Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

If status quo is endorsed?

What happens if "F" is the winner. Will it be the beginning of massive edit-wars if the pro-RoI linking see it as a go ahead and endorsement to change every link on Wikipedia. I thought this process was to put an end to this disruption once and for all. As the poll now stands it looks like I have been over optimistic. Tfz 19:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

After the polls close people here have to agree on when Republic of Ireland can and can not be placed in text. If F doesnt win then no move can take place until agreement is reached on that, nobody should really be changing ROI / Ireland in text till after agreement. We need very clear details of what it can and cant be used to avoid edit wars on that. And if C wins which is quite possible looking at the vote so far, we need clear agreement on when the general article on Ireland is to be linked to rather than the island or the state. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is important that an agreed-upon factor is that even if it's clearly obvious that the polls favor one option or another, no page moves or changes are engaged until we've evaluated any remaining factors (namely, how "Culture of (the country)"-type articles should be called and how to refer to the country when there is possibly confusion to the island or Northern Ireland. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The vote is on the title of the current Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) articles only. No more. No less. No content. No other articles. Only those three pages. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, for 85% of the time the word Ireland is used in conjunction with the state of the same name. Islands do not matter a lot, for example the name Hispaniola is seldom mentioned at all, and it is quite a big island. Tfz 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Sport? Religion? Culture? Language? History? Ethnicity? Citizenship? ... but certainly most of the time you can tell one "Ireland" from the other in context. New York is a city, not a state. New York is also a state, not a city. But in most articles, it's clear from context which one we mean. (Incidentally, "New York" may more commonly refer to the city, but the article on the state is at New York on Wikipedia. A parallel to our situation, maybe?) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
'Upstate New York' to distinguish it from the most popular usage of the name, and the state named Ireland is indeed the most popular usage of the name Ireland, at least 85% of the time. Yet we don't have to endure Metropolis of New York at Wikipedia for fear upstate New Yorkers might be offended. Tfz 21:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If the status quo is the winner then surely there is no need to change anything? Or am I missing something? Fmph (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a parallel issue about what to call the island vs. state in articles - but there's more-or-less consensus on that already. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What happens if "A", "B", "C", "D", or "E" is the winner. Will it be the beginning of massive edit-wars if the anti-RoI linking see it as a go ahead and endorsement to change every link on Wikipedia. I thought this process was to put an end to this disruption once and for all. As the poll now stands it looks like I have been over optimistic. Mooretwin (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (I raised this point at the outset of this process, but was ignored/dismissed. I don't recall Tfz backing me up. Mooretwin (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin, I never went from article to article pushing a pov into them, changing linking, changing terminology, air-brushing history. My philosophy is, "tell it as it is, even though the heavens fall". It's a queer encyclopedia that calls a country by a different name than its proper name. Some editors around want to be British when it suits them, and Irish when it suits them, depending on the line of pov they are spinning. That's why Wikipedia is becoming a bit of a joke within certain circles. Tfz 23:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
As long as the articles arnt moved until after agreement on all this is reached here there shouldnt be anyone trying to make changes following the vote closing. Im very glad the moves are not going to be made before we get onto a debate about it here because i suspect there would be several people going around removing ROI from the text where ever possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) What has happened in the past is that where disambiguation is necessary - and only where its necessary - within articles, 'Republic of Ireland' gets used. Where dabbing isn't necessary, RoI gets pipelinked as 'Ireland'. So in an article you might see a sentence like "The Republic of Ireland has 26 counties, while Northern Ireland has 6", or one like "Ireland's GDP is expected to fall by..." That seems to have worked reasonably well. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If F wins just a general agreement on the wording linked above would be enough, its if F loses and the status quo changes that there are implications for all these things and i think we need far more clear and detailed acceptence of when it can and can not be used before the move takes place. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, Mooretwin had some sensible suggestions previously on this, which I see repeated here. I agree with Bastun above. I'd be happy to change the article, but leave RoI as a dab where necessary (a correct use of a description IMHO) --HighKing (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
But not as the title for the article. Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed on Position statement talk page

Im not sure how many people have the position statements talk page on their watch list so i thought i would just mention it here incase people did not notice. If people could take a look and comment please.. here. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved
Rockpocket 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Andersons Thatch Pub

What do we make of this? Sarah777 (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability? Personally I would {{prod}} it and see if the creator can provide reliable sources. Rockpocket 01:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. Prod it. If it makes notability then cool but we can't have a page on every pub in Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Supermarkets in Ireland

I just cleaned up a move from List of supermarket chains in Ireland to Supermarkets of the Republic of Ireland, pursuant to the "no page moves" policy. However, looking at this, I see that the page uses the {{Europe topic}} template, which points to "Republic of Ireland", since that's the current location of the article on the state. In the interest of avoiding a redirect, should I move it to List of supermarket chains in the Republic of Ireland, or just leave it where it is pending the outcome of the vote? Assuming the result is "leave it", can anyone confirm that there aren't any Northern-Ireland-only chains in the list? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is fine (assuming there are not NI only chains listed) for the moment. It can perhaps be revisited once the current poll is finished, and the issue of referring to the state/island is resolved. Rockpocket 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the review.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
My point exactly. This will be fine if there were no supermarkets in Northern Ireland and in fact most of these supermarkets have had branches in the north for a long time. The Mace has almost 200 stores in Northern Ireland. Most of the supermarkets on the list arent even run by Irish companies with more than 50% not even based in Ireland. You should not even think about moving things without discussion. What is the improvement in such a move? Why don't you create a Republic of Ireland list without affecting the Ireland list? Where do we get the idea that there is no Ireland save for the republic? Wise up please. ~ R.T.G 12:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of faith in the "Ireland" Collaboration project

