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still catching up; I apologize for that characterization. It's beginning to appear that the ArbCom case was a bit strange. It may have been better if their decision was to provide mediation on the discussion you started at IDTF, instead of starting from scratch. The problem is that we're all the way over here, now, and the problem appears more obfuscated than it did originally. I'm getting a ton of mixed messages. That compromise did have a lot of support... why wasn't it resurrected? The more I look at this case, the more I feel I'm at some point in one giant, bizarre circle. --Xavexgoem (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your final point is the one thing on which everyone is agreed. DrKiernan (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin's proposal was deliberately structured as a package. The benefit of the package was that it demanded a little bit of compromise from nearly everybody, but that it actually had as close to a consensus that we've seen. I don't believe you'll achieve the same thing by addressing points singly. I welcome the active participation of Arbitrators on this topic. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Moderation isn't going to work with the present discussion; there's too much inertia in totally separate directions. I'll contact the committee tomorrow; I'm very, very tired. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation, as so many places historically & present, use the name Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, yet, every last one of them is in some way tied up with the same one island. Even Ireland, West Virginia was named after someone who came from there. :-) Nuclare (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... as so many places historically & present, use the name Ireland." - No more or less than any other place. I notice, GoodDay, that Canada (disambiguation) got more traffic last month than Ireland (disambiguation). Are you suggesting that a page that got 2,032 hits last month should be put front-and-centre over the 93rd ranked page (at 200,904 page views last month) on Wikipedia. That is what would happen if you made Canada a dab page.

The simplest argument against Ireland being made into a dab page is that so few of our users visit Ireland (disambiguation). There is no evidence of demand from our users or such a drastic change. It is unwarranted. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is deeply flawed. If a disambiguation page replaced the island of Ireland article then it would get just as many hits as the current article, what reader is going to type "Ireland (disambiguation)" instead of just "Ireland"?T*85 (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed? I think the logic that says "I know people want to read about the island, but lets show them that there is a disambiguation dispute first" is entirely flawed, and is written from the perspective of the editor/member and not from the perspective of the user. Fmph (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just be aware that your argument appears to be based on an assumption that people type in "Ireland" in order to read about the island. What about people who type in "Ireland" and want to read about the state. A lot of this debate has been concerned with primacy - which article do readers want to get to. Evidence has been produced for both arguments, and this is what has lead to the suggestion of a dab page. --HighKing (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had evidence at one point that most users who went to "Ireland" stayed there, with only a minority moving on to "Republic of Ireland", thus indicating that the "island" topic was more popular than that of the state. Mooretwin (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is unsound. The argument was based on traffic to the two articles, and there was no evidence to suggest that people started at one article and selected the other. AFAIK, this isn't possible to detect. Please correct me if this is incorrect, but I cannot locate an argument that supports your assertion. --HighKing (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I neither have the time nor the inclination to go hunting, but, if I did, I would go first to the IDTF pages and then to the RM (which I think was on the ROI page), or perhaps some of the discussions on the Ireland page (probably archived by now). My recollection remains that which I recounted above, but without the evidence, I cannot be 100% certain. Mooretwin (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was that if there was a desire among our readers for disambiguation then we could expect the current dab page to get more traffic. Going by the basis of current site traffic, there is no evidence that our users want/need us to prioritise the dab page. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the splitting of Ireland, a very recent, and probably temporary, thing (to take a long term view). For most of Ireland's history, the island and the state have the same thing. Even when Ireland as a whole was just a constituent part of the British state (by whatever name) the Nothern/Southern thing was not applicable, and the island and the constituent-country-of-the-other-state. Since some time after the start of the 20th century only part of Ireland isn't Ireland (the state). And it's a small part, and it belongs to the state over on the other island. What is the point of this early-morning meditation? If we are seeking primary topic, the island/state are really one thing, taking the long term view. In terms of primary topic, I am sure it is a fair bet that in the news "Ireland = State" wins out over "Ireland = Island". I don't see a strong reason, apart from prejudice, against Ireland = state, Ireland (island) = georgarphy etc, and Ireland (disambiguation) as a stub for towns in West Virginia or personal names or whatever. -- Evertype·✆ 08:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with your analysis up to the point where your argument equates "ROI = the state" "[f]or most of Ireland's history" (you don't do this literally). I think you will also see the internal contradiction in this: on one hand you say that the partition of the Ireland is "a very recent, and probably temporary, thing", and that we should take the long view, then you say that the "primary topic" is one part of the partitioned island.

