:::::I made one change to balance it, as currently phrased the ROI option is unbalanced, suggesting that the term is official in both Ireland and the UK. Personally I think both options should be a simple statement without elaboration. However another editor has reversed that simplification so I have expanded it. --[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::I made one change to balance it, as currently phrased the ROI option is unbalanced, suggesting that the term is official in both Ireland and the UK. Personally I think both options should be a simple statement without elaboration. However another editor has reversed that simplification so I have expanded it. --[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::Please try to make a case for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Ballot_paper#Seven_years_and_the_specifics_of_.22R_of_I.22 here. -- [[User:Evertype|Evertype]]·[[User_talk:Evertype|✆]] 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::Please try to make a case for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Ballot_paper#Seven_years_and_the_specifics_of_.22R_of_I.22 here. -- [[User:Evertype|Evertype]]·[[User_talk:Evertype|✆]] 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:I posted this hours ago, and then I seem to have removed it again with what was supposed to be a minor edit, but I think it's impotant, so:
:Do we absolutely have to include "non-trivial sanctions for being naughty"? All the naughty boys and girls are following ''this'' page, and they know there will be non-trivial sanctions. It's also written on the ballot paper in case some new mischief-makers come along. The announcement should be "selling" the poll to the masses. Chrysler don't advertise their latest model by saying "driving under the influence will result in imprisonment or a fine. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
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.
Are you suggesting that if a moderator makes a suggestion and editors indicate “oppose,” to the suggestion, editors may be banned from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month and told they are disrupting the collaboration process? Per Remedies #2, though Remedies #1 still valid. I would find that hard to believe, when one views the efforts which are being made, with clear signs of progress. --Domer48'fenian'19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. BW wants RoI included in the vote, so he opposed. I opposed the oppose, but didn't find it disruptive.
Of course, it's not my call on what's disrupting the process -- it's the moderator's. He may disagree with where I drew the line above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear consensus here to move RoI to Ireland (state). Can't see why a vote is required for that part of the process. I also disagree with SarekOfVulcan templating the page, it appears to be a lack of Agf. It's not the first time that this particular editor has initiated a crises in this area of Wikipedia. This could all end very sour if SarekOfVulcan doesn't withdraw the menacing. Sad. Tfz20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I call this [1], maybe there's another term for it. I'm not hanging around this page much longer if this is the future. Tfz20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No template involved. Hmmm... About the only thing I can think of, besides "reminding people about Arbcom sanctions", is WP:HARASS -- though I'd dispute that that's what's going on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Tfz. I for one oppose "Ireland (state)". We know from experience that this leads people to believe that Ireland is a state in the American or Australian sense, i.e. part of a larger entity in the same way as Scotland and Wales, e.g.[2] That is a far more serious misconception than what is the exact, official name. DrKiernan (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that this is credible. "We know from experience" that people think "state" means what it does in America? I don't believe this is the case. Plus Bunreacht na hÉireann uses the term "state". -- Evertype·✆09:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I agree. However the suggestion is that if that is what's voted for that's what we get. Regardless of the arguements, references, and supporting evidence. It's numbers that count, not WP:V, WP:NPOV etc...IMHO --Domer48'fenian'08:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DrKiernan where were you? I wanted 'Ireland (country)' as the compromise, "but that's not perfect either, the purists maintained", but got no support, and that was a "compromise". My first preference is "Ireland", because it's the name, and because it covers 85% of the island. I'm pretty well finished on this page for a while, as it's going nowhere good, and now we are voting on a compromise. But the other side of the argument refuse to compromise at all. The solution will not be perfect, but I can see this ending up in a whole load of unwanted scenarios. Tfz08:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A vote for "Ireland (country)" may be in your favour, since my understanding is that the main objectors to its use are Irish nationalists from Northern Ireland, who are the smallest of all the interest groups.
My current favourite would be "Ireland (republic)" as that seems to have the least number of opposers and the least number of valid opposing arguments. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Comment refactored to remove "they". DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a new one on me, "Ireland (republic)" , should the "r" be captalised? A community wide poll would lliminate doubts there. Tfz10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there is support for a compromise where the article on the country moves to Ireland (state), but those wanting that need to understand that compromise is only going to be possible if ROI becomes a redirect. This idea of creating some new article at ROI or having it redirect to a damn Act which we all know most people wont be looking for is going to make compromise and consensus impossible. People want the country moved from ROI, fine.. atleast accept that ROI should remain a damn redirect to the country article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that. If the others can't then at the very least the page should be another disambig page with links to the country, the act and the football team who use the name. I agree most will be looking for the country however.MITH10:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most looking for the country type "I-R-E-L-A-N-D". British watcher is politically concerned with a British political POV that should have no place here at Wwikipedia. My interest is that Wikipedia should educate and not be at the mercy of pov-pushing. Tfz10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not TFZ, Republic of Ireland is how many people especially in Britain know the country in southern Ireland. Just because you dont like this fact doesnt justify us not having a redirect to it. Your refusal to be reasonable on this matter proves that consensus or compromise is impossible and why we have to put it to the vote. Its so funny that u declare we are close to compromise, but when something is mentioned which u and ur friends dont like u raise hell and refuse to accept compromise. Compromise is clearly dead, bring on the vote BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with BW to a certain extent. The term is used for the country in the UK. Just because you don't like doesn't mean its not commonly used over there. It's just a redirect, I don't see what the problem is. It not being used as a title is a huge step forward, ROI being used as a redirect seems fair enough to me. A redirect does not suggest any political POV, it is just a redirect.MITH11:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. RoI Has been the article on the state for years. That is unacceptable to some with a certain PoV. Now that there's a real chance of the article on the state moving from RoI, even to the extent of some mish-mash article combining the topics of the island and the state, they're still not satisfied, and seem to be intent on expunging the term RoI altogether. BastunnutsaB11:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had compromised for RoI becoming disambiguation page for the term, but not redirect. Bastun, MITH, fundamentally I don't disagree with what you are saying. Do we have to call Ireland by RoI to suit some people in Britain. Wikipedia is a farce if that's the case, and certainly not a serious encyclopedia. Tfz11:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would make WP a farce is making RoI redirect to an article on the Act, rather than redirecting to the article on the state. BastunnutsaB12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well that RoI for the State is British/Unionist POV. Even the British Government will not use it. In fact no country in Europe will or can us it and state quite clearly Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’. This is the English languge Wiki not the British. --Domer48'fenian'12:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying you have compromised on what? Changing the name from ROI to Ireland is not a compromise it is upholding wiki policy, it is NOT the name of the country simple. BigDuncTalk12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, just out of curiousity, where did you get the idea that "Republic of Ireland" is a British/Unionist term? It was introduced by the Irish parliament as the official description of the state. Plus, as I've noted above, it's commonly used by Irish nationalists and republicans in the six counties. ~Asarlaí13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any new user not knowing about these side shows and simply voting on the ballot paper is going to interpret the litte arrows depicting moves/merges as meaning that Republic of Ireland will become a redirect. This is just standard Wikipedia practice. If anybody wants a change to that, that needs to be explicitly added/stated on the poll. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, STOP - you are arguing around each again and again. This is why this process is taking so long, and it is not going to be resolved any time soon with consensus. Nearly every name option given is a valid choice, unfortunately, there can be only one named article where the country information can reside, with all other valid options being redirects to it. Consensus has tried to figure out what the best valid choice is, but all these discussions, as above, break down into "my valid option is better than your valid option", which is exactly why this process is been dragged on so long. Consensus is not going to change minds, so the only way to solve this - unless everyone is willing to wait out another 6 months - is to seek full community opinion on what they think is the best valid options. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not on the naming of the article its on the redirect. You say that "with all other valid options being redirects". That is all that i ask, i accept the article on the country needs moving and i think consensus could be reached on this without even a poll taking place, but there must also be consensus that Republic of Ireland which is certainly a valid option will become a redirect and not used for some weak article on "the term", it should always be a redirect to the country article but some people dont seem to want to accept that, yet they are the ones arguing for the vote to be cancelled so written consensus can be found. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rules for the vote
Seen as it looks certain this is going to be put to a vote, what are the rules going to be and the sanctions for those who break the rules? In a recent dispute over the title of the article which is now at Military history of Britain after the campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia won a victory, there was clear evidence of vote rigging with external canvassing on an Irish forum. How is this sort of abuse going to be prevented in the up coming vote, are IPs going to be stopped from voting, what about new user accounts? Will there be regular checks for WP:SOCKS? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an alternative proposel to voting, we could try that. You asked me to clarify a point on the Straw Poll solution, care to register your opinion? --Domer48'fenian'12:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer you and a few others are unwilling to compromise or even try for consensus on matters relating to what happens with the Republic of Ireland article, there for we should put it to the vote as suggested. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a poll, can we have three questions rather than two? "Ireland (state)" in the first question could be changed to "Ireland (state/nation/country/republic/etc)", and then the third question could be to choose the bracketed disambiguator. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On State / nation / country etc, i think we could have a mini poll on that before the main vote, the clear majority wants it to be state so i think we should probably stick with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with restricting the voting to users registered before say, the end of April. If this poll goes on the watchlist notice, it will be seen by all registered Wikipedians, that is more than enough potential input to settle what is essentially an internal debate over policy, after the length of time this debate has run, the opinions of newly registered accounts, who arguably are just as likely to have no knowledge of Wikipedia policy as to be fast learners, are not going to add much. MickMacNee (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that as laid out above, the results of the vote will be analyzed, and there may be more to consider if there are interesting patterns in it. For example, let's say that with STV, that a given option X "wins" 51% of the vote when considering first choices, but if we considered the second desired option of each voter, an option Y "wins" 95% of that vote. (and for the sake of argument, every voted submitted a second desired option instead of opting for none) I would be inclined to suggest that we implement option Y over the "winning" option X since there's wider support for that even if it is the second choice - this is why STV is very useful here. There is still room for discussion after the vote to use the results of the vote to decide on the best option among this group's contributors. Mind you, it may be absolutely clear that in the first choice round, X wins with 95% of the vote, leaving little question where consensus lies. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem it is obvious that there is no consensus for a Poll. Even if there was there is no consensus for which type of Poll or what options should be included. The fact about a poll is it all comes down to numbers. Arguements, and the strenght of arguements go out the window. Our policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV ect.. go out the window. Being positive, there has been movement. If I try, and put forward a proposel will you be willing to at least to look it over and give an opinion. I know we are not going to get 100% agreement, but I know that Wiki is bigger than this issue, and we already have the tools to address this, built up by the community over a number of years. We just need to be willing to apply the same standard for this discussion that we would expect for a Featured Article. All I'm asking is that you have an open mind to alternatives? --Domer48'fenian'14:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If certain editors are prepared to accept compromise on all issues to do with this matter (Not just the new location of the country article, but the fate of ROI and how we describe Ireland in certain articles where its clearly ambiguous) then consensus is possible without a vote. But considering the strong opposition from some editors above to the future of Republic of Ireland as a redirect, unless that changes i dont see how a consensus can be reached and the poll is the only choice we have left. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, im sure the suggested pattern you mention will indeed happen with the clear majority of second votes going for Ireland (state) however we need to be confident about the rules before that vote takes place to avoid a dispute happening during or after the vote is counted. So if you and the other mods have views on Who can and cant take part in the vote, where it should be advertised etc, it would be really helpful if this could be detailed in the coming days. Also we need confirmation and agreement on punishments if someone is caught cheating. We are going to need to do regular sweeps of certain forums, and i hope admins will be doing regular SOCK checks because i have concerns about atleast one recent new user that contributed to this page a few days ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where: WP:VPP, WP:CENT for two as definite, as well as maybe getting a watchlist notification (doubtful, too small an impact). An RFC drop can't hurt either. Possibly WP:NC. Definitely, any WProject that deals with Ireland or the UK or such related topics. Also notification at the ArbCom case.
Who: No IPs, and to avoid socking, only to users registered before June 1, 2009. (I would alternatively allow for users registered before the end of the first week of the vote, as to prevent vote stacking at the end of the day, but I think it's easier that, by this point in the discussion, there are few new voices to be heard, and acceptable to limit it to existing users. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Domer: 12 in favour of a community-wide poll, 4 against. 3/4 in favour looks a lot like consensus to me.
@Masem: Those in favour of a poll seem to favour Single transferable vote. Above, you seem to be suggesting something else, some modified form of that. Assuming no option reached 50% + 1 in the first count, the least popular option would be eliminated and the #2 votes of those who'd voted would be transferred to the remaining options. And so on, until 50% + 1 was reached. That's how STV works (for a 'single seat election', anyway). What alternative are you proposing instead? I think everyone would want absolute clarity in advance.
Presumably you will be able to get permission to have a Watchlist hatnote set up to advertise the poll (aswell as a notice placed on various talkpages/project pages). There will presumably need to be some sort of statement or explanation of the various options, rather than just having participants face a list of options such as "Option X: state article to remain at RoI; island article to remain at Ireland", "Option Y: state and island articles both merge to Ireland; RoI redirects to Republic of Ireland Act 1948", "Option Z: state article moves to Ireland (state), island article moves to Ireland (island), Ireland becomes a disambiguation page", etc. If I'm correct in this, who will draw up the summary statements promoting each option? Participants here, proposers of options, you yourself? BastunnutsaB14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I propose is a mix of polling and compromise. Certainly if the 1st choice STV winner is one by a clear margain, there's no benefit for further discussion and we can move to the next step. But in the WP environment (where we may not be able to track votes easily, and thus there's certain +/- %ages for results), a 51% majority would sit uncomfortable with me unless we validated that that truely was the best option when you start processing the STV votes. And again, in the example I give, if everyone's split on a first option but their second option is strongly in favor, I would propose (not state, we're still a group consensus) that that's the best choice. In other words, this poll is not to absolutely resolve the issue but to validate what the community thinks of the proposed solutions. If the community clearly favors one option, then the choice forward is clear, but if they are nearly equally split, further discussion is merited. It still may be the 51% first choice option is the solution picked, but at least I personally would feel better that we agreed that was the case.
(Personally, I don't think we're going to see it that close, but I don't want to preclude this as a possible route). --MASEM (t) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for the format, please see User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox which really only needs a lead section to describe the basis of the dispute. I disagree about any need for "summary statements promoting each option"; a lead statement can identify what the issues are, but being a vote and not a RFC-approach, we don't want to encourage discussion on that page (however, any discussion can be put to the talk page, and used in the evaluation if there's new options that someone puts forward). --MASEM (t) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind voters that this voting process is practically irreversible, so if we are stuck with a heap-load of pov, don't say you weren't warned. Tfz17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I wouldn't recommend "messing" with any established voting system. Once you deviate from the formula there are hundred of possibilities for how to make up the "95%" from your example above. (For example, if A got 51%, but we could get as far as 80% for B using some people's 2nd prefs, then what if we could get to 90% for A using other peoples' 3rd and 4th preferences? ... which would we choose?)
I would recommend setting a required super majority instead. The quota for winning a "one-seat" STV vote is usually 50%+1 but it is possible to set a higher quota e.g. 65% or 75%. (Note however that once any option reaches 50%+1 it is unbeatable by any other option so there is no point in counting all ballots to the very end.) It is possible, however, in that case that there will be no "winner" - but then again a "winner" of merely 50%+1 is not in the best interest of WP or resolving this issue.
There is also benefit to having multi-round voting. So we could for example have a first round of balloting by STV that will result in 2 (or at most 3) options being nominated for a second round. Then have a second round of voting on those 2 (or at most 3) options using simple majority voting (maybe with a requisite of a super majority e.g. 60%). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of comments on the PRSTV ballot paper in your sandbox:
I'm not sure the 12 month block is necessarily enforceable just on our say from the project. It may be that other admins and bureaucrats would not view things the same way and enforce such a draconian punishment. Given that, I'd suggest that the project should not try to pre judge the outcome of any disciplinary action. I'd remove that note entirely.
I think one thing that is missing is any notice of how the ballot will be conducted. It should say
is there a minimum number of participants required to validate the ballot
who will announce the result
how it will be announced
if a simple 1 vote majority will be sufficient?
will the vote transfer processes be open for peer review
who will execute any necessary page moves
when will they be performed (I'd suggest 7 x 24 hours after the result is announced)
If we were to have set punishments, we would need to get ArbCom to agree to them and enforce them. My reasons for having set (draconian) punishments in there was to warn off any attempts at manipulating the vote (there is already bad blood, I'd like it cut out on all sides - having draconian punishments no only warns off possible frauds but, more importatnly, reassure each "side" that the other wouldn't try it and that they have a come back if they did).
I think a detailed (but not too overly lawyerly) "what will happen" section is a great idea. I is important that we all are on the same hymn sheet about what we can expect. I didn't write one because I didn't want to clog up the "ballot paper" with rules, maybe they could be written up on a subpage. Maybe you could sandbox one up? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no special insight into ArbCom, but seems to me that if we come up with a blocking criteria through consensus pursuant to their instructions to settle this, they'd probably accept it as valid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm just addressing the point as you raised it -- ArbCom has delegated the content dispute to us, so if consensus says this is necessary, it probably wouldn't be challenged. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good. Especially using software to calculate the result. It will take a lot of the trouble out of it. I have two comments though:
I think there are simpler ways to vote than "A6 B1 C2 D4 E3 F5". I would have difficulty remembering what rank I put 'A' at, for example, if it was far down the line. I would prefer to vote "B, C, E, F, A" for example. However, I think we should allow either method for voting. If a person's vote does not follow one of these methods then I think an assigned moderator should be allowed to reformat the vote so that it conforms to a style (if it is intelligible) or strike it out and ask the user to recast their vote (if it is unintelligble) to avoid confusion among the tellers.
I agree that three tellers should tally the the ballots but I don't think that all three should calculate it. This is because there are times when STV requires random selection (for example if two options have the same number of votes but one needs to be eliminated). Therefore the three tellers may come back with three different results despite recording the ballots correctly. I think instead three tellers should independently collate the ballots into three independent ballot files for OpenSTV according to a pre-agreed format. An assigned moderator should then check that these ballot files are identical using a diff utility. If the ballots files are identical then the moderator should run the results and upload the ballot file they used and a copy-and-paste of the output of the results to WP. The first result from OpenSTV is final (should there be any discrepancy between random selections etc.)
Finally, should we set a minimum quota requred by a "winner"? e.g. must have 1st prefs or transfers from 66% of "electorate"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adds: I also think that most (if not all) of the "rules" should be hidden using a Template:Hidden ... this is so as not not put people off voting by hitting them with a load of text. We should still show a "how to vote" section because people may not be familiar with STV. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer. You have managed to confuse me even further. You say "following on from my comments above", yet above you proposed a solution by stating: We’ve had three suggestions which all revolve around what could be called the China solution. It has been broken down by Tfz above into five points, reduced to four leaving discussion on the RoI till we have gained consensus on the other four first. Among those five points was:
(1) Ireland be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc.
So if that was your preferred so-called "China" solution, why are you now proposing:
To create one Ireland article, by merging the current article at Republic of Ireland with the Ireland article.
These are clearly very different proposals, so how does one follow on from the other? Moreover, if the former was "China" what is this? Perhaps you can understand why I am wary of supporting any "named" solution, because it is entirely unclear what exactly the name refers to at any given time. Rockpocket02:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple really, I took three suggestions which all revolve around what could be called the China solution. Out of that, I formulated a solution based on all three of them. Don't worry about being confused your not alone, having gone a step above the Britannica solution, to the China model, BritishWatcher still can't get it, it is the China solution. I'm a bit confused also, having provided a section titled "Comments against:" on this proposal here, you along with two others, place your comments in the "oppose" section. A simple format, with simple instructions, and you can't get it right? You sign at "oppose" and you place your comment in the section titled "Comments against," GoodDay managed no problem to get it right. Now Rock just one question, you say in your comment "Nope. Ireland is ambiguous." Please give us the Diff to were the consensus was reached on this, lets see "The way we address ambiguity" and how the Community dealt "with it in a neutral and sensible manner," I've asked you before so please don't just "ignore it" because both myself and MASEM can't find it, and it would help. --Domer48'fenian'07:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I think I see the problem with the Comments against section, Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions. Is that what's wrong? --Domer48'fenian'07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the proposal you made does not sound like the China solution to me it sounds like the Britannica one. China solution is a basic article about the region / area known as China at China and a link at the top of the page / a mention in the intro linking to the article on the sovereign state. Now i find that method reasonable, but its not what u proposed. What you proposed is to have a single article on the country / island which is the Britannica solution which several people made very clear they strongly opposed.
The China solution in this case would be ... A general article at Ireland about its history, geography, division as two countries etc with a link at the top to the main article on the sovereign state which would be at Ireland (State) and a link to Ireland (island) which goes into detail about the island itself. That creates another article which im not sure we need. The simplest solution to all our problems would be to do the following things then we can all go home, before everyone withdraws from the process as is happening below.
3) People agree to the previously mentioned proposal on when Republic of Ireland can be used in text (like on articles talking about Northern Ireland).
Thats it, thats all that needs to happen as far as im concerned. Now im being attacked below by certain editors who have gone out of their way to push their own agenda here and yet im fully supporting the above compromise. Its not like im being difficult and saying the article on the country MUST remain at Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insult
This page is an insult to Ireland. It really is difficult to endure. I am out, and this is my last post here. Do what you want, go to a vote with people who don't care, and forget the folks who do care. Tfz00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz I can understand your concerns, but I do have hope that common sense, or the Community will step in a some stage. Here is an Admin, whom I've had disagreements with, and find myself now agreeing with, "Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a vote holds no merit. Consensus and reliable sources is what matters, not voting. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC). I know this process turns all of our policies on their head, and that this process is pandering to POV's but consensus and reliable sources is what matters, not voting.--Domer48'fenian'07:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time I made my last post on this subject the response from BW is typical of the editor go ahead and push through the pro british POV, I too refuse to take any part in it. Not one valid reason on policy has been made and force of numbers is being used to achieve british POV, shame on editors who I thought at least had a neutral bone in their body but I was sadly mistaken. BigDuncTalk08:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny, because I originally thought BW was an Irish nationalist (i.e. he would be watching the British lol). As for this section, all I can say is, Don't feed the divas (it would of course need to be modified to deal with storming out of a process, not the whole project). MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’m caught between a rock and a hard place here. While I feel like a member of the SDLP under the old Stormont, lending creditability to a corrupt institution, walking away means nothing changes. What’s being done here, turning this whole project on its head, subverting the policies of the Community such as WP:V, WP:NPOV and providing for a POV charter in the form of a Vote, other Admin’s and Editors are presented with a choice. Do they sit on their hands and ignore it, or do they step up to the plate. Yes we have had to contend with personal attacks, snide remarks and inane arguments, condoned by both Admin’s and Editors but that just illustrates how devoid of arguments they are, and rely on numbers. While I think this whole process has provided ample evidence of this to date, it still has the potential to show much more. The better the arguments, the more irrational they become. I’ll stay on the proposal page, and see how it goes while just ignoring this farce.--Domer48'fenian'13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, your opinion here seems to be that consensus is fine, as long as it comes out your way -- otherwise, it's votestacking/meatpuppetry/nationalist POV. That's hardly conducive to getting this resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blue-Haired Lawyer's means of how to refer to the state when potential confusion arises with the island and N. Ireland should be used. (see [#Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland in articles|above] for the details but primarily using "Republic of Ireland" when confusion may arise particularly with "Northern Ireland", "Ireland" alone in all other cases.
Hatnotes for dabs and additional redirects will be added as necessary (eg, Ireland (state) may need a Northern Ireland dab hatnote).
I'm not necessary saying that this is the best solution or my preferred one (I'm staying neutral), only the one that as I read everything seems to be the one that all answers gravitate towards.
Now, here's my request. Below are "Support" and "Oppose". This is NOT the final resolution on this matter, I am only trying to judge if there's a chance of gaining consensus on a solution or if a vote is really necessary. Thus, this is not committing you to this solution (I will ask a more binding "do you agree to this" at a different time).
Vote Support only if you agree with everything I list above with absolutely no cavaets. Think the country should be at Ireland (nation)? Vote Oppose. Did I miss a critical aspect that needs to be resolved? Vote Oppose. If you are still voting Support, please don't comment further. However, if you do vote Oppose, please explain why, and be explicit - explain every reason you feel this is not the right solution. Let's use this to see how far we are for a possible consensus that may be buried beneath everything. Please do not comment on people's Oppose votes in the Oppose section, if you feel the need to comment, use the Discussion section below.
Again, your vote here is not binding, this is not the final resolution on the issue, only a means to judge what the next best steps are. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Please do not add any comment besides signing your name here. If you disgree even with one tiny part of the above recommendations, please vote Oppose and explain in detail
Republic of Ireland for the state and Ireland for the island have worked fine for years and there has been no consensus to change; I would not favour any change to that if it was brought in by a select few editors here rather than by a community poll/RfC-type procedure. BastunnutsaB15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this poll because in putting it in the field, the moderator has himself made choices about which options might or might not pass muster. For everyone in the community to feel they have had a fair say, only an STV poll can lead to a result that everyone can consider to be inclusive and fair. Even if I might be able to accept the options in this poll, there are others which I might prefer, and I object to those options not being given a hearing. Please let us finalize the STV poll and hold that. -- Evertype·✆ 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Having said that, and given Masem's comments below, I believe that Ireland (disambiguation) should be at Ireland, and I disagree with the suggestion that "state" would be interpreted as a US, Australian, or Mexican "state". Ireland is a state, and "nation" and "country" are less appropriate in terms of a formal description. -- Evertype·✆17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just let it remain at Republic of Ireland. The term is incorrect and I do not like it but it is a term that is used and it is much better than Ireland (state) which has a different meaning in different parts of the world. The anti-ROI editors cannot even agree on a solution. (formerly user T*85)76.118.224.35 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unhappy about this process. This isn't STV. It is you crystal-balling the result of the STV. Now STV allows everyone to express his or her favourite preference and to rank other options in terms of acceptability. In my view, if we have an STV poll, everyone will be able to express their preference. No one can say it was rail-roaded. So... why should I vote in this poll, which begs the question of the STV poll? (Note I am not saying anything about my opinion of the accuracy of your crystal-balling. But I saw consensus for an STV poll. Did you not?) -- Evertype·✆14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is consensus for an STV poll. However, there are a couple of people screaming loudly in an attempt to drown out that consensus, so he's trying this instead.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw editors strongly against it, and if we had gone through with it, using the results of the STV poll, those editors against using STV in the first place would likely continue to complain that it wasn't a proper solution. This current poll is by no means meant to displace the STV, but right now, based on comments, there is a hint that a consensus may be much closer than it appears. If we can reach consensus without the STV, great. But if this present solution shows no chance, then the STV is still the next best route, with the assurance to those against the STV that we tried a consensus driven solution and it failed. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable editors strongly against STV? Who? What cogent arguments have they offered against it? I can say, for my part, I don't like your poll here because it doesn't offer what I consider to be appropriate options. I think there are preferable options. Since those options are not on offer, I feel that my views will not be heard. See? That is why I have supported Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's STV poll. I saw more consensus for that poll than against it. It seems to me that the STV poll is a superset of what you have offered, and therefore it is that which should be polled. It may whittle down, even to what you crystal-balled, but in good faith I think you have jumped the gun here, and I would request that you proceed with the STV poll. (I have seen two editors quit the process entirely because there was going to be an STV poll. Why would they quit? Because they were shepherding it into something that they preferred? I think STV allows us all to really say what options we can support, and that's they way to determine consensus. Accordingly, I feel that I should not vote in your poll, but wait for you to you should hold a proper poll which is in fact more inclusive. -- Evertype·✆15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) With the exception of the decision to not vote, I agree with everything Evertype has said. There are 75% of us in favour of a community-wide STV poll, which is as close to consensus as makes no difference. Only 25% are opposed, and three of those four are pushing a solution that would never get community consensus in any case. I appeal to you to reconsider this poll and proceed with working out the details of the STV poll. BastunnutsaB15:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disagreeing that the majority supported the STV poll. The 25% against however felt that consensus was not sought first; I cannot predict their behavior but the last thing I want are people to continue to argue that whatever solution results is invalid because they did not agree to that method of selection. Their call for an attempt to gain consensus is fair; I am making one last check to see if that's even possible. If this request (again, not a binding final consensus) clearly shows that core differences are insurmountable to achieve consensus (a fact that I do believe may happen, but let's let it speak for itself), then I can then say, without reservation, that the STV process is the only reasonable option opened for us, and those that naysayed it will need to understand that we've tried consensus and failed. In otherwords, this is a simple check of dotting our i's and crossing t's to make sure that if/when we use the STV poll over consensus that we have a valid reason to do so.
Also, I will remind people that both consensus and STV polling seek to find a resolution that nearly all participants agree to but not necessarily their first choice. The above may not be your ideal solution, but it may be one you can live with. If it turns out we can gain consensus on that, then we've met the goal. STV will result in the same; the ultimate winning solution may be the 2rd or 3rd choices for some editors, but this implies everyone can live with it; the only difference is that we introduce some hard numbers to the equation to undeniably show support one direction or another. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that after an STV poll we may end up with the solution you have proposed, as I said. But the community deserves to make that determination via the STV poll. I'm not comfortable with your having done so. -- Evertype·✆15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested with the STV poll, that result is binding since it will be a community wide poll. And note, I am not proposing this solution, this is the solution that seems to have the most support from all comments that I've read. Also, I'm not saying that what I've written is the final solution that consensus must agree too. Maybe it's clear that if I changed one provision to something else, then that will be closer to consensus; I'm putting down a possible solution that is the lowest common denominator but if there were to be consensus it may shift from that. So don't take it as a be-all to the end solution. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a process point of view, it is you as moderator cherry-picking, when Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's matrix is far more inclusive and allows everyone to express their preferred set of options themselves. -- Evertype·✆16:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain. I am 99% confident that achieving consensus is not going to happen and that we will be going to the STV poll. But, there is 1% that says "maybe there's a chance". Given that it is not a snowball's chance and that there are legitimate concerns that going to STV bypasses attempts to build consensus, this quick poll is to help make sure we have done our homework and that the STV is the only way to close this process. After this is completed, presuming no consensus is met, then those resisting the STV and insisting on consensus building will have to realize that it is just impossible and that this is the next best solution. As it input is going now, that 99% confidence is still there for me, but I will wait to see what happens. Also, I needed some baseline solution to start with, and I picked the one that I believed based on reading comments has the most likely support from everyone; it certainly isn't cherry picked (it's basically one of the options on the STV poll) and I have no opinion if its the best solution. The oppose input that gives me what changes needed to be made from this baseline solution are more useful than continuing to ask everyone to say what their solution is; it's a means of mapping the same information but from a more concrete point. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose the proposal, but I don't support it either. I will accept the will of the community if that be it. Fmph (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto - in a way - I supported the proposal because I think it is a fair compromise to those who (for whatever reason) can't bear the article being at Republic of Ireland, but we've already been over this. There is no more to discuss because we've been around in circles many times already. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd prefer the disambiguation page be named Ireland & the island page be named Ireland (island). However, my primary concern, is the RoI page being moved to Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun has a good point. Republic of Ireland has worked for many years. "Ireland (state)" sounds absolutely ridiculous, it should either remain at "Republic of Ireland" or be moved to "Ireland". --FF3000 (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closure
Since I've got the major opinions of the parties involved, and the "oppose" positions are pretty clearly not a position that can be made compatible (two different directions in which to name the 26-county state), I will consider that any chance of consensus happening to be beyond measure. In otherwords, any attempt to achieve normal, discussion-driven consensus on this matter is not going to happen in the immediate future. This means that polling is our next best solution. Unless anyone has anything contrary to this to offer, I will propose a revised schedule for the STV in a day or so (it won't start Sunday) and we will go from there. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been to date, no policy based process offered as a solution. ArbCom have stated in the section titled Purpose of Wikipedia that "use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. On the section titled Conduct and decorum ArbCom state " Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." I hope with the process I outlined that I have addressed that and prevented this type of conduct.
ArbCom make specific reference to Naming conventions in their "Final decision" and include both a link and quotation:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
In my proposal I have addressed this and offered a number of verifiable reliable sources to support my proposals. This format, both the process including the "guidlines" in addition to a proposal is open to all editors to copy. In otherwords, any attempt to achieve normal, discussion-driven consensus on this matter is not going to happen in the immediate future,unless it includes a policy based solution. That requires the application of Wiki's long standing policies. Editors must support their opinions with verifiable reliable sources, and discussions should not be driven by simple POV pushing. I'd like the mods to consider this process, considering it has never been attempted throughout this process, thanks, --Domer48'fenian'13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would really love it if there was a consensus driven by policy. From reviewing the background of this, that was tried and failed because there are multiple valid solutions that are driven by policy, but the division to pick between these options is tied into nationalistic issues that go beyond WP that make any attempt to achieve consensus effectively impossible. We cannot sit and wait for consensus to eventually form - this will just drag the issue further and further. However, as a near-majority of all parties involved agree to use a STV poll to end the debate, that's the best route to go after. It is a completely fair option given the breakdown of achieving consensus by normal routes without resorting to implementing the failsafe option of the ArbCom resolutions. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem please provide a diff for were this consensus driven by policy was tried and failed? I've been unable to find it. ArbCom have said this is a content dispute. So please show me were are the multiple valid solutions that are driven by policy? All that is being offered is a poll based on every editors personal POV, with the most editors "winning"! That is the term that is being used "winning." I know for a fact that if you remove all the POV and bias, insist on references this will not drag the issue further and further. If you forget about my proposal, and just look at the process it allowes for no room for time wasting, no room for nationalistic issues, no room for off topic discussions, no room for point scoring, no room for incivility or no personal attacks and just sticks with the facts. Wikipedia has developed policies over a number of years to provide us with a "a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia," and prevent groups of editors from pushing an agenda. If you try to put your own POV on spin on things, the first question an editor is asked is to back it up. I'm not willing to conceed that Wikipedia's policies have failed, but I accept that editors have. I'll attribute this then to those who are supposed to be here to uphold Wikipedia's policies and have failed. --Domer48'fenian'16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redking7s violating rules laid down by arbcom
He keeps trying to start or continue a debate at Talk:Republic of Ireland on changing the article title there. In the message from Arbcom it said "Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process." Could a moderator please check the history of ROI and see if Redking7 needs warning or banning. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the above, the reason the "title" discusion was archived was because, apparantly Arbcom state:
"Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.
Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."
The above has no baring on the discussion that was archived:
it did not concern the naming of "Ireland articles" - it concerned the naming of one article, the "RoI article" - which discussion was raised in the appropriate place, the talk page of the RoI article; and
Therefore, the above discussion should not have been archived. Can some one "de-archive" it? This appears to be an attempt to impose censorhip. Regards. Redking7
I consider Redking7's actions in violation of what Arbcom has stated, though 1) I will check with them on that and 2) consider this the only warning since one could read, in some degree of good faith, that there was reasonable action to start the discussion. However, I will consider any further attempts to try to start a discussion about Republic of Ireland, which is clearly one of the potential targets for a move or redirect per this project, to be disruptive. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem - I strongly disagree with what you have said but take it in good faith - I understand you are a moderator. Have you asked Arbcom? I am confused about what you say about the above being the "only warning" when you are not even sure whether there has been a breach of ArbCom rules...but I guess you will square that off in your own way.
More generally, Does ArbCom wish WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to be used to censor article-specific discussion on article-specific talk pages? I would find that extraordinary because:
it is a golden rule of Wikipedia that matters concerning an article (including its title) can (and should) be raised on the talk page of the article concerned - this is really important;
WikiProject Ireland Collaboration relates to the naming of lots of articles - it is much easier to reach consensus on one article than it is on a whole range of articles - it would be bad for the community if progress on one article was linked to conensus being reached on a whole range of articles;
there is no reason why WikiProject Ireland Collaboration cannot take place in tandem with article-specific discussions on their talk page - thats the best way to ensure progress is made and a "win win" is created for all of the community;
on what basis can WikiProject Ireland Collaboration be used as a way of "censoring" discussions of article-specific title matters;
many editors feel that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is now being used as a way to supress the discussions which have taken place on "Ireland" articles for a long time - and simply "park" the ouststanding issues on one page visited by fewer and fewer editors (as the Project's credibility has ebbed away over the months);
similarly, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration has been in place for quite some months now (its first three Moderators resigned); it has made no demonstrable progress; and has not set a deadline for when it will conclude (i.e. it could continue to run and run with no decisions around article titles (i.e. imposition of the status quo));
such "censorship" type-restrictions would be fundamentally undemocratic and ultimately don't pass the Wiki "smell test" or whats right and wrong. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Masem - Could you give me the link to the ArbCom page where you are asking (or have asked them) so I can raise this with them directly. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redking, im sorry but i dont understand how you can continue to believe such nonsense. How can this project be successful here in resolving the Ireland naming dispute if another poll is being conducted on the Republic of Ireland talk page aswell with the intention of moving the article. :::: Now its debatable if there should be complete censorship, simply ignoring the crap on the talk page and preventing any attempt to implement the outcome of the vote there would be enough but following the previous attempts by certain editors to bypass this process ArbCom ruled very clearly that this is the only place to resolve these matters.
It is simple fact, pushing a debate about article titles on the Republic of Ireland talk page is violating their ruling, there is no way what you have been doing isnt that, the question is what should be done about it. The best of it is thats all such a waste of time, because the people here would vote there against any change on the Ireland page until this is resolved here anyway. So why bother? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher - I think my above reasons are more than enough reason to show ArbCom has not prohibited discussion of any aspect of an article on its talk page. You seem to think its nonsense to think things can proceed in tandem, but in particular: the Project page concerns a number of articles - not just the RoI article - some Editors may have no view whatsoever on where the Island of Ireland page is located etc...but they are entitled to express their view here on this talk page on where the RoI article should be located. They are very separate questions. As the above reasons I gave show - progress on one article should not be held ransom to a consensus being established across a whole range of articles. The sort of censorship you are advocating is simply not the "Wiki" way. Regards.
Use of sub pages of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
I've restored various comments per WP:TPO. I would think that further removals would constitute disruption of the process, and hence be ban-worthy. Masem, your opinion?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the people that are removing content said they were not going to continue to be involved in this project earlier, they must of both changed their minds. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the multi-party edit warring, I've protected both subpages for 24 hours. Get a consensus here over whether comments can be freely removed before the protection expires, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now the same editors who have turned this discussion into a carnival are attempting to do the same with the process I'm trying to develop. Having clearly indicated on each section on the proposal page "Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions" and equally clear guidelines on the talk page "Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time." Editors have attempted to turn this attempt at a proposal into another point scoring match, and add comments which have nothing to do with the proposal. Now since this is my attempt at a proposal I've tried to moderate the discussion in an attempt to produce a productive and disruption free area in which to work. I wish to be able to proceed hassle free with this process but have had it blocked by an editor who has do nothing but snip at me, and had a block place on me which had to be overturned. All editors are invited to help, but they must do so in a way that does not attempt to undermine or stifle my efforts. The guidelines are reasonable and conducive to rational and informed discussion. The alternative is the type of discussion that has taken place on this discussion page. When this process has reached a stage were it is possible to present it as a formal proposal I will. --Domer48'fenian'20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have opened up a new discussion, its HERE. It sounds as though you are trying to create a rival process rather than just making a proposal in an attempt to get consensus. I havnt seen any violations on that page, many reasonable comments are getting removed. As i said before its like a damn dictatorship on there, how on earth do you expect to develop consensus in that kind of hostile environment. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Domer, you are not a moderator - you do not have the power to remove others questions, comments or requests for clarification - especially when you are making comments, asking questions and requesting clarification yourself. And you also appear to be addressing the editors, rather than the comments. BastunnutsaB20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments which were removed from the proposal page, and added and commented upon on the talk page. [4][5][6][7]. None of which addressed why they opposed the proposal. They ignored the guidelines, and Rockpocket edit warred[8][9] to put them back on.
Comments removed from the talk page, [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Notice how two of the comments are from editors who agree with me.
SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put the comments back in: [18], [19], [20], and on the proposal page, [21], [22] and then protecting the page. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page.
This is the type of conduct which has plagued this process, and it really needs to stop. My genuine efforts are being undermined and I need to be able to at least try to resolve the issue free from this type of conduct. --Domer48'fenian'20:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your deleting my 'conditional support' at the talkpage, is understandable. I was concerned about my comment being 'moved' on the mainpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the WP:TPG, and tell how your contrabutions helped.
Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject.
Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal).
Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.
Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article.
Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out. Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal-to-noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation.
Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion.
Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article.
Guidelines I prepared: "Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions"
You abused your tools again, and have done nothing but snip at me, you were told to leave me alone. --Domer48'fenian'21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan is WikiStalking you, I have noticed it, but naturally did not want to bring it up, but now that it's mentioned. Tfz21:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Domer, either this is a proposal you are putting forward, in which case the moderators can remove comments/questions/whatever if they deem it necessary and the page will otherwise operate under WP:TPG - or its something you're preparing privately that isn't yet ready for "public consumption" - in which case, move it to a sandbox off your userpage. BastunnutsaB21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor of your experience, Domer, is well aware that, personal attacks or libel aside, it is not acceptable behaviour to alter another editors comments to change their meaning. Move or refactor if you must, but do not change. Now, if you consider my comments problematic, I have a talk page you can contact me on. However, it is not acceptable to simply change my comments to suit your own agenda or interpretation. That subpage is not in user-space, therefore it is not yours to police. If you continue to edit my comments by adding or removing words, I will move that you be blocked until you stop. Simple as. Rockpocket21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comments above: You edit warred [25][26] to keep your snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. You removed a block to carry on with this, and now you want me blocked! You just could not stand the fact that I was making progress in a genuine effort to move this on. Per WP:TPG "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." So you work away, and scupper my efforts, at least I tried! --Domer48'fenian'22:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was not aware the page had been protected when I made that edit. Not that it matters. Even if I had known it was protected I would have still made the edit, I will not tolerate anyone changing the meaning of another editor comments. Its extremely disrespectful. If you are not familiar with what is acceptable refactoring and what isn't, suggest you leave name space policing up to officially appointed moderators in future. Or if you wish to moderate yourself do so on a page you don't have an obvious conflict of interest.
Finally, if you genuinely think editing other's comments to suit your agenda is "making progress in a genuine effort to move this on" then you are clearly deluded. Once the page is unprotected I'll be withdrawing both my !vote and my comments and I encourage everyone else to do likewise. Then you will be free to edit the entire page at will. Rockpocket23:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here, otherwise, as happens here, it looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive. Thus, I urge you either to avoid doing this (you're free to put stuff in your own sandbox and then propose it here), or if you feel you need to, be blatant that you have done so as soon as possible. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem was this not clear enough? Was it not blatant enough? The part highlighted is the part of Rocks contrabution that was removed. "Nope. Ireland is ambiguous. The way we address ambiguity is to deal with it in a neutral and sensible manner, not ignore it." So saying "I will not tolerate anyone changing the meaning of another editor comments" is about as beleivable as saying you did not know the page was Blocked. That you admit that you would knowningly abuse your tools in a dispute is telling, but to say I edited "other's comments to suit [my] agenda" is a joke. Why, because you go on to say "Once the page is unprotected I'll be withdrawing both my !vote and my comments and I encourage everyone else to do likewise." So you admit you abused your tools to insert your snide remark, but will wait till the page is unblocked to remove them. I've provided all the diff's above, so why not explain to editors what my agenda was, because you've all ready show them what yours was and that's to "encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, and so scupper my attempt to move things forward. It looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive.--Domer48'fenian'07:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't give a toss whether Domer, Masem or anyone else moves my comments from one place to another, even from project to talk space, if it justifiably assists the process and they inform me why they are doing it. What I do care about is this type of bullshit whereby the meaning of my comments are altered. I wrote and signed a statement (that should be blindingly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of English), and Domer changed it to appear as if I was making the exact opposite point (i.e. questioning the verifiability of the same statement). This is a serious no-no anywhere on Wikipedia (how would you like if I went to your userpage and changed all your Pro-Irish rhetoric to Pro-British, for example?) It takes a fair amount to upset me, but that is seriously uncool. I hope our moderators will make it explicitly clear, going forward that sort of behavior will not be permitted. Rockpocket03:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing this discussion
Reviewing this discussion I agree with Rockpocket. Domer's edits have been provocative at best, disruptive at worst. I regret to say that as he shows no contrition, a sanction might be in order (assuming that ArbCom and this process have any teeth). -- Evertype·✆07:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure don't you know that's whats on the agenda, and we will get more like you lined up to say the same. Will get consensus to block an editor from the likes of you, quick enough. The thing is though, the diff's are there and the project page I was working on to illustrate what I was trying to do, but letting the evidence get in the way has never stop any of you before. Why should now be any different? --Domer48'fenian'07:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The likes of" me? You might recall that I initiated the request to have ArbCom deal with this unholy mess. I think it's hilarious (in a sad, sad way) that I have both you and Tfz on my back. Seems to me that you both have preferred solutions and want to "win". This is why I support STV and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. It allows ALL OF US to express our favourite preferred solution and then also to rank other solutions which might be acceptable to us. Everyone will have a fair say. No one will have to vote on a poll that doesn't offer his or her preferred solution. It's the only balanced way forward, as far as I see it. But you're not interested in a compromise, just in your Fenian ideal. (And no, my noticing that you have a Fenian ideal doesn't indicate to you what my view is about Ireland or partition or anything.) At the same time Tfz has bitched about me more than once; indeed on your own Talk page Tfz has said "Certainly BW, EverT, or the editor with the peculiar long name (as Gaeilge :-) offer little positive"—which seems to be more a personal attack because we favour a poll that offers all of the options rather than a cherry-picked poll that presupposes "consensus" based on what "intelligent interested editors" decide on ahead of time. Since I "offer little positive" I must not be an "intelligent" editor in Tfz's view. But I "offer little positive" because I share the consensus with others that a STV poll makes sense—and since Tfz evidently opposes that, I get to be damned. -- Evertype·✆10:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, you have been noisy as BW has been, that's not a personal attack, many of your inputs have been belligerent and arrogant imo, and you have attacked today again. The editor with the long name has attacked in the past, by calling me and another editor a troller. BW has been libelous on a least one occasion and is belligerent in many of his posts too. So much for collegial collaboration. There is a menacing approach on this page by many of the editors, and spurious claims without citations are allowed to remain so as to muddy the waters. As I said the page is going nowhere good, and quite obviously you do not like my efforts to move things forward, and get consensus from the "intelligent" folk here. Veiled, and not so veiled personal attacks by Evertype to the integrity of other editor's inputs into this page. I have listed only a few, as I don't have the time on hand to list other ones. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] -- Tfz10:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of the things you consider "belligerent" of me seem to me to be more or less defensive, such as my taking offence at Domer's "the likes of you" comment, which lacks civility. Menacing? What's menacing about advocating an STV poll which allows everyone to put his or her favourite configuration of article names first, and to rank other options accordingly? It is simple. It is easy to list all of the options. It ought to be easy to get people to express their opinions, whether Unionist or Nationalist or whatever. What's wrong with this? What are your own efforts leading to? I don't see any specifity in much of what you have been saying, though you talk about "consensus". Can you be specific? (And I do see you saying snide things like I and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid "offer little positive", and I remember the bit where you mocked me for saying I reserved the right to keen—though you were nice about it this morning). -- Evertype·✆22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My words were changed by a so-called pro-Brit editor while I was on my holidays about ten days ago. Did I get mad? No! Did I get even? No! Did I get sad? No! You guys, thanks fore reminding me to change back his edits, as I had forgotten all about it. But maybe I won't bother, depends. Tfz09:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're ok if you didn't shout so much when you want to make a point. If ET wants to quote private conversation here, then he opens the door one more time, that's all. I can leave it there. Tfz17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages aren't private. And you're the one who lumped BritishWatcher (with whom I may have often disagreed) in with me and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid, evidently just because we differ with you. Note, please, that I really have not been pushing a "this is the only solution" POV. I have been advocating a means for getting to a common denominator. -- Evertype·✆22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you say this because you disagree with me (whatever you think my view might be)? My support for an STV poll according to Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's template is there to allow you, as well as those whom you consider to be your enemies/opponents/whatever to offer a range of options which you (and they) feel that you (and they) can support. In what way is this unacceptable? It is certainly a more neutral approach than others I have seen. -- Evertype·✆22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some relevant recycling: 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]
Is it getting anywhere? well it certainly looked like progress was being made and we were close to having a vote in the coming days, that was until certain incidents have hijacked the conversation so the vote looks like its going to be delayed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it does get anywhere, I want to be informed so that I can take part in the vote or whatever. However, what is in danger of happening is that the more protracted things get, the more likely that the final result will reflect the views of the most stubborn rather than a genuine consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here. We'll likely have a timetable for a Single transferable vote poll on Monday. User:Masem's intention is to hatnote it on the Watchlist page when it goes live, so noone will miss it. We probably would have been a good bit further on if it hadn't been for distractions... BastunnutsaB17:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying there is going to be a poll on Monday (to end when?) and lead to what outcome (? - perhaps months of more discussion because no consensus will emerge) is not a timetable. Indeed, there have been plenty of votes already casts - see the statements linked to the project page! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is above, Redking7. It will likely be similar to this with *very* wide community input (alert message in the Watchlist, etc.) leading to a binding outcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any faith I had in Wikipedia has been shattered, that editors could not devise a system to gain consensus. Reverse process of elimination could have done it, with time factor involved. No structure, and this is what we get, one of the biggest "washing of hands" I have ever witnessed. Be careful what you wish for, my faith in the moderator is sinking pretty fast too, maybe he has run out of purpose, I fear. He shouldn't have taken the project on if that is the case. Tfz22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we'll end up with a result based on a political-pov of the most numerous, not what's best for Ireland, North or South, mark my words. Tfz22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the poll is truly community wide a certain amount of common sense may be applied, since the unrelenting sectarianism has failed to yield consensus. At least the STV vote will allow everyone to rank their first preference (which will doubtless fail) along with other options which are more generally acceptable. -- Evertype·✆23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Tfz: And I think that's the first time I've seen you make a suggestion such as "Reverse process of elimination could have done it"... it was open to you at any stage to propose something.
@Redking7: Read the page above. The moderator will outline a timetable (probably) on Monday, not the vote itself. It will be a STV poll covering all the options. The ground rules will be decided, and the poll will be advertised for all registered users when they visit their Watchlist. And it will be a binding outcome. Maybe not the one you want, or maybe not the one I want, but it will be binding. BastunnutsaB22:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just 50% fully support a poll, according to this [33], and not one of them live in the country being discussed, I discern. Mindblowing! Tfz23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conaímse in Éireann, a Tfz, ar a laghad. And the Wikipedia, and its articles on Ireland, belong to EVERYBODY, not just people living in one jurisdictionr or t'other. Note Bastun's comment below. -- Evertype·✆23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would most certainly be very important for the poll to have more local support. That attitude wouldn't wash with me for one second. Tfz23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be letting the "local" newspapers in on the 'scheme', no rules about that. I'll be composing my press releases tomorrow. Tfz23:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me we are not allowed to talk to the "free press". I won't be telling anyone which way to vote, so it cant be, to use your phrase, meat puppetry. They will invariably love this as it is something new, and Wikipedia will get publicity, either good or bad. Tfz00:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything at Wikipedia:Canvassing that would be against it, but I would be concerned about it inviting a lots of new editors unfamiliar with policy etc. (I know it was floated by someone to limit balloting to established editors). Check with the mods (and ArbCom) for what their take on publicising it (in a neutral manner) off WP would be.
Why don't you draft up a letter in your user space (so you can keep "ownership" of it) and invite comments from contributors here next week. (Since it will be in *your* talk page, you will be able to tell people not to edit it or revert their edits if they do.) Then, next week, when we get a clearer picture of exactly how we are going to run this, you could finalise the letter and post it off to the Indo or Times or wherever. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why scare quotes around 'free press'? If you write neutrally and factually, then I'm sure the Indo, Examiner, Times, Metro and Herald AM will be beating down our door when they hear a majority of WP editors who expressed a preference, many of them living in Ireland, wanted to democratically decide whether the Republic of Ireland article should move to the place currently being used by the island page, or whether some other solution was possible. (How will you disambiguate between the two when you write your letter, I wonder?) They might be interested in knowing that the main opposers of a democratic vote appear to be - well, of a certain political persuasion. A really good journalist may well look at the contribution history and see where they've contributing and what they've been saying... I assume of course you won't be writing to just the one newspaper... BastunnutsaB00:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit. Bastun, it was not my intention to scare you, sorry. Rannpháirtí anaithnid, thanks for the reply. No, I must demur from your invitation, the "Wikielite" didn't listen to me before, so I'm not going to put my "press release" here on Wikipedia for all to see in advance of issue. And all the Wikilawyering? "Thanks, but no thanks". Tfz00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New schedule for polling
Given the above last check on consensus which shows that this project will never come to one in a reasonable amount of time, I now propose that the following schedule be used for voting on this matter (This will follow, with any necessary identify changes, the STV poll as listed at User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox).
Stage 1: Final input on polling issues (questions in terms of format or process) up to June 27, 2009
Stage 2: Polling opens for three weeks from June 28, 2009 and will end July 19, 2009
Stage 3: STV results will be evaluated over the week, posted no later than July 26, 2009
Stage 4: Finalize any other questions as a result of the poll by the end of August.
Final page moves (if needed) or any other impact due to the results of the poll will not occur until Stage 4 is completed.
Again, I am working off the starting point that attempting to achieve consensus will be a much longer and convoluted process that this project no longer needs, and that the poll is the next best option to resolving the issue. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. While User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has listed most of the options that have been discussed here at the draft poll page, there are probably others - some people want RoI to move to Ireland (country), I think, and there may be more variations. There also needs to be a decision on the winning quota - whether 50% + 1 is enough, or whether that should be 66% or 75% or whatever. There are probably other issues that need to be decided in advance. BastunnutsaB23:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@76.118.224.35 - I'd say yes - but less discussion and more preparing. This is not a simple 2-option ballot. If we are to ballot the entire community and the result is to be final then let's not muck it up. Better plan things properly and make sure we have everything running smoothly in advance.
Agreed. I was going to say that a week was too long, but if it's going to the full community, we should take the time to get it right. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Final page moves (if needed) or any other impact due to the results of the poll will not occur until Stage 4 is completed." - Thats a statement of a timeperiod before which they will not occur....what is the time period before they must occur if the poll calls for a move...? Does it mean that if there will be moves, they will take place before end of August? And who will enforce it...Are you a moderator? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redking, you are about to get stomped on hard by Arbcom, as soon as they read your attempts to wikilawyer on the Clarifications page. Going around making up red herrings about whether I'm a mod or not, when you know darned well that Masem is one, and he's the one who set up the schedule, is not going to help your case at all.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This timetable sounds good to me. I don't know whether Ireland (country) works as an option along with Ireland (state) and Ireland (nation) etc as this could lead to tripling the number of options in the poll. I think that the potential for readers of the Wikipedia to confuse Ireland with an entity Arkansas is a red herring. (Note that Pennsylvania is a commonwealth at one level of abstraction but a state at another level of abstraction.) Yes, the U.S. state might be a "federated state" whilst Ireland is a "sovereign state" but that ambiguity exists in the English language and is not the fault of the Wikipedia. Ireland's constitution uses the term "state". This can be handled in the introduction to the article with piping: [[Sovereign state|state]] just as [[U.S. state|state]] is used at Pennsylvania. -- Evertype·✆07:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is notice of the poll being published at all....any selection will be wrong - if the poll concerns three pages, should the normal practice not be followed - advertise it on the three pages concerned (Island, State and Dab page) in the usual way. They are the only places where notice should be given....beyond those, you are into the dangerous territory of "politically" choosing who to notify. Lets just stick to the standard rules. After all, who is to say Australians, Canadians, French, Nigerian and Samoan users should not be notified too.....
In summary, here is the list of appropriate venues where notice of the poll should be posted:
As I understood it, this was intended to be a communitywide poll, and would aim to include Australians, Canadians, French, Nigerians and Samoan, and just about anybody else. Taking it out of the 'local' community would mean that an NPOV solution woul be more likely. Fmph (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poll location - aye, either of those works. Poll notice - aye, all of those, certainly. But aren't we also going to get a Watchlist hatnote similar to when Arbcom elections are on, or the recent poll on the license to be used? BastunnutsaB09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fmph, I'm not so happy about what you've done, because now we have a fork with two nearly-identical proposals. In this case I think it would be better if you offered the proposed changes on the Talk Page of RA's poll, and let him maintain editorship of the page (he seems to be even-handed). Would that be OK with you? Incidentally I dislike your voting procedure; it is quite confusing. But can be improved. -- Evertype·✆10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put together a proposal which I hope will move this discussion forward. I’m actively looking for the support of the community in this effort. While editors are welcome to participate, based on previous discussions I have place a number of guidelines on the proposal which are designed to prevent disruption, keep the discussion on topic and provide an environment conducive to rational and reasonable discussion. As this proposal is a work in progress which I will be placing before the community as a formal process, I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal, however, if one or all of the moderators wish to adopt the process (this should not been seen as an endorsement of the proposal) it would be very welcome. The guidelines must be viewed as part of the process, and will themselves form part of the final proposal. I have placed my rational behind the proposal on the proposal page which is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article. --Domer48'fenian'09:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same proposal you already put forward. It wasn't accepted. You were disruptive when you put up the previous one, and now you are threatening to be even more disruptive: "I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal". I appeal to the moderators to refer this to Arbcom. BastunnutsaB10:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, granted, a different proposal. It is one option that can be included in the "Final poll" that the Project has indicated it wants to proceed with. Why not include it in that? BastunnutsaB10:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Masem "I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here." I have stated here on both occasions. You did not read the proposal before you commented, and as to the poll, I addressed this issue in my rational on the proposal page. --Domer48'fenian'10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already editors are trying to disrupt this proposal. Despite clear guidlines they still ignore them, [34], [35]. I used the exact same guidline as Masem on the oppose section asking editors to just sign their name and not to post comments and it is ignored [36]. This is being just plain disruptive. Next thing is to is edit war to put their unsourced opinions back in, and have their helpful Admin come along and block the page. While editors may not like the process or the proposal this type of carry on should not be condoned. --Domer48'fenian'18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this is typical to what is powering the "show" at the moment. Countries stealing names [37]. I don't think Ireland ever stole anything. Talk about political agendas, is this the future of the poll? Tfz19:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao, where is the political agenda in my comment? It is fact that the island of Ireland had the name Ireland LONG before southern Ireland decided to use the name Ireland for their country, perhaps they didnt steal it, but they certainly copied it =). Besides, i consider that page a complete joke and knew the trigger happy self proclaimed moderator would delete my comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You knew posting comments which had nothing to do with the proposal would be removed. So you were being disruptive to make a point. It's not the page that's "a complete joke" as indicated by Tfz above. Having a lets see which POV has the highest number of votes is a joke. --Domer48'fenian'21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the guidlines say "Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time. Moderator/Proposer will remove all infractions of this conditions." So you did exactly what you did before! You just can't seem to understand a simple instruction. You have to comment on an editor, and not the edit, you can't help yourself making sweeping claims and generalisations, and you could not provide a reference to save your life. It's because of this, that this whole talk page is a joke. Because of editors like you can't back up your POV. Now I know the guidlines cramp your style, because they were meant to. I trying to create informed discussion and personal POV's play no part. --Domer48'fenian'22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of whether this is a good solution or not, who is going to have confidence in any outcome when the proposer, someone heavily involved with a self evident point of view, is also the self declared arbiter of what is and is not allowed in support or opposition? As we saw from the previous attempt, what we end up with is a propaganda piece where the arguments presented are massaged to suit the POV of proposer/moderator. Have you considered that just because Domer doesn't accept an opposing justification or citation as valid, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth considering? It may just means Domer doesn't want his proposal criticized.
Have someone neutral "moderate" your proposal, or let editors express themselves without fear of you editing their comments to suit yourself, and you might get people taking it seriously. Until then, there is a process being developed under the guidance of a neutral, ArbCom appointed moderator. I suggest editors engage there instead. Rockpocket00:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The moderators should be helping out with the proposals, failure to act is a dereliction in their duties, and I blame ArbCom for their stark lack of leadership in this regard. This is why I have lost confidence in the whole process, and no doubt some form of result will be an outcome. But it will not be a NPOV outcome, it will have a very British bias I'm afraid. As can be seen from this link [38], there has been an unhealthy relationship with the UK ever since Ireland left the UK in 1922, however this is becoming history of late, but yet a residue remains. I fear these POVs will spill heavily into the Wikipedia vote, and give a 'politically' skewed outcome. We already have seen a microcosm of this today where an editor accused Ireland of "stealing" its name. From whom, I ask myself. For that reason I support editors who will work here to achieve a consensus, and an amicable conclusion. Tfz01:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we should ask both Irish and British editors to recuse themselves and leave it to the rest of us, without the weight of history on our shoulders, to decide on what the most neutral outcome would be. Up for that? Rockpocket01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would have no problem leaving the vote to a truly neutral, non-b.commonwealth, non-Irish, non-British elective body of editors to decide. Tfz02:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it weird that the editors that are going to get notified of the vote are exactly the people who might hold some POV even if that is not their intention. If I was running the show I would have Irish/NI/British editors stand back and see what people from the rest of the world think.76.118.224.35 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock do think anyone her for one minute considers you neutral, "leave it to the rest of us, without the weight of history on our shoulders, to decide on what the most neutral outcome would be." As per my comments above: You edit warred [39][40] to keep your snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. Saying you were not aware the page had been protected, holds no water here. Because you also said "even if [you] had known it was protected [you] would have still made the edit." So then adding "once the page is unprotected I'll be withdrawing both my !vote and my comments" show how hollow your arguements are. Why did you not just use your Admin tools again to remove them, why wait for the unblock, when the block did not stop you putting them back in? Your real motive in my opinion is obvious, because you wanted to "encourage everyone else to do likewise" and disrupt my proposal. Not one of yeh could come up with a policy based reason to oppose it, and all you could offer the discussion was inane comments. Well the guidlines prevent the POV pushers from disrupting the proposal, and it seems to have worked. --Domer48'fenian'08:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, I agree with you 100%, "the moderators should be helping out with the proposals, failure to act is a dereliction in their duties." --Domer48'fenian'08:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading that, it was an extremely rude and offensive piece, and AFAIK didn't get a warning from any admins, and not even from Bastun, although I told that particular editor at a later encounter that he was rude, and would ignor him. Tfz11:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested below (A serious proposal) that everybody who has taken part in the debate until now be excluded. Let the unaligned decide, free of pressure from within this debate. Scolaire (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took part in this poll in good faith.[41] My comment was not disruptive, inflammatory or disparaging of anybody else's point of view. It was deleted by Domer.[42] Note the edit summary. I don't think it is reasonable to require that editors spend the afternoon in the library before commenting. In all fairness, I would have to question the good faith of the initiator. Scolaire (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your bizarre and unreasonable dislike of being censored by Domer is not supported by reliable sources and therefore, obviously, is POV, OR, RS, WTF (and lots of other acronyms, too). If you don't agree with how Domer's interpretation of our policies informs Domer about how to moderate Domer's proposal then you are clearly disrupting the process, putting the entire encyclopaedia at risk and, very possibly, driving the space-time continuum to collapse. Rockpocket20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you also were unable to provide any sources to back up your opinion, only you edit warred to keep your POV in and outline above. It now appears that you are now reduced to a poor attempt at sarcasm to distract from this, which does not look well coming from an Admin IMO. However, I don’t think it is product to any reasoned discussion and could be viewed as disruptive.--Domer48'fenian'20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here again are the guidlines for the discussion:
Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderator/Proposer will remove all infractions of this conditions.
Here is the Editors comment:
In my view, the primary meaning of "Ireland" is the 32-county country which is currently partitioned between Ireland (the 26-county state) and Northern Ireland. The 26-county state article should therefore have an alternative title e.g. "Ireland (state)". Republic of Ireland - if it is not the title - should redirect to it, since "Republic of Ireland" is, in Irish law, the description of the state. Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the referenced sources which contradict their POV: here. Their responce of "I don't think it is reasonable to require that editors spend the afternoon in the library before commenting" is a bit lame when one notices the policies cited against their POV. To then claim censorship hold no weight in light of the fact. The guidlines are part of the proposal and outlined above so it is my view that the editor simply wished to make a point. --Domer48'fenian'20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be moved out of my/Fmph's sandbox anyway. WP:IECOLL/VOTE sounds good for an ultimate location, but maybe draft it up at somewhere like WP:IECOLL/VOTE (draft) (so people don't confuse it with the final thing before the actual date) then move it to the ultimate location when the ballot opens. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of any additional options
Currently we have six options:
A: The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.
B: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
C: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
D: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
E: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
F: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
Some editors have indicated preference for other options - e.g., use of Ireland (country); or "Ireland -> Ireland (island), Republic of Ireland -> Ireland, replacement of RoI with article on the term." These need to be collated and included.
Comments
Adding an option Ireland (country) would divide the vote for those who want it at either Ireland (state) / Ireland (country). I still think we should have a quick poll before the main one on if Country should be used or State in the main poll. This is something that should be decided before not after. On if the ROI should redirect to the country article this should be a separate question agreed after the main one IF the country article is moved. options for that would have to include - Redirect to country article. - Have suggested new article on the description or take to a disam page where the country is listed but also the Irish football team etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't know whether Ireland (country) works as an option along with Ireland (state) and Ireland (nation) etc as this could lead to tripling the number of options in the poll. I think that the potential for readers of the Wikipedia to confuse Ireland with an entity Arkansas is a red herring. Yes, the U.S. state might be a "federated state" whilst Ireland is a "sovereign state" but that ambiguity exists in the English language and is not the fault of the Wikipedia. Ireland's constitution uses the term "state". This can be handled in the introduction to the article with piping: [[Sovereign state|state]] just as [[U.S. state|state]] is used at Pennsylvania. -- Evertype·✆18:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the vote is going ahead, here is another to consider. Some people don't like 'state' as it's too much like a state as in USA, and others object to 'country' because the '32 counties' is the country of Ireland. There is a more neutral article name, Ireland (sovereign country), in that it describes the sovereign part of the country of Ireland. Entirely NPOV, and describes exactly what its supposed to describe. Tfz18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt have a problem with (Sovereign country) although it wont have the support (state) will have. Lmao @ "the sovereign part of the country of Ireland." How pathetic. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have problems with Ireland, i have a problem with your wording there Tfz. The "sovereign part of the country", implying the other part is occupied huh? There is an island called Ireland. On that island there is a sovereign country called Ireland (described sometimes as Republic of Ireland) and there is Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom. If you had said the sovereign part of the island youd be correct, but ALL of the country "Ireland" is sovereign. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you have picked it up wrongly. You should have quoted more fully "and others object to 'country' because the '32 counties' is the country of Ireland". It's what some folk think, whether we agree or disagree with them. That's why we have a term here at wikipedia called "point of view". Anyway it is a good proposal. Tfz19:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I don't think this is wise because (!) it multiplies the options in the poll, (2) "sovereign country" isn't a precise term (161,000 raw google hits) as the common and precise term is "sovereign state" (724,000 raw google hits), and (3), the State is self-described as a State right there in the same constitutional clause that has been used as strong evidence against the whole "Republic of Ireland" issue which is a primary cause of this entire debate. I really think that there is no credible argument against the word "state" except some sort of "lowest-common demoninatorism". and in fairness just stating "some people don't like 'state'" isn't enough of an argument to double the items in the poll, in my view. -- Evertype·✆19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sovereign country" does have currency, and the whole idea of the poll is to give people the choice to select their preference, no our our preference. It's as common as "Ireland state" imho.Tfz19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
You've not made any argument. You've simply gainsaid me. The phrase sovereign country has much less currency than sovereign state, and I still believe that doubling or tripling the options in the poll is a bad idea. Ireland (state) is not credibly ambiguous, and having all the options repeated with both Ireland (sovereign state) and Ireland (sovereign country) just because some Americans might mistakenly think that Ireland was on the par with Missouri. Let's set the bar a bit higher, shall we? -- Evertype·✆20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The time for arguments is now over and it's up to the voters/editors to select the term that's most appropriate. Neither term is particularily correct anyhow, for I have never seen the string "Ireland (state)" written anywhere, except here at Wikipedia. To claim a 'primary string' for disambiguation is a wide open debate indeed, and there is no 'right way', only 'better ways'. Tfz20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the solution to this problem would be to have a quick vote before the main vote starts. Just so we can see which option (country) (state) (sovereign state) (something else) should be placed in the main vote, rather than splitting votes by including different options in the main one. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what Tfz is saying is he wants:
A: The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.
