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

F-supporter in "No objection to removal of vote" shock!

A user who voted today has had his/her/its vote removed, on the grounds that the account was created after 1st June, and that this is against the rules as published on the poll page. This user had voted F as first preference. I therefore would like to point out the following:

• Their choice of first preference shows remarkable good taste.
• Removing their vote - that's fine with me.
• This does not undermine the process.
• Níl éinne ag caoineadh.
• Drama-level: zero.

Thank you for reading, I now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If this was Facebook, I would "like" that comment.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 16:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 2 people like this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. In two years, Wikipedia will be a Facebook application. (Taivo (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

A reminder

At what time does the Poll close? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST)" (it's buried in the notes under "Procedure for voting"). HTH! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Let the tallying begin, the Poll has closed

An now the momment of truth. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Im glad that is over and done with, will someone put the vote in an archive box??? Now comes the fun bit i guess as certain editors spend the next few weeks trying to suggest this vote should be void simply because they lost. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. We're back to "winners" and "losers". Great. Collaborative me arse. I've already pointed out why this vote is void, from bullying to vote tampering, all without check. Thank God this farce has ended, although it's a shame this opportunity has gone a-begging. --HighKing (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem, will we be getting the results of the vote (even if there are outstanding disputes) tonight or wont it be till tomorrow for all the votes to be counted? Should people go to bed or should we all stay awake like on election nights?? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not going to be immediate.. (and remember, the results are not to be immediately enacted) --MASEM (t) 22:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse, and once the vote is offically counted and announced (although we already know the result), thats when the real fun begins, when we move onto sorting out all the other business.. I guess we are all going to enjoy each others company for many weeks yet. Well done for sticking through this though Masem, there were a few points when i thought the whole thing was going to come crumbling down. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've updated my tally page with the final count. The result was counted using Open STV. A bot reformatted the contents of the ballot page into an Open STV "ballot file". There was thus no human hand in the counting of the vote. The script the bot used is here. The output from Open STV was copied directly to the tally page. I also prepared a graph of this output, copying the values by hand. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not fair :(

I was hoping for a live video feed from Simonscourt, complete with non-committal commentary from each of the options and intense-faced tallymen scribbling notes. ;-)

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

More "Donehy & Nesbitt" mobile from the snug stuff. No surprises on this one, it was fait accompli. Tfz 23:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I was more expecting to run the results like the Election Night Special. :) --MASEM (t) 23:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this throughout the process; I've found it very useful. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

@HighKing - sorry, the vote is not void. The only editors who will say so are... well, I won't name names, but there are five of them, including you. There was no vote tampering, the record of who voted what, and who changed what, is there for all to see. There's not a hope in hell of the vote being declared void. You can accept that, and participate positive on the talk page to sort out what happens next (use of names within articles, template and cat titles, etc.) - or not.

@BHG - sorry, that's what electronic voting gets you. :-/ Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Won't name names, but you go ahead and name me anyway :-) --HighKing (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

@Bastun -- surely some technowizard could be volunteered to program a few avatars to give us all the drama of a live count. ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a horse race, that could be graphed out showing different horses with Letters instead of numbers, Would be able to see one take the leader, then the other catching up etc, as things progress the horses start dropping as they get eliminated all the way to the finish line. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This set of bar charts does a pretty good job of showing how the horses ran. -- The Anome (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

BHG - I'll work on a Declan Ganley-esque avatar, which will have a speech module saying "That's it, I'm outta here" but which will automatically reset itself next time the issue arises. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the outcome is to retain the status quo, what does Masem mean by "and remember, the results are not to be immediately enacted"? 91.106.12.133 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably Masem wasn't following the ongoing tallies (which is fair enough for a neutral moderator); and it had been agreed that whatever the outcome, no page moves would be immediately enacted without addressing ancillary issues such as in-article use, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no "outcome" on any issue will be finalized unless and until all issues are agreed. --HighKing (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ofcourse Highking that is the case, but the status quo remains in force whilst we are debating all these issues anyway so im fine with that. In truth by delaying you are just setting back when the clock starts on the 2 year NO change rule. If we sort everything by the end of the month, then Republic of Ireland will be the title of the country article atleast until September 2011. If people delay for 4 months then ROI will be the title until atleast 2012. Im fine with that, but its your choice thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What status quo? Oh - you mean the constant edit warring, sniping, bullying tactics, vote tampering, nasty comments, ad hominen attacks, etc. I suppose if that's what people want.... --HighKing (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, my understanding was that ArbCom instructed that people were to "agree on a process", and that said process turned out to be this vote. Correct me if I am wrong. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tally

Masem - R.A. and Valenciano have both been running OpenSTV tallies during the poll. R.A. details the method used, above. Can we get a declaration that this is an acceptable method and therefore a valid result, please? We can then move on to discuss the ancillary issues. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I do think we need to talk about it. The final difference is not huge, and we all know that F was one of the most disliked options (as well as the default position and the most liked). E came pretty close and avoids downstream conflict as any experienced editor here knows. Now yes, F can be imposed for three years but the conflict is bound to spill over into other areas. I think its time for all sides to just sit back and think for a bit before reacting. --Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, E is totally unacceptable. Fmph (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, E is totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

