Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel

WT:IECOLL/P

This is the discussion page for the moderator panel. Please do not edit it unless you are a moderator.

Expectations

OK, so let's see what everyone's expectations for our role are. Edokter, you wrote that you envisioned the panel to be "a panel of mediators where arguments are exchanged in a structured discussion". The more I think about it, the more I realize that this may be the same as what I had in mind.

My expectation was that moderators are basically just like other project members, with the exception that they can do some administrative actions, such as deleting a post from the talk page, or some other typical admin action. An important role I see is also that we can separate the chaff from the wheat, if the project decides do go with my proposal WT:IECOLL#Consensus of Collaboration Project members. (What I mean is that we help the members move up on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. (Such as by asking them to remove "idontlikeit" arguments.) This may also be very helpful in light of DDStretch's description of the Mk II table process at WT:IECOLL#Options for decisionmaking, which is the first thing I would like to try. If we need to compile a more involved list, like the one I did at WP:SLR/LTTE digest then we can supervise that this is being done fairly.

Is this similar to what you had in mind? Maybe you were just put off by my collaboration project housekeeping. To be honest, that may not be necessary, but it is a ground on which I feel comfortable, and I do believe that it helps build a community that will be able to solve similar issues by themselves in the future. This is why I asked people to come here in the first place. I ask you to indulge me with this, and I assure you that from now on I will wait 24 hours after I made a proposal before I (or anyone else) carry it out. — Sebastian 07:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goal

Yeah, those were my original thought. I just think we are getting slightly ahead of ourselves, discussing details wihtout defining our goal first.

Having had some time to let things sink is, I feel it is important to remember that the main goal of this panel is not to decide the final name for Ireland and related articles, but to devise a procedure which the community can use as a tool to determin the outcome for themselves. I for myself will not focus on the arguments on the naming itself, but those arguments do have a vital role in crafting this procedure and defining it's parameters. It is also envisioned that this procedure may see future use in other potential disputes.

Desicion making is an essential part of this process, but there are two aspects we need to consider:

The desicions on the final draft of procedure itself; How de we decide on the procedure?
The framework of the procedure that provides the users the tool they need to make the ultimate decision in the dispute itself.

While the two are intimately related, they are not the same. It will be a ~~general~~ procedure, possibly ending up in article naming guidelines, and this case serves as a testbed. The first objective is to define objective parameters we can use in this procedure; in other words: which parameters (ie. laws, sources) decide the outcome of a dispute? Then we need to decide which ones go in. Next is to define a framework that govern the decision making for it's users. And once we agree on this procedure, the solution to the dispute itself should come naturally.

Once we have set the goal, then we can start discussing both items, and that is where moderation comes in as outlined by you. How does that sound? — Edokter • Talk • 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first paragraph. This is a consequence of my mistake of inviting everyone to IECOLL too soon. Once people made their statements there it was hard to ignore. Lesson learned: Next time, we will not start before the panel is complete.

I wholeheartedly agree with the goal, as you describe it in paragraph 2. But unfortunately, it turns out in paragraph 4, we disagree on what is meant by "the community". If ArbCom had meant to create general article naming guidelines valid for all of Wikipedia, they would have asked the panel to do that. (This would have been something like WP:WORKINGGROUP.) But they explicitly wanted the Ireland editors involved. (I got mails that are more explicit about that, but I am sticking to my principle of confidentiality. Please ask FayssalF and Rlevse to forward you the communication between us. Better yet, I wouldn't mind if they published the parts in question.) As someone active in conflicts across Wikipedia, I would strongly object to having guidelines for all of Wikipedia determined by editors specifically interested in Ireland. Every naming conflict is different. I therefore see "the community" in this case clearly as the community of editors interested in Ireland. In this case, I want to do what's best for them. — Sebastian 16:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if we did want to turn such specific, topical solutions into precedences for other areas, then I would have to say that the Sri Lanka procedures are already there, and should simply be followed. But I see that only as an experience I can draw on, not as a precendence that has to be followed. — Sebastian 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have went to far claiming it may end up as a generall procedure. You are right that such a procudere needs involvement of the entire community. Still, some parts may be beneficial to the general community. And parts of the Sri Lanka procedures may be beneficial here. Right now, I'm still in brainstoring mode. I dont even know if ArbCom has given the official "Go" yet, if it will come at all. — Edokter • Talk • 17:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, can we agree that our first and foremost task is to serve the community of editors who feel that the questions related to the naming of the article Ireland need to get solved? — Sebastian 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. — Edokter • Talk • 17:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Do you feel we need to discuss any other goals, or can we resolve this section for now? — Sebastian 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for ArbCom