B: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
C: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
D: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
E: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
F: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
G: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
H: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
I: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
J: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
K: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
L: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
I would like to see consensus on this before it is accepted. I oppose it, but will accept consensus. RA? Fmph? Masem? -- Evertype·✆23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very messy and complicate matters yes, i also strongly oppose it. The quickest and simplest resolution to this problem is a quick poll on what term should be used in the main vote. (country), (state), (sovereign country)(sovereign state) etc. Its likely to be state that wins but atleast we will know its what the majority support. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal take is that these options have very limited support, but perhaps the solution is to have a single polling option covering all 3. So
X: ...... The state at Ireland (<dab-phrase>)
And post PRSTV, if that option is selected by the voters, then we re-poll on what the <dab-phrase> should be. But I doubt it will be selected. Fmph (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thats a bad idea. Scrub that. Instead add an Option G: None of the above. That may well prove popular with lots of people, and will allow the disgruntled to make a meaningful vote. If it proved to be the most popular option, then we would have to go back to the starting blocks. But we've been there before. Fmph (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree with a "None of the above" - that puts us right back at square one, where we were in Decemeber. (It also leaves the status quo, which is my preference anyway - but I'd rather have the status quo retained by community consensus expressed through this vote than face another year of arguments, polls, edit wars, etc.) BastunnutsaB09:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "none of the above" vote approach has been implied from the past - since a user does not have to rank all options and has been suggested that if they are totally against one option to not rank it at all, a user could submit a totally empty vote implying "none of the above". Yes, if that "wins" we're back at the table, but I see this as a necessary inclusion but a slim chance of happening. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody really need to see "sovereign state" or "sovereign country" in the poll? I have not heard anyone saying "Hey, I absolutely cannot live with 'state'! I insist on other options!" All I have heard is some people saying that some other people might be confused about the status of Ireland vis à vis subdivisions of the US or Australia. That's not a compelling argument to add 6 new options to the poll. -- Evertype·✆10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a poll before hand to narrow down the Ireland (state/country/sovereign entity/intergalactic time traveller HQ) options. While in theory all options can be put in an STV poll, in practice too many similar choice split the vote for those options - hence, for example, why political parties usually only field a number of candidates equal the number of seats up for grabs in a constituency. I think two variations on the theme is the most we should include in the ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed before that instead of spelling exactly "Ireland (state)" in the options above, instead to say that the name is requested at a second question on the poll, and then to have another STV for that aspect. That keeps the options above manageable to six while still resolving this part. The only question is: if you support any option that currently is listing the country at "Ireland (state)", would your choice change if that was instead "Ireland (nation)" or something else, presuming that we're talking a disamb. phrase within reason? --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A concern with having a "Republic of Ireland → Ireland (xxx)" option in the ballot, with what "xxx" is decided afterwards is one option will represent many possible alternatives, which otherwise may not attract a single "bloc" of voters. Image, for example, that the "Ireland (xxx)" option wins the ballot with 50%+1 (and that another option have 49%). We might then have another ballot for what "xxx" is to be where "nation" wins with 33%+1 (not having even reached the quota!). That would mean that the "winner" for the ballot overall would have the support of only 17% of the community (and we would have thrown out an option that had 49% support).
If it was to be done, the ballots would have to be done the other way around i.e. first poll on options for "xxx" then the top options from that poll in the actual ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To reduce this as an issue, the wording of the second question would asked "Regardless of your response to the previous question, which of the following choices do you believe is the best appropriate disambiguation phrase to describe the 26-county nation called Ireland?" It removes the necessary tie in with the previous question. Now, there may be people that want the county to be at "Republic of Ireland" and refuse any disambiguation name, and will null vote here. That's ok as a result. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue. Imagine another ballot: one where the question is do you want a) chocolate or b) toast or cheese. The "toast or cheese" option is like the "Ireland (xxx)" option. It would attract an aggregate of votes (i.e. votes from people who want toast and votes from people who want cheese). In reality, people who want toast may prefer chocolate as their second choice. However, the consequence of having one "toast or cheese" option is that not matter what their real preference, the votes of all people who vote for "cheese" would be treated as if their second preference was "toast".
It would be better to split "toast or cheese" into "toast" and "cheese". In the same way it would be better to split "Ireland (xxx)" in to (say) "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (country)". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I realize what you are saying, but I'm trying to judge this: how many people, given that they were separate options on the main question, would rank them in an order like this: "Ireland (state)", "Republic of Ireland", "Ireland (nation)". Based on the opinions I've seen here, I'm having a hard time seeing this type of opinion forming, though it could happen - the question is, is this likely going to affect the results? I'd rather keep the choices on the STV fewer to make it easier to understand the results, but if we need to address these at the same time, then maybe we have to do that. But I don't want to have one poll to decide on the possible name, and then a second to put that name into place for the solution. I really think that a two-question approach is not going to skew the results; maybe we can asked a secondary question that is "Do you feel the choice of disamb descriptor for the country article would have affected your choice in the first question?" - if there's more than a handful of responses here, then maybe we take the result of the disamb descriptor question and start a new vote using that. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue can be avoided entirely by polling the "xxx" options first and including the most popular options in the ballot. Either way we would have to run two polls. Polling the "xxx" options first avoids the possibility of a catch-all "xxx" option distorting the results. It's clearer too to vote for an known value (e.g. "Ireland (nation)") rather than an unknown, to-be-decided-in-future value. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should have a mini vote before the main vote to decide what term is placed in (----) after Ireland for the country article, such as state/nation etc. I think its far better to have a known word there rather than voting for something with may change as some people would support Ireland (country) but may not support Ireland (state) because of its like a US state rather tha a sovereign one, BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This really pisses me off, BritishWatcher, and it seems to me as though this is a blocking tactic. I'll try to assume good faith however. I have given fair arguments for preferring Ireland (state) to {sovereign x) above. You're just back here reciting the unsubstantiated claim that "some people" would be confused by the polyvalence of the word "state". This is easily remedied. (1) in the poll, state that "In Ireland (state) the word state refers to Sovereign state", (2) in the eventual Ireland (state) article, clarify state in the first sentence and you're done. The term state should be preferred, because that is what the Constitution of Ireland calls it (so you can blame that), regardless of US and Australian practice. The words "country", "state", and "nation" are all polyvalent, but that problem is outside of the Wikipedia. Please, please, can't we get a move on? -- Evertype·✆08:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that some people may have the preferences: 1. Ireland (state), 2. Republic of Ireland and then far down the line Ireland (country). Having one combined Ireland (xxx) option in the ballot and then deciding what "xxx" is afterwards means that by voting for Ireland (state) their second preferences automatically goes towards Ireland (country). It would be better to run the polls the other way around: to first poll on what "xxx" options should be included then include only the top two or three of those in the actual ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who? What people? Who is saying "I don't want Ireland (state) to be the option on the poll, I want something else instead"? What is wrong with using Ireland (state) given the use of the term in Bunreacht na hÉireann, and indeed, the historical Irish Free State? Which editors here are saying "I get confused every time I see the word state"? Where are you going to poll the (xxx) options? Community-wide? Here? I find this really frustrating. I see it as a way to prevent progress. -- Evertype·✆08:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I don't mind whether the vote on the disambiguator comes before or during the poll but I do think that Masem has a strong point that no-one who wants "Ireland (whatever)" is going to prefer "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (not the particular whatever they preferred as a first choice)". DrKiernan (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it logically follows that someone who favours any "(xxx)" option would have every subsequent preference for any/every other "(xxx)" solution. I think it will end up distorting the poll greatly. In the event of a second poll then to decide what "xxx" means, we could very easily find ourselves in the position where the range of options are such that everyone is left unhappy. Far, far better IMHO to run the polls the other way around (and it's not as if it is extra work). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To give myself as an example, I would rank "Ireland (state)" above "Republic of Ireland". Somewhere thereafter I would rank a merge of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, followed by moving the state to "Ireland". "Ireland (country)" would be far down my list and I wouldn't vote for "Ireland (nation)" at all. Having one "Ireland (xxx)" option would force me to give my 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th preferences to the "country", "nation", "sovereign state" and "sovereign country" options despite them not being my preferences at all. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear. I'm saying that I don't see anyone saying "I insist on having options other than Ireland (state) in the poll". I have suggested that adding those options increases the size of the poll needlessly. If there is a NEED to be added, we should add them. But I think this is predicated on a big "some people might be confused by 'state'" pseudo-argument, since nobody is raising their hand saying they are actually so confused. -- Evertype·✆11:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having every permutation of "Ireland (xxx)" on the ballot would be insane (and despite STV theory, in practice it might split the "(xxx)" vote). IIRC the most likely options were "(state)" and "(country)". Was "(sovereign state)" a contender too? I too remember conceding that "state" might be misunderstood (by non-Europeans?).
I think we're talking across each other, Everytype. The argument I'm having is over two options:
a) to have "Ireland (xxx)" as the option on the ballot paper then, if that is selected by the vote, to run a second poll to decide what "(xxx)" should be (i.e. "state", "country", "sovereign state", etc.)
b) to run a poll first (here?) to decide the "best" one, two or (max?) three "(xxx)" options then include those in the poll.
I'm saying that I would be dead set against a) because it would distort the vote (by aggregating all "(xxx)" votes as if they were the same) and not allow for expression of preferences around the "(xxx)" options (e.g. like ranking "state" higher than "Republic of Ireland" but ranking "country" lower than that again). BritishWatcher was of the same opinion above. Masem thinks that a is the way to go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, State is very poorly done here on Wikipedia, and gives all the wron impressions. Has the word "state" a more modern loose meaning, as it sounds like province/territory. "Country" I think is more common, but can't offer a citation on that at present. Tfz11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting pretty sick of this unsubstantiated guff. The word "state" is polyvalent. That means "it means more than one thing". In terms of Ireland, the term "state" is precise and correct, and is specified in the Constitution of Ireland. In the meaning A particular form of polity or government it is attested as far back as 1538 STARKEY England 56 Ther ys the veray and true commyn wele; ther ys the most prosperouse and perfayt state, that in any cuntrey, cyte, or towne, by pollycy and wysdom, may be stablyschyd and set. In the meaning A republic, non-monarchical commonwealth it is attested as far back as 1656 WALLER To Evelyn 2 Lucretius, with a stork-like fate, Born and translated in a State, Comes to proclaim in English verse No Monarch rules the universe. 1651 HOBBES Leviathan IV. xlv. 365 When Augustus Cæsar changed the State into a Monarchy. 1673 DRYDEN Amboyna Prol. 22 Well, Monarchys may own Religions name, But States are Atheists in their very frame. Its modern use, meaning the body politic as organized for supreme civil rule and government; the political organization which is the basis of civil government (either generally and abstractly, or in a particular country); hence, the supreme civil power and government vested in a country or nation., is attested also in 1538 STARKEY England 48 The kyng, prynce, and rular of the state... The gouernance of the commynalty and polytyke state... He or they wych haue authoryte apon the hole state. Ibid. 53 Whether the state of the commynalty be gouernyd by a prynce, by certayn wyse men, or by the hole multytude. Here are some more: 1538 STARKEY Ibid. 53 Whether the state of the commynalty be gouernyd by a prynce, by certayn wyse men, or by the hole multytude. 1590 in Cath. Rec. Soc. Publ. V. 179 For the better understanding of the trewthe of matters agenst her Maiestie and the Stayte. 1594 [see PILLAR n. 3b]. 1617 MORYSON Itin. II. 17 Which may concerne the good of the State. a1618 RALEIGH Rem. (1644) 2 State is the frame or set order of a Common-wealth, or of the Governours that rule the same, especially of the chief and Sovereign Governour that commandeth the rest. The State or Sovereignty consisteth in five points. 1. Making or annulling of Laws. 1622 BACON Hen. VII 8 As one that hauing beene somtimes an Enimie to the whole State, and a Proscribed person. 1681 DRYDEN Abs. & Achit. I. 174 Resolv'd to Ruine or to Rule the State. 1697 Virg. Georg. IV. 229 All is the State's, the State provides for all. 1834 ARNOLD in Stanley Life (1844) I. vii. 376 The State, being the only power sovereign over human life, has for its legitimate object the happiness of its people. 1879 M. ARNOLD Democracy Mixed Ess. 42 The State is properly..the nation in its collective and corporate capacity. 1884 SPENCER (title) The Man versus the State. 1891 C. LOWE in 19th Cent. Dec. 858 The railways..in Prussia are now all in the hands of the State. The modern usage as found in the US and Australia, is not as old: One of a number of polities, each more or less sovereign and independent in regard to internal affairs, which together make up a supreme federal government; as in the United States of America or the Commonwealth of Australia. Attested 1634 Mass. Bay Rec. (1853) I. 117 When I shalbe called to give my voice touching any such matter of this state, wherein ffreemen are to deale, [etc.]. 1774 JEFFERSON Writ. (1892) I. 420 A proper device (instead of arms) for the American states united would be the Father presenting the bundle of rods to his son. Even in Ireland before independence we find this: 1882 M. ARNOLD Irish Ess. 97 State-aided elementary schools. Not "Country-aided elementary schools". -- Evertype·✆17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By copying all this from the OED, you've just defeated your own argument by confirming that "state" has meant a state in the American sense for over 350 years. DrKiernan (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? There is one hit for that meaning from 1638, but the others are from North America 1774. All of the other hits were about the non-US/Australian meaning, going back 100 years earlier! Are you really confused by the use of the word "state", DrKiernan? -- Evertype·✆00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest two options (they can be handled separately):
To figure out the best "xxxx" options to include for "Ireland (xxxx)" names for the country, I will open a quick feedback poll to ask editors to submit, irregardless if they feel the country should be at RoI or "Ireland" w/o disamb, three options they feel "xxxx" should be. This will close Friday, and the top 3 (or 4 if a tie) will be used as options in the STV poll.
My gut feeling is that editors outside of this group are going to care less exactly what "xxxx" is, as long as it resolves the naming dispute - there may be purists (as exampled above) but I think the majority may not care. Furthermore, I worry that if we push the number of options to 12 or 15, non-involved editors (the ones we want to participate) may skip the poll thinking it too complex. Regardless, let's keep it an option but manage that expectation: In the presentation of the questions where "Ireland (xxxx)" is an option (such as presently B on the 6-choice poll), I propose that we keep the main option as say "country at 'Ireland (xxxx)' where xxxx is some appropriate disambiguation descriptor.", and then provide options B1, B2, etc. for each of the possible "xxxx" choices. In voting, a user can opt to preference vote for any individual option and/or the general B option. In tallying, if the general B option is eliminated before the winner is selected, all "B" votes immediately morph to the current best scoring sub-B option. So for example, say that B1, B3, and B remain, but B is eliminated - at the time B1 has the majority of remaining highest preference votes and thus all those Bs are virtually treated as B1s. Now a few rounds later, both B1 and B3 remain, but now due to other factors, B3 is the highest in preference votes - at this point all those Bs that were treated as B1s become treated as B3s. This allows for the generic option as well as the specific options to be used. I'm trying to think of scenarios that might be difficult to understand the results from in this but I can't think of what they might be. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When and where will you do this. Masem? There are four or five options (state, country, nation, sovereign state, sovereign country). -- Evertype·✆17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed (republic) again. I think it would be easier to run this as an STV poll, just selecting the winning option. As some people don't seem to understand how STV works, it might also be a useful trial run. DrKiernan (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy hand grenades. You want Ireland (republic) on the ballot? What a farce. This has never been proposed by anyone before. Ireland is DEFINED by its Constitution as a State, even if DESCRIBED as a republic in an Act of the Oireachtas. Your suggestion seems outrageous. -- Evertype·✆00:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (Republic of)? In any event, I don't see these "minor" options being very likely. There's no point in fussing too much over options that are likely to get eliminated in the early rounds. But ... it's Wednesday so can we get a bullet list of what we are going to include? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course (Republic of) will be eliminated. That's partly the point of having a poll: to eliminate unfavourable options. If these options are not eliminated in a transparent way, then there is a danger that someone will come along later and say "Oh, but, we never discussed/voted on 'Ireland (land of the leprechauns)' so the vote is invalid." I want to ensure that the most favoured possible option for change is selected, whether it be state (I hope not), country (I hope so), republic (I wouldn't mind), nation (I oppose strongly), sovereign state (I hope not), or (Republic of) (the winner! [not]). DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We presumably need a clear, short, statement (max of x words) for each option explaining why each one is "viable" or should be chosen - with links to the previous Project statement pages?
Comments
This is certainly needed as we will be opening this up to anyone and everyone probably best in bullet points rather than a statement. But i strongly believe each option should also provide the counter arguments. So for example on the country is at Ireland option we have Say yes because.. Ireland is the commonname for the country. But we also say Say no because Ireland is ambiguous. The island of Ireland had the name long before the state etc.
If we are doing bullet points then everyone can add what they want and it just needs cleaning up by someone, if its going to be a written statement we may need a vote on which statement to use (or just go with the one the majority clearly support). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not first assess the validity of arguments, rather than promoting each option. This just opens up the whole issue again. We know what editors positions (POV's) are, lets policy test them before we present them to the community. --Domer48'fenian'07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
verifiable, reliable sources are of paramount importance, as in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Any lazy approach to these factors is amateurish in the extreme, and quite startling if not addressed before anything proceeds. Tfz11:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With STV, 50%+1 is what you would tend to get. The process, by its mathematical nature, does not need to show a greater majority. If we ran a simple first past the post ballot, it might be prudent to require a greater than 50% majority. The whole process of PRSTV obviates that requirement. And in the end, ArbCom and the WP bureaucracy could always overrules a decision from here if it were obviously a bad decision. Fmph (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly need a majority of atleast 50% for the option to win without a tranferable vote. If say something got 55% but a second option won 95% with the transferable vote then i think the mods should agree to implement the one with an overwhelming majority rather than the 55%. Im not sure what the figure would have to be to override a majority of 55% but it would have to be over 80% or something like that on the transferable vote to justify overriding the majority on the first vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, BW. If we're running this under Single transferable vote (which is the consensus), then if an option passes the quota (which yes, reading Fmph's comment, should almost certainly be 50% + 1), it wins. If on the first count, no option reaches the quota, then the least popular option is eliminated, and those who voted for it have their second preferences (if any) counted and added to the results from Count 1. If there is still no option reaching the quota, a second elimination takes places and there is a third count - and so on, until an option does pass the quota. BastunnutsaB16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found First Past The Post very confusing when I first moved to the UK. That an electorate would allow themselves to be governed by a political party which did not command the support the of the majority of the electorate is very confusing to many democrats. Fmph (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These strange voting systems confuse me, its why i like First past the post which is nice and simple. If an option meets the quota set then it should win, all im saying is if there is another option that with transferable vote has like 90%+ support then in the interests of reaching an option that the most people are satisfied with it should probably be chosen despite the other option winning the original vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not let everyone have multiple choice voting, that is voting for their more popular choices and not voting for the choices that they don't like. That would work like proportional voting, and give a less contentious result. For instance, if a voter 'could live' with 3 different options, then that voter could vote for all those 3 options, and ignore all of the other options. It's worth considering. Tfz23:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have consensus for STV, and STV means you should rank your preferences. Note that I *have* suggested that people be allowed to vote "0" (zero) for any choice they "can't live with". (I always fill out my ballot completely, so as to prevent anyone from filling in a box I left blank. Also for the pleasure of putting the unacceptable at the bottom of the list.) -- Evertype·✆10:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And in any case I don't see how a STV vote would be any more contentious than a multiple-choice vote - you have more "say" in the outcome of an STV vote than you would under multiple-choice. BastunnutsaB10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:IRV counting flowchart.1.pngflowchart for counting IRV Votes @MickMacNee. If you're only choosing a single winner using single transferable voting, cut-off levels are not really necessary. According to Wikipedia, STV to choose single winner is sometimes called instant-runoff voting, though I've not encountered that term before. With a bit of thought you'll see that when only a single winner is being chosen, in every circumstance, the Droop quota (requiring 50%+1) yields precisely the same result as the flow-chart on the right, and indeed as the less-commonly-used Hare quota (which requires 100%). (The Hare quota requires many additional iterations to get the answer, but once a single option reaches 50%+1 it cannot fail to eventually get to 100% once all the fifth, tenth, twentieth... choice votes are factored in.) Cut-offs, whether at the top end to allow a winner to be declared early or for multiple losers to eliminated early, are just algorithmic devices to simplify and speed up the calculation of the winner without changing the result. Saving an iteration or two when you have millions of paper votes is a big benefit; saving an iteration or two when you have a few dozen electronic votes really isn't much gain. So we can do things nice and straightforwardly and use the flowchart on the right until someone reaches 50%+1. —ras52 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment and need for clarification, it appears we are allowing users to null vote for certain options, with the implication that you absolutely, positively cannot live with null voted options. This would imply that 1) it is possible for the final winning option to fail to get 100% when all choices are considered, and that 2) it is possible that no option could get more than 50% when all options are considered - meaning that the community has rejected all the solutions, and we will need to return to the discussion board.
However, I will agree (in contrast with my earlier statement) that 50%+1 as the winning option seems best, though the tally will work through all the numbers. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ras52. There's no advantage to setting a higher quota to find a "winner" - any option that gets 50%+1 will beat all others (always).
That said, an advantage to running iterations of the count past 50%+1 would be if we set a quota - not for declaring a "winner" - but for deciding a minimum before the "winner" would be deemed to be *binding* on the community (e.g. only if the "winner" got 66% of preferences would it be deemed to be binding on the community). Fmph has recommended software for calculating the result (OpenSTV). Using that software some options will perform the Hare method - which would allow us to see if any option got greater than, say, 66%.
Also, what Masem says is true. It is possible using STV that the "winner" will have less 50%+1. In such a circumstance, will be declare that although we have winner (under the formula), we will not accept it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This vote should end the dispute full stop. Obviously if a majority vote is gained, there is a consensus for it to get the go-ahead. If this vote isn't the end, we will be back to square one and many more months of endless, pointless discussion will continue.
It must be made a rule though that all of the options A-F must be numbered 1-6 like this:
Not true - because we have not listed all possible solutions, a possibility of no option winning 50%+1 exists and is useful; it means we need to seek other options (For a matter of principle, editors will be encourage to suggest options if they don't see one they agree with on the voting talk page - these won't be part of the vote, but they will be our next steps if this fails). The chance of that happening here? WP:SNOW. We'll worry about it if it comes to pass, but nothing that requires us to alter how the vote should be conducted. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's no advantage to forcing people to use up all of their options. It doesn't create consensus by forcing people to artificially rank their preferences.
With regard to "If this vote isn't the end..." - we have to options either
a) this is the end and the "winner" of the ballot (regardless of whether it be SNOW or less than 50%+1) is binding on the community
b) this may be the end
If is it b) then can we please set out metrics before the ballot happens for what will constitute a binding result? e.g. if a Hare quota is used will 50% be binding? 66%? If an option gets 90% will it be binding? (This too is another reason not to force people to use all of their options because that would artificially create a 100% Hare quota.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Masem's comments about "null votes", this is problem that real-world elections have to deal with too, and the standard way of dealing with this (see single transferable vote and related articles) allow for this. If a voter's top preference is for the least popular option in a given iteration of the scoring, that vote is discarded and their next highest preference is used in the next iteration. This is true irrespective of whether they've specified a next highest vote. The result is that once all of a voters preferences are exhausted, the vote is treated if an empty ballot paper were handed in — i.e. it is treated as if it were a spoilt paper (though typically not added to the tally of spoilt papers). That's the standard procedure in any STV election where it's permissible to omit your least favourite choices. This means that sometimes in the final stages of the election, the number of active votes is reduced, but you still inevitably eventually get 100% consensus from those whose votes are still being counted (which will include everyone who ranked all the options). If you think about this, this is good. Clearly in any election someone who chooses to vote is going to have more effect on the result than someone who abstains. Similarly, someone who doesn't fully rank all the choices may get less say than someone who does. Though in practice, if you genuinely consider all unranked preferences to be equally bad there's absolutely no need to rank everything.
In answer to Rannṗáirtí, I think there's some confusion here. If you go for a Hare quota, then by definition you need 100% quota to get a binding decision. Not 50%+1, not 66%, and not 90%. However per my previous paragraph, because of the way it deals with unranked options, you are inevitably guaranteed a 100% quota because anyone who has only ranked minority options eventually gets remove from the voting. (And as a corollary, by ranking everything you will never have less influence on the outcome than if you omitted your least favourite few.) Yes, arguably this is artificially creating a 100% consensus. But any voting system is to some extent artificial. And I think we would be better off using a well-documented, well-understood system such as standard STV. To repeat the gist of my earlier email: whether you use a Droop quota, a Hare quota or the IRV flowchart makes absolutely no difference to the outcome in any circumstances (because we're only after a single winner). — ras52 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should just clarify — I'm not saying we shouldn't do something that may fail to reach a decision because of unranked choices. However, if we want to do that, we need to be clear about precisely how we are going to conduct the vote because saying single transferable voting is no longer sufficient as what we would be doing would not be a standard STV. So by all means do something different, but make sure the procedure is fully documented beforehand to avoid subsequent arguing about how to interpret the votes. — ras52 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. I believe we should accept the STV outcome of 50%+1, with the proviso that - as ever - the mods and admins can enforce a different decision (poss going back to the drawing board) if they are not happy that the result will best serve the community. I think we are chasing a red herring on quota.
@FF3000 - It is NOT pointless to try and get a consensual decision like this, even if one of the options may be "go back to the drawing board". We cannot possibly have an infinite wisdom and knowledge, nor to be prescient of what's to come. I am quite sure that is entirely possible for the whole process to be scrapped because of something we have not foreseen. But that is no reason for not trying.
@RA/@Masem We should not try to second guess the electorate by assigning reasons for their actions and assuming we know why they have voted in a particular way. Null votes, incomplete ballots, 'lazy' '1234567' votes, are all acceptable. Let the community decide how they want to cast their votes. Don't try to 2nd guess. Fmph (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Fmph/Ra52 - The "quota" doesn't matter. Forget about it. Let's stop even talking about it. This is a "one-seat constituency" so we will *not* be using a quota for *anything*.
Fmph, I think you believe that the quota will be used to determine a winner. No so (but it is commonly thought that that is what it is for). It is entirely possible for an option to be elected without having reached the "quota" - and *always* at least one candidate in an a real-life election is elected without having reached the quota. (Although anyone that reaches the number given by the Droop quota is guaranteed to be elected, hence the misconception that the quota signifies a winner.) The real purpose of the quota is in calculating transfer ballots: ballots cast for a candidate in excess of the quota are transferred to other candidates. Depending on whether you use the Droop or Hare quota the number of ballots transferred in this way will be different.
Since we will only be electing one candidate, there will be no such transfer and so there is no "quota". 50%+1 only comes into it because this is the magic number - if any options receives that number of votes then it is guaranteed to be the winner - but it is also possible that the winner may not receive 50%+1. No option will receive a "Hare quota" of 100% unless *everyone* who votes uses *all* of their preferences. Neither of these numbers represent the Hare or Droop quota in any real way (because ballots in excess of them will not be transferred), so please can we stop talking about "quotas".
The only point of running an election based on the "Hare quota" is because - **in our case** - the Hare quota represents 100%. It would mean counting all ballots and making all possible transfers until we are left with just one option and a percentage to say how close to 100% it got (it will *not* get 100% in practice). Regardless of what percentage that option got - even if it is less than 50%+1 - it will be the winner under STV rules ... *BUT* we can decide to attach an extra proviso: to only accept as binding a winner that got, say, greater than 50%, greater than 66%, greater than 90%, etc.
The question is not about "quotas" in the STV sense but about an extra bench mark we can set for ourselves. The choices are a) to accept the result of STV as biding regardless of what percentage the final option got or b) to only accept the result as binding if it received a super majority after transfers. STV will give us a) regardless (even without reaching a "quota"). The advantage of b) is that is would give extra democratic legitimacy to a binding decision - but risks us not agreeing on a *final* decision. (I think the benefits of b) outweigh the risks, especially we we set a relatively low super majority of, say, 66%.)
"We should not try to second guess the electorate by assigning reasons for their actions and assuming we know why they have voted in a particular way." I don't know what you mean by this. I never said any such thing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Organising advertisement of poll, including hatnote
A list of pages/projects is published below. Presumably we should also inform those who have previously contributed to the Project. Does anyone know how to go about organising a Watchlist hatnote similar to those used when Arbcom elections are on, or the recent one on change of WP's licence?
In my opinion, we should at least notify the users who have previously participated here. It could be done with a template written by a moderator to ensure neutral wording - little more than a pointer to the poll page and what the closing date is? BastunnutsaB13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A full watchlist notice is probably not going to happen; those that maintain that really discourage from topics that only affect a small number of editors and articles (which this truly is) from using that space (otherwise, everyone's pet cause would be up there). WP:CENT needs to be added. As for individual users, the only two sets I would use are those that have been named in the ArbCom case and those that are members of this project; attempts to bring in anyone else specifically may seem to be canvasing. However, with all the other locations, this should probably be wide enough. - Oh, and also add in ArbCom as a place where it will be advertized - at least in the sense of notifying them this is occuring. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can at least request a Watchlist hatnote, though? This is, after all, an Arbcom initiative to resolve a long-running dispute. BastunnutsaB16:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im ok with the above listed although i dont know why Scotland is listed and not England and Wales as well. My main concern is that if the Ireland wikiproject / notice board is listed the UK one MUST be listed as well, not too fussed about Scotland/Wales/Englands projects. I certainly think everyone signed up to this project should be contacted, maybe all those on the list for being involved when trying to get Arbcom to act on this should also be sent a message. Agreed there needs to be a template placed on certain articles talk pages too. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my request for a full watchlist notification, this process has gone on for so long, and I have seen much more trivial rubbish on the wathclist before. I recently spammed an Rfc regarding a massively important issue which was relevant to the entire pedia, in all the relevant venues including wp:cent, except the watchlist; it has to date got barely 30 opinions. We should not start cherry picking which projects get a say. Canvassing individual users is utterly out of the question (barring Sarah777, I am genuinely interested in how she would vote) MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also tend to agree. Many Americans can hardly distinguish England from Britain, never mind Scotland, Wales, or Ireland—even those who are reasonably good editors. It's a "feature" of the educational system (and I went through that system though I'm 19 years in Ireland now). I don't believe listing the USA notice board is appropriate, any more than listing the Australian or South African notice boards would be appropriate. -- Evertype·✆18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What has the change in the RoI page to do with Britain then, that's one of the reasons why this whole process is all wrong, if you are correct. Tfz16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be realistic here. The goal is to get a solution which, at least for a time, reduces the levels of conflict. That means involving the Irish Diaspora. Over the years there have been a lot of Canadian editors involved as well as Australians etc. etc. All of those are part of the complex political heritage that has produced the problem in the first place. Also we need an international perspective on this, not just the hothouse that is the editorial group who have failed to achieve consensus so far.--SnowdedTALK07:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you decide which country noticeboards get notified? There's a small but significant Irish community in Argentina, for example (an Irishman founded their navy). I know a couple of Irish people living in Nepal. Someone has added Wikiproject Middle Ages, above. I don't see the relevance at all, but it may well be valid. Really, this points again towards the really obvious noticeboards Irish/British noticeboards and needing the hatnote... BastunnutsaB09:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the navy out of this. Argentina should be there on the list, as it has many friendly relations and historical ties with Ireland. And countries like Nepal can bring NPOV factors into the voting. Tfz12:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆10:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Argentina be deemed NPOV and be included and Nepal be deemed POV and excluded? What about Nigeria? Lebanon? Ingushetia (oh - another state not on its official name)? Who decides? Really, the various Irish and UK noticeboards/projects/pages should be the only ones in addition to the likes of WP:CENT - and are the only ones necessary if we can get the hatnote. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!12:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, Nepal may be NPOV, but we DO also want some measure of intelligence applied. We could announce it to Iran noticeboard. I've been there several times and one thing I can tell you is that when you mention Ireland they all think of two things: Bobby Sands and Chris de Burgh. How's that for well-informed? If we include the US noticeboard, we will need introductory information describing the constituent countries of the UK, since many, many Americans do not distinguish between the UK and Great Britain and England. Yes, there are folks out there who think that Wales and Scotland are in England, because Elizabeth II is Queen of England. -- Evertype·✆13:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the USA has been added is because certain editors dont like the fact that UK wikipedians should be informed. This message is going to be placed on many different wikiprojects, Countries / Geography boards will attract many Americans and non British / Irish editors so i really dont see the need of including individual countries other than the UK / Ireland / Northern Ireland. I dont really see the need for England,Scotland and Wales to be listed but ok either way with that. Just as long as UK editors are treated the same way Ireland editors are.
