Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here. Members can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links.

Please, for the moment, refrain from discussing the individual Ireland naming options until we agree on a procedure.

(See #Moderation box)

WT:IECOLL

General and housekeeping

Welcome

This is first draft. Please edit as you see fitGnevin (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea. --Helenalex (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFD discussions

There are a couple current CFD discussions that people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration might be interested in. Please see these 2 discussions linked below. One is above the other on the same page. The discussions concern how to categorize religious and nationalist terrorism.

Thanks for the heads up Gnevin (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question (obsolete message)

I have been made aware of the Ireland naming question discussed at Talk:Ireland. Pardon my ignorance; but this project seems like the perfect place to solve such questions, and I'm wondering if there is any reason why I don't see anything about that here. If there is interest, I could help with my experience from WP:SLR, which was the inspiration for your inspiration WP:IPCOLL. (Please feel free to send me e-mail.) — Sebastian 05:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Membership

I would like to become a member. Most WikiProjects have a list where people simply add themselves. This WikiProject doesn't - was this a conscious decision or did you just not get around to it? Since you also have certain conditions for members, how do you handle the situation when an editor does not agree with the conditions? (At WP:SLR, we have a membership application process, where every member has a veto right. I am very happy that it never happened that an application got vetoed for partisan reasons. All people who applied got eventually accepted; in some cases after agreeing to certain neutral conditions, such as writing edit summaries. We could not agree on excluding members, and it never became necessary. But if you ever want to implement it, now would be the best time to think about it.) — Sebastian 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about the condition "not involved in Irish POV disputes". In both WP:IPCOLL and WP:SLR we explicitly want people who are involved in such disputes. These people are the people who care, and a project like this is exactly the place to mitigate any problems arising from that. (IPCOLL has moderators, who e.g. delete incivilty. At SLR, we allow deletion of any off-topic contributions, which is a wording I prefer because I don't have to accuse someone of incivilty.) For the same reason, I don't think that the condition "always [...] writing with a neutral point of view" is helpful. As WP:NPOV says: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." — Sebastian 07:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:SLR, I would usually give such issues two days before reaching a conclusion. But in this case, I would like to be faster: A substantial number of editors have shown their agreement with solving the Ireland naming question here, and I would not want this question to block the momentum. I therefore will be WP:BOLD and do the changes for now. We can always change them back later. I made both founders of this project aware of this discussion. — Sebastian 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you've experience of other style projects such as this I think you should feel free to make whatever chances you think we need to progress this idea. We can always discuss any ideas that we disagree with if need be Gnevin (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote of confidence! This allows us to focus on the more urgent issue of the naming question for now. Once that is done, it would be a great time for project members to reconsider all of these admittedly somewhat hurried decisions. — Sebastian 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation box

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

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

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

Shortcut

Resolved

Are there any suggestions for a shortcut for this project? Since we're modelled on IPCOLL, how about WP:IRLCOLL - or WP:ÉColl? (The good thing is, this won't turn into yet another naming discussion. We can easily have both side by side.) — Sebastian 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just about to ask this , I like IECOLL like the TLD, but as you say we can have several Gnevin (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I step down?

In #Discussion below, I appealed to all to respect edits of moderators. This elicited only one, disrespectful, reply. Statistically, this is a disapproval rate of 100%. If that were indeed representative for how people feel about me, then the proper thing for me to do would be to step down. I am therefore asking for your opinion. (It's really just an opinion in this case; don't worry about the Graham's pyramid for a moment. If you prefer, you can also send me mail.)

Please do not feel you have to say something nice just because I have been appointed by ArbCom. Instead, please imagine ArbCom had just said: "Here's a guy we trust. Make the best use of him." Would you trust me, and follow the path that I believe leads us out of this? — Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be taking an active role in a fair way to try and resolve the problem, i dont think you should step down. I hope we havnt scared u off too quick :). BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not scared. The reason why I wrote this is: I can not change you. If there is no real will to try something new in this community, then my time here is wasted. There are so many other important issues in this world; why should I spend my free time on this one? Just a minute ago I heard an interview with Siddharth Kara of Free the Slaves, who said when asked what kept him motivated "I draw on the strength the victims show ...". That struck a chord with me. — Sebastian 18:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian, when I saw your name on the list of the Ireland Collaboration Project, I did not assume you to be an impartial mediator appointed by ArbCom to resolve disputes. You should make that clear at the top of this page. I still hope I can add something to the dispute as most of it overlooks or twists the binding laws which set out this very dispute (which I have mentioned below and would happily discuss as they may appear complicated when disputes go on). ~ R.T.G 22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good point! I haven't seen any public action by ArbCom on this. All I went by is mails from ArbCom members. Therefore, I will wait and only act as a normal member here until we get official word by ArbCom. — Sebastian 22:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with disruptions?