There is no "Ireland" collaboration project any more. Months ago, the principle of compromise was agreed. The details were considered to be too big for a single vote, so the first vote was to decide the article title. Editors that had previously agreed that a compromise was necessary have now decided to attempt to hijack the current process and vote to maintain the status quo. This isn't the principle underpinning the current vote, and it isn't the mandate given by Arbcom, and as a result a number of editors have withdrawn from the process. Let's agree to return to discussions when the spirit and principal of compromise returns. Hopefully the withdrawn editors will not consider the current hijacking a betrayal of trust and honest effort, and won't be too pissed off to return in good faith. I'd wait a little while though. --HighKing (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you want to claim this vote is void and we all have to go back to the start then so be it but i will not be supporting any compromise if forced into such a position. Demands for compromise and change because the vote is not going the way some had liked is simply unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) No - the vote is now a valid mechanism for measuring majority. The vote was a step in a process of many steps to construct an agreement on a solution. But that process is now void since many people who signed up have reneged on the previous commitment to compromise. The position/statement of having no intentions, ever, to compromise is becomming apparent. It's just a pity you (and others) couldn't have said that right from the start - would have saved me and other editors (who are pro-compromise) about nine months of effort. --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read what the ballot page says. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Who thought it would have went any other way. Force of numbers and bias were always going to skew what happened in a poll, this is why I objected to the poll to begin with. BigDunc 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well i wish someone would of told me F would be doing so well.. i thought it would struggle far more than it is considering this voting system is clearly designed to make it hard for the status quo to win. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe that you don't see how the problem IS the status quo, why do you think this all started? BigDunc 12:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The status quo has lasted well over 5 years and clearly works even if a few have a major problem with it. We cant change things just because some people do not like it. This claim that ROI is offensive (which is the only justification ive seen for change) has really been put to bed with endless examples of use by the Irish government, its ministers, Irish media etc. People on that talk page have continued to ask for evidence that ROI is offensive.. nothing has been found as far as i can see. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. This proves we're right back where we started. So much for the past 9 months. I'm not even going to bother to argue your points - it looks to me like you just cut and paste the same arguments from one place to the next - they've all been answered in the past. So let's go back to pretending that RoI isn't offensive in the slightest, that's it's a perfectly valid name of the state, and that it's only one or two indignant editors that keep objecting but everyone else is fine with it. Makes sense. --HighKing (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So, if I've got you right here: ... ... it must be changed because it's a problem ... and it's a problem because it must be changed ... and it must be changed because it's a problem ... and it's a problem because it must be changed ... and it must be changed because it's a problem ... and it's a problem because it must be changed ... and it must be changed because it's a problem ... and it's a problem because it must be changed ... and it must be changed because it's a problem ... and it's a problem because it must be changed ... and ...
Is there a name for this kind of reasoning? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
So, if I've got you right sony, it's a case of ... ... there is no problem, there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki, we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors, and we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise ... there is no problem, there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki, we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors, and we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise ... there is no problem, there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki, we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors, and we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise ... there is no problem, there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki, we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors, and we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise ... there is no problem, there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki, we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors, and we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise. --HighKing (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
"...there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki..." For the most part, let's not exaggerate the situation. "...we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors..." Not quite - a good number of editors have sound reasons for wanting the ROI page at IRL, but the disruption was been caused by a clutch of editors (on both "sides"). "...we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise." I don't know what you are referring to. What commitment? To what compromise? Maybe you can indicate what you believe was agreed?
There is a problem, but hysteria and circular logic won't get us out of it. Pointing out the illogic of statements is not the same as burying one's head in the sand. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
lol ive got a name for it but i cant say it here. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
A vote was agreed because, after months of trying, agreement was considered impossible. You know this. You were all for having a vote. Don't you remember? Likewise, Evertype was probably the most enthusiastic advocate of a vote. Now suddenly it's "compromise" you want (which oddly translates as nothing of the sort). What's gives? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(repeat) No - the vote is now a valid mechanism for measuring majority. The vote was a step in a process of many steps to construct an agreement on a solution. But that process is now void since many people who signed up have reneged on the previous commitment to compromise. The position/statement of having no intentions, ever, to compromise is becomming apparent. It's just a pity you (and others) couldn't have said that right from the start - would have saved me and other editors (who are pro-compromise) about nine months of effort. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait! We agreed to have a vote ... and now you're saying that as part a of that was an agreement to all vote the way you want? Where was that agreement?? We agreed to have a vote on the IRL/ROI/(dab) article names (no more, no less). Full stop. The other stuff (if that's what you are referring to) were to be left until after the vote. What compromise/agreement are you referring to? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we agreed to have a vote .. one step of many as part of a process to reach agreement, etc, etc. Based on the last attempt by Masem to reach a consensus on the compromise which was:
  • The island remains at Ireland
  • The 26-county state moves to Ireland (state)
  • Republic of Ireland redirects to Ireland (state)
  • The disabmiguation page remains at Ireland (disambiguation)
  • Blue-Haired Lawyer's means of how to refer to the state when potential confusion arises with the island and N. Ireland should be used. (see [#Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland in articles|above] for the details but primarily using "Republic of Ireland" when confusion may arise particularly with "Northern Ireland", "Ireland" alone in all other cases.
  • Hatnotes for dabs and additional redirects will be added as necessary (eg, Ireland (state) may need a Northern Ireland dab hatnote).
Where in that does it say that we'll just retain the status quo? And that was in the middle of June btw, it's not like it's ancient history! *That* is the process we're following, because agreement couldn't be reached on the article title, we went to a vote. And including "F" was required so as to present a wide choice. But a vote for "F", by editors here who were supposedly/allegedly working on a compromise, effectively is a vote to disengage from the current process and to not work out a compromise. --HighKing (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Masems request for compromise which i think i supported FAILED which is why we moved on to a vote to get this matter solved once and for all. It was an informal vote, those who supported the compromise were in no way saying they would vote that way in the real vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Why are we having a vote if we agreed that we would have "IRL/IRL (state)/dab"? Why did you want a vote if that was agreed already? Why did Evertype? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why you find it amusing. If anything, your LOL is pretty inappropriate in a response. Masem's poll (above), which failed, is why we're having a vote. He tried to wrap too many issues into one poll, so the decision was to split things into smaller, more digestable pieces. But the principle was to move the article, and reach agreement on other article titles and content. So we're voting now on the article title as part of the Arbcom ruling instructing us to reach agreement on a process. The process is not the vote on a single issue of an article title. The process is all the points outlined by Masem as a package. So where did the compromise that people agreed to suddenly get polarized into a single vote? In your heads gentlemen, in your heads. This vote for option "F" solves nothing, and effectively ends this project. We've stumbled at step one. We're right back where we started (and maybe even worse since there'll be a lot of angry and disappointed editors over this complete waste of time). --HighKing (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hes laughing because what you are saying is very funny. Its hard not to laugh at people inventing / changing history. Masems compromise failed so we agreed to put where the articles belong to the vote. what the hell do you think this poll has been on if you think we already decided where the article is going to be placed? ive never heard so much nonsense, jesus. There was never anything written down saying the articles will change, this process was to decide IF change was needed and if so to what. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BW. I don't want to fall out with you - but perhaps (like me earlier) you're letting frustration get the better of you. Calling another editor's opinion "nonsense" should even get you a block on the DrKiernan scale of blocking (but hey, you're British *and* you share his opinion, you've nothing to worry about) --HighKing (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for laughing but what you said was funny (and I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful). You said we agreed to something, but if we did why are we having this vote?? If we agreed to go with 'D' then what are 'A', 'B', 'C', 'E' and 'F' doing on the ballot? Why did we have that "xxx" vote? Come on, man, this is ludicrous, you weren't hoodwinked on anything. All the other stuff (in-article use, other article titles, templates, etc.) is still all up in the air - and in fairness we're all basically agreed on that anyway. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's funny to you - after all, you've voted for "F" and fooled the rest of us into believing that you were interesting in solving this 7 year problem. And it is disrespectful - I've better things to be doing now than wasting my digital breath if it's only serving to amuse you. I'm not going to repeat my response either - if you're genuinely interested in having a discussion, go back and reread it, the answer to your question is there. But all the other stuff (in-article use, etc) is *connected* to the *same issue*. Without agreement on all, there is agreement on none. That's why a vote for "F" (which rejects compromise), will result in no cooperation or compromise on *any* issue. The sooner Masem declares this project over, the better. --HighKing (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsuspension notice. Carry on as normal, people. Unilateral "declarations" aren't helpful. The fact of the matter is that three people have struck out their votes, and two more removed them because they objected to being profiled. Over 150 people are still participating. I have seen no compromise offered, other than "The status quo is not acceptable, you should agree to move the article to something else other than what the majority want, you're being unreasonable if you don't." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think some people need to read the ballot -