F has won, despite the voting system being designed against it. Had this been a simple first past the post, F would have slaughtered the opposition. We can try and get a compromise if people want, id still accept one option however im going to strongly oppose compromise if its about option E, which is totally unacceptable and not a compromise at all, or if i see people bashing option F as "British POV etc" which is misleading and incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"...F was one of the most disliked options..." F was the *most liked* option. End of. Some contributors mentioned during the vote that IRV is not a Condorcet method. A Condorcet method selects the candidate that (to quote Wikipedia) "when compared with every other candidate, is preferred by more voters." While it is true that IRV is not a Condorcet method it nearly always (in practice) ends up selecting the Condorcet candidate. The case of this vote is no different, "F" is the Condorcet candidate. It is the candidate that when compared with every other candidate, is preferred by more voters. At the last count (a few weeks ago, I'm at work now and so I'm not going to count it again right now) something like 75% of people ranked F in one way or another. There are a few noisy editors who repeat that "F" is the most disliked. The numbers simply don't support that view.

"...the conflict is bound to spill over into other areas..." We need to address those areas now. There's general agreement, I think, and the issues there are far more substantive. One of the great problems IMHO is the great investment that has been made in the title of the "Ireland" articles. Of much more importance and impact across the encyclopedia are the wider issues (titles of categories and other articles, references in articles, templates, lists, etc.). The matter of what to title a mere two articles have been put to bed. Now, let's move on to the real issues.

("E came pretty close..." "E" BTW was IIRC the least preferred option among members of WP:IECOLL - and that dodgy "Irish voters" subset. "F", again, was the most preferred. I'll tot these numbers up again tonight if people want.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

agreed we should move on to start sorting out all those other important issues over at the collaboration page. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

R.A., I think it would be hugely useful if you could do those tots. The last time I checked, F was both the "most popular" and "least unpopular" among Irish voters, for example, and I think being able to show that will cut off a whole slew of time-wasting "discussion" before it starts. (And apologies for not offering to do this myself - but your figures/tallies are obviously up-to-date, whereas my own efforts got sidetracked some time ago). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My quick tot for what it's worth.... 40 "ROI" editors, 17 of whom voted F as first preference, 42.5% of the total. This is only slightly below the 44.5% of overall editors who voted F. When lower prefs of those editors are considered, F beats E 24-14 with 2 nontransferables. NI editors voted 5F, 2D, 1C. There was one other "Irish" editor who voted F who I haven't included in either of those cats. So 23 out of 49 "Island of Ireland" editors voted F which is slightly above average. Anyone who declared themselves to be a citizen of Ireland is included in the ROI totals even though in many cases those editors might be second generation Irish so it is an unscientific exercise. Valenciano (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I rather expected those reactions. The voting system was not designed against anything, it was an STV vote and yes F came out on top. Several editors withdrew, no one is naive enough to think that adopting F will close the matter. You guys have an opportunity here, it looks from the comments above that you do not want to take it. --Snowded ^TALK 11:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I rather expected those reactions. The voting system was not designed against anything, it was an STV vote and yes F came out on top. Several editors withdrew. Some people are naive enough to think that NOT adopting F will close the matter. You guys have an opportunity here. It looks from the comments above that you do not want to take it. Fmph (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, shouldn't we wait for the results to be officially adjudicated by ArbCom before we go predicting actions and reactions? --Pretty Green (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The result is clear, ofcourse we should wait for the "official verdict to be announced before official appeals take place, but there is no reason for this vote to be considered void. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that. But this sort of talk, whether or not the result is clear, should, IMO, wait till after an official announcement of results. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The STV or what ever type of vote we had was chosen to make it harder for F to win as far as im concerned. The result clearly shows F would of done far better in First Past the Post, instead of having to take on all other votes combined. Several editors did withdraw, however im more than happy for the final result to include their votes.. F won with a majority even if we include the strikers. Requests for compromise was predictable aswell, as i said before id still prepared to accept compromise, although the conditions for that compromise has a far bigger list today than it did a month ago. The one thing that really annoys me about all this though is the double standards. Had F lost this by just ONE vote, we all know the Republic of Ireland title would be gone and there would be no way of overruling the verdict. Yet some seem to think the option that came second and LOST to F, should be seen as a compromise? its simply not and totally unacceptable thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting this, but I will throw out an ancedote that is appropriate here. At least in the states, there's the idea that if a president is elected in clear landslide (both electorial college and popular vote) then there's a mandate for that president to take steps he thinks its necessary and ignoring the minority vote (though certainly free to add their input); without that mandate, the president is usually tied to play partisan politics to get things done. The last likely one where a clear mandate existed would have been for Clinton's second term in 1996 (United States presidential election, 1996). However, when 2000 and the hanging chads came around, the votes were pretty damn close, and yet the winner believed he had a mandate much to a number of voters' anger.