The primary topic is the island (or "country" or "nation"). The ROI/NI states are secondary topics (being logical sub-topics or the "country", "nation", "geography", "culture", "history" and everything else of Ireland).

(And, yes, it is a "fair bet" to say that when *in the news* "Ireland = State" because news converge is overwhelmingly concerned with the current affairs of contemporary states. When confusion arrises, however, news media nearly always revert to the tried-and-trusted "Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland" that we currenly employ on WP. In almost every other aspect - sport, religion, history, geography, culture, art, people, etc. - "Ireland === island (/country/nation/people/...)". Only the most obtuse contributor this this page would disagree - see for example those that would say that Belfast/Lough Neagh/the Bogside/Omagh/etc. are not in Ireland ... even *before* the "Ireland", in any sense, might have meant a 26-county state!!) --89.101.220.70 (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think the primary topic is "the cultural and administrative entity that runs the island" diachronically, meaning "the State" for as long as we have history and some more-or-less centralized post-tribal governance here. Even under the Crown "Ireland" was "the whole island". Partition is accidental and likely to be temporary in the long term: I doubt very much we will have a partitioned Ireland in 2209. So yes, I do think that "the big part" of the "partitioned island" is the primary topic, and I find it endlessly tiresome that a small but vocal minority with a different view keeps this pissing contest going and going and going. And yes, too, I think that what people mostly come for when they look for "Ireland" is not geography or recipes for stew: they come to find out about the State, just as it is on the news. I reject your suggestion that "the ROI/NI states are secondary topics"—In the first place, NI isn't a state, but a constituent part of a state, and the ROI is in fact "the cultural and administrative entity that runs (big part of the) the island" whether some people like that or not. I am the one who tried to bring this to an end by asking for arbitration because of what seems to me to be a deeply hostile and bad-faith game played out by the vocal minority. The result has been disappointing at best. We never managed to get the three Admins we were meant to have, and then two of them have bailed without even offering a shred of hope or direction in terms of some sort of solution. Now we hope (patiently, it is admitted), for help from someone who may, indeed, be able to help us. In the meantime, I find this whole thing to be more than demoralizing, and way beyond sad. -- Evertype·✆ 19:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What an incredibly POV statement. It is an Irish-nationalist (and particularly a Southern-Irish-nationalist) POV that the 26-county state is, in fact, the real and only true "Ireland", with Northern Ireland as a temporary aberration. This view is a product of De Valera's belated acceptance of the Treaty, and his attempt to justify his acceptance of partition through the 1937 constitution, which required him to portray the 26-county state as "Ireland". This POV is also the outcome of a state-centric mindset (itself something of a nationalist (in general terms) disposition) that sees the state as of supreme importance, and geography and culture as secondary. This is why the state-centric nationalist demands that "Ireland" is primarily the name of the state and not of the island from which the state takes its name. This state-centric mindset may be common on Wikipedia but I suggest that amongst the majority of ordinary people across the world - people who do not give a damn about political questions - Ireland means the whole 32 counties. When someone from Ireland (North or South) travels abroad he or she is received as being from Ireland (not from the Republic and not from Northern Ireland). Tourists come on holiday to Ireland (the island). In everyday conversation, Ireland means the whole 32. Mooretwin (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with some of Mooretwin's points here. The POV may do a good job of representing a stereotypical Nationalist view, but is not a majority view. Equally, Mooretwins argument that a state-centric view is also a Nationalistic view is equally guilty of tarring everybody with this view with the same brush. For me, the most important aspect are the simple facts. I prefer to use the correct term in the appropriate context. So that means using Ireland to be the correct term for both the island and the state. And I am not a Nationalist... --HighKing (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That "small and vocal minority" has been the majority in countless polls that *some editors* have insisted on running and re-running. The majority view has been the status quo on this encyclopedia for the best part of a decade. The majority view is that the ROI/NI are secondary topics to Ireland. The unnatural emphasis placed by *some editors* on the names of states does not do our readers any good.