Dont get me started on the American media and their incompetence on reporting the British monarchy. Youd think international organisations would know better than to make silly mistakes like "Queen of England" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it that UK are getting special concessions over the moving of the RoI article. Tfz13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more in the structure of the 'whole' process, that I have my reservations. That's what I mean, why should everything be tied together, one would almost think that Ireland and the British isles were all one. Anyway, the initial concern was a move from RoI to a less pov-infected name, and we end up with a multi-dimensional voting process of almost trans-galactical proportions that has become overgrown to the original notion of an article name change. Tfz14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol well what ever the voting system used im pretty sure that the country artcle will be moved from the Republic of Ireland article at the end of the day, so surely thats better than the current setup. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to notify any other country WP outside of those already listed. The naming is central to the ones listed, much less so for the other ones, so there's no vested interest in those. There will still be general notification via CENT and VPP. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the countries of Europe must be informed, especially those of the EU. Countries with strong connections with the state of Ireland too, especially in regard to the renaming of the RoI article. Tfz19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why WP:USA? It seems bizarre. And Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages - WTF!? UK and Ireland forums only should be the only "ethnic" forums contacted (and I think it would be better to avoid projects such as Irish Republicanism for fear of forgetting Irish Unionism). For completeness, I would like messages posted at forums for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I would not put a notice of Irish Free State (it is a historical state). Other notices should only be put on "neutral" forums e.g. WP:CENT and the Village Pump. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting stupid now, why are we adding countries like spain and portugal... this is pointless. British and Irish forums are the only nationalities that need to be informed, non British / Irish editors will see the messages on the other projects like Countries, Geography etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I see words like bizarre being used, I know that argument being offered is empty and devoid of any real substance. Firstly France, Spain, and Portugal are neighbours of Ireland, check it on the map, and they should be included according to your own criteria BW. There are more Irish people living in the USA than the whole population of the Channel Isles and Island of Man combined. You should understand that this is a community wide poll. Tfz20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with what i said. I said the UK noticeboard must be notified because the United Kingdom shares the island of Ireland with the Republic. France, Spain, Portugal DONT. Again i strongly oppose this idea of posting on different country projects other than that of the UK / Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it should be a different and completely seperated issue altogether. Bundling 'things' together at Wikipedia is a new and ill thoughtout manouver that is making a complete laugh out of the project. Tfz22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we cant change the mandate of this process it makes sense to have a central debate on this matter to decide the outcome of all the pages. Otherwise u could be in a case where people on ROI decide something and people on Ireland decide the complete opposite, whod vote would be more important and override the other?? We have to deal with what we have, this is a vote on all the Ireland naming issues, there for that includes the island of Ireland which has a direct impact on UK wikipedians aswell as Irish ones. I fail to see how any other country is impacted besides UK/Ireland BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UK has absolutely nothing to do with the RoI page than the USA, Russia, or China. Weren't UK kicked out in 1922. It's nearly 100 years ago, to use your own words. Tfz23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about special arrangements for UK voters above other countries. Fundamentally flawed. Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented. Tfz23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about one article, this process involves several. I know you dont like that fact but u should accept it. Part of the Island of Ireland is the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]s land, you cant exclude people in such a case. If we wanted to do something about Europe ud have to wikiprojects for every European country. This involves the island of Ireland there for both sovereign states wikiprojects must be informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to exclude the UK, it's editors here trying to exclude other countries, is my point. Tfz23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"When I see words like bizarre being used, I know that argument being offered is empty and devoid of any real substance." I didn't offer an argument. The reasoning is surely self evident? One of the pages being discussed is Ireland. Two states occupy Ireland: the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Hence, it's fair assume that this ballot might be of interest to editors that watch the Ireland and UK notice boards. You are of course free to post notices to other countries' notice boards. I just think the people that watch them will scratch their heads and wonder why-in-the-hell you're so keen on telling about some ballot on renaming an article that has nothing to do with the topics of their notice board. But, sure, if it makes you happy, knock yourself out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GUBU was a phrase used by CJH, in case you didn't know, and would you? I might have more respect for your "snide remarks" if you had some extra 'article edits' under your belt. We are talking about a level playing field for the poll. The poll should not be advertised in any one jurisdiction above another, otherwise it will be a flawed poll, and "will never be accepted" here at Wikipedia. Can you look ahead? Tfz00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Internet ate my response) WP:GAA has 27 members, 2 of whose names I recognise from elsewhere on WP. So hardly "many users". The problem with including one niche wikiproject is that you'd then have to include them all. Where do you draw the line? The main article pages/country noticeboards/central discussion areas should be sufficient - though again, I really think we should try to get the Watchlist hatnote notification. Oh, and something in WP Signpost. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the harm with it? Seeing as it is an Ireland project full permission should be granted for advertisement there. The "line" can be drawn between wikiprojects that are an aren't related to Ireland. FF3000 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in that heading because I don't want anybody to think I'm just stirring it. It has been suggested a number of times that Irish and British editors should be excluded from the poll. An obvious objection to that is that there is no way to definitively determine an editor's nationality. But what if everybody who has taken part in the debate until now were excluded? The poll would then reflect the views of truly uninvolved editors, and participants would be uninfluenced by the "heated" contributions of involved editors. Since people here are presumably still split 50/50 (otherwise it wouldn't have come to this), excluding ourselves should not have a material effect on the outcome anyway. Thoughts? Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to notify any other country WP outside of those already listed. The naming is central to the ones listed, much less so for the other ones, so there's no vested interest in those. There will still be general notification via CENT and VPP. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you saying that this issue is central to the USA noticeboard? Irish emigration went to Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand just as much as to the US. Please either (1) delete the US noticeboard or (2) add the others or (3) explain why you are keeping the US noticeboard but excluding the others. Right now it does not make sense. -- Evertype·✆08:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see someone included the USA noticeboard. Of course that should not be included. The wide-spread announcement should be limited to national/regional WikiProjects and Noticeboards that deal with Ireland, the United Kingdom, and all of Europe / Western Europe (but not other specific countries of Europe). --MASEM (t) 15:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting rights
Who should be entitled to participate, in order to eliminate WP:SOCKS, WP:SPAs, etc.
Comments
Limit voting rights to editors who have exceeded 150 'main article' edits for the last 6 months, that should take care of any trolling accounts. A weighted figure could be calculated for editors with under 6 months editing. Also limit the voting rights to editors who have joined before 21st June 2009. Tfz11:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A cut off date of editors who have joined before the 1st of June seems reasonable, rather than 21st. IPs should be banned from voting without a doubt. On 150 main article edits, i think thats unfair but every person that votes should have their edit history looked into by the mods to see if there is any chance of it being a sock, and those suspected need to be checked fully with any tools held by admins. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem suggested a pre-qualifying date. I can't remember what it was, but I agreed with it - nobody registered after tha date can vote. The potential for fun and games is just too great. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was in my first polling schedule. I still think it's fair, but again, I leave that up to others. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my paws and whiskers, do I detect consensus? At least on this point. If the vote lasts for three weeks, a cut off date of three weeks prior to the beginning of the poll seems reasonable. Also I agree that IPs should be banned from voting without a doubt. And a look into a voter's edit history should be part of the tallying procedure. -- Evertype·✆18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, autoconfirmed users only would be allowed to vote. This would be achieved by semi-protecting the page while the poll is taking place. FF3000 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but I think that would allow someone to vote even if they'd only registered an account up to three or four days before the poll closes, and they'd made a few mainspace edits? There really doesn't seem to be anything unfair about using 1st June as a cutoff. Just like being on any electoral register, there's always a cutoff. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's worry about semi-prot until the poll happens; if there is an influx of IP votes despite instructions, we may need to semi-prot and put instructions to put your vote on the talk page to be transferred to the actual page should they not yet be autoconfirmed. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think any IP's votes should be deleted immediately and should be completely prohibited to prevent sockpuppetry. I think the page should be semi-prot while the poll is taking place regardless of what the cut off point is. FF3000 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protecting the page sounds like an easy way to prevent socks. (Edit: Actually, it's not *nice* to do that.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With only those already registered before June 1 (a date that's past) being allowed to vote, only pre-existing socks may come into play. I'd not worried about this situation. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else?
Actually deciding the winner
Fmph had a good idea for the actual *counting* of the votes. Part of that was to use software (OpenSTV). His proposal was to have three tallymen counting the votes and answering to a single mod. If their calculations didn't match they would have to go back and count again.
A problem with this is that the STV formula sometimes calls for random selection to eliminate tied candidates and so the three tally men could (in the realm of the possible) come back with three slightly different counts. I think overall Fmph's suggestion is good so I propose the following:
One moderator to act as a presiding officer.
Three editors act as counters
After the ballot closes, the presiding officer runs down the list and strikes out invalid votes (e.g. prople who have give two 1st prefences, or have a first and third preference but no second preferences) - there should be an attempt to correct these either by "fixing" the vote if it is clear what was meant or by contacting the editor and giving them e.g. 3 days to fix their vote.
The counters should then individually prepare ballot files for the OpenSTV software.
The ballot files should be returned to the presiding officer who runs a diff on the files.
If the files don't conform then they should be returned to the counters (saying what the diff was) for them to fix errors.
If the ballot files conform then the presiding officer should select one at random and run the software to determine the winner
The ballot file and the software's output (which shows the details of how the winner was decided) should be posted on Wikipedia alongside the result of the ballot
I don't think advertising the poll should be constrained. People will do it anyway. I do think a watchlist hatnote should be requested, even if it has to be requested via ArbCom. It doesn't open it up to every pet issue. This is a major on-going issue which were are trying to resolve, and one of the main problems is that it is dominated by such a small and in parts highly radicalised crowd. This poll needs as broad a base as possible, because the broader the more legitimate the result. But make no mistake, this is the solution. So we should go ahead when everything is ready. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do regular sweeps of 3rd party forums to check for vote rigging. In a recent vote on something about the British Isles it was advertised on a Irish forum in an attempt to rig the vote. We need to decide what should happen if its clear its being advertised like that and its impacting on the voting result.
If Republic of Ireland becoming a redirect is not added on to the end of certain vote options then we need a vote on it in phase 4 as stated, it seems commonsense that ROI becomes a redirect to where ever the country article goes but some people have moaned about that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of checking to see if the poll is advertised on forums? As long as there is a cut-off date, the only people to be alerted (and who could vote) would be Wikipedia editors - which would be no bad thing. Daicaregos (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of wikipedia editors that use certain forums. In a previous vote which involved Irish Nationalists there was several attempts at rigging the vote, including posting on an Irish forum. I think its important we try to check such rigging isnt being tried again. If we are allowed to advertise on 3rd party sites however, all sides must have that right not just one acting outside of the rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to make a 'federal issue' of it just because once upon a time an editor posted something on a forum. I was involved in that case, and it didn't make the slightest difference to the outcome, and no extra editors voted either. Another thing that should be addressed, now that nationalists has come up. British Nationalists outnumber Irish Nationalists by 16/1. Should this be taken into consideration in the vote count? Tfz20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It didnt make any major difference to the vote because it was closed very quickly after the canvassing was detected. The page had several hundred views in a very short period of time, had that vote remained open for 3 weeks who knows how it would of influenced the outcome, there were a couple of suspicious contributors to that vote and lets not forget it was VERY close between the two main options. Vote rigging is a very serious matter, if we are allowed to post about it anywhere so be it, but if thats not the case we need to do sweeps of certain forums to keep an eye out. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains: as there will be a cut-off date, only established Wikipedia editors will be entitled to vote. Therefore it would not be possible to rig the vote by advertising it. 'Advertising' in that way would only ensure that as many editors as possible are aware a vote is taking place. You are being unnecessarily dramatic. Daicaregos (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said "Stage 2: Polling opens for three weeks from June 28, 2009 and will end July 19, 2009" i support something along those lines, it seems a reasonable amount of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks or less, particularly during the summer, is too short - people may completely miss the vote. A full month is too long given the scope and how many places this will be announced. To me, three weeks seems the most appropriate aspect. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something needs to be done about the format of voting so that it is clear what people are choosing. We should make it very easy, and foolproof both for the voter and for the tallyman. Also, if we have six options, do we insist that a number be given to each option? Perhaps we should start with a state like A-0 B-0 C-0 D-0 E-0 F-0. I think we should keep this order in all instances and ask people to change the 0 to their preferred number, 1 being the most favourite and 6 being the least favourite, and to tell them that if there is an option they DON'T support they should just leave it at 0. -- Evertype·✆18:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to suggest a template that I can make up that will look like:
{{irelandvote|a=4|b=3|d=2|f=1|~~~~}}
Which can be made into a quick table to represent the votes without too much problem, and also emphasieze that to completely opt out of a solution, just don't vote for it at all. This format will be very easy to copy and paste in a polling page. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Masem, we don't want people to inadvertantly spoil their votes. STV is unfamiliar to many people. I recommend starting with {{irelandvote|a=0|b=0|c=0|d=0|e=0|f=0|~~~~}} and letting people change the numbers accordingly. If you have people free to omit choices they don't like they could inadvertently omit the right one. -- Evertype·✆07:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone submits an obvious spoilt vote, then they can always be advised on their talk page of the potential that their vote could be spoilt. It's not a showstopper! Fmph (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are you saying that you oppose my suggestion? Or just that I am foolish for making it? I have made it in the interests of clarity and ease of interpretation for both voter and tallier. Masem, I propose that you use a template that will look like:
Evertype, I think you and Masem are both proposing the same template - just yours is 'blank' and he's showing what a 'completed' one might look like? BastunnutsaB10:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, mine would be the blank one. The difference is that I think people should NOT delete any option. If they dislike an option and want to give it no weight or support they should leave the digit 0 in place. Otherwise the should rank from their favourite 1 to their least favourite 6. So normally you would rank 123456, but if you wished you could rank 123400. I just think it is unwise to suggest that people should delete any of the items from the template, because that's asking for error. -- Evertype·✆12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example:, let's say someone likes the vowels, in alphabetical order, more than the consonants, and likes the consonants in reverse alphabetical order. So taking the template A=0 B=0 C=0 D=0 E=0 F=0 they would rank A=1 B=6 C=5 D=4 E=2 F=3. Or let's say that the voter likes the same, but wants to give NO weight to the last two. That would be A=1 B=0 C=0 D=4 E=2 F=3. I believe that this is "safer" in terms of getting the vote, and also probably easier to tally. To put it another way, I think that allowing A=1 D=4 E=2 F=3 could introduce error or confusion. -- Evertype·✆13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asking voters to rank options with numbers could be confusing and ambiguous. I propose that to register a vote an editor should be asked to add just a single line with option letters in order of preference. For instance, if I were to vote for Evertype's example above, it would simply appear as:
A template sounds good - it could prevent mistakes - but I would be against a template being compulsory. We would have to be careful not to cause more problems that it would solve. Some users may be scared off by a template or may not understand how it works. A "smart" template could alert the user if they made mistakes (e.g. if they had two 2nd preferences or if they had a 1st and 3rd preference but no 2nd preference). We would have to make sure that the template would allow for all possible kinds of votes e.g. vote for only one option, or vote for all options ... or something in between). The template should, IMHO be designed so that it doesn't infer one style of voting or the other.
I hope noone "spoils their vote". Either vote or don't vote. Any vote that all of the options aren't numbered should be deleted. FF3000 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not!!!! It is up to each individual how they vote, not YOU! If I want to vote for just one option, then that is my right! No one should be deciding for me. Fmph (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I remember seeing a photograph in the Times after the (last) Lisbon vote. It was of a ballot paper cast in Co. Donegal. No option was picked, instead - in real old man's writing - was written, "I don't know." To me, that one vote said more than the other 862,414 ballots cast combined. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If only one option is picked then the voting system with a majority of 50%+1 won't work, I think. And this isn't like the Lisbon referendum. This is an online vote so if you don't want to partake, then don't vote instead of wasting space on the page with a "spoiled vote". FF3000 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not under normal circumstances, but to ensure the smooth running of this vote, each option should be numbered. Obviously, the options numbered last are the options you disagree with. Also remember hat only one option will be picked, so it's not like an election. FF3000 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elections very often only have 1 option. Think by-election or presidential election. They still run perfectly smoothly under STV WITHOUT any requirement to complete the entire list. I repeat, you are talking nonsense. It is entirely possible to vote for one, or all, or just a select few. It makes no discernible difference. Unless of course you have an real life example which proves me wrong? Fmph (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is different. We won't have ballot papers.
Another question, does the 50%+1 majority include all remaining votes i.e. votes that haven't died away due to lack of numbered options, or does it include all original votes. FF3000 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...does the 50%+1 majority include all remaining votes..." If any option receives more than 50% of all (unspoiled) votes then it is impossible for any other option to "beat" it (since the best imaginable alternative would only have 50%-1 votes, thus losing by a vote). In a real-life election (e.g. the presidential election), 50%+1 is the point at which a candidate knows that they have won (and so people stop counting and go home).
It is possible that no one reaches 50%+1, if there is a low number of no transfers from eliminated options to more popular ones. In that case, after all possible elimination rounds have been done and all transfers have been made, there will only be one candidate remaining. Even if they have less than 50%+1, they are declared the winner.
For our purposes, we can set a proviso in advance that if the "winning" option doesn't receive 50%+1 of the total (unspoilt) votes cast then we won't accept it as being binding on the community. We could set a higher proviso ... or a lower proviso ... or no such proviso. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to make it clear that a completely null vote is assumed you mean that you agree with none of the options. This isn't like a regular paper poll where you're given a piece of paper and a few minutes to figure it out and if it's too complex you simply write nothing on your ballot - in that case here, you simply should choose to not participate. I'd also say that if 50%+1 of the votes are completed null, then we need to reconsider our options and not work off the majority of remaining votes. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is *possible* that the result will be less than 50%+1. Forcing voters to rank *all* of the options in their ballot would prevent that possibility. But what is being solved? If the problem is that a result of less than 50%+1 lack democratic legitimacy then *forcing* people to vote for options they don't want is hardly a solution. Setting a minimum that we would accept as being a *binding* result (e.g. 40%, 50%+1, or 66% etc.) would solve the democratic problem, but would risk that proportion not being reached.
Masem, I don't think that we can count non-transferable ballots as meaning "none of the above". It could just as legitimately mean, "any of the above, I don't mind". A "None of the above" option would be an explicit way for a voter to say, "I want this, that or the other, otherwise none of the above." (An "Any of the above" option would not be workable because the permutations for how to transfer it would be so difficult to calculate.) A person voting using a "None of the above" option would fall into the "null" votes pile. A "None of the above" would also not necessarily have to be the last placed pereference in a ballot. A person could vote, "None of the above, but if 'none of the above' is not going to be the winning option I want my vote to go to such-and-such". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand it, you're suggesting adding a 7th (or whatever) option, "None of the above", which implies that after selecting options they prefer (none if the case) they should then put None as the next preference? (and thus technically, if someone ranks an option below None, that becomes a bad ballot and should be fixed?)
And thus a null ballot is not a None of the Above, just, "I don't care" - so if a voter has a 1st and 2nd pref, both which are eliminated early, their vote is then always group with the current winning option? (Whatever this is, we need to be explicit and careful how people fill votes out, and make it clear leaving options blank means you don't care which wins). --MASEM (t) 19:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have to keep things simple. If people want to suggest another option, let them do it now. Otherwise we could have a thousand different proposals. I don't think "none of the above" should be an option. FF3000 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem, pretty much except for two things:
1) we would get it for "free" (i.e. we don't have to do anything special when counting it: "none of the above" would just be another option like everything else, "none of the above" might even come out as being the "winning" option)
2) "none of the above" doesn't *have to be* the last ranked option in any ballot, it could be (and more often that not, I suppose, would be) but a person could place "none of the above" higher in their ranking (which would means something like, "None of the above, but if "none of the above" is going to be eliminated as an option then I want my vote to go to such-and-such.").
As for "null" votes, once all possible transfers of any particular ballot are used up, the ballot has no more influence on the outcome of the vote - so it is effectively becomes, "I don't care".
NB: It would still be possible with a "None of the above" option that the "winner" would still get less that 50%+1. That's just how STV works, there's nothin we can do about that except for: a) forcing people to fill in the full ballot or b) add a provisio that unless 50%+1 (or whatever percentage we pick) is achieved by the winner we won't accept the result as binding.
@FF3000, "none of the above" is not a usual option in a vote (I think the Greens have a policy where they want it as an option in Ireland). Normally, it is meaningless (except for expressing dissatisfaction) because, whether you like the candidates before you or not, they are the only candidates and saying "None of the above" is not going to conjure up anymore out of thin air. In our case, "None of the above" has meaning because we (the Wikipedia community) are the ones coming up with the options. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we've had months of discussion! A thousand different options could be proposed but we have to get this over with and choose an option. FF3000 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a good argument against having a "none of the above" option and not having a "proviso" of 50%+1. The counter argument is that doing so might force an unpopular decision on the community. (To be honest, I would be willing to bet money that even with a "none of the above" and a "proviso" a ballot will result in a "winner" - and have greater legitimacy because of them ... but there is always the chance.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if the community once it’s advertised across wiki reject it, saying polling is not an acceptable solution? On the polling options, editors like me are currently excluded because we have no option listed to object to polling. This is not the same as an editor who "spoils their vote" and is a valid option. --Domer48'fenian'15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a none of the above option, which results in coming back to the debate to try and reach consensus. If that option was to win however it would mean the country article would remain at Republic of Ireland for a lot longer and im not convinced when it comes to the vote itself if people will be prepared to boycott it or waste their vote in that way. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Domer48You are not excluded. You are choosing to exclude yourself. You object to the poll. That's your perogative. Don't expect the rest of us to wait around until you change your mind. Fmph (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A very valid issue. It is why I think it is important to have the opportunity to "spoil you vote" by casting a comment.
More practically, has anyone gone back to ArbCom with this proposal? Or is Masem's backing good enough? I know Bastun has pointed out below that they did say "consensus or a majority" but we should get their blessing before running a poll. Like the Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation, ArbCom overrule "normal" policy so ArbCom's sign-off would copper-fasten the genuine concern that this is a vote and not consensus.
It means that if no votes are fully numbered, the votes of elimanated options can't be distributed and therefore the voting system of 50%+1 can't work. FF3000 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get you. (Read what I wrote above starting, "The 'quota' doesn't matter.") Ordinarily, after all possible transfers have been made and still no option has 50%+1 then the option with a plurality is declared the "winner". If we insist that - for our purposes - a winner must have 50%+1 we are tacking an extra proviso on top of normal STV. This "proviso" doesn't have to be set at 50%+1, it can be any proportion (higher or lower).
I would be in favour of setting a higher "proviso" (something like 66%) because it would give a binding agreement a greater legitimacy. But, of course, the higher we set it, the less likely we are to reach it. I think 50%+1 would be easily reached in a ballot with 6 or more options ... and I certainly think that if the "winning" option did not achieve it then it would have no legitimacy as a binding solution.
No matter what, I think it would be best to run the count until all transfers are exhausted (past 50%+1) so that we can see the proportion of people who had a preference for the winning candidate (ideally this would be in the region of 80-90%, but maybe that's a pipe dream).
Did I get you right?
BTW, what is the situation with ArbCom? Have they given this ballot the OK? Do they need to? Their official sanctioning of it would be of benefit IMHO. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am double checking with ArbCom. I personally feel the STV poll, given that this community brought the idea themselves and have been developing the poll themselves (with some hopefully-helpful nudging by the moderators), means that it is an acceptable replacement for a normal discussion-driven consensus - however, we'll verify if ArbCom has a say in it. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a normal discussion-driven consensus, a poll can not be described as an acceptable replacement. The poll was put forward as the only solution IMO, and is based foremost on the strength of numbers in the absence of strong arguments. We have had circular arguements, repetitious arguments but none of it source based. When has any editor been challenged to support their assertions? I can’t concede that Wikipedia has failed in its ability to deal with a content dispute. So again, show us were this normal discussion-driven consensus was attempted? --Domer48'fenian'19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been plenty of source-based discussion, starting with the Statements (not all of them, but there's enough sources there to support a number of different naming schemes. But because the whole of the group cannot agree towards even one direction, the agreement to vote is the next best step in resolution. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: The statement process
"The statement process is the first step in gathering facts, findings and opinions regarding the naming of Ireland-related articles, and will be in the form of a non-rebuttal debate. Editors can post statements in which they plead their case for one of the proposed solutions above, or formulate a solution of their own. Other editors can either endorse or oppose these statements, but may not enter into discussion. The only way to 'argue' is to create a statement of your own, which others will endorse or oppose."
On the the Statements, I provided editors the opportunity to put forward the Links that support “The term "Ireland" is ambiguous” to determine the level of ambiguity I received only three examples, all of which could be challenged. Fourteen Editors rejected my statement and only three references provided. Based on consensus and the strength of argument what would your view of this be? Since then, as illustrated above the number of sources to support my Statement has more than doubled. Because the whole of the group cannot agree towards even one direction, we have to decide by the quality and quantity of sources based on both verifiability and neutral point of view would that not be a normal discussion-driven consensus! There was no one there to do that, the three moderators walked off. --Domer48'fenian'19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out what ArbCom remedy #1 is: The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement. ArbCom basically has said that if you want to avoid Remedy #2 coming into place, to select some means - which I read from the avoid to include a vote or poll since it calls for "majority view" - to resolve this. Consensus did not work before the ArbCom, during the ArbCom, or the first few months off this project - it is not suddenly going to work now.
Now, I do agree with you that all solutions should be within WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - "Ireland (magical happy land)" is completely unacceptable. But I've read through the statements, and every naming scheme that's been proposed of late and currently being considered for the poll is backed by sources and is neither NOR or NPOV - the problem is that the sources are conflicting. At that point, we turn to WP's ultimate rule: Ignore all rules. We need to consider all these options since no single one is obviously better than the others. We also have to use common sense - we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland as a name is equally ambiguous between the island and the country", but common sense tells us it clearly is otherwise the naming issue would have been resolved months ago. Given that many members of this project are agreeing to the STV poll, it may not be the most desirable path in normal Wiki-venues, but it is both an acceptable path and the path of least resistance that will end this dispute once and for all. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what was this, "ArbCom has received an e-mail from Masem forwarding your question and considers Remedy#1 still valid." Now the very same editors who ignored the "Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments" I mentioned above and just focused on a vote, are the very same editors of this project who are agreeing to the STV poll! Now please show us were this normal discussion-driven consensus was attempted? Because all you have done to date is say that you have read through the statements, and every naming scheme that's been proposed of late and currently being considered for the poll is backed by sources and is neither NOR or NPOV and I'm saying your wrong. I offered you one example above to illustrate the point and you ignored it. I've provide an alternative process that would "be within WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV" and you ignored it. You have not considered all the options, and its your opinion that we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland as a name is equally ambiguous between the island and the country" and your wrong on that also. Your path of least resistance, quick fix is based on nothing more than numbers. An example of your intrest in anything other than a poll is when you said above, on my first proposal "I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here, otherwise, as happens here, it looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive." Problem was I did state what I was doing, I started a whole section, which you missed. Now is Remedy#1 still valid per ArbCom or not? --Domer48'fenian'23:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the issues raised above but with all of the other points made it appears to of been overlooked and nobody has commented, its something that we need to ensure is sorted well before the vote begins.
Is there just going to be the wording in the vote itself, or will there be statements / explanations on each of the options so those who come from outside this dispute can know all the facts. If there is to be some statement (i think it should be bullet points rather than a long statement) so its simple to understand, there really should be negative points as well. So we can explain to people why some feel the country article shouldnt be at Ireland or Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather the arguments be left off, actually -- some of the pro or con arguments are going to look really stupid, and I'd rather not prejudice the results that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek - remember a lot of people are likely to coming to this issue completely "fresh" and may not appreciate the sometimes subtle differences between options. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the sort of method on that link, Argument, counter argument, summary seems very reasonable. On moving the post back up to the top i will if needed, but i wanted to make a new section to draw attention to this point because so far nobody else posted on it, it seemed to of got lost in all of the other points like voting / advertising and yet this is something that we need a heads up on as quickly as possible so agreement can be reached on wording of such statements if they are to exist. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As regards #Position argument summaries above, I think the arguments and counter arguments are well stated, but I feel that several (not all) of the summaries are biased towards either the pros or the cons. I think it would be better just to present the pros and cons, and allow voters to draw their own conclusions. Scolaire (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's very difficult to summarise beyond a quick statement of the pros and of the cons. And in each and every case, both the pros and cons can be backed up by verifiable, reliable sources; the reason we're here is that those sources conflict with each other. Hopefully we'll be keeping the pro and con sections short, so they'll already be summarised about as far as they reasonably can be. — ras52 (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not first assess the validity of arguments, rather than promoting each option. This just opens up the whole issue again. We know what editors positions (POV's) are, lets policy test them before we present them to the community.
Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments,--Domer48'fenian'07:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they will not, they be presented with a mix of POV options and asked to pick. The validity of arguments is what the community should have addressed before the options were put forward. --Domer48'fenian'12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it should come for time to vote
Remember, this is the Summer Holiday period and we in Ireland/Eire/RoI take them damn seriously - so lots of notice please; the fact that I'm not saying anything here doesn't mean I'm not interested. Same would apply to several others I know of. Sarah777 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Consensus seems to be for a twothree-week voting period, with ample advertising of the poll (at minimum, the various Irish/British noticeboards and hopefully a watchlist hatnote), including specifically notifying users who've previously been involved and/or those listed at the Arbcom case. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's fair to notify users about the poll only if the poll is about to close and they haven't cast a vote yet. They will be contacted both on their talk page and by e-mail, where applicable. FF3000 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 weeks sounds good in my view too. Maybe we should have a 1 or 2 week "advertising" period too? (The actual ballot page could be locked but questions, etc. could be discussed on the talk page during th tperiod?). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again i would like to complain about the disgusting and offensive treatment taking place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article. There is a vote ongoing there which could be used to justify scrapping all of the above mentioned plans for a STV vote. As thats the case can REAL moderators please take action and stop Domer from acting like a dictator and deleting peoples comments or points which challange his position. It is resulting in people removing their vote because they dont want to be part of such a joke. This is unacceptable BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put together a proposal which I hope will move this discussion forward. I’m actively looking for the support of the community in this effort. While editors are welcome to participate, based on previous discussions I have place a number of guidelines on the proposal which are designed to prevent disruption, keep the discussion on topic and provide an environment conducive to rational and reasonable discussion. As this proposal is a work in progress which I will be placing before the community as a formal process, I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal, however, if one or all of the moderators wish to adopt the process (this should not been seen as an endorsement of the proposal) it would be very welcome. The guidelines must be viewed as part of the process, and will themselves form part of the final proposal. I have placed my rational behind the proposal on the proposal page which is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article.
Sorry i posted the wrong link there appears to be two ongoing votes in different locations, this is a mess and very confusing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/proposal for Ireland Article. Im complaining about both of the pages i have mentioned because they are being run by a dictator but especially about the removal of my comment on the one i just listed. Oh i should of said its being held in 4 places because the votes / comments appear to being made on both the main page / talk page on each making matters even worse. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the policies there are, not to add spurious uncited claims. Those are the rules there, pity we don't have them here. Tfz20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish you cant just remove any comment you dont like, i clearly said i will provide sources if you really need them. This type of censorship is unacceptable, especially as the votes on there are going to try to be used to justify ending the above agreements on STV. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with an unelected "Moderator" dictating terms on this projects subpages. If it was on ur userspace ofcourse you can do what you like, but its not. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support those policies for articles on wikipedia. I do not support those policies being used to impose censorship on talk pages and leading to removal of reasonable comments by unelected moderators. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guidlines are included and are part of the proposal. They are to prevent disruption, and provide a forum for reasoned and informed discussion. They are based on our policies and guidlines of WP:V and WP:RS. Now you can support or oppose and don't have to comment. However, if you do comment you are required to support your comments with references. Otherwise, like this discussion page all you get is POV, bias, and unsupported opinion. You are also able to comment on the process/proposal on the talk page. You can challange the sources I provide, but again it must be informed and based on supporting sources. The only ones to date to complain are the editors who have added opinions which are not supported by references, and which do not address the proposal itself. That the discussions are free from the type of comments/POV/bias and opinions expressed on this discussion has proved it point. --Domer48'fenian'21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting both a proposal and a process. Now you accept the policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, so I impose no restrictions other than what the wikiproject imposes on all of us, that is the process. I implement, that is I put into practice policies which we all accept, so I reference and source all my comments. My proposal is referenced and sourced per our policies, is it not reasonable to ask editors for the same. --Domer48'fenian'22:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but we do not have to provide verifiable sources to make posts on talk pages, that only applies to articles. On this wikiproject, there was consensus early on that the moderators would have a right to remove any content they deemed unacceptable, i fail to see where people gave you the authority to remove content from that wikiproject subpage. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher, I have explained my proposal and the process. As part of the process yes you do have to provide WP:verifiable sources. This whole issue is a content dispute. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I provided referenced sources to support my proposal, you have not. So you reject both the process and the proposal, fine. Nothing more needs to be said. GoodDay, what I'd like is for the Collobration page to accept the process first off, and secondly, to test all the suggestions put forward for the poll per our policies. Consensus can be reached with this process because it would remove all the POV/bias that has bogged down this discussion. The policies of the project do work, we just need someone with the intrest of the project first to apply them. --Domer48'fenian'23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay - of course they would need approval at this page! Problem is, it won't arise, because Domer is treating the pages like a personal fiefdom even though he's not a moderator, so people are refusing to participate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but im still waiting for someone to tell me when u were given the authority to remove any comment you dont like or dictate the terms of what is and isnt acceptable on this wikiproject sub pages. You are not a moderator! I also note u dont appear to be removing certain comments by those agreeing with ur proposal despite them not providing sources either for some of their claims.