Renamed from "How to deal with hecklers?" because we want to focus on issues, not people. — Sebastian 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

A recent incident made me aware that there is an inconsistency: While our project page says "Members commit, to the best of their ability, to always "comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, contributing to the goal of a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. (ArbCom quote)", but we are not clear how we deal with any violations - be they by a member or not.

Obviously this collaboration project should have no bias for or against any position regarding the Irland naming question. Every position needs to be respected and get a fair chance to get expressed with reasonable arguments. However, that does not mean that we need to tolerate disruptive editors.

What do members think should happen when someone acts disruptively in the future? Should he or she get banned from this page, or first receive a warning? — Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the level of disruption, people should certainly be given a second or third chance especially in the early days of this process when people are still recovering from months of inaction on this issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; it would be impatient to expect that the mindset arising from months of stalled discussion can change with the snap of a finger; immediate banning would be inappropriate. I realize I should have better asked about the incident that triggered this. In that incident, the moderator applied an action that was not allowed by WP:DISCUSSION. Of course, I am acting according to WP:IAR, as I understand it. But we need to decide if moderators are allowed actions here. I hope we can agree on this without having to resort to a catalogue of individual actions and the circumstances under which they would be appropriate. Let's just look at the last incident as a precedence: (1) Moderator deletes off-topic discussion, giving specific reason for why this is necessary at the time; (2) editor who is not a project member reverts. What should happen? Currently, any heckler can have the last word. If that is what members want, then I don't see much of a point in having moderators in the first place. — Sebastian 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a 3 strikes policy for most hecklers expect for the What have the British/Irish ever done for us, All British/Irish are murders/terrorist and the Typical British imperialist/ parochial Irish type of hecklers of which we have quite a few.Gnevin (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I realize I wrote the wrong headline - how do you think we should deal with the disruptions themselves? — Sebastian 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have a problem with comments being striked out or removed by the moderators aslong as theres justification, a reason given in the edit summary and once agreement on such a policy is reached a note at the top of this page aswell as on the project page just reminding people that certain things may be removed. I dont think a warning should be given if its just one unhelpful but innocent comment, unlike the above examples which are clearly just for stiring up trouble and should lead to warning. 3 strikes and your out policy is the fairest as it gives people plenty of chances to change their actions. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status

As of now, we're still waiting for Arbcom. — Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

Current situation and next steps

After reading the discussion at Talk:Ireland, I became aware that the community actually already developed a procedure, or at least the Ireland specific part of it. There are at least two undisputed proposals that build upon each other: BrownHairedGirl’s proposal “Possible directions from which to approach this issue” of 22:10, 12 January, provides a foundation, and the “Solution table for problem(s) Mk II”, worked out by several editors around 02:10, 13 January, provides the sequence of the decisions that need to be made. Not only was there “a reasonable degree of agreement” on this, there was even not a single objection. There was agreement that “there [are] two similar, yet focussed proposals, targetted […] exactly at what ArbCom asked to happen”. Therefore, we do not need the Back-up procedure for the Ireland specific part.

What is missing in the Mk II procedure is independent of Ireland naming question proper: A determination of how the decisions themselves are to be made. (Consensus, some form of majority, or anything else.) — Sebastian 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the second uninvolved administrator, let me say hi. I can already see that Sebastian has superiour experience in mediation then I do, and I admit to be slightly overwhelmed by his dedication and methodology. As for determinating the process; I first and formost prefer consensus over anything else. Since that has proven less successfull, the next logical step is mediation, and to a lesser extent, arbitration. I originally envisioned the Panel Of Three as a panel of mediators where arguments are exchanged in a structured discussion, and arbitrate when discussion is deadlocked. But that is my own simplified vision. I am still studying Talk:Ireland and other discussions scattered around to get up to speed. I hope to be able to provide some help here. — Edokter • Talk • 00:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, my attempt to smuggle the snowball' through was foiled! :-(

Seriously, though: Welcome! I'm very happy that you arrived. After reading your statement and seeing the first "I made a mistake" userbox ever on your page, I feel much more at ease with the option of having the panel work out things. I'm really not here to get my way; I'm happy to learn from others.

