Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Status

ArbCom now officially announced moderators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Admin moderators. — Sebastian 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We're still waiting for a third moderator. — Sebastian 08:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And still waiting. Remainer of post moved to #Proposal for 3rd moderator. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a third moderator since Feb 19, so we're complete. — Sebastian 01:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Users have been informed 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC), deadline to submit statements was agreed below as one week after that time, which is now. — Sebastian 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

However, there are objections currently discussed at #Deadline for submissions. — Sebastian 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Carrying out Edokter's plan

(Headline inserted for better visibility. This was a reply to Sebastian's message of 00:20, 6 February 2009.)

When I volunteered for this job, I had no idea about the complexities behind the whole affair. Until the ArbCom case, there was much discussion with plenty of proposals, but sadly no consensus. Since Remedy #2 started, there has been only discussion about discussion, and I feel we're not getting anywhere. I made one proposal above, which has no responses to date, which is not very motivating. If I am to continue as a moderator, I am going to insist on a procedure that is simple, concise and to the point.

This discussion needs to be based on fact, not opinion. I am going to go ahead with what I proposed above and hold a non-rebuttal debate; I want statements which members can either endorse or oppose, nothing more. I need a structured exchange of ideas, because I do not look forward to have to dig through pages of open talk each day and even try to understand the current state of consensus. I expected to steer the discussion, not to discuss the steering.

When this was sent to ArbCom, people expected a ruling. I believe most members still want a ruling at some level, if only because they are tired of discussion. We can not rule as moderators, but we can guide the discussion, and I think it is time to do so by simply setting the rules instead of asking for them. That is my proposal, and my role as moderator is tied to it. I will say this now before it's too late; I will fail as a moderator and will retire if I am not expected to guide this discussion toward a satisfying conclusion. — Edokter • Talk • 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I support this. Its time we tried something, and this is as good an idea as any other. Rockpocket 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for stepping up to the challenge. Since it's your plan, I have no problem letting you take the lead. Are there any objections? — Sebastian 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. A moderated/closed debate is fine. I think the most important point isn't so much what the process is as that whatever process is followed it be controlled and enforced and that it be conducted with an understanding that there *will* be a conclusion reached at the end. I don't mean to say that any old process will do--just that ultimately someone is going to have to say "This is going to be the process.", pressumably having incorporated the best ideas from the different suggestions made. Nuclare (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur eith Edokter's suggestion. (Yes, I expected a ruling.) Just tell us where to debate and what the rules are. -- Evertype·✆ 14:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Ben Mac Dui 15:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That proposal also seems fine to me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan, i fully support it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I had understood that to be the original plan. Remedy#1 was that we would come up with our own way to reach a decision. (Although, I must add that I had also understood that we had reached the same decision on this matter time and time again since 2002.)

Remedy#1 failed. Remedy#2, I thought, was that ArbCom would tell us how to reach a decision and that decision would be binding for two years. Let's have it (... and lo! we might even arrive at the same decision again for the 7th year running!). --89.101.216.172 (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I see Gnevin has already set up the discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement process

In order to keep this page tidy and readable .Please create you statements at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyYOURNAME. When you have add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements in the correct subsection Gnevin (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is to be similar to RfC pages, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have just one page for all? — Sebastian 06:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the AFD style of discussion so I can watch or unwatch discussions and see the related differences between discussions not every change that happens, this page may get quite active. This way is easier to follow Gnevin (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

General statements

Should statements be limited to just the problems or is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Statements#General_statements ok ? Gnevin (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I used 'general' because I had a little trouble categorizingRTG's statement. — Edokter • Talk • 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Important ! This a no rebuttal process

I've had to remove 3 comments with in the last day. Please read WP:IECOLL-NOREBUTTAL's. User are requested to indicate their support or disagreement on the statement pages by signing their name. Use the statements talk if you wish to discuss a statement Gnevin (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ~ R.T.G 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So how do I challenge the erroneous assumption in the propositions that Ireland (country) is the same as Ireland (state)? [because it isn't: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRed King#Ireland (country), if it has to exist at all, should redirect to the new master article ] --Red King (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Use the talk page if you really want to discuss it Gnevin (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But this is the talk page... Or is there another talk page? --Red King (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if I wanted to discuss a point about your statement i would do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRed King Gnevin (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is not to discuss, but to gather viewpoints. You can create your own statement page (which you've already done). — Edokter • Talk • 23:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed "votes" of editors self endorsing their own statement. Otherwise it's a bit pointless. If it is agreed that one should be able to self endorse for whatever reason, my changes can be reverted back.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Index of statements

I created WP:IECOLL/watchlist with the links to the 4 pages that are currently in this list. This allows to watch all of them together via Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:IECOLL/watchlist. The problem, of course, is that that page doesn't get updated automatically, as the above list does. I just thought I'd post this here in case anyone finds it helpful. — Sebastian 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Related changes, this will show the related changes as statements are added Gnevin (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That helps a bit, and I now transcluded that page in the watchlist, so at least the WP pages get automatically included. However, the talk pages are still not in the list, which is not good, as can be seen at WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRTG. — Sebastian 02:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is remedy #2

Because the Arbitration Remedy #1 failed is this supposed to be Remedy #2? There is no indication this is the status of this collaboration because it deals with the content not with the naming. It seems no action, or any other progress, has taken place on the Remedy #2 front and this collaboration stands independently from Remedy #2. Am I missing something? Where is Remedy #2 for the naming of the Ireland/Republic of Ireland articles, or has it fallen off the radar? ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We have formulated a preliminary procedure and are executing it right now; see the #Index of statements section above. — Edokter • Talk • 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this process just a ruse?