Some (sensible) inspiration might be got from other encyclopedias. Britannica, for example, has only one article on Ireland. Ostensibly, that article is about the southern state (or at least the opening paragraph would lead you to think so) but the content is the equivalent to a merger between our Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. They have no article specifically about "the island". (By the way, I don't think anyone in favour of the status quo is concerned with the "island" per sé, but with the broad cultural/historical/political/etc. topic of "Ireland").

I think that there would be problems with such a solution here because of the pedantic and battling nature of Wikipedians and that there is a snowballs chance of a merger of Ireland and Republic of Ireland. If, so, we are to continue with the existence of both articles then it is Ireland (being the logical super topic) that is the primary topic - as has been seen to be the view of the majority of editors in countless polls on this subject since we split Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland almost a decade ago.

(Might I suggest too - without wanting to provoke you or put you down in anyway - that the reason you find the whole thing "demoralizing, and way beyond sad" is because you are not getting your own way ... either through consensus, polls, or by asking the (other) ArbCom parent.) --89.101.220.70 (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "suggestion" does not in any way accurately describe my motivations or my state of mind. -- Evertype·✆ 21:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← The poll data I have now is insanely contradictory, and any more polling is going to cause more confusion. With that in mind, it would be for the best if we stayed away from the majority/minority comparisons; I'm not seeing it in the data, particularly as all the polls existed in their own context. Aside from which, if one were to insist, some folks are in a majority on one subject and in a minority on another.

I'm still thinking on this. --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The polls I was referring to were the countless ones on this subject that have been run on Talk:Ireland and Talk:Republic of Ireland over the past eight years. All with the same result. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure I'm clear, it sounds like there are two options on the table based on reading all the past information:

Option 1 - The geographical island at Ireland, the country at Ireland (country), and a disambiguation page at Ireland (disambiguation)
Option 2 - The geographical island at Ireland (island), the country at Ireland (country), and a disambiguation page at Ireland.

The natural third option, with the country at Ireland, seems to have the least support. This also discounts having the country page at Republic of Ireland, leaving that as a redirect to wherever the country article ends up, as this seems to have little support as well. Am I correct in this assumption? --MASEM (t) 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you pretty much have it nailed. I also believe that Option 1 will achieve consensus just about. --HighKing (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct option one and two are acceptable to the vast majority of people, i think option one is the better of the two and China / Taiwan articles are handled in the same way. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that more people would approve of Option 1 but Option 2 is more correct according to Wikipedia's policies. I'd be happy with either, they're both a big improvement on the current situation.MITH 08:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 would be more in keeping with Wikipedia policy. But what's this Ireland (country)? I thought "country" was ambiguous and Ireland (state) was preferred. -- Evertype·✆ 09:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in any poll, I would like to see ALL options displayed, not just the front-runners. That way people could mark their first, second, third etc preferences, which is one way of evaluating a range of options. -- Evertype·✆ 09:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree i think we should leave out the two options we know have alot of opposition to avoid dispute and focus on the two reasonable alternatives which are acceptable to all. Whilst country is ambiguous, i think saying Ireland {state} would confuse people because it would be like Georgia (state). Country is there for probably better but im ok with either. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of simplifying this process and resolving it, I believe the best way to approach the vote (assuming this is what involved editors want) would to present the above two options, and add "neither of the above" as a third, and use some type of preferential voting method (where you rank your choices). If, after the voting, the "Neither" option has a strong amount of support, we'll need to re-investigate other options. But, as I laid out, I don't believe that any option outside of the above two will gain strong support in a vote simply reading through the past work done on this. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Options 1 ... but not Ireland (country). I needs to be Ireland (state). "Country" is too ambiguous particularly in relation to Ireland. The Ireland that composes of 26 counties is unambiguously a state (indeed the only state currently existing called Ireland). But both "Irelands" (32 county and 26 county) can equally be described as countries, and both commonly are. Ireland/Ireland (country) is more ambiguous than what we have now (i.e. Ireland/Republic of Ireland).