  • "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."
  • "Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the state will be referred to in the text of other articles."
  • "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. The WikiProject Ireland Collaboration asks you to please make sure that you are familiar with all of the relevant issues before casting your vote." - How can anyone be unclear what this poll has been on? Why is it only now that people suggest we are voting on the wrong issue??? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And I think some people need to read the Arbcom ruling....and I also think some people should go back and check on what exactly was meant by "there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue". Which issue do you think is being referred to exactly? (hint: read the Closure section, Archive 9). --HighKing (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This collaboration project is the process Arbcom requested.. this process decided there was no way forward but a vote. This was accepted by many people, not just supporters of F. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You reckon all they wanted was a collaboration project. Interesting perspective. --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
They wanted a process to decide the naming dispute. This process was set up, it tried for 5 months to get consensus but it failed so the majority agreed with a vote open to the community. You should really read back on what has happened here. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Unlike you, I've already read back, but feel free to take your own advice. So which is it? They wanted a process, or they wanted a collaboration project? Or are you still reading that bit? And over the 5 months, what was it that we were trying to get consensus on? What was the process? And when you get to the bit where having a vote was decided, what was it that we were trying to decide on at the time? (hint: I've already posted that answer above to sony). And why was the current vote a subset of the last poll by Masem? etc etc. Sorry for being smarmy here, but you can probably understand my frustration. I especially don't like the behaviour of a single editor being made the scapegoat for not compromising at all, but your comments and apparent ignorance of what how we got to the vote defies belief. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Masem will have to explain this for you. Your attempts to make out like we are voting on the wrong thing or there was no majority support is wrong. I am now more against compromise than i was an hour ago thanks to this nonsense. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
BW, nonsense? I suppose the name calling had start sometime. Real mature. --HighKing (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not know how else to responsd to nonsense. Would you prefer i lied and called this a very interesting and factual discussion? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you maybe do need Masem to clarify things for you, HK. Certainly I'm on record on this project, at various points during the discussion as insisting that the status quo be retained as an option in any decision or eventual vote, and nowhere was that rejected.
I'm still mystified, too, as to what "compromise" is being offered, because all I'm seeing is "The compromise is that the 'status quo' must change." And BritishWatcher may well be willing to agree to such a "compromise" if he's eventually worn down and gets his "Yes, yes, we all agree that RoI isn't a British POV imposition" - but that's useless to me because I already know that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

People can claim what they like imo. When they do so, if they want or expect anybody but the usual suspects to go along with their personal assertions, they merely have to explain their silence when things like this are brought up. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I will stress again what Remedy #1 from the ARbCom case said: The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement.

(Highlights are mine). So first, it can be easily seen out the door that people were clamoring for a vote, which, I don't know about you, but I read as clearly falling in line as being a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view. Heck, I'd even say with how ArbCom put this, they knew a vote would be the most likely outcome as the mechanism. So we've done that part successfully. I'd also say the means to develop "reasonably agreed-upon procedures" was also followed, as while I know there were some dissenters to the vote process, it was mostly agreed to and the details therein. There are people that are disputing this, but it needs to be taken as common sense just looking at this whole issue is that you have people embittered by the whole process that they aren't going to move one iota from their position, so of course they're going to look for disputes if their option is not going. For all practical purposes, the Collaboration Project has worked towards it resolution. It's people that are insisting that because that resolution is heading towards a solution they don't want that are bringing this down, but here again, I stress ArbCom's point: we were to try to assess consensus or majority view. Someone was going to lose here (insomuch as winning and losing mean anything on WP), but being a sore loser is not helping anyone.