The only reason I bring this up is that the final results, pending a review of the tally, show a similar case as the 2000 US election: we have a winner, which arguably won, but not by a large margin (it both wins the STV and gets 50% of all votes by round 4, and roughly has 20% more votes than the second best option by the last round). Is the mandate to keep this? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not suggesting we have to consider if there's consensus to go with another option - but certainly leave that route open - if everyone believes we agreed to start and end with the STV result, then, well, here we are. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Masem, I don't think that analysis holds up. A big flaw in it is that in 2000 Bush didn't win the popular vote, Gore did, so you could argue it the other way as an example of what happens when a less popular second preference is chosen. Compromise has proved impossible and not for want of trying. F won and we should proceed on that basis. Valenciano (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem, a president that wins by a landslide has a mandate to enact great change. Whereas a president that wins by just one vote is no less president. Our vote was to select between discrete choices (e.g. "which president"). None of our options have agency (i.e. they are not people with powers) so the question of "how much of a mandate" is not of much concern. "F" 'won' 55% of the vote. Certainly any presidential candidate that won 55% would be deemed to be elected?

BTW Clinton's share of the vote in 1996, which was 49% overall, 54% excluding Perot. That would likely have been larger if an IRV system has been used since we could expect that much of Perot's ballots would have transferred to Clinton. If all of Perot's 1996 ballots transferred to Clinton, Clinton would have received 58% of the vote compared to 55% for "F" in our little election.

The comparison with the 2000 US presidential election is surely far of the mark. In that election the "winning" candidate won a smaller share of the popular vote compared to the "losing" candidate (i.e. 47% vs. 48%). In our election the winning option is also the Condorcet criterion i.e. the most popular no matter how you count it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

EEEK, let's not use the 2000 US Prez election results as a comparison. There was a possibility that many Florida Gore supporters accidently voted for Reform candidate Pat Buchanan. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but at least the US poll wasn't rigged. Most of the voters in this poll have never ever edited the Ireland/RoI articles. At the very least, US citizens have to live with their choices, but not here at WP. Now it's open licence to change all those Ireland words into RoI. Eat your heart out Eire/Ireland. Tfz 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

All I'm trying to say is that (barring issues on checking the results) 1) we have a winner, and we could end all this here and now and say that's it 2) the margin of its win, while sufficient to win per our initial setup of these results, suggests that there may be an alternative *if* those that support F agree with some type of consensus towards another solution that is more amenable to all parties (that's the problem with STV here in this specific case is that while it's telling us what option "wins", it doesn't help identify what option is most enjoyed by all voters. Lessons learned, but...). Mind you, if there are people stauntly against attempt to disrupt the winning result, then there's no incentive to pursue further discussions on a consensus option, and leave F as the winner, and go from there. Right now, my gut tells me that few are going to back down from declaring F the winning option, but I keep this on the table as a possible way to smooth things out, with our fallback being the vote result should any type of resistance against the attempt be meet. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

E is off the wall completely, and at least with RoI we have a halfway house, although my preferred choice was Ireland (sovereign country). Using RoI is a bit like calling a cat a dog, a bit of the kindergardens' about it. Tfz 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite millions of people viewing the article on the country at Republic of Ireland, a TINY number of people have complained about the title so i guess its not done that much damage to wikipedia over the years. Suggestions that F is somehow like callin a cat a dog are unhelpful. THe country in question created the term Republic of Ireland, saw the need to make it an official description, and its government, ministers, people in parliament, media, sports team all still use the term today when needed. I think we should move on to the next phase, once the result has been confirmed and verified, lets get onto when to use the term in articles and other articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet we don't have the UK being called the Monarchy of the United Kingdom. It's would be a similar situation. RoI only describes the political system that Ireland uses, that's all it does, and no more. We have been through this before. Tfz 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No the United Kingdom article should probably be at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland UK is just what it regularly gets called, id rather the full title of the state BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy of the United Kingdom has never ever been used as a synonym for the United Kingdom, either officially or informally. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, its a crazy comparison. Also ofcourse i feel i should point out the meaning of the word Kingdom - "A Kingdom is a sovereign state instituting a monarchy, or having a monarch as its head.". The United Kingdom, there for already mentions the monarchy in its title, and we are honoured to do so. Ashame more republics dont keep the "Republic of".. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the other person's input is always crazy, but you posses the eternal truth. The intention of the introduction of the RoI act as to describe Ireland's political system as a republic. You should read the Dail notes from that time. It is not for BW or MM to reinterpret that original meaning. Sorry guys. Tfz 18:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We are here to talk about the name of the article, not the name of the state. The poll was introduced following years of a small group of people raising concerns about the title. The majority of the community who took part in the poll disagree with that group of people. The matter should be closed now. Im not reading through old papers, considering they had wanted independence and to become a republic for quite some time, ud think they would want it in their states title but lets wait for the official results to be declared ;). BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Monarchy of the United Kingdom is an altogether different thing (just as the Presidency of Ireland is). The correct analogy is between "Republic" and "Kingdom". The state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is located at United Kingdom in just the same was as the state called Ireland is located as Republic of Ireland. Talk of double standards is nonsense. Like someone asked before (I think it was Evertype), what shall we do with the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