Again i seek input from a real moderator on this matter. Does Domer (whos not even signed up as a member of this project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Member_list) have the right to impose such radical restrictions on a page that is not in his own area. He seeks to have the planned STV mentioned above cancelled and his own proposal adopted instead, yet he refuses to let people challange him on these matters there resulting in people removing their vote (which will end up stacking the vote the way he wants). BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun; Domer's "rules" seem pretty basic and straightforward - I cannot see why anyone should be "put off" from participating. You weren't! Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a parlour game to lighten the mood around here and boost participation in Domer's proposal. I suggest that everyone should participate, but here is the fun part: should Domer "moderate" one of your comments per some "policy" of his choosing, you get to select any one of his comments somewhere else in Wikipedia space and "moderate" that in return. To be fair, you may only choose a comment of his that lacks citations, makes a sweeping claim or generalises. (You might think these are hard to find, but since you get to choose what qualifies, it really couldn't be easier). You might be concerned about your ability to "moderate" fairly. However, all you need to do is read what he wrote, than change it so it now says what you want it to say. Bingo! You're done "moderating". Feel free to not tell Domer which of his comments you have "moderated", and await the hilarity that will ensue when he later returns to the page to find that his comments have been fucked about with so that they no longer say what he intended. Don't worry about getting reverted, because you are allowed to edit other's comments as you see fit so long as you anoint yourself as The Moderator in advance. Who wants to go first? Rockpocket02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per ArbCom, "The community [thats us] is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism [the process] for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles [the proposal]. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures [Wiki policies] for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement."
Now look at Rocks latest attempt at sarcasm, this is coming from an Admin one of two who edit warred on the process/proposal to cause disruption. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [43][44] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. Saying they were not aware the page had been protected. However they also said "even if [they] had known it was protected [they] would have still made the edit." Adding then "once the page is unprotected [they'll] be withdrawing both [their] !vote and [their] comments" show how hollow their arguements were. Why did they not just use their Admin tools again to remove them, why wait for the unblock, when the block did not stop them putting them back in?
Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in: [45], [46], [47], and on the proposal page, [48], [49] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page.
Rock went a step further however and attempted to "encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, and so scupper my attempt to move things forward. Now having been ask by ArbCom to try come up with a process and a proposal, and having made the attempt I have an Admin being actively disruptive and trying now with sarcasm to do what they could not do with policies. Sad really, but one only has to consider what the response of moderators would be if I actively tried to prevent their proposal?
If you read this discussion here editors will see the comments I removed, and notice how most of them were from Editors who supported the proposal. The most telling of all though, is the editors who have been the most active here, are less so on the proposal page, would that have something to do with being asked to back up their opinions with references? I will continue to moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal, however, if one or all of the moderators wish to adopt the process (this should not been seen as an endorsement of the proposal) it would be very welcome. The guidelines must be viewed as part of the process, and will themselves form part of the final proposal. --Domer48'fenian'08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Domer, you're just going to have to accept that events have overtaken you, and be content that your proposal is one of the options in the community-wide poll which the members of this project have supported. -- Evertype·✆08:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The community [thats us] is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism [the process] for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles [the proposal]."
Yes. And the community has been discussing it - since December '08. "Consensus or majority view". The consensus and majority view of 75% of the participants here of late is that we will use a community-wide STV poll. End of. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!08:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get back on track
There seems to be a few different discussions taking place.
Where to advertise the vote?
Should the voters be provided with statements
Domer48 also seems to be trying to work on a different solution
I think instead of all this arguing we should decide
Do we just want to advertise in areas directly involved with the subject (Ireland, NI, UK) or do we want to include other areas. If we do include other areas is this not just going to lead to more arguments ("if Spain is included why can't I add Mexico" "if China is included why can't I add Vietnam".....)
If we are going to provide statements to the voters, is this just going to lead to more arguments about what to include in the statements?
Should Domer48's proposal continue to be even discussed when we are 6 months into the process and the moderator has decided that there is no chance of consensus?76.118.224.35 (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per ArbCom: "ArbCom has received an e-mail from Masem forwarding your [Domer48] question and considers Remedy#1 still valid." Moderators are currently looking for consensus on the method of their poll, the type of options, who can and can't vote, were it should be advertised etc... So my proposal / process is still a valid alternative. That this approch has never been attempted is something positive, that it is policy based, is positive and that to date it has prevented the type of disruption that has been the hall mark of the above discussion is positive. The poll in my mind is just a collection of editors personal POV's not one of which has been tested against our policies. Which ever POV is the most popular wins! That is not the way this project works. --Domer48'fenian'08:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noone's really arguing, 78... things are being thrashed out and good progress is being made. We've even got consensus on some of the things that need to be decided - even to the point of me and Sarah777 agreeing with each other. The points you've made are perfectly valid, but why are you trying to split the discussion across yet another subsection? Please contribute in the relevant subsections above. If I want to contribute to the "advertising" question, for instance, I don't want to have to do it in its subsection above and down here, where you've mixed it in with two other topics. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This poll has not yet been put before the community and various projects. What if the community once it’s advertised across wiki reject it, saying polling is not an acceptable solution? On the polling options, editors like me are currently excluded because we have no option listed to object to polling. The community, like ArbCom may view this as a content dispute and request that our policies be applied to the various POV’s to see if they are supported by verifiable and reliable sources. They might want them tested to see if they conform to our policy of neutral point of view. We already know the use of Republic of Ireland being used for the name of the Irish State is against WP:NPOV, and very much documented with verifiable and reliable sources. It is however being presented as an option. Is it possible then that my proposal might be considered an alternative? --Domer48'fenian'09:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RoI should not be an option, re Domer above. It does not withstand the "acid test" of verifiable, reliable sources (and not Wikipedia). Wikipedia must act in concert within professional standards if it's ever to be taken seriously by lecturers and students alike. Tfz22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't, that's the whole point. Any academics that I talk to in the UK or the US have nothing but disdain for it...I wonder why? --De Unionist (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everybody, thanks for the input above. I am now putting the bullet list together which Masem said he wanted to ballot. I have seven items on it, in alphabetical order: country, nation, republic, Republic of, sovereign country, sovereign state, state,. Here is how I ranked them. I placed them in alphabetical order as you see, and then went to http://www.random.org/sequences/ and generated a random sequence of 1-7. The sequence I got was 1546273 so that is the order I have put them in the list. I have also given a summary source rationale, which I believe to be neutral. Please see the draft poll at User:Evertype/sandbox -- Evertype·✆10:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me too. How many winners do you propose to select? Just one? Three per Masem's earlier suggest? One further comment: much as I like the idea of blocking for 12 months anyone caught fiddling the election, do we actually have the authority to do that? Masem has, per this (formally enacted) Arbitration Committee case amendment, the ability to unilaterally ban anyone from this WikiProject for up to one month. But that's all I'm aware of. — ras52 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Results of the vote are final and binding for a period of two years" is confusing, as all we are picking is what option(s) will appear on the final ballot? Apart from that, I think it looks fine. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three winners seems too many, doesn't it? Because it makes the main poll much longer, I say we pick two winners, reserving the right to go with one only or choose a third depending on how the poll goes. Regarding the blocking provisions, these were pasted in unchanged by e from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll which I took as a template. And I didn't edit the Results of the vote section; I was concentrating on getting the choices down and getting neutral wikilinks to material which can assist people in understanding the choices. -- Evertype·✆11:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like. What is the end-date for this? I think running it as a "two- maybe three-seater" is reasonable - but I imagine that whatever the result people will want the third one included. Doing it that way would allow us to better understand STV anyway - and we could all take part in the calculating process, so it's a good "dry run" for the *BIG* ballot.
RE: "You are not obliged to give a weight to any of the options that you do not wish to support at all; it is easiest to leave the number as zero, i.e. Z=0." I'd put this onto a seperate line. and rephrase it to something like, "You do not have to express a preference for all of the option" (or probably better wording that you can think of). Technically, also we are not giving weights. Also I'd change "... that you do not wish to support ..." something like "... that you do not wish to support (or have no preference about)..." since not ranking a preference means that 1. your ballot won't go to supporting it, 2. your ballot might not go against it either. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making changes which are more or similar to what you've proposed. I'm editing this section here and will say when I've saved the changes to the poll. -- Evertype·✆15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get bogged down discussing trivial details. Stick "Ireland (Republic)" in as an addition if you must, but it's unncessary to discuss each option in detail. They key thing is to hold a quick vote on all the options and get it over and done with. DrKiernan (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support having both Ireland (republic) and Ireland (Republic). Please let us not make this more farcical than necessary. -- Evertype·✆15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was thinking more like "Germany (Federal Republic of)" or "Netherlands (Kingdom of)". The monarchy of the United Kingdom is something else. I suppose the UK equivalent would be "Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom of)" ... a bit of a mouthful! But I don't expect "Ireland (Republic of)" to poll so highly so don't worry about it.
We should put "Ireland (Republic" in there too. In fact, the whole caboodle of alternatives. We've discussed them all to death by now anyway. And the more options in this poll the better. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The options above are better as they also deal with the name for the island. This proposed poll doesn't. And we won't have "Ireland (Republic of)" as the title of the article if that option wins. It'll be "republic of Ireland". FF3000 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood. This is the pre-poll to decide on which "Ireland (xxx)" option is presented in the main poll not the main poll itself. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, people. Republic of Ireland is already the cause of this. I do not want to sit here editing and editing and adding and adding a whole caboodle of alternatives. I have put in all of the ones that have been proposed so far. Let us, I beg you, have done. -- Evertype·✆15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting only a simple (non-STV) poll asking each person here to list the three terms they thing are best for the (xxx) part of the disambiguated country, and then using the three terms (possibly four if there's a tie) that were selected the most often as the choices in the community poll. There's no need to get to a detailed STV vote for this. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's just as well we use STV for this. Good practice for us. How long should this poll be? Two weeks? One week? Masem, please understand that if we had ONE winner from this poll, that would lead to three options in the main poll. Two winners gives us six options. Three winners gives us nine options. Four winners would give us twelve options. For my part I would rather not see so many options on the main poll. -- Evertype·✆15:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the reasoning for this poll, the problem is that the question of what "(xxx)" is cannot be asked seperately on a community wide poll since it's possible one may prefer "Ireland (state)" over "Republic of Ireland" but also "Republic of Ireland" over "Ireland (nation)" (for an example). As there's three options on the main poll that have "Ireland (xxx)" as a possible option, that means every option we give for "(xxx)" will be repeated three times, so we can't have all the options. My proposal was to have a brief poll here and only here (within the naming project) to establish the likely best three choices for what "(xxx)" is, which would result in 15 options total for the poll. It wasn't meant to be a long or elaborate poll and it would have been done before the main poll was started (like, as planned, on Sunday). The community would still be left to pick among the top three "(xxx)" options. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If I had read"? This page is pretty long. I understand what you are saying. I think 9 is too many. I think 6 is better. 12 is certainly too many. That's why I've said we'll pick 2 options unless there's significant support for a third. Maybe it's likely we go for a third but I thought it would be good to be able to aim for 6 even if we end up with 9. OK? -- Evertype·✆16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I initially thought, like Masem, that a single first-(few)-past-the-post vote was sufficient here. But I think there's merit to Evertype's suggestion of using STV simply to get practice with it. If we're going to have an argument about how to interpret the results of the STV vote, far better to have it with this (relatively) insignificant poll rather than later with the real poll when the whole world and his dog are watching. STV would also reduce the likelihood of a tie. As to the duration of this preliminary poll, I'd say a week is more than adequate if we let the top three options through. And I think Masem is right to want to allow three options through — this really is just an initial filter to dispose of the options with insignificant real support. (Minor correction, Evertype: if we allow three winners through, the final community poll will twelve options, assuming the version in Rannṗáirtí's sandbox is up-to-date. A, D and E don't involve an Ireland (xxx) article.) —ras52 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only B, C, and F do, so three options = 9. I agree, a week is fine. Shall I move it to a subpage over here and start the poll? -- Evertype·✆16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... so that's A, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3, D, E, F1, F2, F3 which is more than I can count without taking my socks off. :-) —ras52 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what this group seems to want to do, there is no problem delaying the start of my proposed schedule to include this. If we do do this, I recommend having *this* poll completed by July 1, with the new schedule then pushed back a week for all other aspects. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading in your opinion. Please stop being so pedantic on insisting on sources for the obvious. It's not an article, its a poll. If anyone does want to find the sources for anything Evertype wrote, such as why "Ireland (Republic)" might be an option for them, all they have to do is click on the links he provided and see the sources there. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!09:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆18:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you cannot impose sanctions on other editors based on your say, and you have no authority to decide upon a blocking term for an offense based on your say so. Also voting isn't how to resolve things on Wikipedia, consensus is. Saying if someone canvases makes what they say irrelevant isn't right, and isn't enforceable since what someone says carries weight, what someone votes doesn't. Canterbury Tailtalk19:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will be for the ArbCom moderator to decide who gets a 30-day ban if the rules (which are clear and which HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED above) are breached. Obviously I myself have no such powers. The text was agreed. Unless you're planning to breach the rules and hoping not to get caught, I don't see why you should be concerned. Assume good faith please. This is a step forward. -- Evertype·✆
Will the Arbcom moderators please say if this poll is a part of the process or not? I've been busy for the last fortnight and have not really followed the detail, but an official sounding announcement appeared on my talk page so I voted. If its not sanctioned then I will withdraw it. --SnowdedTALK19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem has indicated just above that this is the way that we are getting some answers which will help us put the REAL poll out there. This is only to winnow down the number of choices on the final ballot to a manageable number. Please look it over. You will see nothing sinister, and if you look above you will see a number of people from all sides who are satisfied with the content of this poll. -- Evertype·✆20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. First please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Proposed_locations_for_advertising_of_poll which tells you who I notified. I notified a number of non-superfluous related artiicles, in which editors of both "sides" participate. I notified the Ireland, Northern Ireland, and UK noticeboards. And I notified, as a formality, those editors who were listed in the ArbCom case, without regard to who they were. (I even informed myself.) If there is another, subsequent, list of relevent people please point me to it. Thanks, BigDunc. I trust that this will help us to get to a resolution. -- Evertype·✆20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem had just said that he wanted this to go out in a week and end on 1 July. I don't believe I have acted improperly. I do believe that a poll is now there which allows you, if you wish, to express your preferences. -- Evertype·✆20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that list. It was not listed in the area on this page above which I used to send out the notices. There is nothing sinister going on. Please do not ask questions aggressively. -- Evertype·✆20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not asked questions "aggressively" you said the text was agreed and I pointed out that you were just being Bold. The list you used was from the ArbCom case, and not from Ireland Collaboration, some of those involved have never even commented here, did you not find that even a little strange? --Domer48'fenian'21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your tag line "Why is that?" seems needlessly harsh and critical. Your use of the word "failed" seems to suggest that I have done something wrong. -- Evertype·✆21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype having been informed by Canterbury Tail above that "you cannot impose sanctions on other editors based on your say, and you have no authority to decide upon a blocking term for an offense based on your say so" you are still posting the notice on Editors talk pages? --Domer48'fenian'21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have ALREADY SAID that I would not be making any decisions or determinations about who gets blocked or for how long. I do not have the power to do that. I never said I did. It will be up to the moderators of this project to determine whether there have been breaches of the rules. The RULES are laid out clearly. No sock puppets, no meat puppets, no ballot stuffing. I am QUITE SURE that Masem will not look favourably on such behaviour. If the rules are breached, they will be able to make whatever sanction is permitted them. -- Evertype·✆21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please exercise your intelligence. I cannot block. I can however state the rules for the ballot which have been discussed for the main ballot as well. It will be up for the project admins to decide if the rules have been breached. But the rule are no canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry. Do you agree with these rules? If so, why are you complaining? If you are planning to breach the rules, don't complain if an Admin sanctions you. Clear? -- Evertype·✆21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit rich Evertype. Where is my notification? Behaving like untrained poll-cats, are we? Also you voted first just to get your bias in the lede. Sheese!!! Tfz21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is "a bit rich"? Are you on one of the lists that I informed? I informed one list which you were not on. THen another list was pointed out to me and both BigDunc and I send out messages. Were you on that list? If you are and did not receive a notice, it was an oversight. -- Evertype·✆21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked. Your name does not appear on either of those lists. That is why you were not informed. My vote being on the top means nothing. Should I have anticipated your scorn and waited? Who the hell cares? People vote what they want. My bias? To hell with my bias. I voted first. If you had done the work to put this together, you might have voted first. By the way it is spelt "Sheesh" not "Sheese". I can't believe the bad faith. I really can't. "Untrained poll-cats"? That is uncivil. Perhaps Masem will take notice. Perhaps you will apologize for your incivility. -- Evertype·✆21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your "lede" bit is really out of line. I went to some effort to randomize the order of the items in the list, for FAIRNESS, and also described the process I used to come to that. Whence your hostility? -- Evertype·✆21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, since your name isn't on any of the lists, I'm not going to send you a notice, because if I did, I would have to trawl through this entire project looking for people who did not get the notice. Not my responsibility. And this one isn't even the real poll. -- Evertype·✆21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype you said I asked questions "aggressively" which I did not, and now you are being uncivil. The wording was not agreed above like you said, you were being BOLD. The was no agreement on the comments under each option either, which are to say the least misleading. Spotting these things did not exercise my intelligence, but putting forward a flawed and misleading poll is raises questions about yours. --Domer48'fenian'21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said he wanted a week-long poll on this, and Masem said he wanted it to end on 1 July. The only way to do that was to post it today. I had edited it. Was someone else supposed to do it? -- Evertype·✆21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you want, Domer? Do not have this poll which is only a minor preliminary poll in advance of the community wide poll? Is that why you are grousing? -- Evertype·✆21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only suggested this poll to help set up the options for the others. There was some agreement for it, but I wasn't expecting it to be started as fast as it was. Furthermore, it was only meant to be limited to this project - this is not the community poll that has been talked about for the STV. And definitely with something like this, one can't stipulate penalities or the like for socking or such (I think I'll need to check what the STV poll has listed there, as any usual violations of socking or the like should be dealt with by normal means and not specially called out). While I appreciate Evertype's boldness to move it forward, I think there just needed to be a bit more discussion about it to make sure that's the way to resolve what "(xxx)" choices were to appear on the main STV poll. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you said you wanted a 7-day poll that ended 1 July. I posted this at 1900, since there were only 5 hours left to let that time schedule happen. It is now 22:45, so there is 1:15 left in order to give you your 7-day window and end on 1 July. I know this is not the community poll, but it did not seem to me that is should only be limited to the few people who visit this page. Do what you want with it. I guess your choices are to cancel it or it let it run. If you cancel it, we're just going to have to run it again anyway. The VOTING looks to be within expected parameters. You are going to have to make the executive decision here. But I suspect that cancelling it and re-enstating it with a few insubstantial modifications won't help this project all that much. -- Evertype·✆21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested (not said) that we end it by the 1st to give us a few days to keep to the week-pushed-forward schedule (eg starting STV polling on the 5th). As the vote wasn't meant to be a community-wide aspect at this point - only a means to limit what choices were to go on the STV poll since all choices would be impractical - it wasn't a demand to start the poll right away as I think we were still trying to make sure it made sense. I don't recommend stopping it - it's in progress, but the way you approached it boldly is probably a bit heavy (given the response from others); again, it was meant to be informal and thus issuing warnings about banning and the like was probably out of place. I strongly recommended that, presuming nothing changes the July 5th proposed starting date for the poll that either we decide who will announce it across the approved areas (listed above) (it doesn't have to be me that posts it, but let's make sure everyone agrees abou this). and what that announcement will contain. I appreciate the move to try to keep this effort going to find a resolution but let's not messy it up by jumping too fast. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "suggested" and "said" is a bit beyond subtle, and I think can only be differentiated by means of mind-reading. Having said that... the section on sanctions and all I took directly from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I didn't make it up on my own (though I dialled down "ban for a year" to "ban for a month" which I saw was confirmed an option (somewhere on this page). If the section on sanctions is really all that objectionable, it had better be addressed with regard to Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. -- Evertype·✆07:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask a question about this? Am I correct in my interpretation that all these are proposed titles for the article about the state (i.e. the one currently at Republic of Ireland). I have heard it suggested that Ireland (country) or Ireland (nation) could be used as the title on an article for the entire Island (the one currently at Ireland). Before I express my preference, I just want to make sure I know what articles these titles are being proposed for. Thanks. Rockpocket00:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was only supposed to be for what the "(xxxx)" in "Ireland (xxxx)" would be should that be the option of where to move the 26 county country to. This has no impact on the other possible naming schemes (including if the option to have one article about all things Ireland (island and country)). --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have claimed no "extra rights". Nor have I done anything to harm you, or this project, or the Wikipedia. I have set out rules for this poll which are not unreasonable, and which are on the list for the main poll. I didn't invent them. I don't have the power to enforce them either. But I am within my rights to announce them. If you violate the rules, and an admin sanctions you, you can appeal. Easier to avoid violating them, though. -- Evertype·✆21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering spoiling my vote, or not voting at all. Btw pollcat(pun) was collective, I said "we". Tfz21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you want. I don't know what would satisfy you. It's a few hours into the poll and plenty of people seem happy to vote in it.
Evertype you have put forward wording that was not agreed too, and said it was. You attached comments to the poll options which were not agreed to and are totally misleading and based on nothing more than WP:OR. --Domer48'fenian'21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have I? I see a number of people happy to vote on it. "Totally misleading" is hyperbole. The comments were reviewed by several people and no one raised any objections. I pointed out explicitly that I attempted to make some neutral links to related topics in case people wanted to know what the terms meant. There's nothing WP:OR about that. It's just some wikilinks. COMPLAIN TO ARBCOM IF YOU WANT. I am satisfied that I, who initated the Request for Arbitration, have made a postiive contribution here. -- Evertype·✆21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just provided them. They clearly show editors saying "yes, that's fine" or equivalent to the proposed poll including the text. DrKiernan (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find these two notices by Everytype particularly outrageous [60], [61]. What has the United Kingdom to do with the renaming of RoI article above and beyond any other state? Imagine it was the other way around, that the UK was being renamed at Wikipedia. Would Ireland editors get some extra territorial privilege and sway over the outcome? No, and I wouldn't expect it either. This is a violation of the Ireland's sovereignty from the United Kingdom. Tfz23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype's actions were entirely proper. Trying to derail the poll train at this point is not going to work. If one is ill, it is better to swallow a unpalatable pill than to spit it out. DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DrKiernan did you even read Masen's response above, Evertype's actions were entirely improper? Railroading this process through at this point is going to work, because both Admin's and Editors refuse to swallow a unpalatable pill, that they are going against every policy of the project so why not just say that, spit it out so editors like me who do still have confidence in the project are not seen to be wasting their time. Tell editors like me that trying to derail the poll train at this point is not going to work, because wiki policies are out of the question when there is a POV to push and the numbers to back it up. Explain how when both Admin's and Editors set out to derail the alternative process to polling I put forward, not one of you, including Masen said a word. --Domer48'fenian'08:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only person who derailed your alternative processes was you, with your usurpation of moderator privileges on your proposal pages and imposition of selective censorship. As a direct result, people voted with their feet and stayed away. Now, do you or do you not accept the Arbcom decision that this whole could be achieved through consensus or majority decision? Do you or do you not accept that 75% of editors are now in favour of a final STV poll? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I unsuccessfully tried to put a minimum of 150 main article edits for the last six months, before users be allowed to vote, that would have taken a very sizable chunk out of the 75%. Content editors should have more sway, than the other accounts, imo. Tfz10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, my alternative process has not been derailed despite the attempts of both Editors and Admin’s and the blind indifference of the one moderator. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [62][63] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the Proposal page to again to insert them. That they tried to suggest that they were not aware the page had been protected is laughable when they went on to say "even if [they] had known it was protected [they] would have still made the edit." To then say that "once the page is unprotected [they'll] be withdrawing both [their] !vote and [their] comments" " and that they would encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, saying that “lack of engagement will doom it much quicker and with much less drama than any official sanction” and so scupper my attempt to move things forward show how hollow their arguments are and disruptive there actions were.
Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in the inane comments: [64], [65], [66], and on the proposal page, [67], [68] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page. Now in case you forgot, what about your attempts to disrupt the proposal:Bastun edit warring to make a point when the question I asked was clear an unambiguous. [69], [70] and had to use incivility to make a point.Comments which were removed from the proposal page, and added and commented upon on the talk page. [71][72][73][74]. None of which addressed why they opposed the proposal and ignored the guidelines. Comments removed from the talk page, [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. Notice how no mention was made on two of the comments which are from editors who agree with me. Now we know the moderator did not miss all of this going on, but did manage to miss the whole discussion were I did tell editors about my proposal. Now despite all of this my proposal is still there.--Domer48'fenian'12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, you simply don't get it. You are 6 months too late to the party. Many many people have already been down the arbcom advised route, and with all good intentions first attempted a solution without polling, using discussion based methods and policy based argument to solve this dispute, every single approach has either crashed and burned, died a death due to apathy, or been derailed by the same repetitive bullcrap going unmoderated, because the moderators and some of the more vocal participants did not simply understand that moderators were there to control behaviour, and not rule on content, or make the decisions for the community (and that ridiculous notion has been a common derailing mechanism). So we are moving to the endgame, where most people now simply accept that without something so concrete as a poll, whose results will be, per the arbcomm case, binding for two years, this dispute will never end. Me myself, after putting forward proposals for a properly timetable and moderated discussion based system for producing a solution after the arbcom decision, I simply gave up on this particular IECOLL page when it became clear the definition of 'moderator' was not understood by either the moderators or the regular combatants, there was no agreed or even understood structure or timetable, and we were just in for more of the same, albeit just harder to follow with numerous sub-pages and triangles and all that jazz, while others I am sure at the end of the arbcom case decided to merely ignore any discussion phase, content to wait for the inevitable poll. But since Masem has come on board, it seems to me that most people who participated in IECOLL and still believed a discussion solution was still possible, having seen his outside assessment of how its going, are now content with the analysis and suggestion put forward by him, which is unfortunately, a poll. Redking's infinite reposting, 'I didn't hear that' and 'this is all a ruse' shenanigans, and Tfz's repeated withdrawals and his latest statement of outrage and call for Ireland to withdraw its Wikipedia ambassador, are but mere sideshows, the poll train is indeed leaving the station, arguably with their help in pushing it by contributing to the kilobytes of irrelevanvce to the discussion venue. Get on it or don't, it's your choice. I am personally not interested in any discussion venue you intend to self moderate. Setting up a process only you intend to moderate is only going to turn everybody off, because, certainly in my case, you have made it impossible for me to point out on that page that you are selectively quoting my solution (last I looked, my comment had disappeared but your explanation remained), and I am sure for example a general comment on it from me that you have not correctly described the 'China' solution in the way its been described here, would not last very long without being moved/refactored. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diff's please for the "solution without polling, using discussion based methods and policy based argument to solve this dispute"? You mention "every single approach has either crashed and burned, died a death due to apathy" I'm not asking for every single one, just the ones based on policy based argument? By the way, if the process I suggest is accepted, I'll not be the one to moderate it, and your inane comments will still be removed. Misrepresenting an editors comments is considered a personal attack, and a bit like your comments here. P.S agree with you on the moderator and the bullcrap going unmoderated. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian'16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Misrepresenting an editors comments is considered a personal attack". That's good to know, because you are misrepresenting me on your proposal page. "Inane comments" also sounds like a sleight. As for diffs, you can go fish, I don't need to provide supporting diffs for everything I say on a talk page, this is not ANI. But by all means, if any body bar yourself disagrees with my recollection, they should let themselves be heard. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any time you ask for anything and anyone offers it to you, you respond with yet another passive-aggressive request. Or at least you sure seem to. Enjoying all of this, are you? Feel as though this is a productive use of everyone's time? My stars but I would rather be editing Rivers in Ireland or Gaelic script or something real. -- Evertype·✆18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for the supporting diff on which Ireland it is you want a diff on to show it's ambiguous... But really, what Mick said. The only person stopping your proposal from being discussed was you - you drove editors from the page. Repeating yourself ad nauseum, your constant demands, and accusations of snide remarks and inanity while doing exactly the same yourself - well, it's doing a better job than I ever could of making sure your proposal isn't adopted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!18:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, proving my point, ask a reasonable question, and all you get is inane comments! Bastun I've illustrated your disruptive editing above, so you are still unable to answer a very, very simple question, "Provide a Diff for the discussion were consensus was reached that "Ireland" is ambiguous. Both MASEM & myself can't find it." If you are unable to do that, provide a source that says "Ireland" is ambiguous? --Domer48'fenian'18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, this is the type of insistence that is derailing the process. Common sense: we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland" is an ambiguious term, but the fact that we are here at this project means it is. In fact, that's a Finding of Fact by ArbCom, so trying to retread over that is ignoring the ArbCom case completely - we need to move well past that point, even if you feel it is not justified.
I know you're arguing that we need to build consensus on solutions that meet policy, but I've read everything and every solution proposed is built that way - the problem is that we have conflicting sources and states of mind, so normal resolve of those has not occurred. After 6 months of the same wheeling-discussion in trying to come to a single solution that has lead nowhere tells me its time to abandon hope of a consensus and seek another mechanic that the parties are agreeable to to resolve this, in which case seems to be polling. Your solution is part of that poll so it is not being ignored, just the push to drive consensus on it. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun is do you really know what you are 'talking' about, or are you just pretending? Tfz
Masem since you have ignored my post above, and the disruptive editing of this process, suggesting that my insistence is derailing the process is a bit rich! Now first of, Finding of Fact, is a section head title nothing more. Under the title "Locus and state of dispute" ArbCom outline the nature of the dispute and nothing more. You have ignored the ArbCom case completely and the Principles they set out. You have allowed incivility and disruption illustrated above. You can not provide one diff to support your contension that fact and policy based discussions have been attempted. To come along here now and suggest that my insistence on editors providing diff's that support there actions and comments is derailing the process is a joke. Were was it agreed to start this poll, were was the wording of the notice agree, were was it agreed to post it over the whole community, were was it agreed to add the misleading comments under each option, were was the options agreed to. Now were are the other Mods? You say "We are never going to find a source that says "Ireland" is an ambiguious term" well why are we having this poll and discussion. Now you show me were you have suggested an alternative to polling, or show me were a policy based discussion was tried and failed. --Domer48'fenian'19:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Place holder for Masem's reply)
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Ireland as "The name of a classical scholarship at Oxford University founded in 1825 by John Ireland, D.D. (1761-1842), of Oriel College, Dean of Westminster." Here are various citations, NONE of which mean EITHER the island or the Irish state. Note that one citation is by Oscar Wilde. 1861 J. A. SYMONDS Let. 13 Mar. (1967) I. 282 We hope to secure the Ireland too this Term. If we do not, we shall be in a poor way. 1877 O. WILDE Let. Mar. (1962) 32, I have been in for ‘the Ireland’ and of course lost it: on six weeks' reading I could not expect to get a prize for which men work two and three years. 1951 M. KENNEDY Lucy Carmichael II. 80 He really is clever; he got the Ireland or the Hertford, I forget which, at Oxford. 1953 E. BARKER Age & Youth II. iii. 317 A year later, when I tried my luck for the Ireland, the king of classical scholar~ships, I had less confidence. 1972 Oxf. Univ. Cal. 1972-73 216 Dean Ireland's Scholarship... Value: £120. Awarded annually in Michaelmas Term after an examination... The examination is the same as that for the Craven Scholarships and the person elected to the Ireland Scholarship is, if not already a Craven Scholar, elected to the first Craven Scholarship. I hereby declare that on foot of this precise definition, the word "Ireland" to be polyvalent, that is, to be ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was uncivil. It was an ad-hominem attack. But what is your point? That the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous? It sure seems polyvalent to me. It means an island, a state, and, evidently, is the name of a scholarship. -- Evertype·✆20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you picked me up wrongly, I was referring to the convoluted explanation offered. One of my cohorts is an Ireland, and I don't think he competes for the name. You forgot to include him. It made me laugh. Tfz20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly I don't get sad, even when outrageous things happen. It's just a hobby with me, but I do like a certain "professionalism" to be employed. Discussion, citations, and elimination are the better resources to be used in a case like this. Polling is only a measure of the most popular pov, that's all it is. There are essays on NPOV here, and they are here primarily to help with discussion and resolution, not polls. Tfz20:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype on the section for polling options there are a number of comments posted under each option such as:
Could you provide a diff supporting the assertion these are "very misleading" thanks. Alternatively a diff for consensus that they are very misleading will do thanks. Rockpocket20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yet another inane responce Evertype, so I put the poll and the comments together to make it a bit handy for you. Now DrKiernan above gave these diff's [81][82][83][84][85] none of which address the question. So were was this agreed to? Rock, I'll do one better, I'll place citation tags on the comments and you can provide the references. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. All the comments are based on WP:OR. --Domer48'fenian'21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point, Domer, is that you are quick to demand citations for every single talk-page assertion you disagree with, and then claim the statement to be invalid when none are provided. However, you make plenty of unsupported assertions yourself (such as those statements "are very misleading"). You can't have it both ways. If you think every single statement on a talk page requires a citation, then stop making unsupported claims yourself. Its smacks of hypocrisy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Rockpocket23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been given the diffs. You have also repasted your question over and over again, pasting in the text over and over again. "Response" is spelled with two s's. Your question has been answered. -- Evertype·✆23:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You like most editors here have perfectly illustrated how disruptive editing has been allowed to continue on this whole talk page. How reasonable questions are stonewalled, undermining both the project and the editors to drive home a POV laden process. You have more than played your part in exposing this, and for that you should be thanked. --Domer48'fenian'23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to believe that Wikipedia is an anarchy, no law nor order, with "laws made on the hoof". I too am still waiting for the citation that Ireland is ambiguous. It seems to be the case with a bunch of editors, that if thy can claim that often enough like a mantra, or affirmation, that it may become true in the minds of other editors. Wikipedia is nose-diving fast and is looking very shabby and amateurish, imo. Mob rule rules the day. Masen will have to get a grip on a certain editor who is making up consensus, as he sees fit. Now we see maneuverings to the effect that if the "right" choice is chosen in the poll, then only that will be offered in the main poll. But if the "wrong" one is chosen, then the first three will be presented again in the main poll. What a mess! Tfz00:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, Tfz. We have had this discussion over and over and over. What exactly are you asking for? You want a source that states, parrot like, "Ireland is ambiguous"? You are probably not going to get one, but does that mean it is not ambiguous? Of course not. You and Domer appear to misunderstand what we mean by verifiability.