As for a vote, PR-STV is something that all people living on the island of Ireland are familiar with and would IMHO suffice for a voting method (i.e. preference voting like Evertype suggests). For those unfamiliar with it, it is a method that accurately calculates a winner from "preferences". (But since there is only one "winner" in this "constituency", it is more accurately described as an Instant-runoff voting method.) --89.101.220.70 (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the opinions of Anon IP editors may be discounted/ignored in polls. Please log in if you wish your opinions to be heard should this be viewd/construed as a poll. --HighKing (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes down to a *vote* (again), that's only sensible. ... although ... if you think about it ... the more logical approach would be to discount the votes of logged-in users and only count the votes of IPs - since that is the surest way to prevent sock puppetry/double voting ;-) --89.101.220.70 (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That ain't how it's done, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I rule the world, "GoodDay", or whoever you are, there will be no users names, we will all be numbers in the matrix. Until then, it is practical that IP **votes** (not !votes or discussion) should not be counted. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be Ireland (sovereign country). That's the wording used in the top-of-page hatnotes at the moment. Or is that just too much name? Nuclare (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the country is already going to have some disambig clause in the title and thus not likely to be an immediate search result without stopping through a hatnote or disambiguation page, and that we can redirect the "less accurate" versions to that, I could see this as an option. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. No matter what we put in the brackets, no one is likely to search for "Ireland (...)" so the "user friendly" versions can redirect to the more accurate.

(Ireland (sovereign country)/Ireland (sovereign state) is a little OTT, don't you think?). --89.101.220.70 (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Ireland(country), state has different meanings in different parts of the world. USA, Australia, Mexico, India, Brazil, Venezuela, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Palau... Country does not have the same problem.T*85 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't option 1 basically the same idea that user Mooretwin [5] proposed back in December that ultimately fell apart for some reason?76.118.224.35 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. For what its worth - The short bit - If the RoI article is not to be moved to "Ireland", I agree with the compromise proposal that:

the RoI article to "Ireland (state)";
the island article to "Ireland (island)"; and
"Ireland" be a DAB.

For those who wish to read on:

There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples:

Luxembourg – The state of that name does not include Luxembourg (Belgium);
Mongolia – The state of that name does not include Inner Mongolia;
Samoa – The state of that name does not include American Samoa;
Solomon Islands – The state of that name does not include the North Solomon Islands;
South Africa – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as Swaziland;
Papua New Guinea – The state of that name does not include Papua (Indonesian province);

....The names of all of the above states have Wikipedia articles that follow their usual names.Why is Ireland being singled out? Regards.Redking7 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because in none of those cases is there an island and a state with exactly the same name? Fmph (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A far more comparable example would be China. Northern Ireland, for example, doesn't include everything north of Athlone, as in your "South Africa" example. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Ireland is being singled out is pathetic and has been gone over before. As mentioned by the IP there is China but also Taiwan and Georgia. Now whilst i would accept a dab page like Georiga it makes sense to follow the method used at China and Taiwan where there is an article on the island / geographical location whilst making clear at the top of the articles there are separate articles on the sovereign states.

We should follow the example of China / Taiwan, frankly this is what should of happened from the start. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BritishWatcher - the examples at China and Taiwan are good examples of what can be adopted for Ireland (country/state/republic). --HighKing (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. If you follow the China example, you end up with an article that for all intents and purposes includes every government of Ireland (the island) up to and including the government of the big part of the partitioned island. Otherwise you get an article which includes government information for all periods of Ireland bit STOPS that kind of coverage at partition. Entirely unworkable -- and not, I think, comparable to the article about "Chinese civilization". An article about "Irish civilization" will have us dancing at the crossroads and I doubt anyone much wants to look at an article like that when they come here. Ireland (island) can handle geography and climate, and other "island" things. -- Evertype·✆ 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below I recycle some China/Ireland type arguement: Regards Redking7 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case any genuine non-POV users might get confused and consider China some sort of acceptable example to follow:

PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is the official name of the most widely recognised China. The large majority of countries recognise the PRC as the only Chinese State;
ROC (Republic of China) is the official name of the much less recognised China - more commonly know as Taiwan (which is where the non-Communists established themselves after the Chinese Civil War and where the Communists have never ruled). A minority of countries, for example, the Vatican City recognise only the ROC (Taiwan) as the Chinese State;

That is broadly the reason for the way the China, the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China have the article names they do.