All sorts of methods were tried to settle this long-running disagreement. For years it rumbled on as a series of proposed page moves which led to lengthy disputes. Then IECOLL started up and we tried a structured-reasoning approach, but that didn't work. There simply was no consensus, not even anything approaching it: there was open disagreement about very simple basic propositions, and it was quite clear that editors were approaching the issue from a variety of deeply-held perspectives, all of which produced different outcomes from a rational premise backed up by evidence; the main difference was that different editors attached widely different priorities to various aspects of the problem. So in the end a poll was tried, and the results of that poll are quite clear: one option comes out ahead whatever counting method is used.

I happen to be pleased with the outcome, because it's a solution which minimises ambiguity. Others will dislike it, because it doesn't fit with their sincerely-held and rational assessment of all the evidence presented. But that's not the main point: the most important thing is that that is the outcome of an open process in which everyone had their say, and all participants agreed to be bound by the outcome when they signed up to IECOLL.

I signed up on the basis that whatever outcome was reached would be the outcome: we might get what I considered to be a bad result, but at least we could close the file on an issue which has wasted far too much time over the years. But now we are apparently being asked to consider ignoring the outcome of the vote because a minority of editors who don't accept the outcome are likely to be cause ongoing conflict.

I'm sure that the concern over ongoing conflict was raised with the best of intentions, but I really don't like the logic. It seems we are being told that a noisy minority should be given some sort of veto over an outcome which has widespread support, however the votes are counted, and that because some people won't accept the result we should go back to drawing board. That's a very bad way of making any sort of decision. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a bit off to be honest BHG. THere are noisy minorities on both sides of this conflict and a substantial number of people who were concerned to gain a lasting result. To suggest that a middle ground be sought is not to give any noisy minority a veto. Clearly prior attempts to reach a compromise failed, but when mediation clicked in (after a resignation or two) there was no attempt to formalise a process, just a rapid acceptance of a vote (driven by some of the protagonists). As I said above we have all missed an opportunity here. I suppose there is an lesson here, people in WIkipedia have nothing to loose by adopting extreme positions. In real life they do. Mediation is a lot easier in real life for that reason. --Snowded ^TALK 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whats the middle ground, the vote that came second and that many of us strongly oppose is NOT the middle ground. Also its hard to stay in the middle ground with rants like that of Tfz claiming the vote was rigged, especially when there many things to suggest F could have won even easier if it wasnt for the voting system selected AND we had a day of socks!, i shant forget that day, when we basically were told on this talk page nothing at all can be done about socks, and all of a sudden several potential socks turned up who had not been active for months, in one case i think over a year. The overwhelming majority of the iffy votes, went to E. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, option-F has prevailed, the 3 articles-in-question shall remain titled as they are. Next stop - 2011. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

@Snowded, I'm afraid that I long ago concluded that the intractability of this issue arose from the fact that any possible outcome would leave some people extremely dissatisfied. Some people don't want the term "Republic of Ireland", but there's no compromise on that -- either it's there or it isn't. I wanted a name which was unambiguous and uncontrived, and nobody seriously proposed an alternative to RoI which met those criteria ("26 counties" is about as good as it gets, and that's highly problematic). Many of the so-called compromise proposals were not really much of a compromise, because they didn't involve everyone giving up a little bit to achieve something which satisfied everybody a little bit -- e.g. "Ireland (state)" simply doesn't meet either of my two criteria.

So while I respect those like Rockpocket who have pleaded for some sort of middle ground, I think that a solution to this issue is inevitably to going look a bit like pendulum arbitration (one sides "wins", the other "loses"). My point about the "noisy minority" is simply that any solution was going to leave some people very cheesed off, there's no merit in discarding the outcome of the poll. This result does have its opponents, but the fact that does have wide support will probably make it more stable than any of the alternatives, each of which has its strong opponents, and none of which has such strong support as this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm double checking RA's numbers but I'm not seeing anything amiss based on what he has right now. Even with a small error (I don't expect there is), there is a clear winner from this but I will still be crossing t's and dotting i's to make sure. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