"Ambiguity" is only a word that describes the property of something being interpreted in more than one way. So what we are really stating is that the name "Ireland" can be used to represent different things and therefore can be interpreted in more than one way. Now, to most of us on this page, the ambiguity is so self evident that requesting a source for it appears to be purposefully pedantic. But it really isn't difficult to provide one: See the opening lines in A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1 for a perfectly coherent description of the ambiguity of the term "Ireland".
So, if its the term "ambiguity" that is bothering you, lets forget it and instead ask, are you satisfied with the verification of the fact that "Ireland" can be used to refer to different things? If so, than you are - by the very meaning of the term - acknowledging its ambiguity. Even if you cannot accept this, then that leaves you in a minority of two, because it is perfectly understandable to everyone else who has commented here. Rockpocket01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote just a few sections from that entire paper which reinforce that ambiguity (that "Ireland" can be verifiably used to refer to different things)
Ireland is the name of an island in the North Atlantic. Ireland is also the name of a state, comprising roughly three‐quarters of that island.
This explicitly states that Ireland can refer to different things, which is the meaning of the word "ambiguous". This is the opening sentence of the entire paper and really couldn't make the ambiguity of the term any more distinct.
In 1953 the Government Information Bureau issued a directive ...[that] whenever the name of the state was mentioned in an English language document, Ireland should be used. If it was necessary to make it clear that the reference was to the area of the twenty‐six counties, for example, in statistical returns, then either “Ireland (exclusive of the Six Counties)” or “Ireland,” with the word followed by an explanatory asterisk or footnote should be used.
This section demonstrates that the ambiguity of the term "Ireland" was recognized by Government itself. Note also how the Bureau, while understandably insisting "Ireland" be used as the name for the state, was quite happy to use a descriptive bracket to distinguish the state from the entire island. This is exactly what is being proposed to deal with the ambiguity here!
The use of Ireland to refer to the state is not universal... Sinn Féin refers to the “26 County State” and the “Six County State,” reserving “Ireland” for the entire island.
Again, an explicit statement that Ireland can refer to different things, which is the meaning of the word "ambiguous". Moreover, in this case it isn't the nasty imperial Brits that is making the distinction, it is Sinn Féin.
Thanks Rockpocket, quote -You want a source that states, parrot like, "Ireland is ambiguous"? You are probably not going to get one,, that probably irons that one out. Some people want to make it ambiguous for various reasons. What I object to most is, editors who claim to be in the "know", continually repeating ad infinitum that it is ambiguous, when clearly it is not to many people. Entirely subjective, and unnecessary. Tfz10:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrate for us, please, that the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous. This is not subjective. Ireland is the name of an island. Ireland is the name of a state which occupies much but not all of the island named Ireland. Ireland is a family name. Ireland is the name of an academic scholarship. Ireland is the name of a town in Indianna. Ireland is the name of a town in West Virginia. There are six of statements here. Each of them is verifiable. They do not any of them mean the same thing. A family name is not an island. A town in West Virginia is not a member state of the European Union. This isn't original research, either. So, please, demonstrate for us how the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆11:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make my point quite well, Tfz. The intended meaning of "Ireland" can be entirely subjective (which is, of course, a characteristic of its ambiguity). Whats important is that we can verify that it is subjective, as demonstrated by the sources you asked for. Rockpocket20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather leave some of this stuff to the philosophers, my training is economics. Speaking here in relativities and not in absolutes. Ireland is no more ambiguous than Wales (disambiguation), or England (disambiguation), etc etc. Ireland a sovereign country covers 85% of an island called Ireland. There is only one country in the world called Ireland, and there is only one island in the world called Ireland. When talking about countries there is no disambiguation, and when talking about islands there is no disambiguation, when talking about people, there could be hoards of Irelands, or Englands, or Wales. Cannot remember Jimbo Wales being disambiguated with the ancient country of Wales. Most educated people have no problems understanding these things, and even young children too, I can vouch for that. Tfz21:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I agree with your logic here, and you have also hit upon the key issue in a very succinct way: Ireland a sovereign country covers 85% of an island called Ireland. There is only one country in the world called Ireland, and there is only one island in the world called Ireland. When talking about countries there is no disambiguation, and when talking about islands there is no disambiguation The "problem" (for want of a better term) is this: at Wikipedia generally write articles about islands and the countries on them independently of each other. In doing so, we need to disambiguate for technical reasons (while most educated people may have no problems understanding these things, our database cannot). The alternative is that we don't distinguish between the island and the state in an article title, the result being that we have a single article for two overlapping entities (island and state). Now those are both viable options, and one is no more inherently "correct" than the other. I, personally, favor two articles because its consistent with how we deal with other countries that are on islands (see Hispaniola and Haiti, for example). If that is your preference, then disambiguation is a technical necessity. I appreciate this isn't a perfect solution. If you prefer the second option (i.e. Domer's merge proposal), then the disambiguation is not required. This is also not a perfect solution. Unfortunately deciding between these comes down to balancing Wikipedia's guidelines and policies against each other. There is no right or wrong answer, only interpretations. Unless you are seriously trying to argue that island = state, then demanding references is pointless, it will not resolve this dilemma. All we can do is explain and justify our personal preference and then respect that others may have a differing interpretation. I hope you are able to do that, and I urge you to put forward your preference so that it can be included in the community poll. Rockpocket22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a viable alternate view, which many people hold. That the country of Ireland covers the whole of Ireland, and the country and the island are synonymous with eachother. That's probably the truest logic of all, in that Ireland became divided, and some day unite again, it must. Travelling around Ireland this is not difficult to understand, finding that almost all folk, both North and South, see that as the future. Not today, but that that eventuality will come about. Tfz01:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly a viable view with regards to the "country" of Ireland (though not currently a verifiable one with regards to the modern sovereign state, at least according to its own Constitution). I don't have an issue with that as a proposal to be put to the community, but we would probably need some definition of what the "country" includes in this sense and also what we would do about the state, which would still need an article and hence a title). What I'm trying to do, though, is get away from the wiki-lawyering of the last few weeks (whether Ireland is "ambiguous" or not) and promote that idea that our moderator has been trying to explain. This is really about different interpretations of how we organize our encyclopaedia. That all of the options on the table are viable, and that none are inherently more or less viable than any other. That demanding sources for every statement of preference is pointless at this point. We tried to resolve this by discussion and compromise, but were unable to form a consensus, so now we are left with an STV. The beauty of of STV is that it will likely provide us with the compromise option. And, in a case where there are no right or wrongs, that is probably the best outcome we can hope for. I hope you will join me in engaging in this process fully, and robustly argue your preferred solution, while also respecting that others have an equally viable alternative that they might prefer. Rockpocket01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock still trying to peddle your WP:SYN. Lets see what you left out: The British government would not use the term “Ireland” in any official document, according to Daly, until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which included an undertaking by the Irish government to delete Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Britain’s refusal to use the constitutional title of the Irish state, and its efforts to persuade other nations to adopt a similar practice, can be interpreted, Daly says, as an effort to exercise a residual authority over independent Ireland. Britain appeared to have gone to significant lengths, she says, to stop international organizations from using the name Ireland to designate the twenty six county state, and that this was often in response to pressure from the Northern Ireland government.[1] Now I don't need to interpret what Daly says, but you do.
I'm afraid you are going to have to interpret what Daly says, because I have no idea what relevance that quote has to this discussion. As far as I can tell, it informs us that the British Government refused to use "Ireland" to refer to the state. So what? How does that show that the term is not ambiguous (which is what you seem to be arguing). Your second screed is even less relevant to this discussion. Your proposal is of interest to nobody but you, so how about your stop beating that particular dead horse. I'm beginning to wonder if you have a few stock phrases that you cut and paste in a random order in response to every comment, because you really are not making any sense to me. Rockpocket20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Peddling his synthesis"? Bosh and tosh. Rockpocket merely shows us that he can use the English language like a person, not like a robit. But never mind that. What is it you think that "Ireland" means, Domer-lad, if it is unambiguous? What is your source that the word "Ireland" is unambiguous? To put it another way, What is your source that the word "Ireland" means only one thing? When you answer this perfectly reasonable question, please respond also to the definition I gave above, from the Oxford English Dictionary, defining "Ireland" as the name of an academic scholarship. Thanks very much. -- Evertype·✆08:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You put out the poll over the head of Masem, and the agreement of an unrepresentative group of editors will not change that. You have failed to provide diff's were the poll options were agreed, were the comments under the options were agreed, with no agreement to put it to the whole community, including a warning on sanctions which could not be enforced. Now I've acted in a reasonable and calm manner, despite your POV pushing agenda. You reaction to my reasonable questions, including inane replys and now your bold texting and condensending attitude is the clear sign of an editor unable to support their conduct or opinions. --Domer48'fenian'12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary is call a personal attack and is the result of not having anythng else to offer reasonable discussion.
Please Stop
Can we take a break from arguing, please?
If Evertype has overstepped the mark by starting the poll running in appropriately, then Masem will, no doubt, come along and say so. However, it looked to me as though consensus was emerging for the poll, including from Masem. Perhaps it was imprudent to start it in quite such a hurry, but what's done is done. Domer48, you've now raised the concern that the poll was started inappropriately, you do not need to keep repeating this. I can't imagine it will be many hours until Masem surfaces here — until then, lets take a break for further argument over it. There's nothing to be gained save acrimony from an argument over it.
As to notifying involved parties to the ArbCom case, well Masem did say (in his 13:30 21 June post, above): As for individual users, the only two sets I would use are those that have been named in the ArbCom case and those that are members of this project; attempts to bring in anyone else specifically may seem to be canvasing. All such individuals have now been notified, and, unless I'm mistaken, Evertype has not notified anyone beyond that list. I'm sure he is grateful to you, Domer48, for reminding him about the list of project members.
Finally, I'm sure we don't need reminding that Masem is the only (active) moderator here. We all know that Evertype isn't, nor is Domer48, nor is Tfz, and nor am I for that matter. Obviously Evertype cannot impose a ban on anyone for disrupting the proceedings. However the ArbCom have very clearly ruled that Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process. This very clearly gives Masem authority to ban anyone for up to month if they act disruptively. Clearly I can't speak for Masem, but I find it hard to believe that confirmed sock-puppetry would be seen as anything other than disruption of a degree worthy of (at least) a significant topic ban. It doesn't seem inappropriate to remind people that Masem has been explicitly given the power to do this.
So let's calm down, please. Perhaps things haven't been handled in the most diplomatic or prudent manner, but continued arguing about it certainly isn't helping either.
"Way to go, Ras!" Masem responded to this issue almost an hour before Ras's post. They said there was no agreement on the notice, no agreement on the options, no agreement to put it before the whole community, and no sanctions can be placed on editors who take part in this poll. So way to go Ras, you got it wrong on all counts, likewise the cheerleading section. --Domer48'fenian'08:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a poll taking place on this matter but do agree it should of been an internal matter. There was no need to flood wikipedia with messages of this mini poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with that assertion. There's a big difference between "no agreement" and "Masem didn't say 'Go'", which is what I think those diffs show. Obviously it's a matter of interpretation, which most things are. Fmph (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, to clear up the matter of interpretation, please show us were the agreement was reached on:
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. If you expect that there should be explicit diffs for each of those, then you living in cloud cuckoo land. However I'll just refer you back to the diff you gave me where Masem quite clearly states " There was some agreement for it, ...". Thats my point. You say there was no agreement, yet the diff you use says there was some. The diff you gave does not show what you are asserting it shows. Fmph (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no Diff's for each of those, so no matter of interpretation thanks. Masem quite clearly states On the Poll and the options:"There was some agreement for it, but I wasn't expecting it to be started as fast as it was... there just needed to be a bit more discussion about it to make sure that's the way to resolve what "(xxx)" choices were to appear" "I suggested (not said) that we end it by the 1st... it wasn't a demand to start the poll right away as I think we were still trying to make sure it made sense." On putting it before the community: "it was only meant to be limited to this project" " the vote wasn't meant to be a community-wide aspect at this point" "(it doesn't have to be me that posts it, but let's make sure everyone agrees abou this). and what that announcement will contain." On the sanctions: "one can't stipulate penalities or the like for socking" "it was meant to be informal and thus issuing warnings about banning and the like was probably out of place." My comments stand, thanks, --Domer48'fenian'14:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. "So there is no Diff's for each of those, so no matter of interpretation thanks." - Have you got a diff for where I said that. No? It's just your interpretation? That's fine then. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. Fmph (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. Don't worry if you can't find them. I really didn't expect you to. Fmph (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another inane responce, this is becoming the norm. Don't worry though, your inability to support you opinion is shared by a number of editors. --Domer48'fenian'21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An absurd responce to a reasonable question. I've said quite clearly there was no agreement, now show us were this agreement was reached. Glad you copped on about the indent! Another inane and absurd responce, will more than confirm for me and everyone else that no such agreement was reached, and illustrates the type of disruptive editing which has been allowed to continue throughout this whole talk page. --Domer48'fenian'23:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. That clarifies matters a lot. Just to confirm then, you are not saying that Masem said there was no agreement, is that correct? Just that you said it? That's fine then. I'll withdraw my request for diffs. Thanks. Fmph (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You put out the this poll over the head of Masem, with nothing more than the agreement of an unrepresentative group of editors and the diff's above will not change that. You have failed to provide diff's were the poll options were agreed, were the comments under the options were agreed, with no agreement to put it to the whole community, including a warning on sanctions which could not be enforced. Now I've acted in a reasonable and calm manner, despite your POV pushing agenda. You reaction to my reasonable questions, including inane replys, your bold texting, condensending attitude, posting diff's which don't address the questions all over the place and personal attacks is the clear sign of an editor unable to support their conduct or opinions has to resort to this type of actions. --Domer48'fenian'12:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ive been away for a day so ive missed what has been happening, but i will say the poll is a very good idea and a great practice run for the main poll which will be happening at some stage in the future. It seems to be going rather well and shows overwhelming support for Ireland (state) being the option in the future poll and not Ireland (country) or Ireland (republic) etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again I suggest that we not obsess about the way the ballot is going. It has six more days, and it would be a bad idea for anyone to be publishing a running tally of what is winning and what is not. Tally for yourself/yourselves if you wish, but please let's avoid listing specifically what has support and what has not, OK? -- Evertype·✆09:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt take someone with a calculator to look at the figures to see its clear the overwhelming support is for Ireland (state) being the option in the main vote. The vote isnt going to radically change in the next few days. I see no harm in a running commentary. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about the ongoing tally could look like a form of canvassing. There's a reason exit polls aren't allowed to be published before the election is over. I'm asking you and everyone, please, do not make tallies and publish them. -- Evertype·✆12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed as the poll is, my vote went in. That's no endorsement to the preposterous way the poll was initiated. Tfz12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im rather disappointed, i come here saying ur poll was a good idea evertype and that its a great practice for the main poll whilst others are attacking u for setting up the poll in the way you did and yet u moan at me for simply stating an obvious fact. Again there are no rules here about not mentioning the ongoing polling results , theres no rules against talking about it on that poll page either as far as im aware. I dont see how talking about it here can be seen as Canvassing when u have already advertised the poll above and we are all involved in this process. So again.. Its quite clear from the poll so far the majority support is for Ireland (state) to be included in the main vote, ofcourse there may be a second choice aswell, but state has overwhelming support so far. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the poll was a good idea, and I am happy that you do, too. I have said, courteously, that I would like you, and me, and everyone, to refrain from doing a running commentary on what is winning and what is not, for the duration of the poll. The rationale is the same as that of the broadcasters who do not allow exit polls to be published on air until the polls close. I'm looking at the poll. I might even be totting up now and again out of interest. But I'm keeping that to myself because I think it's better practice than to keep shtum. -- Evertype·✆14:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you dont want to prejudge the final results, but i cant see the harm in mentioning theres one way ahead of all others right now. The fact the poll shows one option is clearly ahead backs up the fact the poll was a good idea. Anyway we can wait and see what happens, although sarahs question below about how many get included is an important one ive not seen answered BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main IECOLL project page is now seriously out of date. I have updated the timetable to reflect the latest polling activity, but the section on "Agreed procedures and methodologies" needs to be removed. I could do a simple delete, but I think this material should be archived, and I'm not sure how to do that. Can someone do this please?
If theres clear support for a second option that should be included, But if like at the moment we have one way ahead and several lagging behind it should just be the first included in the vote in my opinion. Maybe we could have a poll on that too? ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No way Jose. With BritishWatcher announcing the result I'm rather concerned that Ireland (country) gets through. If places like NI and Wales are "countries" I'd find it difficult to accept that Ireland isn't. To put it mildly. Sarah777 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unpredictable as the only other location informed of the poll 'outside of Ireland' was the United Kingdom, and BI, same thing. A real insult to Irish sovereignty, in anyone's book. Tfz14:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, isn't that gnomic of you. "Some come cheap, but others put value on themselves." Does this sentence have content? By the way, you might wish to learn that "Sovereignty", except in myth, is not a person, and cannot be "insulted". -- Evertype·✆15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(doubletriple e/c) Sarah, I assume Masem will be adding up and announcing the results. Earlier he said he proposed the top three (or four in the event of a tie, which is really quite unlikely with STV) winners will get onto the poll. —ras52 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm i cant see the announcment on the Irish wikipedians noticeboard, someone needs to check all of those places because it says they were told but it doesnt look like its on there. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah: Um... thanks? :-) In fairness to BW, "calling" the result - especially when everyone can see all the ballots - isn't much different from what RTÉ and all the radio stations do with their exit polls at every election. And one thing's for sure - visible "ballot papers" and the counts are the main reason why electronic voting should never be allowed here. It's the world's greatest bloodsport! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it great fun - I wouldn't trust them anywhere near an unobservable electronic system. As for efficiency - the costs of bailing out Anglo would pay for the paper counts till the year 10,000 - by a conservative estimate. Sarah777 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier Masem suggested three or four options, which means 9 or 12 additional choices in the main poll. I think that is too many, and I suggest two or three options, which means 6 or 9 additional choices in the poll. I take it both options are on the table. -- Evertype·✆15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all likelihood, only one "(xxx)" needs to be put forward for the main ballot. If "Ireland (a)" tops the poll now then, in all likelihood, it will top the poll of "(xxx)" options in the "BIG" ballot too (regardless of whether it "wins" the full ballot or not). There is a chance that there could be a swing between the votes (e.g. this one favouring "Ireland (a)" and the "BIG" one favouring "Ireland (b)"), but the bigger the gap between 1st and 2nd place in this poll the less likely that will be. Including anything that wasn't a genuine contender for 1st place in this ballot would wasteful. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. I have not looked at the poll results so I don't know if this is the case, but if (a) clearly is the winner without applying the STV process, then it makes to only have (a) on there. If (a) only wins after a few rounds over an option (b) with the numbers being split no better than, say, 60/40, I'd recommend both options. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that since we started the poll expecting two, perhaps three options in the big poll we should stick to that unless the numbers are so overwhelming that it shows that won't be a runner. I don't like changing the rules mid-ballot. I think that detracts from our credibility. -- Evertype·✆18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends (and no, I've not looked nor will look until the 1st) on the overall vote distribution. I would consider that if one option - without resolving STV, got 66% of the votes, while no other option got above 5%, that's overwhelming. But if it was the case that one option got 66% of the votes and a second option - without STV resolution, got the other 33%, that's not overwhelming. But I'm hesitant to call out exact numbers where I believe the line is drawn instead seeing exactly how the poll works. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, although the main poll willl benefit the most from a single outcome rather than having several choices needing to be placed in the poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you have tough standards. So if you were competing in a quiz of 100 questions, you got 33 questions right and your competitor got 66 questions right, you wouldn't feel "overwhelmingly" beaten? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for another post on this, but there seems to be very little comment and agreement above about if there will be statements or not for the vote options. Need more views on this matter thanks otherwise its going to push the date for the poll starting back a few days when we finally get round to debating this. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is very little likelihood of gaining consensus on what should go in each of the statements. As an alternative, perhaps editors could write their own statements in userspace and add a link to each one of them from the statements section. There may be a long list, but it would allow uninvolved voters access to something to read. Fmph (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth at least trying to see if we can get consensus. Above, it was suggested we use the 'Postition argument summaries', and it was further suggested we leave out the summaries. So each option in the final poll would essentially one or two lines saying why it should be used and one or two why it shouldn't be used. We could further refine that so that only "positive" statements (with their counterarguments, of course) were included. So "Cakes are best because they're full of sugar"/"It's been proven that too much sugar is bad for you." rather than "Noone should eat cakes because they're full of sugar, they should eat cereal instead"/"Some people are allergic to cereals." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the members want this, I could write up such statements (I'm neutral to any choice) with any necessary unbiased refinements as seen fit. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if u have the time Masem thanks, most of the points have already been made on the link provided by Bastun, just a case of weeding out the nonsense. Pros / Cons with no summary so people can make up their own minds. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol ur wasting ur time. Although i think u should of included that he keeps removing comments from pages he claims ownership over despite not being a mod. Damn dictatorship. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I have to agree with DrKiernan, I'm fed up with the disruption, incivility and POV pushing on this talk page, and I think DrKiernan is right, it's the best thing to do. --Domer48'fenian'15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's everyone's prerogative to ignore anyone they wish, I assume most here are adults. For example, I totally ignore Bastun. Now, don't ask me why, that'd be another thread. Tfz22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, your accusation here that I am canvassing is unfounded. I posted to Kittybrewster's page because he made a mistake here, and I was explaining his mistake to him. Your hatred of me is misplaced, as should be obvious as Kittybrewster is unlikely to vote for my favoured option of "Ireland (country)". DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BritishWatcher. Despite my zero input so far i would say that ignoring is the best thing you can do for now. If persistence is kept up then you can try again, with the moral high ground.Willski72 (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is outrageous. I don't even like DrKiernan's preferred vote (as it's completely different from mine, heh)—but I think that he has a right to make his vote and be counted. He did not canvass. He explained the parameters of the poll to someone. I did the same thing and no one accused me of "canvassing". The accusations were in bad faith. -- Evertype·✆ 12:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (SarekOfVulcan, please do not delete my comment again. -- Evertype·✆18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think it was intentional. Sarek was undoing DrKiernan's removal of his own posts and your comment just sustained collateral damage. BTW, I agree with you 100% but I think it would be better without the bold.Scolaire (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My sincere apologies, sir: I thought I had properly reviewed my edit to make sure I was only restoring DrKiernan's comments, but I obviously didn't do it properly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I popped in here expecting this collabration to be a few steps on from when last I was here. This thread for example has no real purpose other than to cause disruption and deflect away from proper discussion. I propose that any future arguments of this type be deleted or moved somewhere else for the simple reason that this page is for editors to collaborate. Jack forbes (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Descriptions of the main poll options
Whether or not provide we statements for and against each option, I think we should also provide a fuller description of each option. The current version at
User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox defines each option in terms of the existing pages, which will be confusing for editors who are not familiar with the ins and outs of the status quo. I think it would be useful to add a table to each option to illustrate what the initial text of each article would become. For instance voiting main poll Option D could appear something like this:
D: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
Ireland is an independent state in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies about five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned on 3 May 1921.
Ireland (island)
Ireland is the third-largest island in Europe, and the twentieth-largest island in the world.
Ireland (disambiguation)
Ireland commonly refers to: ...
This approach also has the advantage in that it illustrates what Options E (Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article) and F (A general "all-Ireland" topic) might actually say in practice.
The more I look at this the more I like it. With an STV vote - even for those familiar with STV - there is always a fear that you have voted for the wrong thing, or in the wrong order. This table shows exactly what you will be voting for when you vote for each option. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That method with a table and the start of the intro is very clear and we should use then, although i still feel its very important the arguments for and against must be presented along with that table BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher, I think that arguments should not be on the poll page itself. Would we ever be able to agree on the pro- and con-arguments? It could take weeks. Having said that, apart from some small bits of formatting I think that Hallucegenia's draft makes good sense. Should I merge the two? I could do that on my own sandbox or in Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's. -- Evertype·✆09:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should do it at Rannṗáirtí's (ar bhosca ghainimh Rannṗáirtí?). Per BRD, if anybody has a problem with it, it can be discussed there. As regards pros and cons, Masem might still come back with a list - see above. We should leave that open for the moment. Scolaire (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, I saw this after I saw Hallucegenia's comment below, and what's done is done. It will be great if Masem comes back with a list... but I still think that arguments should be on a separate page, not on the ballot page itself. Currently I find many or most of the pro/con arguments to be POV (even for options that I happen to prefer myself). -- Evertype·✆09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments by definition are statements of POV (= points of view). NPOV does not mean absence of POV, it means a balanced statement of differing POVs. The whole purpose of the poll is to ascertain what users think is the best option i.e. which POV they agree with. A statement of pro and con POVs can only help voters to make up their minds, surely! Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we're starting to draft out different versions of the main polling page, then can I suggest that sandboxes are probably not the best place? We need to keep track of changes and other contributors need to see what is going on. I hesitate to suggest it, but are we now in a postion to start building the actual polling page? We could build the voting page at, say: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll (Draft), and copy it across to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll when the vote goes live. When the results of the "Ireland (xxx)" poll are known, when we have decided which order the alternatives should be presented, and when we have decided if and where Pro's and Con's should be located, we can add them as we go. Does anyone here dare create the first draft? Hallucegenia (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished this draft. I took care to make sure that things lined up, that spellings were correct and consistent—no "(State)" alongside "(state)" for instance—and that the choices in the informative boxes corresponded to the change option listed. When the Poll on Ireland (xxx) ends and when the decision as to what "(xxx)" options are going to be listed on the poll, I will be happy to add them into the template. I think it will be best if I use the same method for randomizing the entries in this poll as I did for the current one. Is this agreeable? -- Evertype·✆09:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What should the name of the poll be? We have Poll on Ireland (xxx), where the choice is just about what Ireland (xxx) will mean. The header I took from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's page said Poll on Ireland/Republic of Ireland. We can't use that in a URL because of the syntax of "/". How about Poll on Ireland article names? -- Evertype·✆
The poll has been running for a week now and with just 10 hours to go has attracted the sum total of 50 votes. Now, while this is enough to decide on what two (or three) options qualify for the final poll, for such a "controversial" topic that was advertised here, on all the relevant project pages, on the Ireland articles, and with a note to every participant of this project and at the Arbcom case - it's a less than whelming response. Masem, you said above that you weren't in favour of using a Watchlist hatnote to advertise the final poll. I would ask you to reconsider this (assuming there's consensus), as the last thing we want is for the final poll to take place and then to have the "losing" side claim that a low poll means that there is a lack of community consensus for whatever decision is reached. I really think it's vital that as many as possible participate. Thoughts? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!10:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think 50 !votes is pretty spectacular! How many contributors were you hoping for to consider the poll to be not low? Have we ever had 50 previously on an "Ireland" issue? --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear at the top of very nearly everyone's Watchlist. (AIUI it is possible to opt out of the messages. My guess is that not many editors have.) Mr Stephen (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors will not vote simply because they don't understand the issues and complexities, so 50 'quality' votes is infinitely better than a larger random vote. It's for these reasons, and a few others, that I objected to the poll. Anyway the poll is likely to proceed irrespective. Tfz11:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51 votes and counting. Will there really be a claim that a "low poll" is a lack of community consensus? I have never come across this before. What constitutes a low poll anyway? Jack forbes (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know it seems reasonable, some will of looked at the poll and not bothered to vote because they dont support any option like that one, i wasnt going to bother voting but thought it was a good chance to practice for the real one. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bastun canvassing for a large turnout of non-Irish editors knowing that he is likely to lose if this is restricted to those who are actually interested in the topic? And extreme results? Really? Which of the slate of options we are voting on would you regard as "extreme"? Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as this is about "consensus" (allegedly) and not "majority rule" we could give ordinary editors with no history of editing Ireland-related articles one vote; Irish editors who contribute to Irish articles regularly 5 votes and regular editors of Irish articles who live in the Ireland (country) 10 votes. That seems both fair and consistent with WP:COMMONNAME to me. A "solution" forced through by a majority of non-Irish votes against a clear preference of Irish editors will have no consensus and lack legitimacy. Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, take your insinuations and shove them. I'm canvassing for a large turnout because I want this to be a final consensus arrived at by the community, rather than by a handful of editors who haven't yet been driven away by bad-faith accusations. Do you want a low turnout so you can rally a few friends - apparently willing to give their addresses - on to your "side". I deliberately didn't mention the actual votes on those earlier polls, but seeing as we're now throwing mud... the first one had twelve people supporting various (six) moves and thirty-three actively in favour of the status quo. The second link shows thirty-one actively in favour of the status quo and nine supporting "another set up". The interesting thing is a large proportion of the supports for the status quo seem to have come from Irish editors. Certainly more Irish editors appear to favour the status quo than want to change it. So drop the rhetoric. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!01:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun; WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL etcetera. I'm not sure where you get the "Irish editors" tally. Are you including British folk living on the island but outside the country that the "RoI" article refers to? "final consensus arrived at by the community" is a myth - this is a vote. It is important that it isn't decided by political bias and that WP:COMMONNAME is accepted "by the community" and that Ireland is called by it's proper name - certainly no title that suggests the name of the country is "Republic of Ireland" can ever get consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. We are seeking a consensus. All the move requests over the years were considered to be unfair because they required a two-thirds majority to overturn the status quo. Now we finally have a procedure by which it will be changed with a simple majority using proportional representation, if that is the consensus. If the consensus is in favour of the status quo, then the status quo remains. Either way, we all keep our lips buttoned for two years from the day the consensus is enacted. Our concern must be to ensure that the result is a fair reflection of the views of all - Irish, British, American, Australian, African and Asian - not to stack the votes in favour of any one option. Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Sarah, you don't get to decide what is and isn't acceptable - the community does. My definition of Irish is as per the Irish constitution, I don't know or care what yours is. But as Scolaire points out, nationality is irrelevant in this anyway. Any editor (with an account older than June 1st) can vote. That's one, unweighted vote. Your apology for breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL above is noted and accepted, though you should have thrown WP:AGF in there too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Bastun, Bastun, Bastun. You cause me to despair betimes. as Scolaire points out, nationality is irrelevant. Eh, no. Incorrect. Daft, even. I have been trying to explain to folk that, de facto, WP:NPOV or "community consensus" is a myth; a euphemism, for Anglo-Saxon POV. I'm not sure whether yoy don't understand that or whether you pretend not to because you share British (in this case) pov. But any solution imposed against the majority of editors who live in the country of Ireland is not "consensus". It is the imposition of political POV, pure and simple. I'll join the dots for you in greater detail if needs be. Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Draft of main poll
We now have a draft of a possible version of the main poll at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll (Draft). To help structure the discussion about this draft, I have taken the liberty of setting out below the main areas that we will need to discuss. If I've missed anything out, then please just add them to this list.
I've now done this. Most of the comments already in this paragraph seemed to go best into the Pro's and Con's section, so I put them there. Hope that's OK with the various authors; please undo if I've got it wrong.... Hallucegenia (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poll is looking good, i like the shape / layout etc. Just need agreement on the pros and cons for each of the options as far as i can see. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that having pros and cons on the ballot itself could be considered a kind of canvassing. I would be supportive of a link to a separate page outlining pros and cons, but have yet to see an argument for putting it on the same page. Also I'd like to see Masem's draft before agreeing to anything.... -- Evertype·✆14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the arguments for and against the options should be on the same page because people who may not be aware of the "controversy" may just come along and vote for 'obviously it should be option x', possibly without even realising that there are issues around the naming of Ireland articles. I'll avoid the stereotypes ;-) But I'm sure you know what I mean. Including the pros and cons on the main page means that there's an increased chance the voter will think about their choice(s) rationally. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!15:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with putting them on the main page. But i would suggest that they are put underneath the actual poll with a clear distinction between them so that people do not become confused.Willski72 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no pros and cons, period, the wording of any listing would be problematic in the extreme. Let the poll speak for itself, and possibly link to all previous discussions, for a laugh. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view is this: everybody who's discussing this is intending to vote. I'm guesing that all, or nearly all, know how you're going to vote. But how do you know? Is it because you've been reading the arguments for the last three weeks or three years? I imagine so. Would your vote be more valuable if you hadn't read it? Hardly! So why do some of you not want uninvolved users to read the arguments - on the poll page - before voting? This isn't like sticking a pin in the Grand National field to decide who to back. We're looking for informed opinion here. So let's put the arguments on the top of the page, and let our voters know what it is they're voting for. Scolaire (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. My main concern is that a preponderance of UK !voters that haven't been following this discussion will result in a Status Quo. Don't forget, under current UK legislation, the name of the state is Republic of Ireland, and a lot of UK editors will be used to hearing this on the BBC, etc, because that's OK there. Just not everywhere else... --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns are not my concerns. What I want to see is a fair and durable result based on consensus. If that result is Republic of Ireland then so be it. I have no interest in rigging this vote - quite the reverse. Scolaire (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awful! It is already difficult enough for people to work out their preferences using STV, and then with the added box showing the implications of the change. To add in a list of arguments inside the ballot is a very bad idea. The very top italic paragraph can point to a page where there are arguments. People could even open it up in a separate tab or window. But please let the ballot itself be simple. -- Evertype·✆20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ballot itself is not simple! Probably the great majority of voters have never had experience of STV before. Even those of us who are used to it are accustomed to writing our numbers against a candidate name, party name and photograph, not messing about with curly brackets. More info on the top will make it easier, not more difficult, for all of us. You say: "It is already difficult enough for people to work out their preferences using STV...". but how are people to work out their preferences if not by weighing up the options, the implications and the arguments? Scolaire (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding in these controversial (and as yet unwritten) statements will surely not make the ballot any easier. We've just had a practice round with a format that worked. It's not wise to do what you propose. What I mean that it's difficult enough to work out their preferences means "it's hard enough to make sure that A is A and B is B -- without adding in lines of contentious text making each of the paragraphs even longer. As it is we're likely to be adding a whole set of options under "(xxx)". I object to having this material put onto the ballot itself. I do not object to making it available to voters via a prominent wikilink at the top of the ballot, but just like in a REAL election, the arguments need to be in a separate place from the ballot. On this point you won't find me compromising. Ill help to improve the pros/cons, as neutrally as possible. I'll be as accommodating as anything. But I will oppose strenuously putting the arguments on the actual ballot itself, because I believe it's fundamentally wrong to do that. -- Evertype·✆20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to oppose it, strenously or otherwise. But please remember that, however much work you have put into this lately, you have no authority and you cannot dictate how things will be done. You can only suggest like the rest of us. I have stated my case and I am going to let it rest at that. I suggest you do the same. Scolaire (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about dictating. Hyperbole! But I don't believe there will be consensus to mix arguments into the ballot. I suppose the next thing to do is try to wrestle with some sort of neutral description of pros and cons. I hope Masem has been able to work on that. -- Evertype·✆21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my considerable ignorance but is the ballot classed as the whole voting page or just a part of the whole voting page?Willski72 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of Ireland (xxx) Poll results and implications for the final poll
So we have three options.
As Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid has said, the runaway winner is F, Ireland (state). We could just go with that. On the other hand, we did enter into this assuming that we would take two options, possibly three.
In the run-off for two candidates, we saw F, Ireland (state), get elected on the first count and it took till the fifth count before A, Ireland (country) was elected.
In the run-off for three candidates, we saw F, Ireland (state), get elected on the first count; A, Ireland (country) was elected on the second count, and it took till the sixth count to elect C, Ireland (Republic of).
Personally I'd be happiest with F only as this makes the ballot easier for voters. Failing that we should go with F and A. I don't believe the support for C was strong enough to warrant putting all three on the ballot. -- Evertype·✆08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My 2¢ is to go with just F since it get three times as many votes as A or C. I know some editors will be very eager for A to be included, and I would be interested in knowing if there would be a swing from "state" to "country" when we advertise the main ballot to *everyone* - but aside from that I don't see any merit in including A or C. So, "F" or "F and A", but would argue for just "F". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Evertype and Rannpháirtí. F had an overall majority of first preferences i.e. more than all the others put together. Realistically, all options containing A and/or C will be eliminated early on in the big poll, and not all of them will transfer. Including them will make the poll more complex, with zero gain for anybody. Scolaire (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all the tables and pros / cons that are going to have to be included, it makes sense just to include Ireland (state) it is the clear winner. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how will this poll resolve the issue of how to refer to the 26 counties in the hundreds of WP articles in which it is currently referenced? How will it resolve the issue of how to name articles like Economy of the Republic of Ireland? It seems to me that any vote to change the status quo will exacerbate rather than solve these problems. I've been saying this all along, only to be ignored, and the fact that the suggestion of a comprehensive compromise gained significant support on the Task Force has been completely disregarded. Mooretwin (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your comment first, most of those who supported the compromise on the Task Force withdrew their support very soon afterwards when the arbitration began. That's part of life and we just have to move on. To answer your question, this poll will not resolve the issue of how to refer to the 26 counties in articles; that will have to be dealt with separately. How we deal with it will to some extent depend on the result of the poll. Remember that the status quo is one of the options. Scolaire (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall anyone withdrawing their support soon after arbitration began. And no - this poll will not resolve the issue. Worse, there will be no incentive for the "winners" of this poll to compromise on the other issue, having already got one result in the bag they can use the result to "win" on the other issue. It is very disappointing and unfortunate that a comprehensive approach (in order to encourage compromise) has not been facilitated, and that changes are to be pushed through piecemeal by voting. Mooretwin (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For my part I hope for Good Faith on the part of whoever are perceived to be the "winners". In any case, the question now is which of the (xxx) options go on the poll. So far I hear strong support for F only, weak support for F and A as acceptable, and no support for F and A and C. However, people keep wanting to talk about OTHER things than focus on the question now. -- Evertype·✆13:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mooretwin, when I said "withdrew their support" I didn't mean that they made a formal declaration of withdrawal of support. The fact is that arbitration began, almost everybody retreated to their previous entrenched positions and discussion on the Task Force page stopped. That is a withdrawal of support in my book. Anyway, that is water under the bridge now. The poll is going to happen. Hopefully it is going to produce a clear-cut result. At that point discussion of article names will end, and discussion of article contents can be resumed. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please. That's not helpful. Do you have a preference? Please express it now. One option: Go with F Ireland (state) only in the poll because it got the overwhelming majority of support. One option: go with F Ireland (state) and A Ireland (country). It does seem that there is no real rationale for going with three, given its weak support in the poll. (Anyway Ireland (Republic of) is very close to Republic of Ireland which is already in the poll.) -- Evertype·✆13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Do you really think that my expression of a preference will in some way lessen any objection that is made no matter what solution is chosen? It won't. I didn't vote. I don't want any of the options in that ballot, so it makes no difference. It's a decision for MAsem and the uninvolved Mods (if they are still around). Whatever they choose someone will object. Fmph (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear a bit of yelling from people who seem to be worried about their POV. I have a preferred scenario for the disposition of the Ireland article names, but I have accepted the consensus to hold a poll in order to decide what configuration will be used for the next two years. So I for my part am trying to be neutral; not defending my POV nor even talking about what my preference is at this point. You say you didn't want "any of the options on the ballot"—what does that mean? That you didn't want there to be an "Ireland (xxx)" on the ballot? Well, can't help you there, because there was consensus that there would be one (or two or three) and the poll we held was to decide what the (xxx) should be in the Main Poll. We know there will be (state) now; whether there will be anything else hasn't been determined, though so far it seems as though only (state) will go through. To change the subject a bit, if you look through the past couple of years of edits you will find me and Scoláire often disagreeing with one another rather bitterly. Yet now we are working together. I am sure we can't make everyone happy, but I am confident that working within the project as we are, we are nearing the end of this long road. -- Evertype·✆16:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no problem with there being 1, 2 or 3 Ireland (xxx) options in the main poll. I won't vote for any of them. And there will still be objections. Fmph (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with just one. Out of "(state)" "(country)", "(nation)" and (independent xxx), we have a clear favourite. As you say the two "Republic of" options are two similar - which is why I changed to "(republic)" as sufficiently different. I don't think we need both, especially as that would involve a mucj more complicated ballot.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw my perspective in this, it's clear that the majority want "(state)" and only "(nation)" and "(country)" were next and tied, so we'd either have to go with 1 option or with three. For sake of making this as simple as possible (as noted the STV could be confusing to some) I'd would suggest that one option is best since it was a clear winner without having to process any further on the vote. Mind you, the STV poll should encourage discussion on the poll's talk page and mention that nation and country were the next possible choices in discussing the merits of "Ireland (state)". --MASEM (t) 18:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. "Country" and "nation" were very far from being tied. In fact, "nation" was eliminated after the second count with zero votes, by which time "country" was already elected. "Republic of" came third and a long way behind "country"; see here. I agree with your conclusion. It's only the facts that are a little bit shaky :-) Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking Masem's view now into account, and seeing really no one advocating for more than one option, I suggest we close this issue with the decision "1 option (F, Ireland (state) only". If that's fine, at noon tomorrow I will do the randomization on the options using the same procedure I used for the other poll. -- Evertype·✆18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another way of looking at it: The poll arose, if I remember correctly, because it was felt that there were people who would not vote for Ireland (state) but who might vote for Ireland (something else). It was suggested that some people would vote for Republic of Ireland unless there was an alternative Ireland (xxxx) offered. Well, looking at the poll results, Ireland (country) (A) got ten first preference votes, of whom six gave their second preference to Ireland (state) (F), one to Ireland (Republic of) (C), and the remainder to neither or to none at all. Assuming the people who voted reflected the wider electorate, I think it's clear that nobody loses by only having the one option: Ireland (state). Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pros and Cons
For my sins I have written a set of what I believe to be neutral points regarding the pro and con arguments. PLEASE DO NOT FLAME ME. This is a thankless task. Please see the Poll_on_Ireland_article_names_(Draft). For what it is worth, everybody, I think that the Poll on Ireland (xxx) went well, and I am willing to do the same work (including notifying the communities) to finalize the Big Poll, if you are willing to have me do it. (I don't see much point in saddling Masem with the task as he is here to moderate, not to draft and process documents.). With regard to the pro/con arguments I have given, when you review them, please do so with some things in mind.
The goal is not to prove anything, merely to state what is believed by some factions.
The goal is not to be encyclopaedic or utterly exhaustive. It is to summarize.
My intent has not been to piss anybody off. I have genuinely tried to be neutral. If you have suggested edits to any of the bullet points, please make them. And make them nicely.
First impressions: the arguments are fair and they are well written, but for me they are a little too general as a guide to ranking the options below them. Ideally, I would have specific pro and con arguments for each of the options A to F (or A to I or A to L as applicable). Failing that I would at least divide the arguments into "names for the island article" and "names for the political entity article" sections. Scolaire (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too general? Look, people are going to have to do some homework (just as they do in a real election). I don't see how giving specific pro and con arguments for each specific configuration will do anything but double or triple the size of the page. I see what you mean, maybe "positive implications of scenario A, negative implications of scenario A" and so on down to F (or I or L), but honestly I think it would be impossible to get all of those written in a neutral fashion acceptable to everyone. (A general argument is farrrrr easier to make neutral.) It seems to me that dividing the arguments into "names for the island" and "names for the political entity" will just duplicate things, won't it? -- Evertype·✆12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok, although i dont like this bit for the Ireland option. "Some people believe that this term is ambiguous"... ARBCOM accepted its ambiguous, the only one who strongly refuses to accept this is the person admins told us to ignore a few days ago. Ireland is ambiguous, this is not in dispute. I agree it should be neutral pros/cons, but lets not go too far. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't helpful to say "I don't like this" unless you offer a suggestion as to what would make you more comfortable.
I attempted to respond to your point by changing that item to: The word Ireland is arguably ambiguous and can refer to more than one entity with none of them having verifiable primacy. I don't want to refer to an ArbCom ruling on an argument that most voters won't know about. I have changed from "some people believe". -- Evertype·✆13:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fact. Ireland is ambiguous The consensus on this talk page is thats the case, Arbcoms ruling stated it was the case, there is no justification for saying, "Some people believe that this term is ambiguous" It should either say, "Ireland is ambiguous" or at the very least say, "Most see Ireland as ambiguous" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] The problem is that even though you think it is an obvious fact (and I happen to agree) there are people who have worked very hard to "prove" that either the island or the state is the primary topic. -- Evertype·✆13:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept and understand people thinking the state or the island is the primary topic there for belongs at the article, its just the crazy idea that Ireland isnt ambiguous that bothers me. I didnt like the "some".. bit in the sentence because thats whats used for all the other arguments made so it made it look like that point was equally disputed, when its not been. Anyway the change in wording is better for me, i dont know what others think. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I would prefer arguments to be presented as statements of fact rather than "some people believe". Also, I think you overestimate the difficulty of getting arguments that are acceptable to everybody. First of all, the arguments are not meant to be neutral, they are meant to be opposing. Second, people who are in favour of any given option all agree on the arguments in favour, and those who oppose it all agree on the arguments against. Those who are in favour should not bother themselves with the arguments against, and vice-versa. At this stage of the game, it's unlikely that any off-the-wall arguments will be put forward. Making them concise is the major thing. I'm working on something myself now. Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this ISN'T intended to be a battleground—there are HUNDREDS of pages of actual argument going back some years, and no way to capture that for the voters now. In my view, there are no "facts" to state that aren't contentious to someone. Are you working on the something in your own sandbox? Please do not make changes to the draft poll until we have consensus. -- Evertype·✆13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to believe that the opposite of "neutral" is "aggressive"; it's not. The supporters and opponents of each option support and oppose it for good and valid reasons, which can be stated as fact without joining battle. A neutral person can present arguments for and against, or an involved person like you or me can present arguments in a neutral (i.e. balanced) way, but an individual argument cannot be neutral. Otherwise it's not an argument. I am working on something. I will decide later how to present it. I will not spoil your draft, don't worry. You asked other people not to flame you. Please don't you flame me for entering into dialogue with you. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm not flaming you. I sure wish people weren't all playing their cards so close to their chest though. ;-) -- Evertype·✆13:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Scolaire: "At this stage of the game, it's unlikely that any off-the-wall arguments will be put forward." You'd be surprised. Check the most recent additions to the Position argument summaries sections above and then check the original text of the insertions. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun, if you haven't the cojones to say something to someone's face (or the e-equivalent), it's probably better if you say nothing at all. If you found my argument a little off-the-wall, you could have let me know rather than inserting snide remarks into discussions that I might never see. Although I fail to see what was off-the-wall about the argument I put forward. --HighKing (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except Bastun used the plural - recent additions, and he also editted the argument I added on, hence the comment of check the original text of the insertions. --HighKing (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see now. Looks like it was the "so what" he was referring to. I personally wouldn't be inclined to include that in a balanced summary of arguments. Scolaire (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, mo liathróidí are just fine, thanks. My objection to the original phraseology on your contribution was both the "So what", but also that the 'against' argument seemed disingenuous - it implied British imposition of the term RoI on Ireland - when the reality is that it was coined by us ourselves. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly I can't find the section you are talking about, though I did see some recent additions that were, well, off-the-wall. What I'm hearing (at least, so far) is that the two people who have offered an opinion have said that in general "the arguments are fair" and "Looks OK". Scoláire prefers a more argumentative presentation. But ... so far... I see that what's there is something that people could live with. Believe me I'd rather start the new poll than wrangle on about this text. Or we can take all arguments RIGHT OUT of the ballot and put them somewhere else where they don't have to be careful or sane. ;-) -- Evertype·✆13:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't prefer a more "argumentative" presentation. I simply prefer to leave out "some people believe", and address the actual options - the text itself is just fine! Please give me time to show you what I am talking about. You might actually like it! Scolaire (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is what Bastun is referring to. And yes, I guess I should have said, "we should be able to keep any off-the-wall arguments out of the final draft." :-) Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the draft poll, where I have changed "Some people believe" to "It can be argued" which is (at least) better. -- Evertype·✆13:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no arguments on the poll page. This debate is only going to become a farce. For example, in the 'pro' argument for ROI, someone could justifiably simply add, '(Some people believe/An argument is/Fact:) ROI is an acceptable COMMON NAME of the state if Ireland cannot be used', but then that will just trigger the addition of an opposing con argument probably citing NPOV, or WP:DAB. Then there will be the inevitable call for sources, and accusations of bad faith. This is the same, whether they are statements of fact, or statements of arguments. Where does it end? Pretty soon, the pro-and con list will simply resemble this godforsaken page, but just in very tiny tiny writing. End it now, and save the time. Maybe use that time to collate a list of Further Reading links to all the previous pages, where all the arguments have been rehashed a million times. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC) We also have knocking about some statments pages, which are eseentially pro and con lists, without the endless bickering attached. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are the general summaries which I gave offensive to you, or untrue? I think that most of them are unproblematic. -- Evertype·✆13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be argued that this term is condescending and disrespectful of (for instance) the Constitution of Ireland. It can be demonstrated that the intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name. to
It can be argued that as well as not being an official nor the most common name, some people believe that the term ignores the Constitution of Ireland where Ireland is declared as the only name of the State. It is also maintained that the Republic of Ireland Act specifically gives a description and is not meant to be a name.
It's verbose. It contains stuff I wouldn't like to see, like "the term ignores" (terms are not agents); it begs the question of "most common name" which was mentioned above. -- Evertype·✆13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the slight feeling you feel you own that page. How about "ignores" is changed to "does not comply with"? Even though that probably breaks your rule of being too verbose. The current wording of its "condescending and disrespectful " is waffle.MITH13:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am, yes, exercising responsibility for that page because the formatting is not trivial and this is not the place for a free-for-all. You can boldly edit an article about the plot of The Lord of the Rings; this is a poll near the end of an excruciatingly difficult negotiation process where such boldness isn't actually going to help us. Please let me continue. Thanks! -- Evertype·✆14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case I am now completely against this being included in the poll and will strive to make sure it is not included. One person who is not a moderator controlling the page and putting down everyone else's edits is farcical.
Please assume good faith. This is not farcical. We are attempting to achieve a successful and sensitive poll. Discussion and editing of the individual items should happen here, not by "bold edits" as you have done. Perhaps I should bring them here. But there's no call for blanket-condemning this process, or me within it, as you have done. I do not have to be a moderator to exercise editorship over a page that we are developing collectively. Nor do you have to withhold respect for my efforts simply because I am NOT a moderator. We have just had a successful poll. Now we need to move on, without needless dispute, toward the final one. -- Evertype·✆14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of the arguments. They are more problematic than they are helpful and some of them are ridiculous (like the "condescending" one). Mooretwin (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, originally I had put emotive words like "condescending and disrespectful" in because I felt that this was the root of the argument against Republic of Ireland. My version is more concise in that "being official" is encapsulated in the Constutution. An article title isn't subject to "compliance" with an article in a constitution, though. Declared as the only name of the State is false, because TWO names are specified there (langage-specific or not). The changes you made to the second sentence don't seem to improve it or alter it much, though it raises questions as to what was "meant". -- Evertype·✆14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have now put up my draft at User:Scolaire/Poll on Ireland article names (draft). The text is the same as Evertype's for the most part, with a couple of little additions of my own, but (a) the arguments are presented as statements of fact, with the removal of "It can be argued that"; and (b) it is divided into "political entity" and "island" arguments, with a minimum of duplication. I am now painting concentric circles on my chest and am available for people to take pot-shots at. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed Scoláire's contribution and find that, with the exception of the "condescension" clause taken from my original list, his formulations are improvements on mine. I have further redacted these (formatting mostly), and have replaced the previous text at the Poll_on_Ireland_article_names_(Draft). Maith an fear! -- Evertype·✆
Pints all round! Seriously though, at this stage I don't see what will keep the poll from going out quite soon. We've heard no strong insistence on more than F going out (quite the opposite); we've heard no serious quibble with the text of the Pros/Cons ("this statement is wrong because....")—and you will remember last night I was vociferously opposing any Pro/Con text in the ballot at all. Yet now, I am quite comfortable with what is there. What time zone is Masem in? -- Evertype·✆15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those are of pretty poor quality. I'm not really interested in trying to edit them (though a cleaner page would be indicated. If we linked to them… we'd surely need a disclaimer. Do you really think they add to the matter? -- Evertype·✆15:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they (or something like them that attempts to encapsulate all aspects of the argument, good or bad, off-the-wall, tongue-in-cheek, humorous or humorless) should be made available to voters - otherwise all they'll see is the summaries (if that's agreed to put on the poll page) and the summaries don't even come close to capturing what, for some editors, might be the primary motive for requesting a change. For example, I believe that RoI shouldn't be used as it is the correct name under UK legislation and therefore is common in British media, etc, but isn't internationally correct and using it here somehow gives RoI added status and weight as a name, leading to confusion. Even using it as a disambig is a problem to be honest. Equally, other editors will have their own arguments that might seem small to some people, but be important to others. So yeah, how can we make it easy for voters to access the full list of arguments? --HighKing (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scolaire. It comes closer. Do you think it OOT to mention that (related to this) it is commonly used in British media and that this helps to explain the amount of material that uses the the term? --HighKing (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, "it is commonly used in British media" (or "it is the correct name under UK legislation") is a statement in favour of the term. If I was an outsider, I would consider it very unconvincing as an argument against. That's my 2½d anyway. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, HighKing, I would say that there is no way for voters to access the full list of arguments, because there has never been a full list drawn up. The arguments have been recycled countless hundreds of times over several years, and some of the better ones have got lost among the repitition of the sillier ones. The list that you are pointing to is no less selective than the list we are trying to draft - it is very far from encapsulating all aspects of the argument. My problem with that list is that most of the so-called "summaries" are not summaries in any sense, but an endorsement of one of the sides. I would be bold and remove them, but I know somebody else would quickly revert. So, I favoured it when there was no alternative, but now there is an alternative, so why not work on it? Scolaire (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everytpe and Scolaire, please do not declare that there is consensus on the wording of the pros and cons, when some of us just an hour ago were under the seemingly wrong impression that we were still discussing whether there was a consensus to even have them at all. I for one haven't even particularly looked at them yet. Am I on a clock here? Should I start simply adding my ideas for what are the basic For/Against arguments now or what?. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take time now to read them. Please read them all through, then read each one individually. Remember that they are not there to fight battles; most of the Wikipedia community will not be drawn into nor understand the deep-seated feelings that many people in this project have about them. It's impossible to convey that. All that can be done is to summarize the basic issue. No, you do not need to "add" your ideas for what are the basic arguments. What will help us is if you can review what is there and indicate if each of them (individually) is appropriate and neiher false nor misleading. There could be dozens of additional arguments; it's not the task to pad the list with dozens more arguments. -- Evertype·✆15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, I didn't mean to "declare" that there was a community consensus for the wording, only that Evertype and I were able to resolve our differences by discussion. Note the smiley! We should all continue to discuss until we have a consensus on whether to have arguments, and how to phrase them. Please feel free to edit my sandbox if you want to add or edit arguments. Scolaire (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick read of that Sandbox, there are a couple I would like to change - e.g., I'd like something more "all-Ireland"y in place of the Lough Neagh argument... is that best done there or here? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!16:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here please. And please explain why you want to make the change. Personally I think that Lough Neagh is a key argument (at least for some) but a second example might be added. Do you mean something like "Gaelic games are played throughout Ireland"? -- Evertype·✆17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the draft in the Wikipedia namespace before seeing that you also had one, Scolaire. The changes I made there were:
a minor update to how the balloting template works
to place an note in the arguments summary area that "Ireland (country)" had been discounted in favour of "Ireland (state)" in a preliminary round of voting
to specify - for the sake of all our heads - that the method to be used will be instant-runoff voting (to avoid any confusing later)
I also had a question regarding the "12 month block" - Masem has this been signed off by ArbCom (also: has ArbCom yet given the blessing to the concept of a vote yet?)?
Scolaire, can you summaries for me that the difference between your version and Evertypes version are? Everytype's version was fine by me - I expect yours will be too. (Here is the diff of my edit.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid: I reverted some changes you made. Mostly cosmetic -- but the last poll and its instructions succeeded quite well, so there's no reason to change the cosmetics. -- Evertype·✆23:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Morning. More specifically I put back the asterisk. I think it's no bad thing to avoid an actual count of votes during the ballot. What I did was to globally convert * in to # as I was closing the poll. In any case, I think that 50 editors did a great job last time selecting from the asterisk to the second curly bracket, and in fact if the template magically inserts anything what we'll end up with is multiple asterisks or *# — so please can you revert that one? -- Evertype·✆08:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments in several places above, I am totally opposed to the "summary of the two summaries", none of which are enlightening and most of which are biased towards one or other argument. Can we not please delete them, since that will no longer affect this page. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this isn't clear. I really don't know what you're trying to say here. I created that page with content from this page. What is it you want? -- Evertype·✆12:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you like it, but that still doesn't mean someone else won't revert. Also, note that there are still comments in there on the lines of "this argument needs to be rephrased". Somebody would need to do the rephrasing before polling day. Scolaire (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now updated My sandbox to include arguments for and against the remaining two options - the "China" option and the "Britannica" option.(diff) Like all the other arguments, they are only one person's idea and can be modified or completely rewritten. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In favour: "Ireland (state)" works as a disambiguation term because its use is formal and precise; from the 1937 Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". See also Sovereign state.
Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the political entity article should be named "Ireland (state)", one against ("This is why the political entity article should not' be named "Ireland (state)"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆15:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "wrong" with either statement. I have a vague feeling that a better "against" argument could be made - but I can't think of one :-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no objections, I would like to suggest that we have consensus on the text for Ireland (state) and close this item. -- Evertype·✆08:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of dab terms in parentheses are an ugly solution that should be reserved for instances where there is no other option. Fmph (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (island)
In favour: "Ireland (island) works as a disambiguation term where either "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" is used as the title of the article on the political entity.
Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the island article should be named "Ireland (island)", one against ("This is why the island article should not' be named "Ireland (island)"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆08:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I agree with Bastun. There is no strong argument in favour of either term. "x works as a disambiguation term" is at best a week argument and at worst a shrugging acceptance. I suggest we change the wording of both by inserting:
In favour: The article title needs a disambiguator because "Ireland" is ambiguous.
I would further edit this statement by replacing the current text with:
"Ireland (island)" works as a disambiguation term because it is neutral and factual.
The use of dab terms in parentheses are an ugly solution that should be reserved for instances where there is no other option.Fmph (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Ireland
In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.".
Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". While "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949, that Act does not apply anywhere else in the world.
Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the political entity article should be named "Republic of Ireland", one against ("This is why the political entity article should not be named "Republic of Ireland")). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that MusicInTheHouse objected the the third part of the Against argument here. As far as I know, this IS one of the arguments against. It's not a question of whether you or I or anyone likes or dislikes the argument. It's a question of it being an argument. HighKing pointed out that this argument was missing. -- Evertype·✆12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Scolaire pointed out its not an argument against, as have I. That does not mean it has consensus for inclusion. You are not the moderator to decide what goes in! If there is clear consensus then fine, but there is not for this.MITH12:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quit complaining about whether I am a moderator or not, please. Moderators don't decide anything either. I am managing the editing of that page as a (thankless?) service to this process. I added the text in because it made sense, because Scoláire authored it, and because HighKing thought that it went some way towards meeting his requirement. The thing you are citing Scoláire as saying has to do with an additional comment HighKing proposed, which would be to talk about how the UK media uses the term Republic of Ireland. Scoláire and I both think that's OTT. However, I think we both think that the clause here about the UK's Ireland Act 1949 is a reasonable addition to this part. If you disagree, please explain why. -- Evertype·✆13:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we would all be willing to manage actions taking place here, the fact that you have jumped ahead and taken control is not a thankless service. You are misintrepating Scolaire's text. "To my mind, "it is commonly used in British media" (or "it is the correct name under UK legislation") is a statement in favour of the term." It's pretty clear he agrees with me that it's an argument for. I agree that it's not an argument against. I don't mind it being included somewhere, but it is not an argument against. And besides the GFA has nulled the Act somewhat as an argument in any way shape or form.MITH13:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, MITH, it is you who are misinterpreting me. I said that "it is commonly used in British media" is a statement in favour of the term. I did not say it was a good argument. I'm not bothered whether it's used as a 'pro' or not, I just think it would be daft to include it as a 'con'. "While it is the official name...", on the other hand, is fine by me as a 'con'. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for discussing it here. Somebody has to manage the draft page. I'm trying to do a good job. Anyway I see your point. Would the following not be better, then?
In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". Also, "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949.
Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Although "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949, that Act does not apply anywhere else in the world.
Please, can't you simply make a case for what you think should go there? You've not made a case. In fact, you inserted this Good Friday Agreement stuff in the wrong section of the Draft Poll. That's disruptive and unhelpful. This isn't about your "rights" to edit anything you want on the Wikipedia. We're trying to solve a real problem here. -- Evertype·✆14:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And where's the case for all the text you inserted? Oh wait you just put in what you wanted according to what you thought was best. I do the same and I'm disruptive? Please.MITH14:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing and Scoláire discussed the fact that one of the arguments for RoI being used was UK legislation from 1949. That's true. Scoláire wrote a draft. It seemed OK, I put it in. You just deleted it without saying why. Now we've had a discussion and I understood your comment, and I made edits, proposed above. That dealt with your concern. Now, you want to make the explanations MORE encyclopaedic by adding "something" about the Good Friday Agreement. You haven't said what or why. You tried to dump some text in the Draft, but it was in the wrong place and it was also POV, and not neutral. I'm not your enemy for not wanting you to do that. Please stop making this into a fight. -- Evertype·✆14:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You put it in. I reverted it. You should have accepted that and waited until the discussion was over before putting in new text. Instead you felt to revert and edit first and discuss later.MITH14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the text it without discussion. Without offering an actual rationale there or here. Then you began an edit war. You haven't been content to discuss the matter here; you've continued to make disruptive edits to the Draft Poll, and as far as I can tell you're doing your best to ensure that the Draft Poll doesn't get put together in a careful or neutral fashion. I don't believe that is in the spirit of this collaborative project. -- Evertype·✆14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You inserted the text without proper discussion. It is the same thing. The fact that you won't stop reverting is not in the spirit of this project either.MITH14:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, I see your suggestion above about mentioning the UK media, and while I most definitely understand your point of view (given the ongoing fiasco of the Irish media's use of euro and cent as plurals) I sort of do think it's a bit OTT—this one is already getting long. I know it's emotive, but I think the reference to the 1949 Act covers subsequent media. What do you think? -- Evertype·✆12:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer "Republic of Ireland" is a valid name for the article on the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". We are deciding on article names, after all, not names of entities. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've tried to keep that kind of edit throughout the draft. (There's been some disruption there recently as you may gather.) -- Evertype·✆14:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus wept. I propose the following text:
In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". Also, "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949.
Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Although "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949, that Act does not apply anywhere else in the world.
I am against the proposed text. Stating that it is the correct name under UK legislation is a statement in favour of the term" and therefore should not be included in the against section. Stating the Ireland Act 1949 as a reason for is also futile to the overall argument as the Good Friday Agreement, a more recent political development acts in contrast to it, accepting the name of the state as Ireland. Besides this, no reason has been identified to as why British use of terms can be seen as a positive or a negative, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, would suggest that the points made a particular Act are not necessarily desirable as main points.MITH15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It is a fact, that RoI is given in the UK Act cited. So, "in favour" of the argument that the article should be at Republic of Ireland one of the arguments given is that it's in the UK Act so it's kosher. You might not like the argument. I might not. But that's the argument. (2) The counter-argument which responds to that argument is the "so what?" argument -- it says "ALTHOUGH the UK has this Act, that Act does not apply anywhere else". So that is a refutation, which is part of the "against" argument. Why is that sentence there? It is there in response to HighKing's concern. I don't beiieve that your WP:UNDUEWEIGHT applies here. Therefore your deletions from the text should be reverted. -- Evertype·✆15:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's deemed unnecessary and adding complications, I am happy to withdraw the point. I seem to be the only one that attachs any weight or significance to it in any case...not sure why that is either... --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In favour: The primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the sovereign entity, per the 1937 Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland".
Against: Either the primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the island as a whole, for example, as shown in the statement "Lough Neagh is in Ireland" (The lake is in Northern Ireland); or the word "Ireland" is ambiguous and can refer to more than one entity with none of them having verifiable primacy.
Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the political entity article should be named "Ireland", one against ("This is why the political entity article should not be named "Ireland"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (as a name for the island)
In favour: The primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the island as a whole, for example, as shown in the statement "Lough Neagh is in Ireland" (The lake is in Northern Ireland.)
Against: Either the primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the sovereign entity, per the 1937 Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". or the word "Ireland" is ambiguous and can refer to more than one entity with none of them having verifiable primacy.
Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the island article should be named "Ireland", one against ("This is why the island article should not be named "Ireland"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆13:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation of method to calculate votes
I don't think this was ever nailed down precisely, but can we please get community sign-off on the method we are going to use to calculate the vote. There were a couple of debates that veered towards consensus but I don't recall anyone every saying exactly, "Yip, that's what we're doing."
I would suggest 50%+1 be used to select the winner. We'll still process all the STVs to see how options are eliminated. --MASEM (t) 11:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Id still like to see a system that does take into account if a certain option has strong opposition to ensure we get a moderate option that the majority of people can live with. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we attached a rider saying that the winner had to exceed a certain minimum then "not voting for something" would be a vote against it winning. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and the point with STV is that you keep transferring votes via preference until one option hits the "win" threshold. We're saying that's 50%+1. --MASEM (t) 11:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that wasn't made clear. Under STV, the "win" threshold (i.e. the quota) is the total number of votes divided by the total number of seats plus one. Why should this be any different (except for "seats" substitute "solution")? Mooretwin (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this "fun with maths"? Please could someone explain (simply) what the differences are, and whether or how this differs from the poll we just took, so we can understand what is being asked? I understand that we just took a poll without specifying in advance which method would be used. I thought that in some sense the en result would be the same. Can't STV can yield a winner (with a majority) even though 50%+1 might not be achieved? -- Evertype·✆11:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact method of STV doesn't matter because we will only have on winner. Therefore, we are using instant-runoff voting. That's a no brainer - there is *nothing* to argue about there. The only question remaining is this:
There is a slim chance that the "winner" according to STV (or technically IRV) could be elected without exceeding 50%+1 of the vote (after all transfers have been made). In such a circumstance, are we going to accept the result as binding?
The percent of first preferences (or the percent at any time before all transfers have not been made) should *not* be taken into consideration because that defeats the purpose of having an STV in the first place. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. Thank you. If we do NOT accept the result as binding (if 50%+1 is not achieved) then I think the only alternative would be to run a second poll with losing options removed. -- Evertype·✆12:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
French presidential elections are conducted via run-off voting which ensures that the elected President always obtains a majority: if no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round of voting, the two highest-scoring candidates arrive at a run-off. After the president is elected, he goes through a solemn investiture ceremony called a "passation des pouvoirs" ("handing over of powers").
There would be no point except to artificially create the appearance of 50%+1 support.