"I dont even know if ArbCom has given the official "Go" yet, if it will come at all." I don't know, either. I am also still waiting for the third panel member. Should we nudge them? Or should we just go ahead? The problem is that there's so much discussion going on right now already; If we simply ignore that, it will just be the same old same old - they will bicker more and reconvince themselves that it will always be that way. — Sebastian 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a nudge is in order. If it ever comes to having to make a arbitrary decision, we need a third member to tie the vote. I also think a fresh start may be a good idea though; there is simply too much discussion to go through (ie. at Talk:Ireland). It should be centralized, concise and to the point. — Edokter • Talk • 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to do the nudge? I need to leave now, and won't be back before midnight UTC.

As for the fresh start, do you mean the fresh start that we're currently attempting on our project talk page (WT:IECOLL), or yet another fresh start? I am trying my best to keep the discussion on our project talk page centralized, concise and to the point, but that is mostly an educational task. Some people are deeply dug into their old ways. As good mediators, we need to help them. Can you maybe help those that may have been taken aback by my actions? — Sebastian 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet another fresh start, we can continue the current discussion here. I'll give ArbCom a nudge. — Edokter • Talk • 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom now announced the two of us. I'm currently sick, so I won't participate much; but please don't let that stop you. Please see it as a chance to take some responsibilities in this, too. I also proposed to take a third moderator from among the members of this project, please comment on WT:IECOLL on this. — Sebastian 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon, and heat your computer room... — Edokter • Talk • 23:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't have heat, the problem are those weird Europeans who get up at midnight PST. :-p — Sebastian 08:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methodology

In order to break the old pattern of discussions where each viewpoint is repeated in an open debate, another idea is to organize a moderated debate; In this debate, each party presents their arguments for their viewpoint, based on current policy and guidelines, and real-world context. Parties are not allowed to argue with eachother. Other members may endorse or oppose (much like an RfC). This will give a good overview of all perspectives. Once the general outline has christalised, we can explore and expand on those viepoints until we can distill the arguments that carry the most support.

Based on those arguments, we can formulate priciples that can help this project determine the best course of action. In the end, those principles will help the project make the ultimate decision (not unlike the methods used by ArbCom). This will help the project in two ways; it will break the current cycle of discussion, and it may provide a level of arbitration that some members have been seeking from ArbCom in the first place.

This is a brainstorm that needs some work. — Edokter • Talk • 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what people will say on the project talk page. If they like it, I'll be happy to try this. But don't be disappointed if nobody picks it up. There's a strange mood here; most people seem to be just sitting back and waiting. I understand that we're all waiting for the third moderator; but it's more than just that. While we were waiting, we could have gotten some collaboration at least about methodology, but that hasn't really happened yet. Maybe the reason is that all (but one) are weary of discussions. I'm wondering if we (just the moderators) shouldn't just look for the solution with the least potential for discussion. One such solution would be to do what we did at Talk:Buddhahood/renaming#Table_of_options and Talk:Buddhahood/renaming#Whatlinkshere (in that section, I'm thinking primarily of the list of exemplary links after "I had another idea.") — Sebastian 08:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no objections to notifying to the announcements proposed ad WT:IECOLL#Publicity / notice, I would like to do that soon. Before that, however, I'd like to further clean up our talk page. I'd like us to extract the proposals from the sections WT:IECOLL#Options for decisionmaking through WT:IECOLL#Cascading levels of agreement and put them on the project page, in a section WP:IECOLL#Proposals for methodology, or some name like this. Do you think that's a good idea? Do you think the two of us can do that, or would you prefer to ask our members? — Sebastian 18:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about placing in on the the main project page; that is up to the members. I would extract the essential parts and archive the rest. — Edokter • Talk • 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placing in on the the main project page already happened. It was proposed a week ago, and people started doing it. Extracting the essential parts moving them to the main page is similar to what we at Wikipedia already do for articles: Once a discussion reaches consensus, we take it to the article page. Can I ask you to do that, please? — Sebastian 18:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Availability