@Tfz: You said "Now it's open licence to change all those Ireland words into RoI." Um, no. The article titles stay where they are. We still need to decide on use within articles, in other article titles, templates, categories, etc. I for one will be opposing any mass change of "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland" within articles. Those are the things we need to sort out, now, though, and which I and others have raised here. Postive discussion of those issues (rather than "The poll was invalid"/"The title should be at..." type contributions) would be most welcome. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, despite my support for option F i dont want a mass changing of everything either. What i do want however is some very very clear guidelines, that any person can look at and without doubt will come away with the same conclusions on when ROI should be used instead of Ireland and when it should not be used to avoid future fights over different articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also no longer prepared to support any form of compromise on the article naming issue. The vote clearly stated the result would be binding for two years, there for we must follow through on that statement and can not go back on something because a few people are unhappy with the result. As soon as the vote is announced and verified, we move to sort these other matters out. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I voted for F, and I'm happy with the result. Just to be clear on my position, I believe that there is no need whatsoever to change the usage within articles. Where the context is clear, I'm happy to have links to Ireland the island and Ireland the state remain the same. The term "Republic of Ireland" only needs to be used when there is ambiguity that cannot be resolved from the context; such as, for example, in the title of the Wikipedia article. -- The Anome (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my position too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

I have prepared a brief analysis of the vote comparing all voters against members of IECOLL. The IRV/STV 'winner' is the same in each ("F"). A difference exists in that the Condorcet candidate among IECOLL members is "D", whereas among voters as a whole it does not differ from the IRV winner. In both groups if "F" is withdrawn, "D" becomes the IRV winner (and is the Condorcet candidate).

There are some caveats to this:

1. The members of WP:IECOLL are a self-selecting group with a relatively small sample size and so cannot be assumed to be representative of the wider community
2. IRV depends on a large sample size to eliminate random error in order to "become" a Condorcet method (so a contradiction between the IRV winner and the Condorcet winner among the IECOLL sample is not to surprising).

However, it does demonstrate, I think, that a "compromise" candidate, if one exists, is for "D" *not* "E". Maybe we can bear this in mind for future votes (i.e we only need to poll "F" vs. "D")

Someone, more adept at the dark arts of statistics, may examine the voting pattern of IECOLL members vs. all voters (or "all voters less IECOLL members") to see if there is a difference. Also transfers to "F" seem to be quite low (i.e. there seems is evidience for a "not F" opinion). Can this be examined also? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

'F' is also the most favoured "single-option", i.e 21 voters voted ONLY for 'F'. The only other options for which this occured were 'E' and 'A', with one each. Good analysis BTW Fmph (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good analysis, im still waiting for the official declaration of the result though :(. I want confirmation that this matter of the Republic of Ireland article name has been resolved for 2 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If the vote was to be tallied in any way other than the way stated on the voting page it is very likely that people would have voted differently. A feature of STV is that second, third, etc. preferences only come into play when there is a 0% chance of all more favoured preferences being successful. Votes are not discussions, they are not meant to be interpreted they are meant to be counted. Guest9999 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@Guest999 -- that's spot on. For the record, I am one of those who voted as I did because I understood that it was an IRV vote, and I cast my vote to achieve the results I wanted within that system. I would be very concerned if my second or third preferences were to be interpreted as indicating that those options were some sort of nearly-as-good-solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

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

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

State of Play

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough of the effing gloating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observations

Without wanting to introduce any baggage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmation of vote result

I have hand-checked (and then double checked with a computer) to validate the same results that User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid arrived at at User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/Poll on Ireland article names. Specifically, 239 "votes" were cast, 5 of which were empty. Of the remaining 234 votes, applying the STV poll process, we end up with Option F as the "50%" winner (both in total number of all non-empty votes, and in total number of remaining ballots) by Round 4, with 50% of all votes, empty or not, by Round 5. The second best option that survived to round 5 was Option E, followed by C, B, D, and A.

I do not see any obvious evidence of sockpuppetry or the like, nowhere close to ask for a sock investigation. All votes appear to be valid per the requirements we set up (registered account after June 1, etc.)

Thus, for purposes of moving on, we can consider Option F (aka "status quo") as the default naming scheme for the next two years barring any mass agreement on a different compromise solution that everyone agrees on in the next two weeks or so while other issues are resolved. I'm not seeing a lot of luck towards this "11th hour" compromise, but I'm not ruling it out just yet.

A reminder: even if this is the status quo, no article names changes should be made until satisfactory conclusion of all other issues are determined. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Option-F has prevailed, so be it. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, at what point does the two years start - today, 13 September, or the time at which a conclusion is reached on other issues? I'm not bothered from a personal perspective, but I think it would be useful for us to be clear about this now, to avoid disputes later. Pfainuk talk 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It should start once all matters have been resolved over at the collaboration project page and Arbcom have been informed and they agree to everything and confirm its locked for 2 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Masem. I'm a little ticked off to be honest. Option F is *not* the default naming scheme for the next two years! The Arbcom ruling was to develop procedures "on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles". Furthermore, we were deciding just that - on a comprehensive solution involving article names and general usage - even up to *your* last attempt at a comprehensive solution which failed. So my quest is: Where on earth did an agreement to single out the "Ireland" article and exclusively vote on that come from? Who agreed to it? Pardon my naivity and ignorance, but that isn't what I and many other editors signed up for. So we invested over 6 months at a comprehensive solution, and then at a time when most people are away on theie holidays, it gets turned into a single issue vote. No way José. There was *no* agreement to decide to exclusively vote on one element of the problem.