Please don't be overwhelmed. I think I rushed things too much and will slow down from now on. I'm learning, too. While this is the third such project where I am involved in the start, it is obvious that every case is different, and there is no magic pill. This is the first time I'm in a collaboration project as a member of a panel with a mandate from ArbCom. Please don't ever hesitate to let me know when you have any concerns with what I'm doing.

Seeing that you prefer a different option, I am now sorry that I started with the "Options for decisionmaking" already before we even decided on the procedure; that makes it harder to go back to step 1. But I hope people will understand. I will clarify that in the next section (which I will rewrite and rename to #Choice of procedures. — Sebastian 03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of procedures

I am deleting the section "Our first choice" that was here because I now realize that:

it was too complicated - I want to adhere to KISS.
Nobody replied to my rambling anyway.
some of my assumptions changed (as discussed in my reply to DDStretch above).
it was premature - Currently, we're not even sure that the moderator panel is complete, and it may be that other moderators feel it is the panel's task to make that choice.

This is a new situation for me, too: I have no experience matching different expectations in a panel of moderators who don't know each other yet, while a big group of other editors, whom I am also meeting for the first time, is anxious to get their problem resolved. I think it makes most sense to start with the panel, to make sure that we all agree on what ArbCom expects of us. I will start a discussion at the subpage /Panel for use by the panel. I am very sorry about this delay, and I ask everybody for your patience. — Sebastian 06:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Options for decisionmaking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

green

P.S.: I will not touch this page until past midnight UTC. — Sebastian 18:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, are you saying you are going to delete the discussion at midnight? I found this debate today upon invitation from a relevant dispute. Today I have looked through a lot of the discussions at arbcom etc. and although a lot of talk has gone on, a most important aspect is largely overlooked (please read it closely, not just the title of the article needs be discussed here, also convention and at topmost importance to your group or you will not end the debate here, will you?). Anyways, my opinions are valid here and if you, Sebastian, are representing this group, you should move them to the correct place. Deleting them at midnight will not do, thanks! ~ R.T.G 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply makes me sad. I wish I knew a way to open your eyes. Please take another look at what you wrote. How do you feel about it now? Look at how you assumed I would revert again after 5 hours. That would have been a violation of WP:1RR, as you could have easily found out if you had clicked at the link I provided for your convenience. There is no need to assume that someone who came here as a moderator would violate a pledge he made. Can you see how your anger made you blind? I seriously have to remind you to assume good faith.

I'm not judging you; maybe you have gone through bad situations in your life that made you so hardened. But be aware that there are some people who try to be honest. This is a space for them. It is also a space for people who are tired of the same old discussions. My task is to provide this space. From my experience, I know that this is possible if we stick to certain rules. Please respect that. I will forgive your edit warring now, but I'm not Jesus, and I won't tolerate such disruptions seven times seventy-seven times. — Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have rules, you should make them clear before you try to enforce them. In future you could move discussion to the relevant place instead of deleting it. It's not hard and thats what I have seen done before. Although you may want to state some rules, you should delete this off-topic stuff which should not be heading this discussion. If you delete or strike stuff, shouldn't you make clear why to encourage useful contribution? This sadness and Jesus craic is messing. ~ R.T.G 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Please make your purpose as an impartial mediator clear at the top of this page, Sebastian (and whoever else is) and also make clear what form is discussion is acceptable here (because I would like to add the stuff I entered below if that is possible) ~ R.T.G 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right again, there should be a note on top. I will put one there temporarily just to avoid such a situation from happening again, but I will make it clear that this has just been a request by me and is subject to this project members' decision. — Sebastian 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two options strongly opposed by different editors. "Republic of Ireland" is unacceptable because its not the countries offical title, but equally the Ireland (country) being on the Ireland page gives a state priority over the Island which it shares with another country. If those two were removed which are the ones with strong opposition there would be a serious shortlist that most wouldnt have a problem with. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have a problem with that. Sorry :-) "Republic of Ireland" is not the state's official name, we know, but so what? There are many (if not most?) country/state articles that do not reside on their official name in WP. Given the need for disambiguation, then, many editors' preferred option is to have the article on the state residing at "Republic of Ireland", a "ready-made" dismbiguator, if you will. Removing options before we've even begun is not something I'm in favour of (and, in fact, it was a characteristic of the "debate" on the Talk:Ireland page that several editors from one camp tried on different occasions to leave "RoI" out of the list of possible end results). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Ireland is the states official "description" in law. The government is "of Ireland" or "na hEireann" but the current laws says that it "be described as the Republic of Ireland" in the English language, see Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and British law is in full support of that, see Ireland Act 1949. It makes sense. The government are pledged to be of Ireland, hence their name. The area confined by the sea and the border is the republic, hence its name. Fianna Fail (government for manys a year now) said last year that they would consider opening for elections at some time in the north. They may not be about to beat Peter Mandelson to the vote but they don't sound like they see "Ireland" as south (and west) of the border only...? There is a republic, isn't there? I seen them on TV last week celebrating its 90th year so there must have been something. I do not want to see statistics specific to the republic, such as 3.8 million speakers of English, marked as specific to "Ireland", which is incorrect. ~ R.T.G 11:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to draw attention to the fact that in this matter, description policy should be clearly on the cards as well, such as described in my comments above. It may be of higher importance to define the naming usage even if the central article titles are hotter debate. (and BTW, what about the Republic of Ireland national football team?) ~ R.T.G 18:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the sign now says discussion welcome, and still have the space here, another item (and valid interest) distinguishes the government as "of Ireland" the island without defining the republic. Any person of any part of the island can hold an unchallenged Irish passport and citizenship (so long as of some sort of Irish (island) descent). Both government and country, I beleive, can be referred to as State. The government certainly makes itself a body bound only by the island. The republic however does have boundaries and this may be one reason that the government provides the different descriptions, Ireland and Republic of, in law. Peoples and bodies (such as foreign tabloids etc.) who use the term "Ireland" and "Irish" non-specific to Irish government, are also more likely to refer to northerners as "Irish" and north as Ireland without distinction. That may suggest that indeed most commonly the term is Ireland but the reference is to the island without prejudice. Again, I would be concerned that statistics specific to the republic are displayed in a manner diminutive to the northern identity as this :- Ireland (RoI link masked as Ireland). I would not often mask a Northern Ireland link in this way:- Ireland. ~ R.T.G 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreements

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

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

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

A3 We will first follow the Mk II procedure.
DDStretch, or any other member who is up to the task, can you please copy the procedure from talk:Ireland to our project page WP:IECOLL, with the preliminary note "proposed procedure", so people see what they're agreeing with?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cascading levels of agreement

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

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

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

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

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

I see two related problems with this list:

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

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

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

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

Publicity / notice

Could I ask the appointed mediators to widely advertise the existence of this project and more importantly the tasks at hand of deciding on a mechanism for Ireland-related-article-naming and following through on that mechanism till a decision is arrived at? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait with that until the moderator panel is complete and agrees on its task, because we're not really operational yet. I am sorry, it was my mistake to already announce this at talk:Ireland; I just thought I could take advantage of the momentum there and get this project going. I also don't see a need to advertize this much further than at WP:IE. My reason for that is that I believe that people who are really interested in Ireland have either the article or the project on their watchlist. If you disagree, please provide a reason that refutes this point. — Sebastian 11:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While probably most people will see it at WP:IE, the issue has previously been debated extensively in other places, including, off the top of my head, WP:IMOS and especially Talk:Republic of Ireland. If we're to have "closure" on the issue arising from whatever is decided, I believe we should have as many participants as possible. No problem holding off for the moment until the panel is complete. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Unless there are any objections, let's go with that. — Sebastian 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good night

Just a little note that I have to go to bed now. I would love to stay, but it is 03:23 in the morning here, my thermostat has shut down hours ago, and it's cold as in an Irish castle now. See you tomorrow! — Sebastian 11:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night Sebastian, sorry i wasnt trying to be disruptive or too negative before it was just a lack of faith that any consensus could be made as its been an ongoing dispute for so long. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you don't mean to be disruptive. And I don't mean to be picking on you specifically.

It is just that we're all human. It is part of the way we are built, and hard to overcome. When we have been disappointed too often, we lose hope, and we tend to see things that confirm our impression. We even reconfirm it by treading in the same path over and over again. That's why I'm focusing on the pyramid and on staying on-topic; these are just good Ariadne threads that help us get out of this maze. There is an exit, believe me! I think the key to a solution involves everyone being open to a new way. Please give me a chance. — Sebastian 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again, i really wasnt trying to spark another debate on which article title would be best so ive just striked my comment that was moved to the discussion section. This is meant to be just about the way forward to resolve the matter not the old issue of which is better or worse at the moment. I hope consensus will be reached but im sure your involvement and that of the other moderators who dont hold strong views on this matter will help bring it to an end soon. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]