I won't be here in the next 3 days. Just thought I'd let you know so you don't wait for me with any urgent or minor things. — Sebastian 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As slow as things are moving... I don't expect anything urgent to happen. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to recent events, I'm taking an indefinite wikibreak. I am, however, still available by e-mail. — Sebastian 08:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status; Plan on main page

Did you see the question at WT:IECOLL#Hello? I have been asking myself the same question. Three weeks ago, we agreed with you taking the lead in carrying out your plan. Could you please let us know where we are with regard to your plan? — Sebastian 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more request: Gnevin persuaded me at WT:IECOLL#Publicity / notice that we should publicize this soon. Before we do so, I would like to get the page ready for the new editors, which means we need to clean up old discussions, and place the important decisions in a prominent place. Since we agreed at WT:IECOLL#Carrying out Edokter's plan to go with your plan, it has become important that this be visible to everyone. Currently it is only indirectly (via WP:IECOLL##Form_of_discussion and WT:IECOLL/Panel#Methodology) linked from the discussion, and since the linked text is written as a proposal, it needs some work. There already exists a section WP:IECOLL#Proposed procedures and methodologies, which I would want to rename to something like "Agreed procedures and methodologies", unless we see an objection at WT:IECOLL#Agreements. I think you would be in the best position to put the plan there and adjust it to the context of that page. — Sebastian 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no objections. I'll get to work. — Edokter • Talk • 23:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, we reached the previously agreed deadline for submissions of March 12. This caused some consternation by people who were not aware of the deadline, and confusion about what would happen after the deadline. Currently, there is nothing about this on our main page. It should be in the section Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Procedures and methodologies. What was your plan, Edokter? — Sebastian 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. I now realize that it would have been a good idea if we could have combined your plan of having individual statements with objections with my idea of using WP:IECOLL#Graham's pyramid. Maybe it's too late for that now, but better late than never. The process, as I can see it now would be as follows:

Opponents have to write refutations. Refutations are not owned by any editor, but by all editors that are interested in making this point.
Moderators go by the pyramid and weed out all statements that are not at least a contradiction, and mark contradictions and counterarguments with a tag that alerts the opponents that the point needs improvement.
If there are any statements that have not been refuted, these will be considered as candidate solutions. If one of these stands out, e.g. by not even having any counterarguments, then that's the one we pick. Otherwise, we can extend the deadline for refuting the candidate solutions.

Again, I'm sorry that I'm only thinking of this now, and I understand if you say that at this point it's too late to make such a major change to Edokter's plan. — Sebastian 17:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you want to use the pyramid, that's perfectly ok, however requiring that anybody else has to isn't appropriate. Personally, my intention is to judge consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds agreeable, but what do you do if there is no consensus? — Sebastian 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if judging consensus in the usual sense is virtually impossible, but the method you outline above gives a reasonable result, then I'd support that. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I haven't thought that far ahead either. I'm not to keen on having the opposers write up their refutations; they have ample oppertunity to write their own statements. What I had in mind is (like Sebastian suggests) pick out the solutions that have the widest support and least opposition, and possible have a second round, or even a poll or open discussion limited to the picked solutions. In the ultimate event that consensus is not reached, we should deliberate and pick the best solution based on policy. How about that? — Edokter • Talk • 23:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being frank. I see one problem with this: The terms "widest" and "least" sound to me as if we will base the decision on voting; which is something most project members wanted to avoid. (See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/archive2#What_about_the_current_proposals.3F). If that is indeed the case then we should ask the other members at WT:IECOLL if they're OK with it. — Sebastian 07:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary outcome

This is a rough tally count (support/oppose) of support and opposes, and analysis on the various proposals being made, after I made an analysis of all statements. This includes combined proposals. Now we can make preliminary conclusions and decide on the next step.

Totals

Ireland as DAB: 31/10

Ireland as state: 13/28

Ireland as island: 18/13

Ireland (state): 21/15

Ireland (island): 38/7

Republic of Ireland: 41/41

Ireland as island AND state (merge): 4/0

Statements with proposal

Rockpocket: 11/3
Ireland as DAB.

Waggers: 11/4
Ireland as DAB.

Mooretwin (Problem 1): 5/11
Ireland as island.