On another note, I see that you have summarily failed to deal with the issue of vote tampering. A vote was illegally removed due to a banning of the editor for creating and using a sock account after voting (which means his vote was cast when he was *not* a sock, and therefore legal).

And another quick check of votes shows that the vote of User:Matheuler was illegally removed.

This process is a joke. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteering was confirmed. It was therefore appropriate to strike the vote. Again, it is known that the person was using one alternate account. It is therefore not entirely inappropriate to suggest that they used other accounts that CheckUser did not uncover (remember, "CheckUser is not magic fairy dust"). The vote of User:Matheuler appears to have been appropriately removed. The user's first contribution was on 8 August, while the rules restricted the franchise to users active before 1 June. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the rules. Even the Florida vote looks cut and dried compared to this. --HighKing (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, please identify the specific outcome that changes as a result of that one vote. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The "process" ended with the close of poll. It is now time to face up to the fact that F came out "on top" - stop trying to retrospectively deny the result. Djegan (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The endless crying and moaning by some people is a joke. Masem, this nonsense can not go on for weeks. there is no possible room for compromise. please end this matter. Archive / lock the page BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)At least we agree about this being "a joke" and "nonsense" and the fact that most editors (the gloating kind) have ruled out any "possible room for compromise". Yes. Let's end this matter. Some of us, at least, can walk about with a bit of self respect left intact. --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the point about Matheuler is correct, the accounts first edit was after the cut off point (june 2009) but account creation was "22:38, 27 July 2006 Matheuler new user account " That vote should not have been removed, but that vote does not change the outcome of the result and nor did the Sockpuppet whos vote was rightly removed. There were several votes for E which quite possibly could have been Socks, it would certainly justify a full investigation if the current result is somehow seen as invalid. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Gosh. So you agree that the "official result" is wrong? But yeah - sure - just sweep it under the carpet. We have the assurance that this result has been "hand checked" for days no less! And I agree that lots of votes for E were probably socks, probably a good idea to halve the amount of valid E vote. Has the added benefit of making sure that F was a landslide. You didn't happen to work in Florida in 2004 at some stage did you? --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Its clear to everyone that one vote does not impact on the result. However, in fairness the vote should be restored and a full recount take place. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'd get agreement for that. But we could take a vote to see I suppose? ... Nah. --HighKing (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why the vote should not be restored and recounted to ensure fairness, but ofcourse it doesnt change the winning result. I am ofcourse only suggesting a recount of the current votes with the incorrectly removed vote included, not restarting the vote. Recounts are perfectly acceptable when an error has been made, the reason the vote was removed originally is clear. A first edit taking place 3 years after the account was created, is pretty rare. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to restore the Matheuler vote (that's why I discouraged people from removing any vote but their own). However, as that user voted B, E, and C in that order, it does not change how the end votes work out (that vote still ultimately ends up as E) and does not change when Option F crosses the 50% mark. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you confirming that there was poll tampering then? Will there be a non-trivial sanction? --HighKing (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No. This is a completely open process, and the fact that there was the removal of Matheuler's vote and it was caught is how that system is error corrected. Anyone is free to run the numbers themselves. Tampering would require that part of this vote be secret so that what went in wasn't the same that came out. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And no, there will be no sanctions or anything. There was nothing in place to prevent any other user beyond myself from removing votes, though I did discourage it. Furthermore, the means why Matheuler's vote was removed is an honest mistake that I would have likely done myself if it was brought to my attention: by contribs, that user looks recent, but you need to look at the logs to get the right date. That's a rarity and thus easily mistaken - and in this case corrected. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One too many "easy mistakes" ... --HighKing (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the rules were drafted to permit users with 0 prior contributions to participate. In fact, it would appear they were constructed with the exact opposite intention. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The June 1 rule was there because 1) we blocked IPs from voting and 2) we didn't want people though difficult to track sock/meat puppetry to sign up for accounts to sway the votes. There's nothing wrong with an inactive account for 2 years (clearly well before this was considered an issue) to become active if all they do is vote. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although i wish we had considered doing something about stopping clear inactive accounts before hand, but that vote would still be perfectly valid in such circumstances anyway. Thanks masem for sorting the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Collaboration is failing, Masem

Masem: I appreciate what you have said, that if there were an actual compromise (D, for instance, which even BritishWatcher says he could support) that could be packaged together with a set of other agreed items. But you now appear to be refusing to help guide the project, as you do not actually advocate such a compromise and are doing nothing to encourage the project to discuss compromise and a complete package. Your approach is not that of a moderator: it is entirely laissez-faire. "If you all agree on compromise I will agree with you." No sign of encouraging us to do so. I don't see you encouraging anyone to look at the long term — you're content to lock the article title for two years so we can all come back here in 2011 and go through the same bullshit again.