In contrast:

RoI (Republic of Ireland) is not the official name of the Irish State;
"Ireland" is the name by which the Irish State is recognised by every country in the world (including even UK of GB and NI!);

In short, there is no comparison between the Chinese and Irish article names! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, some one raised the Georgia example - This is the example I believe the Irish should follow. Georgia is the official name of the Georgian State - thats respected in the article name. The same should go for Ireland. I've always said "Ireland (state)" - similar to "Georgia (country)" is a fair compromise. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've said the same thing too, but that receives nothing but such bad faith that I decided to support my actual preference, since any time I say anything it gets gainsaid anyway. -- Evertype·✆ 21:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the discussion here has been about changing ROI to "Ireland (state)" or some similar "(...)". So what's the complaint? Regardless of whether China/Ireland make ideal comparisons, the general principle that 'nation' articles can be transjurisdictional (if Ireland were to remain located as is) is the point, I think. Nuclare (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland should be a DAB - same logic as the DAB for Georgia. Its not complicated. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's an easy choice between the two Georgias because they are entirely and utterly unrelated. It's not the same with Ireland where one could easily want both the state and all of the island at the same time and, frankly, one could also easily not *know* whether they want the state or all of the island of Ireland until they read quite a bit more about the subject than a DAB page offers. What is your objection to having all of the island of Ireland at Ireland? Nuclare (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your objection to having the reader go through a DAB page to get to the island article? If they really want to know about the island they will make one click, if they want to know about the country they will make one click T*85 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what I just said: "It's not the same with Ireland where one could easily want both the state and all of the island at the same time and, frankly, one could also easily not *know* whether they want the state or all of the island of Ireland until they read quite a bit more about the subject than a DAB page offers." What does it mean to "want to know about the island"? Is that a purely geographical concern? Or does it concern that which crosses the border, culturally, historically, etc.? There is, I get the sense, some underlying disagreement about what the 'island' and 'country' pages should be that shapes some opinion on these issues. The current set up already serves a DAB function--the two uses of Ireland so dominate over all the others ('Kathy Ireland', etc.) that having it go direct to related content and having the hatnote to the state and an opening section that, again, gives clear indication and another link to the state serves a DAB function. Nuclare (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not regurgitate past arguments here - I'd like to make sure that the two options (Ireland as DAB or Ireland as island) are likely the only significant and well-supported options available for us to consider should the next step be a poll to vote. We've gotten the merits of either side through the previous commentary phase here, and don't need to rehash it. (Note, I'm not asking for opinion one way or another, just making sure that no other major option hasn't been brought up as a likely possibility). --MASEM (t) 14:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When is this vote likely to happen?MITH 14:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once we've confirmed we've got the right options to be voting about. Hopefully that's sooner (like within a week) than later, but rather make sure we get this right the first time and take our time doing that. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what authority do you speak? Mooretwin (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem is a moderator. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has he been given authority to organise and conduct a poll? Mooretwin (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has the authority to help resolve this dispute and progress seems to be being made. Note Masem said "should the next step be a poll", i dont think its final that one will be held yet. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polls haven't worked in the past because picking off individual disputes does not solve the whole issue universally, which is what is required. We need consensus agreement on all aspects of the dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you consider to be all aspects of the dispute? --MASEM (t) 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my statement. The dispute is about more than the titles of articles: it is also about the name used to describe the 26-county state in other articles throughout the encyclpaedia. Mooretwin (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement got mass rejection so let's just concentrate on the what goes where and then we can concentrate on other things.MITH 16:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, a comprehensive solution is required: not picking off one particular aspect of the dispute. The proposal gained unprecedented support on the IDTF - an initiative which attracted far greater interest than the paltry interest being shown in this. Polls on individual moves haven't worked in the past and are unlikely to work in the future. What is it about a comprehensive package that you are scared of? We will all gain something, but also have to concede something else. Mooretwin (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2 and 3 in your statement are important points that everyone should agree with no matter the outcome on what belongs at Ireland. If we rule out "republic of Ireland / Ireland" for the country article then point 1 of your statememnt will happen. That just leaves point 4 which is what a poll would be on If its a dab page or a page about Ireland (Geographyc, history / culture etc). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2 and 3, though, are not agreed by everyone, and I do not support point 1 unless point 2 is agreed. It is actually point 2 which has caused the most problems through edit-warring. Points 2 and 3 also need to be worked out in detail, and the question of "The politics of ..."-type articles needs to be worked out, too. All of this has to happen as one. Mooretwin (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm agreed, these matters do need to be addressed and agreed to. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) To make sure I'm clear on Mooretwin's concerns, it's not just the naming of the island/country/disambig page, but also:

The naming of articles like "Geography of Ireland" or "History of Ireland" articles.
How "Ireland" should be referred to in other articles.