Yes, we did make one mistake: this poll should have been private during polling to prevent the problems during the poll that we're seeing now, but we're getting it done, the interia for it is there. We still have a month left and we can still discuss alternate paths, though I strongly recommend editors not use the poll as a piece of blackmail to convince people to their side or another. AGain, I offer 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. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In otherwords 'calm down' folks & let's review the results in September & then go from there. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Masem, your interpretation is fine, to a point. To re-highlight a particular point of the Arbcom ruling; appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. This isn't about just the Article name. In fact, all along right up to the lead-up to the vote, we were talking about a comprehensive solution involving not only the naming of the article, but also related articles, and content within articles. The poll that you proposed which immediately lead to the decision to vote was a comprehensive solution. This failed to get consensus, in large part due to it being made up of smaller decisions where some editors might agree with 2 decisions but not agree with the 3rd, etc. So the answer at the time was taken to break it up into the component/smaller decisions and decide these seperately. All along, the article name decision was the one most editors had already agreed on, although not where the resultant article would reside. But all along, every comprehensive package discussed included this change. That's what most editors had signed up for. Look back in the archives, all the way back to Scolaire and Mooretwin's proposal, and see the list of editors that supported it. Roll the clock on for subsequent polls to see the list of editors who supported the comprehensive solution. The "mechanism" agreed, including voting, was in this context - the principle of that very same comprehensive solution. Nowhere was it agreed that we were abandoning this approach. Nowhere was it agreed to deal with each individual option as a stand-alone seperate decision.
The mistake wasn't that the poll should have been private. This mistake was to break the larger task up into smaller tasks in the belief that people would vote with the bigger picture in mind - the bigger picture being the shape of the comprehensive solution that was being discussed for 9 months prior to the vote. This vote has proved that it is not possible to vote on individual component parts, since editors did't believe that a "compromise" on one aspect (say the naming of the article) will carry over to a compromise on a subsequent vote (say the content of articles, or pipelinking, etc), the the fear of subsequent betrayal outweighed whatever good intentions were present beforehand. In effect, they got their retaliation in first.
Your statement that "someone was going to lose" only carries as far as this single step of a multi-step process. But the multi-step process will not go any further. Getting the retaliation in first has consequences, and the most obvious one being that polarized views will become even more entrenched, nothing will ever be decided by a British majority vote again where the opportunity to be "betrayed" exists, and agreement over the remaining items will fail resulting in the entire process failing.
That's the reality of where we are, and the consequences of this "F" vote. The only "sour grapes" I have is the amount of time and effort I put in here.
Some editors have contacted me and said that it isn't over and things can change between now and then. Seriously, I'd like to believe that. Right now though, I've no reason to believe it will happen. People who didn't realise the implications of the first vote, and who voted in good faith for "F" in a standalone vote situation, will resent this "gun to the head". In fact, anyone who voted for "F", if what is on these talk pages is anything to go by, has become more entrenched in their decision, not less. I don't believe I'm wrong in this, but I'd dearly love to be. --HighKing (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there were calls for a comprehensive package, but that did not gain wide acceptance compared to just voting on the article names, and, from someone trying to streamline the process, there's a good reason for this: every little decision that we're asking on a poll will exponentially increase the number of options we're asking pollers to reply to. The more options we ask, the more people we'll likely scare away on size, and the less feedback we get. For example, I forget the name, but there was a set of rules someone suggested for how to refer to the state in article text, which mostly had acceptance save for the fact that it presume ROI was an acceptable term. If we had included discussion the way the state should be described in article text along side its name, then we'd have likely had 3-4 additional options for each of the multi-faceted "rules of thumb" to put up in the poll. Suddenly one question with 6 choices becomes 6 questions and a total of 20-odd choices to review. That becomes nearly unmanagable in an environment like this, judging by the current poll. This doesn't mean that once the naming polling is all said and done, that concludes the project. As noted, no one should be moving pages (if that is needed) until after we also discuss - and if necessary present a secondary poll - what the side issues to page naming are and their resolution. This including the "Economy of X"-type articles and categories, and how to refer the island and state within article text. We are also not bound to strictly go by the results of the current poll - they need to guide us, and it would be disingenuous to accept the least-favored answer as the solution, but while SVT has strengths, it also has weaknesses that we can talk and decide to ignore.
This project is not done until it completes the package. The naming is the necessary first step to streamline the rest as it will necessarily drop out options for the other factors that would then contradict that.
But again, I stress the fact that ArbCom recognized that there was entrenchment of views here when they asked this project to figure out "consensus or majority". No one can help those that are already firmly fixed on their opinion; the best to hope for is to make them understand that this poll is helping identify the majority view at the present time, and to at least help to continue to improve the encyclopedia in all other aspects. The two-year binding part helps to make sure we review this poll; maybe between now and then there's some major news revelation that significantly alters the landscape of how people view the naming of the island and country, and thus a reassessment would be appropriate. And of course, WP:CCC. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You say that a comprehensive package did not gain widespread acceptance. That's true in so far as any specific comprehensive packages proposed didn't gain widespread acceptance, but the principle was agreed. Your specific proposal was the last comprehensive package polled, and it failed to get consensus. Again, to reiterate most strongly, not the principle of a comprehensive package, but the details within the package. Again, to reiterate most strongly, not the principle that the article name was to change, but the detail of where it needed to belong in the context of the other articles.
You've correctly identified that this poll isn't the last step. The elephant in the room though, is this first step - the problem I foresee is that there is a sense of "betrayal" about this vote - it was agreed on the back of editors from "both sides" discussing a multi-faceteded approach. The primary issue for many editors is the name of the article. But we now have a situation where this vote is currently showing support for the status quo - even though many editors agreed to change the article name. In truth, it was a leap of faith for editors to agree to a vote where a British majority would decide such an issue, but in the spirit of compromise it was agreed (although we still had dissenters). It would never have been agreed if a betrayal was suspected. Many editors feel rightly stitched up on this. The general feeling is now for editors to band together is strict hardline no-compromise attitudes and block further concessions.
So how can this be fixed? Hard to say, impossible to know. Genuinely, I don't see how any further progress can be made, even if suddenly this vote result swung to a different result. A lot has been said on various Talk pages which will be difficult to retract or forget in the context of the next time a leap of faith is required. Just my 2c for today. --HighKing (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yet again - you can, if you wish, look at the poll as having three constituencies - British, Irish, and "Other". All three "constituencies", including Irish are currently voting in favour of one option. There is no "British majority". In fact, analysis of the voters/voting patterns has shown a net swing of precisely 4 British votes. (See poll talk page). In the face of this fact, it is pointless to keep talking about a "British majority". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This is my first (and only) comment about the validity of profiling (which, btw, you were SO against if I recall). It's bunkum. For example, how many of the "Irish" are actually "Northern Irish" who are "British" and/or "Unionists"? The argument that they are as Irish as anyone else isn't in question - which is why profiling based on "country" is bunkum. What the poll is really trying to establish is that UK/British editors have a majority (which they do). Stuffing the "Irish" vote with what amounts to "British" voters is as invalid, and as contemptuous a tactic, as I've seen. And you should know better, because normally you try to be much more balanced and even handed. And another thing. Looking through the contributions of many of the "Other" voters shows many have edit histories on very specific English articles and British articles (and very few edit any Irish related articles). So let's put to bed each "side" trying to "prove" one thing or another using incomplete datasets and conspicuously dodgy collation techniques. It's a can of worms that just leads to more arguments. The fact that there is a "British" majority is obvious, but short of asking each editor to be accurately profiled (and trusting the result), the techniques used will only start other arguments. --HighKing (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was indeed against publishing a profile of voters on the Poll's talk page during the vote. I still am. The profiling I've conducted will stay off-wiki until the poll is over - and will certainly be open to correction. How many of the "Irish" are actually "Northern Irish" who are "British" and/or "Unionists"? From what I've recorded - zero, hopefully. Anyone from NI who didn't self-identify as Irish on a userpage is down as either "British" or "British assumed." "Stuffing the "Irish" vote with what amounts to "British" voters is as invalid, and as contemptuous a tactic, as I've seen." Where've you seen that done, then? Because I certainly haven't done it. If anything, I've overstocked the "Other" and "British" columns, e.g., where I can't see that the person with the Irish username actually says that they're Irish. Please - AGF. I would be all for an end to "each "side" trying to "prove" one thing or another using incomplete datasets and conspicuously dodgy collation techniques" - but the corollary of that is that claims about one "side" imposing it's majority on the other should also stop. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Collaboration means everyone working together, the poll has exposed the lie in that. We are not here to name the 'island and the country', we are here to solve a 'Wikipedian problem' and nothing else. About time ArbCom grew up and took their responsibilities, and less 'washing of hands'. Tfz 14:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Masem, all sound except that the vote was initiated under the premise that it would be binding for three years. Regarding WP:CCC, we have never had consensus on this, only mutually-exclusive alternatives and a majority view in favour of one. Consensus does change, and majority views change too, but despite countless repetitious polls this view has not changed in seven years. Leaving the result of this poll open-ended means it will be the same as every poll that has gone before it: it will close on Sept 13 and on Sept 14 another will open somewhere else.
This poll is binding for two year. That is what was agreed. All other matters are all still the air - although, in fairness, we are pretty much in consensus about them, I think. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This poll is binding for two year *only* if the entire process gets agreed. Arbcom did not give a mandate for merely renaming this article (which, I believe, is the mistake (and wrong assumption) being made here. Masem, please clarify. If not further agreement can be made on any other issue, the process to reach agreement dies (and therefore any sub-agreements made in order to agree the process die with it). Because it this isn't the case, better clarify now. --HighKing (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Reading Arbcom's decision, and the first remedy: "The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles", the scope of this project is technically limited to the island, country, disambig page, and the various articles of the style "Economies of (whatever we call the country") type articles. How the island or country is referred to in the body of other articles does not seem to be covered, but it clearly makes sense that this be considered after deciding th ename issue. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Masem, swift response. But you haven't addressed the precise query. You've mentioned a number of related (but different) items this process has to address. This vote addresses one item. I assume an all-or-nothing approach, in that if nothing more can be decided, then the process has failed. For example, if we chose to address "Economies of X" next, and we don't reach agreement (cos we are *never* going to agree a vote and get ... hung out to dry ... again), then what? There wasn't ant discussion or agreement that the article name decision would be maintained outside of the overall Arbcom process, so that would leave us back to square one. I'd just like to ensure clarity at this point, to sharpen everybody's awareness on the importance of compromise. --HighKing (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Then Remedy 2 kicks in, which means the decision how to go forward is taken from IECOLL and placed in three non-involved admins. But with the key poll being run right now I don't believe that step needs to be an issue; we just have to recognize that due to entrenchment, someone is always going to disagree with the results, the hope is to minimize that number. --MASEM (t) 11:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
"If not further agreement can be made on any other issue, the process to reach agreement dies .." No page moves will take place until (what I'm calling) "the substantive matters" have been resolved. But I don't think that gives right to filibuster or any other form or obstructionism to anyone. If the vote returns a result you or I don't like, we don't have the right to walk away from the process and say it collapsed and therefore the vote counts for nothing. We agreed to a vote, and agreed we would be bound to it. I agree there is more to discuss, but refusing to discuss it (or derailing it in any way) will not nullify the vote. Masem? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A secondary poll might well be useful. -- Evertype·✆ 07:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