In my view, people like BritishWatcher have shown no real good faith in this project. He has teased us about his willingness to compromise over and over again—but because someone like Sarah won't agree to his stipulation that the project agrees that "Republic of Ireland" is not a "British POV" he has dug his heels in and will brook no further discussion of compromise. It doesn't matter that people like me have said that I am happy to have the Project agree that it is not "British POV"—Sarah won't so BritishWatcher can refuse to budge. He sets his stipulation so high that he has no need to compromise, to attempt to compromise, and so now, by insisting on F, he guarantees a "win", which makes him happy. And you, as moderator, aren't doing anything real to help encourage an actual compromise by actually addressing this.

Perhaps I have simply wasted many, many, many hours as a member of this Project, and I should rather resign from it than maintain any hope. I expected collaboration. I expected good faith. I expected a willingness on all sides to put the real problem to bed: that the use of the title Republic of Ireland for the state is problematic enough that we know it will return to plague us later. As far as I can see, Ireland (state) would not cause such a problem. Rannṗáirtí shows here that F was "supportable" by 77% of all voters, and that D and E were supportable by 73% of all voters. He also shows that F was only supportable by 50% of IECOLL members, while D was supported by 73% of IECOLL members, and E by 64%. Since BritishWatcher considers E to be anathema it can be discarded; but more IECOLL members could support D than any of the other options. You, Masem, could encourage IECOLL to choose D as a better compromise, if you wanted. If that failed in two weeks or whatever, then you'd have your F to fall back on. But unless you take the reins and actually do some encouragement, there's nothing to be said for this Collaboration Project but that it is doomed to fail, and we can expect another ArbCom process to be opened in 2011. -- Evertype·✆ 11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How can Masem as a moderator support an option, that is hardly neutral. I also do not consider my actions on this talk page to be teasing people, i would be happy to remain silent. However when i see people talking nonsense or rubbishing the entire poll trying to pretend it should all be considered invalid, i cant remain silent. Sorry but this matter is over, we can not go against the verdict of the community after clearly stating the poll was binding for 2 years on the ballot page. Attempts to get consensus failed, we agreed a poll, you were one of the leading people rushing us to the poll, i was one of the people stalling at every step of the way. How times change BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been teasing about compromise for a long time, not just post-Poll. The poll is there for us to analyse, is it not? [The table I mentioned does that. It shows what 239 people community wide could support. It also shows what members of IECOLL could support. D does better within IECOLL. Should this not be discussed? Masem has indicated that he would be willing to have it discussed. As a good moderator (in my view) he ought to encourage that discussion. The problem is that we're going to be back here in two years. I'd like to avoid that. Wouldn't you? If D does best amongst interested parties (IECOLL members), shouldn't that encourage compromise, as the best solution? It has always been possible to consider such compromise. Masem says that it is possible to do so even now. Will you? -- Evertype·✆ 12:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider being prepared to compromise through the poll teasing, it was rejected or ignored by people on all sides anyway, so theres nothing i could do. The ballot page clearly states the result will be binding for 2 years, it doesnt say we will look and debate the result to decide which is the best option.

The moment for compromise is over, i pointed out the point of no return for me.. it was the day after the poll had closed. Even if i was to drop my opposition to compromise, i think there have been many less involved editors who have commented here saying its unacceptable to go back now or try to interpret peoples results in a way they were not meant to. sorry BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring what Masem said before the poll, during the poll, and now after the poll. You've dug your heels in. So much for good faith. -- Evertype·✆ 12:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed i have dug my heels in, i have made this perfectly clear. I had made comments that i was still prepared to accept compromise on certain conditions if others were ok with it. But that changed at a certain point on the 14th. I then striked out my previous comments that id made on the idea of compromise and stated i strongly opposed any form of compromise on this matter. You saw my comments as teasing, it wasnt, it was simply letting everyone know i was digging my heels in and to highlight compromise was going to be that little bit harder if others were considering it. Many other people here who are less involved have said to go back now is unacceptable, even some supporters of other options who didnt want F. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. You teased about being willing to compromise before the poll, and during the poll, and evidently after the poll until the 14th. Frankly, your attitude suggests to me that you were never honest about compromise. Never honest about collaboration. It doesn't matter that moderates like me agreed with you (many times) that we could stipulate that the "British POV myth" was just a myth. You always found others who would not agree, so you could enjoy your righteousness as you dug your heels in. As I've said on your talk page, you've got your veto. You win. I don't have any respect for your position. You evince no genuine interest in the long-term good of the Ireland articles on the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Im honoured you think i have the sort of power and influence you seem to be suggesting Evertype, but i simply dont. Look at all the other people (not hardlinee supporters of F) who have come out above saying going back on the result now is wrong. Why do you not attempt to change their mind? You can think what you like about my motives or intentions, but the record shows when i first got involved i was fully supportive of moving the article to what is now option D and that moderate view continued for some time. Its been disgusting attacks on British editors by certain people, but also the fact more evidence was presented showing ROI is used often in Ireland and lack of evidence its offensive in Ireland that has formed the strong view i hold today on this matter. What others think of me or the positions i hold really does not concern me in truth. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Recently I was called a pedophile by a British editor, unlike you I don't roar about it all the time. Shucks BW, give over! Tfz 13:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between one British editor calling you something who later gets banned anyway, and people claiming "British POV" which is not an attack on a single editor but attacks on all British editors as though they are up to no good. especially when this claim is made by someone who has been sanctioned by Arbcom for her disgusting anti British POV pushing. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and he was allowed to run riot with his insults for a week before getting banned, and although you were involved in some of the discourse, you didn't even raise a whisper of objection. Finally it was an American (or German) admin who banned him. Tfz 14:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as im aware no one tried to do anything about his actions, all that happened was someone questioned his username, which led to nothing. It was only on the last day when he had enough fun that he clearly broke the rules and got himself a perm block. Its still very different having 1 British editor breaking the rules and one editor attacking all British editors for pushing some form of "British POV" lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