Now, reading over everything, the most important factor of this entire case is the naming of the island/country. I think that once those points are settled, moving on to look at related article names and how it should be called will fall out naturally - I mean, there will probably be options, but the options will be within an established framework of the core article names, and the resolution of this case should be considered closed until those are decided. Yes, we could consider a number of complete solutions, but with each added factor, the number of possible solutions grows exponentially. I feel that the easiest route to reach the end of this is to deal with the issue that is 90% core of this case, and then propagate out from there instead of trying to do it in one fell swoop. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Changing the names of the current Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles will not in any way lead to other solutions "falling out naturally". How would it? Whatever the current state article is called, there will still be an issue as to how to describe it within the texts of other articles as the name "Ireland" will always remain ambiguous, and hence there will always be a need for disambiguation in articles where the meaning of Ireland is not necessarily clear. What, pray tell, is the problem with agreeing a comprehensive agreement? Mooretwin (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The naming of "other articles" and use of "Ireland"/"Republic of Ireland" in other places is long worked out and have been very stable for as long as anyone can remember. It is a non-issue. Overview of current practice is to always refer to the state as "Ireland" in article text (and to pipe link to Republic of Irelnd as appropriate), unless there is a specific need to distinguish it from Northern Ireland (or to a lesser extent Ireland-the-island). When naming of articles to do with politics politics, we use the official title for offices, etc. where one exists (hence Government of Ireland, President of Ireland, Flag of Ireland) otherwise use "Republic of Ireland" (hence Local government in the Republic of Ireland, Politics of the Republic of Ireland). For topics where the modern states are no such a defining element, an all-island approach is taken (hence List of cities in Ireland, Music of Ireland, History of Ireland).

The WP:IMOS *had* specific guidance for naming of geographic locations (though I notice this is gone). The advice was to use for example, "[[Cork]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]" today, but "Cork, Ireland" before 1922. Whether it is in the MOS of not, this still common practice and his very stable. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely untrue. The naming of "other articles" and use of "Ireland"/"Republic of Ireland" in other places is NOT "long worked out" and has only been stable because editors have ceased edit-warring in the (so far mistaken) belief that an agreed solution was on its way. There was never any agreement and the "piping" solution at IMOS (now gone) applied only to geography articles, although it was used by Southern-Irish-centric editors on various articles to disguise the term "Republic of Ireland" (these attempts led to edit wars). There is no agreement as to when "there is a specific need to distinguish it from Northern Ireland (or to a lesser extent Ireland-the-island)". Mooretwin (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't edited a lot. There have been huge debates over the titles and many edit wars over use of ROI. Of course IMOS guidelines are gone. Things have changed - there is no guidelines, that is what is being sorted out here.MITH 11:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples of these wars? I have been editing for far longer than either one of you (from what I can tell the the contribution histories attached to your accounts) and it seemed very stable to me. Use of "Ireland" in info boxes to refer to the state, I remember, used to cause consternation, but that was worked out. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to edit as an ip and lurk like yourself (before I saw the benefits of getting an account) so I am familiar with all the edit wars that went on. I'm not going to get diffs for you, but if you want to search for some that happened, looking at Mooretwin's block logs wouldn't be a bad place to start.MITH 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with trying to aim for a single-shot poll to determine a comprehensive solution is that we will be here forever trying to decide every possible permutation of those solutions and will dilute any reasonable poll or the like; that stated happening with the first set of moderators and appeared to be part of what caused them to leave. Have you ever heard of how the US Congress will add rider after riders to proposed bills, making them 100s of pages, and as such, a lot will stay in there with very few Congressmen reading the entire thing? That can happen if we don't break this into smaller issues. The reason I think things will fall out naturally if we start with the most critical decision (Ireland as island or disamb) is because that will naturally limit the possible scenarios for any other affected articles or conventions; also, as noted above, there already seems to be a useful order to some of these affected articles, so I think those will be much faster to resolve once the core naming dispute is dealt with. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach is flawed because, once a decision is made on Ireland, there is no incentive for the "side" which wins that poll to compromise on anything else. If a majority votes one way in a poll on Ireland, then they will vote to reinforce their "victory" on other issues. That is why a package is the only way to achieve compromise. If there is 51:49 support for one position, and separate polls are held on each issue, then the 51% win every time, despite being only a very narrow majority. If there is a package, then both the 51% and the 49% are forced to agree to a compromise.