@HighKing: "nothing will ever be decided by a British majority vote". Quite correct. The poll on Ireland article names is an en-WP-wide poll. British, Irish, and "Other" all get to vote. And the last time I checked, each of those three "constituencies" all favoured one option. The claim of imposition of a title on Ireland-related articles by British wikipedians is a complete red herring. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Each don't. Of course, your analysis is off-wiki. Care to email it to me? --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
@Evertype: Such as the one Masem mentions above on "what the side issues to page naming are and their resolution. This including the "Economy of X"-type articles and categories, and how to refer the island and state within article text."? I honestly think we can get consensus on a lot of those issues, and starting another poll soon after the... er... drama we've had on the current poll might be (even more) polarising/divisive? I wouldn't object to one, but I do think we should look at the possibility of achieving consensus on the other issues first. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it. I'm *still* waiting for Masem to clarify the question I asked above, but this poll is not a stand-alone poll. If we can't reach agreement on a process for all issues, then this vote won't be binding. Once the process fails, all constituent parts also fail. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Substantive issues

There's a lot of bad feeling brewing up again and a sense of "winner-takes-all" regarding a result to the vote. First, I'll begin by saying that what I signed up for with this vote was just that - a vote. The result, I had thought was agreed, was to be binding for two years. But there's still a long time left to go and our energies would be much better spent, I think, looking at constructive things.

With that in mind, I'd like to propose that we look at the wider issues now, while the vote is on-going. I think this is an opportune time to look at these things because:

  1. Looking at them now will head of a bad tempered/triumphalist discussion after one options "wins" on September 13th
  2. Having these discussions now, I think, will favour those editors not align to the option that looks like it is going to "win" right now (since those editors in favour of that option will be less inclined to rock the boat and will be more, I think, inclined to agree with arguments from the other side not just for the sake of peace but for the sake of compromise).

The substantive issues, as I see them, are:

  • Titles (except IRL/ROI/dab):
    • Use of ROI/IRL in article titles
    • Use of ROI/IRL in category titles
    • Redirects between ROI/IRL articles/categories
    • Dabbing of ROI/IRL
  • In-article use of ROI/IRL
  • Use of ROI/IRL in templates

Is there will to discuss these matters now? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know - serious damage has been done - perhaps all need a "time out" ? -- ClemMcGann (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Having something to talk about here that we have some control over (unlike the vote which we cant really do anything about now its started) will allow us to focus on things that need sorting anyway. Its probably best to try and sort such things now and forget the ongoing poll for the time being, if we are here we aint fighting each other elsewhere. Although i think we should focus on how to use Ireland/ROI in text because that doesnt have any impact from how the vote goes. The naming of other articles / templates is more impacted by whats chosen there. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Pretty cheeky/disrespectful to stitch us up on this part of the current process and expect to continue with the rest? That's not what is generally understood when we talk about reaching a compromise. That's generally not what's understood when 6 months of discussions recognized that the article title has *always* been the biggest obstacle to reaching agreement. You've seriously got to be joking (probably why you've been leaving LOL's all over the place). This process is broken. Opportunity spurned. Back to the drawing board to reach agreement on a new one. One that deals with the entire issue and concentrates on the bigger picture. --HighKing (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
We can go back to the drawing board if you want HighKing, You can argue for another 6 months why you think the article should be moved and others will oppose it. Shall we keep doing this till we are all dead? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it, HighKing. What result exactly did you expect a vote was going to give us? A popular vote will give us the order of preference for a sample of the community. That is exactly what we are going to get. Personally, I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) that the status quo looks likely to prevail, but that is clearly what this sample of the community wants. That is not a stitch up in any way shape or form.
If editors wish to withdraw because they disagree with the process, result, or the inherent biases that any poll has, then that is their prerogative. However, all those things were evident at the beginning (we knew that the process was, we knew there was going to be a result that would not satisfy everyone and we knew the limits of a poll), so there is no reason whatsoever to justify retroactively invalidating a poll on this basis. If there is one thing that I have learned on Wikipedia is that toys always get thrown out of prams. I have no doubt whatsoever if the result went the other way there would be at least editor who would withdraw in protest. Like it or not, the poll result will tell us exactly what it was designed to do: it will identify the preference for a sample of the community. If it turn out that F tops that preference, then it is clearly not the case that the current the article title is the problem in the eyes of that sample.
We set our stall out at the beginning: we have discussed and debated to no avail. We decided a poll would be the only way to move forward. Unless there is evidence that the poll has an previously unforseen flaw, there is no good reason to abandon it now. Rockpocket 19:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the bias demonstrated (which Rock now calls "the inherent biases that any poll has" and which several British editors are still denying exists in this case) has changed the situation. It has demonstrated that this issue cannot be decided by a vote, because British pov will always be imposed on the article. Furthermore the censorship and intimidation of Irish editors has invalidated the process even if the political bias didn't exist. The poll is dead. So I have no problem discussing the options. Sarah777 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, when the smoke clears, I may be the only editor left standing. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks G'Day, that was helpful. Also Rock, how you can maintain that "If it turn out that F tops that preference, then it is clearly not the case that the current the article title is the problem in the eyes of that sample" solves anything?! 90% plus of those editors never edit the article; a majority of those who live in the place object to the title; a significant number of the editors active on the article (haven't "profiled" them) object to the title. Nothing solved; political imposition of British pov confirmed - that is the only lesson learned. Sarah777 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If theres any bias in the setup of the poll, its against F not in favour of it. F gets the majority of first pref votes, but because we are using STV F has to take on all other votes combined. First past the post would of made it alot easier for F to win, especially if wed of banned all this vote changing that is happening. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty convenient for many editors here to forget that this vote was one step in a longer process. This step is not a stand-alone vote. So how do you think the discussions on .. how to dab within content, say ... is likely to go? Right now, instead of the majority of editors voting together (from "both sides) to reach agreement, we'll end up to *not* agree on a vote the next time, and we'll fail to reach consensus because one "side" can't be trusted, and this process will be shown to be broken. Back to the drawing board. --HighKing (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it is but one step. There have been steps before it and there will be steps after it. So lets take the result for what it is, and move to the next step (which is DAB). Unless you have a miraculous solution to achieve what proved impossible before (a consensus based approach) then going back to the drawing board on the article name issue is not constructive. No process is perfect, but rather than decry the problems with this one, does anyone actually have a practical, workable alternative to offer? Rockpocket 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, right up till the middle of June, while we were discussing this step, you have to remember that we were discussing it in the context of a bigger package of compromise. There's (obvious) dependencies between steps. Right up until June, we were talking about the bigger package, with editors from "both" sides agreeing. Except, now that it comes to a vote to ratify it, we get this farce. Check the archives. Archive 9, section related to Closure. Look at the Masem's proposal. It didn't fail to reach consensus on the principal of compromise, especially renaming the article. It failed because the proposal was too big and needed to be broken down - hence this vote on the first step. But if people don't follow through on step 1, they've only themselves to blame if the process fails at the first step. All very well to say "Move on, lots more to do", but you won't get a consensus for anything more. This process it broken. A vote for "F" is a vote to retain the status quo, and all the baggage and disruption that comes with it. I hoped, as did other editors, that common sense would rule the day. More fool me. I won't be taken in again. Sad thing is, this is just going to result in more entrenchment and disruption than previously, since some editors will likely use this "vote" as an endorsement of the status quo. --HighKing (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well assuming it remains as it currently is, this result of this vote 'is an endorsement of the status quo. I struggle to understand any other interpretation. You seem to be coming from a position where the status quo is an unacceptable result and therefore if it remains there will be further disruption until it is changed. The status quo is no more inherently incorrect or unacceptable then any other option. This result was always a possibility of the process we agreed on. It is not a good reason to discard it because a noisy minority vows to continue to dispute it. Rockpocket 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with HighKing on this one. That's why I advocate that people avoid giving votes to A, B, and F—none of those are compromises. (I think the main reason we see F in the lead is voters who give a weight to all six options rather than leaving some off. Maybe Rannṗáirtí can crunch numbers and see about this. -- Evertype·✆ 07:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Maybe Rannṗáirtí can crunch numbers and see about this." (Surprisingly, maybe) it's the complete opposite. "F" blazes the field on first preferences. At the last count I did, 77 votes made 50%+1 and "F" had 71 first-preference votes (i.e. it almost wins on the first count). "F" does less well on transfers, with transfers going to "F" at a rate of 2:5. But even discounting transfers to it, "F" is still the most popular option by 11 votes (i.e. 60 votes for "E" after transfers, 71 votes for "F" counting first prefences alone). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Preference figures here. Counting first and second preferences combined, F wins. 1st,2nd and 3rd F wins. add 4th, 5th or 6th F wins. Least disliked option (lowest number of no prefs) F wins. Add 6th prefs to that, F wins. Add 5th... you get the idea. Whichever way we measure it now F is both the most liked and least disliked option among the Wikipedia community. Valenciano (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, its a conflict creating option not a conflict reduction one. However its the status quo ...--Snowded TALK 12:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This process was set up to resolve the problem, there was never any condition that the article titles had to change. If the majority of the community support the status quo then they do not consider the reasons for change to be enough to justify that change. Once the articles are locked into position for 2 years it will reduce the conflict because no one will have anything to gain from fighting over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That is very naive BW, naming the article will not prevent major debates over what name is used on other articles. Other related issues (British Isles) for example will become become proxy battle grounds. Its never good in a conflict for one side to win the major battle (something Everytype has been trying to explain to you). --Snowded TALK 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It will resolve the problem of the main articles by locking them into place and provided we get a very very detailed explanation on when to use Republic of Ireland in text and other article titles then there will be less room for dispute. As for the British isles, there are always ongoing battles over that anyway, i see that as a reason why changing article titles here may set a bad precedent.
I have said i support compromise and that is still the case, but it must be on certain conditions and that includes the acceptence that Republic of Ireland is NOT British POV and that such comments should be considered a violation of WP:AGF. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerrymandering concern