DrKiernan: 16/7
Republic of Ireland

Mooretwin: 6/11
Republic of Ireland

BrownHairedGirl (Problem 2.1): 2/3
Republic of Ireland

Rockpocket: 3/2
Ireland (state), if Ireland is island or DAB.

DrKiernan 2.2: 13/0
Ireland or Ireland (island) for island.

Mooretwin (Problem 2.2): 4/6
Ireland (island) (Country is ambiguous. Island is not)

Rockpocket: 4/2
Ireland (island), if Ireland is state or DAB.

RTG: 2/11
Ireland as state

Red King: 9/3
Ireland as general
Ireland (state) as state
Ireland (island) as island
Ireland (republic) as DAB

Redking7: 9/4
1. Move to Ireland, or
2. Ireland (state) and Ireland (island)

Mooretwin: 3/8
1. Republic of Ireland and Ireland as island, or
2. Move to Ireland (state), use "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland" in text where needed.

Jeanne boleyn: 9/11
Move to Ireland, like France and Italy.

Blue-Haired Lawyer: 6/10
Republic of Ireland (like "Republic of Macedonia") and Ireland as island.

Kittybrewster: 0/7
Ireland as state.

Bastun: 6/2
Republic of Ireland is workable, unambiguous, and uses the state's own official description, per legislation.

One Night In Hackney: 4/0
Ireland as both island and state.

I read this statement differently, I thought it was more about creating a Ireland (historical country) article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl: 6/3
"Republic of Ireland" repeatedly used by government.

General comments

RashersTierney: 9/10
"Republic of Ireland" is not neutral.

MusicInTheHouse: 13/2
Analysis of name

78.152.253.163: 9/3
History of name and articles.

Domer48: 7/13
Is "Ireland" ambigious?

Domer48 (2): 1/5
"Ireland" is ambiguous.

BritishWatcher: 11/0
"Ireland" is ambiguous.

HighKing: 7/0
"Republic of Ireland" causes devision.

Blue-Haired Lawyer (2):
1: It is important to inform readers that the official name of the Irish state is Ireland. 9/2
2: Readers should be able to tell, without guesswork or prior knowledge, whether or not an article they're reading relates to the island, the state or to Northern Ireland. 9/2
3: It should not be necessary for every article relating to Ireland to address the naming dispute or explain what the article means when it says "Ireland". 10/1

BrownhairedGirl:
1: "Ireland" is the name of an island in Europe which lies in the Atlantic ocean to the north-west of continental Europe. 21/0
2: "Ireland" is the name of an independent state which covers approximately five-sixths of the island called "Ireland". 17/0
3: The English-language name of the state is defined in Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland, which says in full: "The

name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." 20/0
4: The description of the state is defined in law as "the Republic of Ireland", by Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act

1948, which says in full: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." 13/2
5: The phrase "Republic of Ireland" is not the official name of the 26-county state, either in statute law or in the constitution. 16/2
6: The official name of the state is the same as the name of the island. 19/0
7: The following statement was true in 1998: "Lough Neagh is a lake in Ireland." 19/1
8: The following statement was true in 1798: "Lough Neagh is a lake in Ireland." 19/1
9: The following statement has always been false: "Lough Neagh is a lake in Ireland." 0/19
10: An event which happened in Belfast in 1890 could accurately be described as having happened in Ireland. 21/0
11: An event which happened in Belfast in 2008 could accurately be described as having happened in Ireland. 15/5
12: A person born in the Bogside area of Derry in 1950 was born in Ireland. 14/3
13: When Ireland was partitioned under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, Omagh ceased to be a town in Ireland. 5/13

Redking7:
Why is Ireland being treated differently to Luxembourg, Mongolia or Samoa?

Analysis

At first sight, we can deduce that the following options have too much opposition: Ireland as state and Ireland as island AND state (basically a merge). Further, the option Republic of Ireland is a tie and cannot be considered as having consensus.

Most support goes to having Ireland as a disambiguation page, and having the state moved to Ireland (state) and island moved to Ireland (island). In addition, there seems to be consensus that if Ireland becomes a disambiguation page, then an Ireland (historical country) article should be created.

As a second option, leaving the island at Ireland may be considered, but has significantly less support then Ireland as a disambiguation page.

Possible way forward

Given the approach with the most support appears to be:

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

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