As for your suggestion that we will be here forever trying to decide every possible permutation of those solutions - not so, since the work was already begun by the IDTF. It was suggested there that a team be appointed to come up with guidance on when to use ROI and when to use Ireland in the texts of Ireland; and another to identify all the "Economics of ...", "Culture of ..." articles and come up with a solution for agreeing how to title them.

You say agreement on "the most critical decision (Ireland as island or disamb)" will naturally limit the possible scenarios for any other affected articles or conventions, but it won't. Regardless of that, it would still be possible to refer to the state in other articles by other names. Mooretwin (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the objections to package-solutions, but I'd also be wary of thinking that *anything* in regards to these subjects is going to fall out naturally. Actually at the moment, what puzzles me is where the ROI-supporters have gone. I doubt they've changed their minds. Conceded defeat? Or are they just absent from fatigue? Are we saying that a move of the state's page from ROI to something else is a done-deal?? This all just seems a little too easy at the moment? Not that I don't support such a move, but there's a strange silence in this section from anyone who disagrees with the moderator's statement above that DAB page or Ireland (country) or some similar (...) are the only workable solutions. Or did I miss something?? Nuclare (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they're bored, frustrated and disillusioned. Each attempt to find a solution gets less interest as people simply lose interest with each failure. IDTF had the most interest, followed by the recently-closed futile exercise (and waste of everyone's time). Even fewer are still interested now in this conversation among a tiny few editors. Mooretwin (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue is a good guess (or boredom - or the simple fact that "they" don't have to participate here: ROI is the status quo). This page is still an obscure corner of the encyclopedia and no place to determine consensus. Why not take it to Talk:Ireland/Talk:Republic of Ireland to get wider input if it it thought that something workable has come out of this. --rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say once a definite process is in place everyone will be giving an opinion, because the last one fell apart a few have lost faith in this I guess. It's the job of the moderators to make sure everything is clearly defined in what is going to happen for all the interested editor's sakes.MITH 21:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is the official name of the most widely recognised China." / "ROC (Republic of China) is the official name of the much less recognised China." French Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, United States of America, Commonwealth of Australia, etc. ... we've been over this. The number of articles on states that are located at the official name of that state is few and far between. The necessity to use the "Republic of ..." formulations to divide the state commonly called "China" from the wider concept of "China", is analogous with the Irish situation.
"'Ireland' is the name by which the Irish State is recognised" - and when people say "Ireland", they do not always mean the Irish state. There is a wider topic of "Ireland", which is a more extensive that topic than the Irish state 1939-present. When necessary to distinguish between the two, the state is usually called "Republic of Ireland" (as we do here). Indeed, even when talking about the "politics of Ireland", you cannot assume a person means the Irish state. And when talking about something like the culture of Ireland (or geography, or history, or people, ...), it would be ludicrous to assume a person means the narrow "Ireland": the Irish state 1937-present. Without doubt, it is the wider concept of "Ireland" a person means.
"...genuine non-POV users..." - way to demonstrate good faith. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:BritishWatcher, and User:Mooretwin are POV-pushers and should be ignored. The project would be much better off without them. User:BritishWatcher is going around Wikipedia claiming that there are a group of editors trying to remove the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia. Such a load of bunkum, and a voice not worth listening to. I have asked him to name names, but the requeswt goes unanswered. Either 'put up', or 'shut up'!Purple ☏ 02:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow Purple Arrow, you are the one that has changed a name of one article with no consensus to something so stupid and incorrect (Military history of the peoples of the British Islands) the entire article is now having to be deleted because its pointless. You say we are imagining or making up the fact that some are seeking to remove British Isles from wikipedia? Rubbish, the facts speak for themselves. For a start people have been trying to change the article on British Isles claiming that certain other terms are "used more" which was an outright lie as the suggested names didnt even cover what British Isles is. We have the joke currently happening on British Empire where a sentence mentioning the British Isles has existed for two years but the POV pushers have arrived and seek its removal along with their appeasers who also have clear political motives too. We have History of the British Isles where Snowded attempted to have the title changed.