Here is a way of affecting the outcome of a vote. Walk into the polling station waving your arms while the vote is underway and convince everybody there was a problem in the government and all votes are off. Everybody goes home. You, and anyone you have shared your plan with, enter the votes you please. For this reason I would like to see the above section started by HighKing removed for at least as long as the voting is open on Ireland naming disputes. I do not wish to suggest that HighKing is plotting or intending to undermine those votes but I must point out clearly that if anything could, this is it. I hope HighKing himself can consider this. Telling everyone to go home that the polling station is closed while votes are still open is just not on, even if he meant no harm and has good basis for every word. Remove it and anything else that might suggest voting is off or invalid until voting ends.

  • If I only came here because I got a reminder on my talk page and the section with the BOLDEST LETTERING said "This vote is invalid!"... where does that lead?

Users who endorse this assessment

Users who do not endorse this assessment

Comments

Looks like the F voters go to bed early and get up late!Sarah777 (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You appear to miss the point. I'm not saying that this vote is closed, I'm saying the "process" is broken. This vote is not the process. The vote is one step in a multi-step process. I'm pointing out the consequences of "F" - which hopefully, yes, will affect the vote. Anybody who is interested in actually really solving this dispute should be aware of the consequences of an "F" vote. I've replied to Masem above in more detail - probably better to read it there than repeat it here. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote a sign saying "NOTICE:" this project is false, everything is finished already. You are directly disrupting the project, making it appear the project is invalid, while it co-ordinates a vote on one of its key principles. The discussion between you and Massem further down the section isnt related to this problem. Going around putting up signs like "SUSPENSION NOTICE" is vandalism. I am getting annoyed that you would discuss it without correcting it. ~ R.T.G 19:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It should have been reverted immediately that anyone pointed out the problem. I have altered the section accordingly. ~ R.T.G 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I accept your alteration and your reasoning. --HighKing (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Recurring edit themes noted on talkpages

You/we have a dominating theme on this project at the moment. In that spirit I would like to draw attention to editors that it is useful to note recurring debates on articles talk pages (in template at top of page). Such a notice will have to be stuck at the top of the Ireland, ROI, talkpages after the vote, for example. There are often recurring debates of less concern but if they have a recurring outcome it is helpful to note them on the top of the talkpage with the most relevant debate/outcome (as possible). There is often an edit on Voyager (Star Trek) about Seven of Nine. Her human name in the series is Onica Hansen but on startrek.com it is Annika Hansen so the latter is maintained by a lot of reverts. It probably wont help prevent those edits by noting anything on the talkpage but it would give any debater the thread of any previous discussion. I don't know if anyone finds any point to this section as that is the only example I had but people do note these things sometimes. (Something like "An edit that is often reverted on this article is..." at top of page where it wont be archived or made into a discussion... sensible yes? Relevant to present no?) ~ R.T.G 22:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about "after the vote". The process as it has unwound is clearly not what Arbcom mandated. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Template or FAQ on the pages would be useful, after the everything has been agreed here following the vote BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see much evidence that there will be any agreement after this poll. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
no matter how the poll goes? If F loses will you be feeling the same way? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Then, the problem would be resolved, as none of the remaining options could are British pov. Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
lol i see so the vote is fine aslong as F doesnt win. Thats fair BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
lol - so there's no intention to actually fix this issue. lol I thought that was the whole point - ololol fix the issue, not silence the protesters. lol --HighKing (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
As it's a poll relating to Ireland can't we just vote again until we get the "right" result? Valenciano (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
We all should wait 'til September 13th. There'll be plenty of disputes then. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. If they stop attacking me I'll stop responding. Sarah777 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like the Chicken or the egg thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm the chicken and you're the egg! Sarah777 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am suggesting to write "Annika Hansen (pron. same as Onica)" and if it was like that nobody tried to change it there will be a lot less reverts on that page. What you lot are on about I don't know. First there was a cell (boilogy). One day the most greediest bit ate the rest and broke out/hatched screaming "MORE CELL PLEASE!!?" or "WEEAUGH!!?" So, at first there was a cell, inside the cell became a chicken/life-form. The moment the chicken made its way outside the cell, hatched, the cell was now been the chickens egg all along. But, the egg was there before it was an egg, just that it was a cell with a chicken in it. ~ R.T.G 02:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Another good reason to support option "F", eh? In fact, easily the most convincing reason yet given. Sarah777 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Suppport suggestion by RTG per Sarah777 and norm. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I just made the "Weeaugh!!" bit up myself really ~ R.T.G 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Desire for compromise - a straw poll

(Note: I moved this from the ballot talk page to here as this has little to do with the ballot or poll, but what can be done after the poll specifically regarding the IECOLL Project. Also a warning: Watch the personal attacks and uncivil behavior. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