POV = "point of view". Everyone has a point of view, Wikipedia requires a NPOV. Please don't be making excuses for the dirt bird, and he got blocked when he eventually called me a pedophile. Laugh, laugh, that's all you ever did on this page, as you did then. Sheesh! Tfz 14:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not defending the guy, all im saying is theres a big difference between a British editor breaking the rules and getting banned, compared to people claiming "British POV" which to me seems like a violation of WP:AGF as far as im concerned, but its been allowed and tolerated through this whole dispute. Whats worse is its been led by someone who has been sanctioned by Arbcom for pushing Anti British POV, but still its been seen as acceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I must now resign from this Project. I regret the time and effort I have put into it. It has failed to achieve genuine dialogue, good will, and anything like a solution to the problems besetting the Ireland articles on the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again I find the idea of effectively having voters later preferences count against their first preference to be fundamentally flawed. My final vote was FED, if I thought having D as a third preference made it less likely that F or E would be implemented I would probably not have included it. The ballot page says "Please vote using PRSTV" and "A member of the ArbCom committee will adjudicate the result of the vote", no mention of future discussion or potential interpretation is given. Guest9999 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a moderator - but I can't force the people involved to go in a direction that they don't want to seem to go into. I have tried to encourage further discussion towards consensus post vote but people seem against that. I can't change their minds nor force them to discuss consensus, only make sure that followup conversations are guided in the right direction. Also, I will point out that by focuses only on the IECOLL group results (and thus saying that we should look at D) you are ignoring the wider consensus by non-IECOLL members, which is not appropriate. Any talk towards compromise has to be in the light of the final all-WP vote. Again, I don't think there's a chance there will be such at this point based on various positions, but if there was, we can't ingore non-IECOLL contributions. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well once you have a vote its unlikely that the "winners", or at least those such as BW, will want to compromise. Its happened now but I think there are some lessons to be learnt for the future: (i) There was never really an attempt to structure the argument and isolate the issues, that would have been a tedious task but it might have allowed progress; (ii) The vote as to an alternative to ROI once run should have resulted in that being the alternative; (iii) with no summary of the position, only partisan statements neutral editors probably couldn't see what the fuss was about; (iv) the poll should have been driven by the moderator not by editors. --Snowded ^TALK 14:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit cart-before-the-horse. Blaming the poll for removing a willingness to compromise rather ignores the problem that months of discussion produced little sign of any viable compromise. It's true that the structured approach initially promised never materialised, and I regret that ... but as you may recall, I was the one who tried a bit of structuring by offering a long list of propositions. I thought that approach had potential, but lost hope in when it became clear that a number of editors just wanted to argue that black is white. The aftermath of that process is what led us to a poll, and I don't have much faith that a moderator-led structured approach would have taken us down a significantly different path.

Britishwatcher's gloating now does absolutely nothing to help restore calm, and his I-would-have-compromised-if is just a disruptive tease. But there is another group of intransigent editors, viz. those who insist that "Republic of Ireland" is absolutely unacceptable, and I'm rather weary of hearing people from that camp complaining that others are unwilling to compromise.

I have yet to see a simple and clear statement from any of the opponents of RoI which plausibly explains why it is so unacceptable. There are subsidiary arguments, such as the fact the 1948 Act makes RoI the description, not the name ... but that's a technical point which evades the core problem of RoI-opponents, viz. that they find it offensive. This has puzzled me throughout, and it has been the elephant in the room throughout the process: the central question which has never been adequately addressed. If those opposed to RoI had addressed this directly instead of shielding behind technical arguments, we might have gotten a deeper understanding of each other's positions. But that didn't happen, so we are where we are: a deadlock resolved by a poll, a crude mechanism which has left many editors dissatisfied but which is arbcom-backed so it does offer 2 years of stability. Not ideal, but it's the best we can do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)