Some people on wikipedia are on a campaign to remove British Isles from this site. Its pathetic and theres plenty of evidence to back up the fact this is happening. It really is troubling how dangerous this website is when a few people seek to rewrite history because of their political views. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have just exposed yourself again for the pov-pushing that you do so well. Quite frankly your opinion will cease to be held in any esteem if you continue. There was agreement going back, not to add or remove 'Brutish isles' to or from any article, and Setanta747 did just this some months ago, without any consensus, and quite deliberately too. I undid Setanta747's pov motivated edits, and created a level playing field again on that particular article. The strange thing is that a certain clique were demanding a consensus to return the article to its former name, something that wasn't forthcoming. Almost every other day I see the term BI being questionably added to articles, and I hardly ever see the reverse. Purple ☏ 12:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purple Arrow is a POV-pusher and should be ignored. The project would be much better off without him. Mooretwin (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is POV on both sides, probably unfair to say one side is worse than the other?--T*85 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree thats a bit unfair, there is most definitely POV on both sides. User:BritishWatcher I think is generally quite fair in his comments (and his BI comment does have some grounds.) Mooretwin asks me above why I'm scared of his "comprehensive solution package". The answer is, and I'm being honest here, the fact that he has a history of being extremely disruptive whilst editing (8 separate 3RR blocks is a lot), which makes me wonder whether he is looking for certain things so that he feels it will justify him in further edit warring behaviour in the future.MITH 07:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask why you were scared of MY package, but why you were scared of (any) comprehensive package. Mooretwin (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Comprehensive packages" are have a very bad track record across WP. They involve a tiny number of editor coming up with a "solution" that fixes their own little problem but which throws thousands of other articles and editors in to acrimony.

Other people at other times have resolved their own issues to their satisfaction. "Comprehensive solutions" turn those resolutions upside-down. They are a bad idea. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you this. Things need to be solved one at a time in order that we get the best solutions.MITH 11:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a terrific idea (months ago), it was a trade-off between the articles British Isles & Republic of Ireland. Here it is (was) 1) move British Isles to Britain and Ireland, keep RoI as is. 2) move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (country), keep BI as is. -- Both sides in both discussion didn't like my plan (note, that both sides were in agreement, atleast). GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lmao, that would never of been accepted and it wouldnt of resolved matters. If you rewrite article titles because a couple of people are on a campaign to remove certain words where would it end. Some of these people would support burning books with the term as well, i seem to recall that sort of thing happened in the build up to World War 2 because of appeasement too. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As GoodDay pointed out, NOBODY accepted his suggestion, so why the need here to compare editors to Nazis to make a point about it? The editors above trying to have other editors dismissed as POV-pushers isn't helpful either. I thought this sort of thing was supposed to stop in this process and is partly what got us here in the first place. Nuclare (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to remove any mention of certain things from wikipedia sounds alot like burning books with content that people disagree with to me, The Nazis doing the same and also being appeased seemed like a good example. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personal attacks; what other editors have done in POV-ish manners in other naming conflicts is not a factor we are considering here. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like two additional points have come up in the above conversation. Before getting into the discussion, are there any other points that have been missed? --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If the current Republic of Ireland article moves to a format of "Ireland (X)", should X be state or should it be country?
- Should it be a package deal (a la Mooretwin-like suggestion) or one-point-at-a-time solution?

If it were to be moved to "Ireland(country) I would have no problem with this. I do understand though that there may be a problem with this as Northern Ireland is also described as a country. I know that Ireland (Independent country) is far too clumsy, so are there other ideas out there that would keep Ireland (country) without confusing the differing meanings of the same word? Jack forbes (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland (country) would be confusing as many readers would assume that the country of Ireland encompasses the whole island. Ireland (state) or Ireland (Republic) are therefore preferable. Mooretwin (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,180: / Line 1,180: @@
 ** Should it be a package deal (a la Mooretwin-like suggestion) or one-point-at-a-time solution?
 :::If it were to be moved to "Ireland(country) I would have no problem with this. I do understand though that there may be a problem with this as Northern Ireland is also described as a country. I know that Ireland (Independent country) is far too clumsy, so are there other ideas out there that would keep Ireland (country) without confusing the differing meanings of the same word? [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 16:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
+::::Ireland (country) would be confusing as many readers would assume that the country of Ireland encompasses the whole island. Ireland (state) or Ireland (Republic) are therefore preferable. [[User:Mooretwin|Mooretwin]] ([[User talk:Mooretwin|talk]]) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)