At least two people have said that since the poll started there is an increased desire on all sides for some sort of compromise solution. At least one editor has said that there already was agreement on a compromise before the poll started. Someone said that the people who voted F were really voting against titles with parenthesis, another that it was natural conservatism rather than an attachment to the title, or that deep down they'd really prefer E. I propose a straw poll to measure the strength of feeling on both sides for a compromise. The straw poll does not presuppose the outcome of the poll - there is still nearly a month to go and the current situation could be reversed. "Compromise" by my definition would involve overturning whatever the poll result was in favour of an alternative. Theoretically this could involve a victory for change being overturned by a compromise that keeps the status quo while making concessions to satisfy the "change" side. Answering yes to the first question precludes anwering yes to the second and third, but the second and third questions are not mutually exclusive. The fourth relates to what has already happened and is not dependent on the answer to the other three questions. Scolaire (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A straw poll like this is bunkum. We agreed to conduct a vote and to be bound by it. Now that the tallies are coming in, and it is becoming clearer which option will likely "win", of course those who do not support that option are back-pedaling. Suddenly they are saying that "compromise" is possible - even those that cried most loudly that it was impossible before the votes started coming in. *shakes head in disgust* --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If Scolaire wants to 'move' this straw to his Userpage? I won't mind. Afterall, 2 polls simultaneously occuring, can be stressful. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, or WT:IECOLL. Placing it here will be misleading IMHO. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Both would be acceptable locations. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I think we need to see whether people are agreeing to be bound by it, and to know just how many are "back-pedaling". We also need to test whether those who voted F "really meant" to vote F or not. When the poll is over, the evidence will be there for all to see. Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We did see that people were agreeing to be bound by it ... then the votes began and suddenly "compromise" is the word of the day, replacing ochón is ochón ó and caoineadh chun Masem. Shifting goal posts.
In any event, holding a poll such as this on the ballot page itself gives mixed messages. The vote is on-going, we can agree to stop it, but let's not wash our lenin in public. This is a "private matter" for the members of WP:IECOLL since we are the ones that are agreeing to be "bound" by the vote. It' belongs on the main WT:IECOLL page not here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll agree with it being moved to IECOLL if all of the above "compromise" sections are moved at the same time. I am not prepared to have people, including Masem, say "it's perfectly fine to f*** with the result because that's what everybody wants", while a poll showing it's not what everybody wants is stuck away where nobody will read it or take part. Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree.. cut and paste all this to the collaboration page right away please. This is simply going to confuse people who are coming here to vote in the main poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't agree to be bound by it irrespective of my analysis of the !votes. But I must say if this poll-in-a-poll was my poll Masem above would have driven it out of town. Pronto. Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it all to this page Masem. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Voters favouring the status quo

Voters who believe the outcome of the poll should be implemented, whatever it is

Voters who are willing to overturn the result in favour of a compromise involving change

Voters who are willing to overturn the result in favour of a compromise involving the status quo

Voters who believe there was already agreement to change before the poll was opened

Voters favouring change

Voters who believe the outcome of the poll should be implemented, whatever it is

Voters who are willing to overturn the result in favour of a compromise involving change

Voters who are willing to overturn the result in favour of a compromise involving the status quo

Voters who believe there was already agreement to change before the poll was opened

Voters who believe this straw poll has been designed to cause needless polarisation

Users who can see clearly that certain discussions are not permissible such as:- "What if everyone who voted 'A' was imagined to voted 'F' cos they wurz talking funny and we changed it like that, like we knew because 'F' was more like they wanted and becarze that warz whut theys all-ways wanted?" and/or "Who wills be up for burning the buildings as soon as peaceful voting is finished now boys and girls?" and believe that such unpermissible discussion should be reduced to content warnings or, more apropriately, deleted with a suitable explaination in the edit summary field

The word is "coups". -- Evertype·✆ 22:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
My Lord RTG! - you can't spell even when writing in gibberish. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Read it Coup de force (Coo de foe. Expression Francais. Our letters represent sounds.) ~ R.T.G 23:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I was going to administer a Coup de grace but Machiavelli said...y'know. Can't say it here. Masem watchin' Sarah777 (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Voters who believe any issues about overturning the poll are for arbcom

  • Anybody even attempting to overturn this poll in favour of something else needs to put their proposal before arbcom, because like it or not, this poll is the result of an arbcom sanctioned resolution process. Me personally, I am relishing the thought of certain defenders of WP:NPOV putting their logic and reasoning infront of the people who get paid to apply NPOV to all sorts of contentious areas day in day out. If it happens, I am confident we will all finally be shown how to properly account for POV in a poll on Wikipedia, learning the difference between a simplistic count and a proper analysis, and learning the difference between showing something exists, and showing it has a net effect. What the community must not tolerate after the poll is incessant site wide insinuation, whiny bullshit or disruption, instead of the objectors taking it to arbcom, per do not feed the trolls. MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No. This poll is clearly not the process sanctioned by Arbcom. Anyone who wishes to force the results of this poll against the wishes of the huge majority of Irish ("RoI") editors on the various articles need to explain that to Arbcom. Note the aggressive threatening language above. That is what a busted flush sounds like. "people who get paid to apply NPOV"??? Who gets paid to apply NPOV? Are folk like MacMick actually paid to promote a pov?? Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Voters who can no longer be bothered voting on a poll about a poll on a poll