When there's only on candidate to be elected, STV becomes "instant run-off voting". It "simulates" the process holding multiple rounds but you only have to vote the once. If no candidate achieved 50%+1 in a IRV poll then holding another round with just the top two candidates, and asking the same people to vote on them, would produce the same result as just taking the candidate with the plurlity from the IRV vote. Example:
IRV ends with Apple 40%, Pear:35%, Orange: 25% (i.e. there are no transfers between them). Another round of voting is held with just Apple and Pear. Apple people vote for Apple. Pear people vote for Pear. Orange people don't vote at all because they don't want or care which of Apple or Pear wins. The result of the second round will then be: Apple: 54%, Pear 46%. Meanwhile 55% of people (i.e. Pear voters and Orange voters) still didn't vote for Apple.
Normal IRV is that if all transfers are exhausted then the person with the most votes wins, but that may not be 50%+1. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom of including arguments/proposal they be removed
In my draft ballot I first included a summaries of arguments for or against each proposal. It was pointed out to me that doing so ay not be wise. It was said that editors here would get bogged down in arguing over the minor details of them. At the time I agreed and removed them.
When I saw that Evertype had included again, I said nothing because I think that it is important for those who have not participated in this page to see a summary of arguments before casting their vote. Edits like this however have convinced me again of the earlier warning against them. Surely the purpose of presenting the arguments is to present fairly both sides for the benefit of the community - and not an opportunity to water down arguments we don't agree with?
I propose that all of the pro/anti arguments be removed unless editors stop bickering over them and stop trying to sabotage arguments they don't find appealing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for saying this. When I posted the Draft Poll I asked people NOT TO FLAME ME for doing it. Mostly I would say that editors have been fairly mature about what was offered; I am in particular grateful to Scoláire for taking my draft and revising it thoroughly, making the arguments both more accurate and more useful to the voters. From mid-day today things took a decided downturn. I think that what Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid says, the controversy has centred on editors "trying to sabotage arguments they don't find appealing" is spot-on, though the arguments have ended up being about "ownership" of the Draft document and ones "right" to edit whatever or wherever one pleases without regard to actual quality or consensus. (I make a lot of edits to the Draft Poll, and I have asked people to try to respect the need to be careful with it. Other editors have also edited there—but only a few editors have done so out of a desire to push their POV.
I believe that we've got a good set of reasonably accurate arguments on the Draft Poll now. I don't believe that any of the entries are trying to either downplay or give undue weight to the arguments. I hope that we can proceed to keep this section and move forward to the actual poll. For my part I am sure I am impatient to have it start, so it can be over! With hand on heart I don't believe that anything in the draft poll genuinely disadvantages any of the factions in this long-standing dispute. I hope the Pros and Cons stay in the polling document.
I am, however, willing to axe the section entirely. It comes down to this: we can have the poll without this material (which gets us a poll soon!), or we can try to behave like a mature and sensible community and agree that arguments which we dislike are the genuine arguments of those with whom we disagree, and their arguments deserve to be summarized just as fairly as our arguments do.
I'd like to see everybody give their opinion here. Do you support the attempt to put Pros/Cons on the ballot or do you oppose the attempt? -- Evertype·✆18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannpháirtí, I don't know if it's your intention, but you sound as though you're threatening to take away our sweets unless we agree to share them. Personally, I'm not in favour of a parent-child approach to conflict resolution. I think that it is not just important, but essential for those who have not participated in this page to see a summary of arguments before casting their vote. I also think the arguments should be the best they can be, and that can only be arrived at by collaboration (remember that word) between participants, whether through BRD or through discussion on this page. If the discussion gets too heated, it's up to the cooler heads to try to take the heat out of the situation. We won't get agreement on anything by bandying words like "bickering". At the end of the day, everybody has to feel they have been listened to, or there is no chance on agreement on procedures. Scolaire (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion: A definition statement for each of the choices
Remember that most people that we expect to respond to the poll will likely not care or want to know the history of the arguments, but will want a quick understanding of the debate. I will suggest a slightly different approach:
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous between many possibilities but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland" and the country that occupies the majority of it and contains 26 counties, "Ireland". Both uses are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, leading to long debates about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice (for example, Luxembourg, Georgia, and People's Republic of China). There is also conflict with the United Kingdom country of Northern Ireland, which occupies the northern part of the island, and impreciseness in naming may lead to misstatements (such as, "Lough Neagh is in Ireland", which may be true or not depending on how the word "Ireland" is taken) As this also affects where the disambiguation page for the term "Ireland" will fall, it is considered part of the naming conflict resolution issue. As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus the issue, the parties have agreed to use the results of a poll to all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.
The six most likely options from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. All involve what content will be at the "Ireland" article, in addition to other articles that may be affected by it. This primarily impacts what the article that the 26-county country of "Ireland", should it not be listed at the article "Ireland". There are two choices for this:
"Ireland (state)", a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the country is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
"Republic of Ireland", the current location of information relating to the country, as "Republic of Ireland" is a valid descriptor (but not name) for the country, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."
Two other options consider a solution like China, in which the article at "Ireland" would discuss the geographical and political aspects; one option would further have separate articles to give more detail about the island and the country.
Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county country of Ireland will be referred to in the text of other articles.
Then there need not be any other position statements - this covers everything for all practical matters in a nice soundbite. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offering it as a suggestion, let's make sure no one has any major qualms (I feel I hit all the major talking points without necessarily negating any option from another, which is important here). --MASEM (t) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This works - and avoids what could be a very long drawn out process otherwise (especially if editors who despite saying they're not participating here come along and make surreptitious edits to the pros and cons, as pointed out above). It does need some copyediting, though ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!20:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this certainly doesn't expose my arguments to the wider audience. I really feel that while there may only be 6 different options, there are actually thousands of reasons for choosing one over another. What is being attempted here is to coalesce all these reasons into a community conventional wisdom. It can only end in tears, and I'm not sure that it passes WP:NPOV. If it did, then we wouldn't need a poll. I also don't believe that Masem can possibly write these arguments, given his role as a neutral. Arguments in favour of a Option X should have a POV, otherwise they won't be good arguments. I still believe that we should allow a multitude of "Arguments in favour of Option X" in userspace, all linked from the ballot page, all written by people who really believe in that particular option. Fmph (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I largely agree. If we could get the summary pro/anti statement on the draft pages agreed to then I think they should accompany a "backgrounder" like this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will tell you right now that the average person drawn to this poll from outside the project is not going to want to read reams of arguments; they want to know what they are voting for and be done with it. That's not to see that a person may want to know more, and linking to this project, to the previous statements, or the like, will be helpful, but the point is, by having this poll with these limited options, we've reduced the problem down that we don't need to reopen the discussions discourse at this time. Again, the talk page should be left open for vote comment. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could move what's on the Draft Poll now to the Summary arguments page I made today, where there are also other, less "well-edited" statements. -- Evertype·✆21:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but... I would remove the sentence beginning "There is also conflict with the United Kingdom country of Northern Ireland..." Foremost because while everything else sounds entirely accurate, that statement sounds more speculative. I also think it is redundant: everything it tries to say has already been said. If it is to stay there are some issues I have with it:
"...the United Kingdom country of Northern Ireland..." To avoid the consternation of calling NI a "country", could we have it changed to "Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, ..." if we are going to keep that sentence in there.
"...impreciseness in naming may lead to misstatements..." I think "impreciseness" should be changed to "ambiguity" and I don't know what to change "misstatements" to.
To repeat though, I think the whole thing could happily survive without that sentence. Aside form that sentence a minor bugbear I would have is "...the country that occupies the majority of it..." Could we change "country" to "state". Though it is only a minor bugbear of mine.
Comment - Propose: "There is also conflict with Northern Ireland, a constituent country of the United Kingdom", which occupies the northern part of the island, and imprecision in naming may lead to equivocal statements (such as "Lough Neagh is in Ireland", which may be true or not depending on how the word "Ireland" is taken)." -- Evertype·✆21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think too that the Lough Neagh example is weak. To me at least "Lough Neagh is in Ireland" doesn't sound truly equivocal. Would a statement like "Dublin is the capital of Ireland" or "Ireland has been independent of the United Kingdom since 1922" cut more to the heart of the matter? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - either is better than "country", which can have different meanings... "state" would be my preference. Also agree that the Lough Neagh statement is possibly not the best example. Maybe "There are thirty-two counties in Ireland"? (Even though, being a pedant, I know there are 35 ;-) ) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ireland owns 85% of the island, so the island and the state are "85% mutally inclusive". Unfortunately, the moderator is convulsed in the mish-mash too, and who can blame him with so many pov-pushing elements bearing down. Tfz01:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "mutually inclusive" matter to anything? It's considered as one of the options, if you are getting at what I think you are. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish! Utter rubbish, Tfz. Are you accusing me (for instance) of supporting an "anti-Irish agenda"? I remember being in court one morning nearly a decade ago, swearing loyalty to the Nation and fidelity to the State. Agus do rinne mé é sin inár dteanga náisiúnta. Kindly keep such childish accusations to yourself. This endless dispute is not serving anything but people's egos. It doesn't serve Ireland. It doesn't serve Northern Ireland or Her Majesty the Queen either. It sure as sugar doesn't serve the Wikipedia. Have you anything constructive and collaborative to offer, or are you just here to exercise your passions by decrying "No! No! I might not get my way!"? We're up for a vote. There are three propositions:
Have no explanatory text at the top of the ballot — in my judgement the majority of rational editors does not support this, as it fails to offer guidance to the voters who have not rolled around in this muck for years as some of us have. Nor does our moderator think that an unadorned ballot is the best option.
Have a careful and neutrally redacted set of individual arguments such as is on the current Draft Poll. Attentive readers will observe that rational contributions to that redaction have been taken on board, in an attempt to refine the arguments fairly. In my judgement a number of editors on both "sides" have attempted to make positive contribution to the text there, and it is suitable for ordinary voters to understand.
Have a single definitive statement based on text which Masem has proposed — while it needs a little bit of editing (possibly to include a mention of "85%", lest you in your passion think nobody tries to parse your accusations for content) it is also something that can be considered useful to the Wikipedia Community of voters.
It is difficult to assess your comment above as anything but a statement that you want your own POV to prevail at the end of the vote, and that you don't want the other "side"'s arguments to be put forward because you fear you might "lose". Scoláire and Rannṗáirtí and I have tried to set out each of the pro and con arguments; we have taken serious input on board and yet been faced with unhelpful edits from two editors (you being one of them; the arguments are is/is not not can be). Here we see Masem trying a different tack, and you oppose—why? Because the text says "the majority" rather than "85%"? Because Masem is "placating" (how?) an "anti-Irish agenda"? It will be "Conspiracy! Conspiracy!" next. Rubbish. -- Evertype·✆08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The idea of a comprehensive summary makes sense, and this one seems balanced. Few prospective voters will have the stomach for wading through the archives. If editors feel strongly that (minor) additional info. needs to be included to assist the uninitiated, thats fine by me too. RashersTierney (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think there needs to be a reference to alert editors to the multiple controversies over the name, not only on WIkipedia but at Government level. There is no need to go into them, but this should not be portrayed as some minor issue. The fact that it went to Arbcom following multiple edit wars should at least be mentioned --SnowdedTALK10:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Surely whatever "controversy" there may be on Government level is outside the scope of our activity, as we (and this poll) can have no affect on it. As always, if you have suggestions for text, please offer it. -- Evertype·✆11:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sounds good, although a few sentences could be improved. ie, Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland and I agree with Snowded that edit warring took place should be mentioned.MITH11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Zounds, people, saying "it could be improved" doesn't get it improved! I have attempted to apply some of the discussed edits to Masem's draft here; the diff is here. -- Evertype·✆11:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can accept this method of explaining the situation although i do have some concerns about how clear such a huge block of text is going to be, some people just skip such text where as a bullet point for pro / against for each other isnt heavy on reading. I agree with the above comments about the UK and Northern Ireland bit. Under no circumstances should we describe Northern Ireland as a country in the description because it will just lead to alot of confusion for people who dont understand the make up of the United Kingdom. Saying "Northern Ireland that is part of the United Kingdom" seems the simplest solution. I also think some people will be concerned about the statement pushing for certain arguments where as all 6 no matter how silly some of them are should be treated equally.
Where it is talking of the article name it should be put in bold not "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" / "Republic of Ireland". Only place where i think ""s should be used is for bits like "Lough Neagh is in Ireland". I dont know if the fact there has been edit wars needs to be included in this description, wont there already be a general intro to the poll itself where we can say there has been endless edit wars so this was set up to resolve the dispute?
Also this bit "Two other options consider a solution like China, in which the article at "Ireland" would discuss the geographical and political aspects; " doesnt say of what, it needs to say of the whole island or something like that covering both NI/ROI - BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You saying you don't like "Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom"? I thought that was the precise version, and that the link could educate the teeming millions who think that Wales is in England.... The intent of Masem's text is that it be the general intro. -- Evertype·✆08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there would be a general intro before that statement, if there isnt going to be then it first needs to explain there is a actual vote and edit wars have taken place etc. Constituent country is less of a problem and i dont object to it but lets try to avoid the complicated make up of the United Kingdom here, this is about the island of Ireland and NI being called a province, country etc doesnt really make any diference, as long as it doesnt just say country im ok with it because that would confuse alot of people. BritishWatcher (talk)
Strong Oppose - this summary does not give any indication of why using a "description" rather than a name is objectionable. The fact that in modern times "RoI" is essentially a British usage while in Ireland and internationally "Ireland" is the overwhelming usage. This summary is a travesty; if this is the only guidance the vast "community" of uninvolved and uninterested voters that supporters of the status quo wish to attract then they are being informed that there is not problem at all with the "RoI". Why, they will wonder, has this been continuously contested since the beginning of the article? Sarah777 (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just Brits who use "the Republic" or "the Republic of Ireland". As I've noted before, within the six-counties I've never heard/seen the twentysix-counties being referred to as "Ireland". It's the same no matter who I've talked to, the papers I've read, the news programmes I've watched, or the radio stations I've listened to. It's the same whether they be republican, nationalist, unionist or loyalist. If someone said "I'm going to Ireland tomorrow" there'd be confused faces all round. ~Asarlaí16:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in Irish it was traditional for islanders (on Clear Island for instance) to say "Táim ag dul go hÉireann amárach" 'I'm going to Ireland tomorrow'. An island-to-island thing. -- Evertype·✆17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter a whole lot what names local people use, whether it be 'pet names', or colloquialisms. For example, the people in Germany use the word Deutschland, and in the United States of America, "States" was used quite lot in my time there. Neither do we see any debate about the United Kingdom of "Great Britain" and Northern Ireland not including the Isle of Wight, because the 'IoW' is a different island than the island of Great Britain. Ireland is being subjected to a higher standard of 'proof' than any of its neighbours, and it's quite extraordinary. Tfz20:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Ireland is being subjected to a higher standard of 'proof' than any of its neighbours..." Proof of what? One or two people posted comments (a long time ago) initially believing that 'Republic of Ireland' was the official name of the state. When it was pointed out to them that in fact 'Ireland' is the official name (as well as being the common name) of the state, they very quickly agreed and admitted their error.
The matter is how do we handle the two entities commonly called Ireland. While it's true that extremists of both colours (Irish and British) have reason to deny that the 26-county state is called Ireland, reasonably-minded people from time-to-time have reason to call it by a different name also. For that reason, 'Republic of Ireland' is a very common name used to distinguish one 'Ireland' from the other. On the other hand, I never before encountered people that so vehemently demanded that the state be called 'Ireland' - and nothing else. (Correction: Actually, I have. Some unionist commentators from Northern Ireland - none I've met on WP - insist on it as means to reinforce that "Ireland" and "Irish" is what is south of the border, while "Britain" and "British" is what is north of it.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well see Tfz's inappropriate accusations above. This isn't the crucible in which The Truth will be handed down. SEVEN YEARS of argument we've had about this, the worst of it from people who simply don't wish to exercise their ability to be "reasonably-minded".
I see more support for a version of Masem's more generic explanative proposal than I do for the proposal to put specific arguments on the Poll. -- Evertype·✆21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123 hits and most about soccer. Sounds though you move in UK circles since you disagree with me so strongly, but that's OR. Flat Earth Society got many more hits with Google-Scholar. Tfz22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the soccer related, using ""Republic of Ireland" location:ireland -football -soccer -"Premier League" -"league of Ireland" -"world cup" -site:eleven-a-side.com -uefa -Trapattoni -goalkeeper", gets it down to 34. And looking at what's left, a lot of the time "Republic of Ireland" appears as part of a quote. Not sure what significance, if any, to the google search. Interestingly, or not, removing using -"northern ireland" as well (crude attempt to see where it might have been used as a disambig" gets it down to 24. --HighKing (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested info box - if there is to be one
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous between many possibilities but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland" and the country that occupies the majority of it whose capital city is Dublin, "Ireland". Both uses are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, leading to long debates about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice (for example, Luxembourg, Georgia, and People's Republic of China). There is also conflict with the United Kingdom country of Northern Ireland, which occupies a portion of the northern part of the island. As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus the issue, the parties have agreed to use the results of a poll to all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.
The six most likely options from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. All involve what content will be at the "Ireland" article, in addition to other articles that may be affected by it. This primarily impacts what the article about the country of "Ireland" will be called, if it is not to appear at the article "Ireland". There are three choices for this:
Ireland to be a disambiguation page.
"Ireland (state)", a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the country is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
"Republic of Ireland", the current location of information relating to the country, is a description (but not name) for the country.
Two other options consider a solution like China, in which the article at "Ireland" would discuss the geographical and political aspects; one option would further have separate articles to give more detail about the island and the country.
Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the sovereign country of Ireland will be referred to in the text of other articles.
There is no way to know what diffs you made from Masem's original. Nor did you address my attempt to take comments into account. -- Evertype·✆10:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And when/how was the decision taken to being forward just one option from the sub-vote to the main vote taken? I strongly oppose that too. Sarah777 (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem made that recommendation based on the numbers in the (xxx) poll, and everyone who has weighed in has agreed. Discussion is here. Ireland (state) got 3 times more votes than Ireland (country) and Ireland (Republic of). You're the only one who has complained (without giving a reason). Masem says that the STV is complex enough without adding six more configurations and consensus seems to be to go with that. -- Evertype·✆10:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, your insertion of the dab is formally incorrect in terms of the text as presented. It says that if the article about the State is not moved to "Ireland" it will be either at "Ireland (state)" or "Republic of Ireland". The article about the State would not be moved to the dab page, so it's not correct to put it in the bulleted list. -- Evertype·✆11:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like most of the changes you made Evertype, mentioning sovereign country or whose capital is dublin is far better than "26 counties". However i do think its important we say that the "Republic of Ireland" is an official description given by the Irish government, ignoring this fact is unacceptable because some people would like to have others believe this whole ROI was dreamed up by the British, when it clearly was not. The Irish government saw a need for a description for obvious reasons.
I also dont like this bit from the original ". This primarily impacts what the article about the country of "Ireland" will be called" That is wrong, it impacts equally of the island of Ireland article, and by suggesting the country article is impacted most, we are saying it is more important than the island.. again unacceptable in my view. This impacts on the country / island articles equally. The island has the prime position right now, it has the most to lose from this process. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is everyone ignoring the elephant in the room that is the 1949 Ireland Act (UK)? That is the main reason we are called RoI, and it has nothing to do with the 1948 act (Ireland). Trying to blow smoke in everyone's eyes about the reasons why the British use RoI is not acceptable. Using the 1948 act as justification is a red herring, especially since the 1949 act is still in force. --HighKing (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing some more, trying to balance. So we're saying both 26/6 counties, we're saying both 83/17% of the island, I've made article names bold as you requested. I don't want to belabour it with "sovereign" anything at this stage; that's not a battle we are fighting. So I'm saying "26-county state named 'Ireland'" because this is precise (and the voters will know what we are talking about), not because it is "perfect" or "POV" or anything. Should I keep my draft in my sandbox or move it here? -- Evertype·✆11:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like not to get stuck on "primarily" here. Yes, if the article State gets moved to Ireland it will impact on the position of the island, but "losing" is not really applicable as the articles are not people and cannot win or lose. The question is, "Can you live with the infobox going out, warts and all?" I have tried to accommodate every comment made. It cannot be made "perfect" and need not be, since most people will move on quickly enough to the ballot. -- Evertype·✆11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be a pain, but Ireland (island) is a country too. It is not a sovereign state, which is the meaning I presume these boxes intend to convey, but "country" has a broader meaning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly, "country" is ambiguous. So are "state" and "nation". We're trying to strike the right balance.... will look at it again. -- Evertype·✆15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bot moving "Date in Ireland" to "Date in Republic of Ireland"
The proscription is against moving article pagenames, but that's certainly a breach of the spirit of the Arbcom ruling (however, it may be an unwitting breach - I haven't checked). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea, so I will wait till whatever poll you're going to hold before creating the rest of the years. Tim! (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to go?
Final agreement on ballot page?
Evertype has moved a version of the summary into the draft ballot page. I've made one edit, which I hope will be OK. The only other issue I have is with the line, "The use of this description has been a source of controversy for seven years." Whilst true, I think it tips the balance of fairness slightly.
I moved the "source of controversy" to a more generic position, though part of me feels that this masks the core issue somewhat. Nevertheless, we'll have to assume that voters will try to do some homework. Since your edit I took some more comments from you and Scoláire and Tfz into account as you can see and also did a close copy-edit, here. At this stage I think we should really go ahead. It's been a fair number of days since the (xxx) poll closed, and the 50 voters who took part have certainly had time to take a look at the results. -- Evertype·✆08:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the ballot text to go out -- I think that the best should not be the enemy of the good, and what we have is better than just good in terms of balance. (The only change I might make is to push for a note at the ROI option in the intro text to say "(This, the status quo, has long been a source of contention.)" but otherwise I would let it go as-is. As I said last week, I think that the Poll on Ireland (xxx) went well, and I am willing to do the same work (including notifying the communities) to finalize and launch the Big Poll, if you are willing to have me do it. (I don't see much point in saddling Masem with the task as he is here to moderate, not to draft and process documents.). I could start the poll tonight at 18:00 to 20:00 UTC, if that is acceptable. -- Evertype·✆08:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the ballot text to go out - I think a lot of good work - from all sides and none - has gone into making this happen. The ballot page looks good to me now too. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only change I might make is for a note at the ROI option to say "This, the status quo, has long been a stable compromise." Fmph (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm behind the text as it stands now. (And support Scolaire's comments below.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with proviso: I don't see any need to lock the text until the moment the poll begins. Constructive suggestions are still being made and it's pointless not to edit for improvement while we still can. If an edit-war develops we simply revert to the last stable version. NB the last stable version is the one before the controversial edit, no matter how reasonable or even necessary we believe that edit to be. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a technical point, we plan to 1. move the current "ballot page" to somewhere else, 2. lock that page, 3. pull that page in as a template to where ever the real ballot is taking place? That sounds good to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Can you help me set up the template? And who will do the locking? I can do other prep, but haven't that power. -- Evertype·✆12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a comment for you on the Ballot paper's Talk page. Other than that it looks good. Are you getting the unchangeable template sorted? We didn't have that on the (xxx) poll but then the poll was not community wide and did not attract any vandalism. -- Evertype·✆13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave a message on Masem's talk. Might as well have him do all adminy stuff as anyone. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made one edit to reword the piece about the UK legislation. The previous revision could be interpreted to mean that Republic of Ireland has some legal standing outside of the UK IMHO. --HighKing (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that edit. Should be discussed here. I think certainly that saying it is "THE legal name in the UK" rather than "A legal name in the UK" is probably wrong. I tried to reword it though. -- Evertype·✆15:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HighKing, why should the UK legislation be mentioned at all? Why not introduce French legislation? Bizarre and perplexing. Tfz16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The statement is in need of a rewrite. I find it difficult to understand, and unless an editor has prior knowledge of the facts, it will be completely lost. No disrespect to the original author, but many of these types of texts have to be rewritten and reviewed several times just to get them right. Tfz17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my opposition but not with any great enthusiasm. The latest version is much better but still skirts the reason so many feel "RoI" is a political imposition. Sarah777 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Final agreement on method used to select the winner?
Another issue was the exact method for calculating the result of the final vote. There was discussion of this above. What I think was agreed there was the following:
Thanks, that is what I'm looking for :) Also, as a note, the above can be calculated unambiguously using OpenSTV software - but counting by hand is also straightforward, and other software would do exactly the same thing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I can certainly support this, I do question whether we should require the winner to get greater than 50% of the vote for it to be accepted. Supposing I feel passionately that one option is far more better than all that others. With a 50%+1 requirement, I can exert the most influence by voting for that one option and only that option. This means that as soon as my chosen option has been removed, my vote is added to the exhausted pile where it will stay threatening to veto any compromise solutions. By contrast, without the 50%+1 requirement, I'm strongly encouraged to order all possible choices as the only way for me to try to veto a truly unpalatable choice is by prefering a less unpalatable choice. In this situation, I'm implicitly supporting compromise solutions by listing them ahead of the last choices. In other words, removing the 50%+1 requirement encourages voters to compromise, and I feel that can only be a good thing. —ras52 (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a correct analysis. The advantage, to give the other side of the coin, is that the requirement would safeguard against the possibility of >50% of voters disagreeing with the result. (In honesty though, all of this is unlikely as we saw with the "xxx" vote where the final count was 73% to 27% with no exhausted ballots.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So AIUI, if we have the most popular with 55 votes, second with 45, and 10 votes in the junk pile, the whole process stalls? Mr Stephen (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No: 55/(55+45+10) = 50.9%. But add another three votes to the junk pile and/or for the second place option and what you say is true according to what Rannṗáirtí has actually written. D'oh. I can't add up. Yes, you're right. However, while not wanting to put words into his mouth, I suspect that what he has written isn't quite what he meant. I was assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that what he actually meant was that you would continue to do remove the least popular options until only one option remained, plus a pile of exhausted votes. Assuming the unexhausted votes exceeds 50%, you declare that option a winner. The effect here is that for X to be a winner, more than 50% of voters have to have ranked X somewhere albeit perhaps in last place. While this could certainly result in a draw too, I think it is far less likely to than the procedure was written by Rannṗáirtí above. However, I would be like to know from Rannṗáirtí whether he really did intend the procedure as he has written it. —ras52 (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the procedure as Mr Stephen understood it. So, X with 55 votes, Y with 45 and 10 in the junk pile means the process stalls. Carrying on the "Ras52 way" (i.e. making the last transfers from Y, some of which would go to the junk pile and some of which would go to X) is an another way we could do it.
The "Rannpháirtí way" increases the odds of a stalemate. Stopping at that point simulates an ordinary two candiate poll, where the winning candidate must have 50% support of the vote (i.e. explicit approval by 50% of all those who voted). A reason you not want to continue making the last transfer is because there is a sense of unfairness if one option gets elected at the expense of another only because it "sucked up" every last preferences. The "Rannpháirtí way" doesn't punish a person for filling out preferences and so may discourage "bullet voting". It comes down to the question of, when there are only two options remaining, whether a "preference" is meaningful: since if Y is eliminated then the preference can only go to only X at that point. This is why stopping at that point may discourage "bullet voting" - because a supporter of Y may feel disheartened at the thought that they might end up being "forced" to vote for X and so not fill in any preferences just to make sure their vote would fall into the junk pile at that point. In all, it's purpose is to increase a sense of "fairness" and to discourage bullet voting.
The reason I put in any "50%+1 clause" was because Masem is particularly in favour of it. (I can see the advantage of it.) Are you particularly against it, Ras52? (I'm agnostic at this stage.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general I think that the less possibility there is that the vote will stalemate, the better. This is for two reasons. First, I don't think we have any clear idea what we will do in the event that the vote doesn't produce an answer. We've tried and failed to build a consensus through reasoned debate. Now we're trying a vote, and if that fails, I don't see what options we have left. It seems clear the ArbCom won't make a decision for us, and I would be surprised if Masem were willing to unilaterally impose one (though I would support such an action as a last resort if he felt it appropriate). So what options are left? Yet another vote? If we want input from the wider community (and I think we're all in agreement that we do), outside people are, I think, unlikely to devote time to more than one vote, RFC or similar process. After all, we're hoping that people will turn up and take their time reading about the options and their advantages and disadvantages rather than jumping in with the first thing that comes to mind. If I had devoted time to doing this and a month later there was another vote, I would probably decide the whole exercise was futile and ignore it. I don't think that's what we want.
So while I will support any of these proposals, I would prefer to drop the 50%+1 clause in toto; failing that, I'd rather see it interpreted with as I suggested with the final level of run-offs so that a 55/43/10 split still had a very good chance of yielding a result. But I'm certainly not going to dig my heels in and be awkward if the consensus is against me. —ras52 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this means of counting - What Ras52 says is true enough, but most people will find more than one alternative to vote for; very few in the (xxx) poll voted for only one (5 out of 52) and as did those who voted for only two (5 out of 52). So I agree. -- Evertype·✆08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not continuing your preferences is a valid and honest way of voting, and is used effectively by many people in elections in Ireland (both parts). I was one of the five that did it in the preliminary poll. Personally, if my own first choice failed because users who opposed it had used this tactic, I wouldn't want it to be adopted because I wouldn't feel it had a clear consensus. Scolaire (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but honestly, we are crystal-balling here. There is no way to predict what the vote will yield, so there is no way to decide what to do if one choice does not get 50%+1. Is there? -- Evertype·✆11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely why we have to decide now. I do believe there will be one clear winner, but if there is not there are two options: (1) change the method of counting to produce an "unclear" winner, on the basis that anything is better than nothing; or (2) admit that the poll has failed despite our best efforts and start again. Which we do will have to be decided in advance, and I believ (2) to be the more honest option. Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hell. I can't help you decide "what method of counting" should be chosen. So recommend something. Either support Rannṗáirtí's recommendation or propose something else. -- Evertype·✆11:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have supported Rannṗáirtí's recommendation. In fact I was the first! I'm only saying that we can't support it, and then say "there is no way to decide what to do if one choice does not get 50%+1". We support it 100% or not at all. You're barking at me again. I'm going to go away now. Scolaire (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of tacking on a rider of the necessity for 50%+1 support for an option in order for it to be binding has been brought up many times. I proposed it above mainly because Masem is for it - or at least was. There is a (slim) possibility that the outcome of a STV vote will result in the winner having less that 50% of votes. If we attach a rider saying that 50%+1 is required then we may end up with no outcome to the vote. If we don't attach this rider then we are guaranteed to get a result ... one way or the other. In all probability the result winner will get >50% but there is an outside chance.
Can we have a show of hand expressing For or Against attaching a "50%+1 rider" to the ballot? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Final agreement on method used to select the winner? (redux)
OK, since it looks like we will be kicking off tonight, I've closed the above quickly. It looks like the consensus was to not use any "50%+1 clause", Scoláire's reservations noted. Admittedly this if from only a few participants, but from the combination of the several discussion above I think it can be assumed that we are in agreement over the following:
Surprisingly good actually. At least we can't say you aren't trying. I'm collecting the toys and putting them back in the pram. (In case I need to toss them out again). Sarah777 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My 2¢: After the sentence beginning "This is a formal..." say a) the result will be binding, b) it arose from b1) the ArbCom process and b2) WP:IECOLL. Then put a line break before the sentence beginning "The order that..." Finally move the sentence about the closing date up to be the last sentence in the (new) first paragraph. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd hold on for the green light from Masem before announcing anything. Let's not have a false start.--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made one change to balance it, as currently phrased the ROI option is unbalanced, suggesting that the term is official in both Ireland and the UK. Personally I think both options should be a simple statement without elaboration. However another editor has reversed that simplification so I have expanded it. --SnowdedTALK19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this hours ago, and then I seem to have removed it again with what was supposed to be a minor edit, but I think it's impotant, so:
Do we absolutely have to include "non-trivial sanctions for being naughty"? All the naughty boys and girls are following this page, and they know there will be non-trivial sanctions. It's also written on the ballot paper in case some new mischief-makers come along. The announcement should be "selling" the poll to the masses. Chrysler don't advertise their latest model by saying "driving under the influence will result in imprisonment or a fine. Scolaire (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page archiving
I just archived the first 200K of text here. I hope that I didn't archive any active discussions: if I did, my apologies. This only brought it down from 800K to 600K -- any objection to losing another 200K or so? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, saw them go by, but I figured they were safe, since we were most of the way to the final ballot. I can put a link to the archive page right in the text here, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poll starting tonight?
Since everything seems to be in order, to the point we know how the poll will be executed, etc., I recommend we open the poll tonight (at least, after GMT 0:00). I have no problem if others want to announce the poll to the talk pages previously agreed to. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just hold a minute please. The current description of the ROI option is unbalanced. As worded its says the the term is the law in the UK and quotes in full the 1948 act. In fact the Irish state does not use the name and the UK government agreed to cease using it in the Good Friday Agreement. Both descriptions should be short and not provide selective presentation of facts. I would hope we can resolve this quickly but it is important --SnowdedTALK19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unhappy about this being sprung on us by Snowded as though we'd done something wrong. We've been trying to balance this section ALL DAY and I would like that acknowledged. Anyway further discussion on the Ballot talk page. -- Evertype·✆20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype some of us have been working all day and have only just got home with a chance to review. Please don't use phrases like "Sprung on" or suggest that you are being accused of doing anything wrong. Its a simple proposal to improve things --SnowdedTALK20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith Evertype, please do the same and stop accusing me of springing things on you and leading a posse. I've raised a legitimate concern at the first available time. If other editors agree with me then I'm happy, but I haven't walked into the bar, stuck stars on them and ridden off in to the sunset --SnowdedTALK20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement ... but we really need sign off on the method for calculating the results (above), just a few "yeses" will do. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has moved forward with frenetic haste, and that's when things can go wrong. It needs the 'long look over' at this stage. Agree with Snowded's concerns. Tfz20:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