Comments

Hans, the way you've set up the last section is a contradiction. "unless a compromise is found before it's over" can only mean that if a compromise is "found", the outcome of the poll should not be implemented. Your vote is therefore "it should be implemented, or it should not", which is meaningless. Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume Hans means that if a compromise is generally agreed to, the poll should not be implemented, but that if this is not the case, it should be. john k (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Just what I said - it should or it shouldn't. Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Forget it, changed my vote. I realised that the straw poll seems designed to stress disagreements and polarisation. Hans Adler 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Or the lack of it, if it turns out (as I believe) that we actually do want to implement this poll. Scolaire (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I meant polarisation about what a compromise would look like. Your options are forcing people who would prefer a compromise to a narrow poll result to decide now what this compromise would have to look like. That's not how a compromise is found and leaves out all those who don't really care about the outcome so long as everybody else can live with it. Hans Adler 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The way it is set up to an uninvolved editor the default current position appears to be the least disruptive to Wikipedia, unless you have intimate knowledge. We also have a lot of US editors who see "state" in their own cultural context so are uncomfortable with that option (although it was a near consensus before the poll. Personally I think the result of the poll should be eliminate extremes and then select from the second choices which have a chance of gaining support from all bar the extremes. To those who think that a majority vote for F will end the debates, sorry guys you are deluded, what will happen is proxy battles on multiple pages around this issue, British Isles etc. etc. Oh and thats not a threat as I have no intention of doing anything like that, its just the prediction of an editor with all too much experience of these issues, --Snowded TALK 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Define 'extremes'? Do you mean the 2 most popular options? If so then I oppose 100%. Fmph (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Several of us have defined them. F is one extreme, although it has moderate support it also causes offence to nationalists and undue celebration for unionists, it was also specifically withdrawn by the British Government as a name in the GFA so its tied up with some very complex political symbolism. At the other extreme using Ireland for the state is an extreme (reverses the above). The second most popular at the moment, is a compromise solution. --Snowded TALK 20:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "[F] causes offence to nationalists and undue celebration for unionists..." Where? As an Irish nationalist I take offense at a British editor telling me what I am or am not offended at! Find me a reference that says that Irish nationalists are offended by it. Find me a reference that says that it is "celebrated" by unionists.
Indeed, Unionists were historically very reluctant to call the state the "Republic of Ireland" and traditionally preferred "Irish Republic," "Eire," or "Southern Ireland." john k (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Where did you get that, I don't think you are correct. RoI is the preferred name used by unionists. I have never heard unionists use Eire all that much. Southern Ireland is another popular description with NI unionists. Tfz 21:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
See, for example, discussion in that oft-mentioned but clearly little read article, The Irish Free State/Éire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country by Any Other Name”? (page 84): "...Sir Basil Brooke, Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, objected to the title 'Republic of Ireland,' because he claimed, it 'was intended to repeat Eire’s claim to jurisdiction over the whole island.'" --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It's also very obvious if you read the Dáil records concerning the Republic of Ireland Act. And it makes perfect sense: In an English language context, "Eire" can be read as referring only to those parts of Ireland where Gaelic plays a significant role, and I guess that that is how it was read at the time. Hans Adler 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "...it was also specifically withdrawn by the British Government as a name in the GFA..." Where? Here is the GFA quote me where ROI is "specifically withdrawn" by the British Government.
  • "At the other extreme using Ireland for the state is an extreme (reverses the above)." What?? That is the name of the state. Internationally recognised. It is not an "extreme" POV in any sense.
  • "The second most popular at the moment, is a compromise solution." It is the solution with the least support among Irish editors and members of WP:IECOLL.
It's a shame there isn't less pontificating about history and politics and more attention paid to facts. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The pro-F pundits have been pontificating and deliberating on this page for days on end, and never heard a whisper from you about it. Your credibility on that score has gone quite flaky. Tfz 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Methinks that someone doesn't understand the differance between nationalists and republicans. For the record, in very simplistic terms, republicans tend to have problems with the use of RoI, but nationalists often don't. /hides-in-the-corner-and-awaits-the-flak Fmph (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It was specifically "nationalists" that it was said it was offensive to - I would, however, say that what is offensive to "republicans" is of a more transient and opportunistic nature. /joins-you-in-the-corner-and-awaits-the-flak --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
So very true RA. Of course I have pointed that out many times. That's why I like to distinguish Irish (RoI or NI nationalist) from British and Other editors rather than worry about their politics. It's an WP:NPOV thing. Sarah777 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OMG, what on earth is all this.. Ive not read it all yet but what a mess. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It it apparent you don't know the essential difference between Northern nationalists, Southern nationalists, Republicans and Southern Pseudo Brits. The vast majority of Irish people are Southern or Northern nationalists with periodically triggerable Republicanism. Sarah777 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Voters who believe there should be change, regardless of the outcome of the poll and Voters who believe there was already agreement to change before the poll was opened from the status quo section and Voters who believe the status quo should remain, regardless of the outcome of the poll from the Voters for Change section should be deleted.surely they dont apply? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope these options are supposed to be two variants of "I would prefer a compromise to implementing the result of the poll, and in my opinion the compromise must look like this: ...". That's exactly what I criticised above. But you are right, there is a more sinister meaning which is also what I saw at first. Hans Adler 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the wording on the options, to make them less "sinister". Scolaire (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
lol, thanks for the changes it makes alot more sense now. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is absolute crap. The first paragraph says something about people who vote F but deep down they really mean E. Well I voted F and deep down I really dont want this kind of discussion: "RTG and others meant E deep down really cos we said so." That is nonesense. You are going to have a little vote here to see if my vote for F doesnt count? When everybody votes F = No change you dont run around trying to say "Oh but what if you wanted change really subconciously!?". Nobody is to change that. Compromise may be reaching but coercion is off the cards. This crap ends here. End, Stop, Fini, Irrellevant, Unacceptable, Too little, Too late, Too brittle, Must break. Nobody is changing anybody elses opinion, end. It is not the state that Ireland is in but, it is a state that is within Ireland. No change my vote. No read other peoples views to be more or different than they say themselves. No coercion. No colouring in when folks are writing in black and white. Goodbye and good luck in that order thanks. ~ R.T.G 09:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder when I said "Gerrymandering" above was I just off the mark? ~ R.T.G 09:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
As usual. Sarah777 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and suggestions on vote tampering

I want to start threatening editors who come up with enormously long discussions starting with things like "SUSPENSION NOTICE" and "They voted F but deep down they really mean E." I want to provide a real threat that editors starting or making large contributions to these discussions might be temporarily barred from the project for lets say a month or something? Does that make a bit of sense? ~ R.T.G 09:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To qoute yourself This is absolute crap. You say you want to stop editors ...who come up with enormously long discussions... and start a thread that is going to kick off a huge debate IMO. It is up to Masem to take control instead of being reactive he must be proactive if as it seems he can see nothing wrong, as he took no action, then threats of blocking editors by you are a waste of time. BigDunc 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not just let readers make up their own mind. When people claim "Someone voted this way, but really meant to vote another" I think most of us draw our own conclusions. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I can't make anything clear out of what Dunc is saying and as for Skinsmoke, there must be a line, putting up false suspension notices and discussing disregard of clear voted intentions or even worse, claiming them to be something else, an option voted against. These are the areas beyond the line ladies and genties. What, if something else, would you say are the lines or are you just saying "There is no lines man!"? They call it rigging an election. It is off the cards. If that is so, rigging type discussion along with invalid suspension notices are immediately for the bin. Yes you guessed it, improper conduct is barred from the site and we remove it by way of concensus. If we do not, the wheel comes around and the note says "Look at the way they were running this vote on collaboration page!! Nagnagnagnagnagnagnagnagnagnag, nag, blah, nag, blah, blah." Some people have evaluated options through a process of exhaustion. It follows that they are exhausted now and need told when to sit down if they are dropping things that can break? If Massem holds the cards I suggest he think about evaluating things that are certainly off the cards such as "SUSPENSION NOTICE!" and "What if some of the F votes were really E votes?" and closing those discussions as and when they appear, just to be fair? At least the lads are giving us a good show of "What not to discuss in voting rooms." and "Election rigging for dummies." ~ R.T.G 13:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, such a Poll as this will inevitably cause national tensions between editors. Thus it's best not to block anyone, while this Poll is in motion. Personally, I think the editors in these discussions have managed to keep their cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think RTG can block anyone. Of course I'm being WP:BOLD here. Sarah777 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Tension is one thing. Putting up suspension notices, discussing the best method to doctor opinion polls and taking names for an "overturn" of general views without anyone batting an eyelid; is possible to view as symptomatic of an undesireable course. To say the least, even if nothing truly sinister is plotted here, we don't want any chance it looked like that on the way in or we just aren't concerned that things settle comfortably. Oh look, do what you like I lack restraint myself on these pages. I just think that the main collaborators around here are much more capable of being beyond reproach. The whole problem here is reproach and ye are either surpassing it or sliding back in and each slide is probably deeper. It is certainly looking a bit more provocative with these two undermine sections. I'm sorry for outbursting but if another dodgy notice springs up or another debate based around "How do we translate the views of folks who aren't saying much." there will be attention and maybe someone has to block me unless someone calmer can start saying what is not possible along with what is. Real collaboration is not less than that. ~ R.T.G 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_20&oldid=1140106664"