Is this process just a ruse to ruse to stop the "disruption" caused by the RoI/IRL dispute by pretending that a process is in place to resolve the conflicting viewpoints? I hope this is a genuine process that will lead to a prompt decision but it looks unlikely to me. In particular, the ground rules on the project page state "Decisions for the WikiProject will primarily be based on the consensus of members". Is some one seriously suggesting a consensus will emerge? If no consensus emerges, does that mean there will be no decision (or another decision to make no decision as before)? What reason is there to think a consensus will emerge when it has not done so before? Is there a timeframe for this process? How long will it run? What is the deadline? I think those running this process should answer these questions and set them out on the project page. Participants can then take a view on whether this is a credible process. After all, who runs a project without having a clear timeframe? It goes without saying, I hope the project is successful. It should have credibility. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF much? The 3 Admin's here have offered their time and developed a process to help sort this issue, if you have question feel free to ask them but ask them in a polite way Gnevin (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What was not polite about the above? They are direct questions - I am asking - Isn't this the place to ask? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Redking7, this process originated here, I don't honestly believe it was intended as a ruse, more of a back up plan. That said, I think setting a timeframe for this process is a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Great - I am glad some one agrees with setting a timeframe. I will open a sub-section to ask those concerned re what an appropriate cut-off date is. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Deadline discussions

Deadline for submissions

March 12

(Below is taken from the discussion at #Hello.)

[...] Anyway perhaps we should post on all the Ireland articles linking to this page again (and statement page) and give people a deadline to submit their statements. Because at the moment there seems to be just strong support for one statement, and if thats the case progess could and should be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think setting a deadline is a good idea. Should we give editors another week? PhilKnight (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Id support some form of deadline like a week, and if agreed someone should really post an announcment on all the Ireland articles so no one is left out and doesnt find out about it afterwards that leads to more disputes. There seemed to be alot more people with problems about the ireland naming issue and in previous debates than here now. I understand some have clearly had enough and a few retired because of it but i do worry there might be some who arrive at the last minute when it looks like the issue is close to resolution and cause all sorts of problems. We need clear announcments on all of the pages to try and reduce the chances of something like that happening. from the page i saw it seemed to get bogged down in long debate about arbcom, so this link isnt very clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "1 week after it has been announced"? (See Gnevin's statement above and section #Publicity / notice.) — Sebastian 01:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There were a lot of statements to get Arbcom to take the case but they did not take the case... AfD also maintains a poor show of opinions. One week is cutting it fine if you do not announce it on each previously concerned editors talk page and that is often done to provide interest in discussions like this. ~ R.T.G 11:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(Below was posted as reply to the announcement that the deadline has been reached at #Status.)

Hold on!

As I posted below, when editors were notified that the statement-taking process was open, there was nothing in that notice about a deadline. There was nothing at that time in WP:IECOLL about a deadline, and there is still nothing there. If a deadline is to be applied, then please give editors prior notice of it by displaying it prominently at WP:IECOLL. A deadline noted only in the middle of a talk page under a section heading of "Hello?" is a sneak deadline in effect, even though I AGF and have no reason to believe that it was sneaky by intent. This no way to apply a deadline.

I have specifically held off making the substantive statement I wanted to make because I wanted to read through the discussion on existing statements and reflect on them before weighing in with my own. There was there was nothing at WP:IECOLL or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements process to indicate in any way that any deadline had been set, and a

I intend to make my statement within the next few days (I'm travelling, so time is short), and I hope that there will no attempt to procedurally exclude my statement because of a hidden deadline.

For the benefit of any others contemplating making a statement, there should be clear advance warning of any deadline at WP:IECOLL#The_statement_process. Given the length of time this process has been open, I see no reason why there should not be at least 7 days notice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To add to the confusion, Sebastian has been on indefinite wikibreak since 4 March. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I had taken some time off, and when I got back I sprang somewhat hectically into action. I am sorry about the confusion this caused. There is no rush as far as I'm concerned. — Sebastian 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So what's the current situation, then? Can I take it that as of now no deadline has been set, and that there will be clear and prominent warning in advance of any deadline that is set? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes - there is no harm in suspending the deadline at least until the other two moderators get a word in. I also agree that it is only fair to ask for clear and prominent warning in advance. As a "prominent" place, I propose the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statements and the body of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements process. — Sebastian 16:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

March 31

At #Deadline for decision of the dispute below, March 31 has been proposed as a deadline for submissions. This has been seconded by several people, but opposed in the "vote" section below. — Sebastian 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote about deadline for submissions

The deadline for statement taking shall be the 23:59:59 (UTC) 31/3/2009. Please indicate your agreement below

Support Gnevin (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. The right result is preferable to the timed result. I havent a clue what is going on here. At the moment we are taking statements with a view to agreeing on a procedure. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Kittybrewster, this is not a viable alternative. "The right result" seems a highly subjective criterium to me. Or do you have a definition for "the right result" that is likely to garner general support? — Sebastian 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The right result is one that works for people. At the moment I am unclear what the statements are being made about or what happens to them. Oppose seems to me a valid response in a vote. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I would have no problem with a deadline of 31 March (assuming that it was properly notified, as Sebastian has promised above), but only if it was clear what happens next. I may have missed something, but I have seen no description of what the next step(s) involve, and it's important to clarify that so the editors know what needs to be done at this stgae to ensure that the maters which concern them are addressed at later stages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not clear about that, either. I will bring it up at WT:IECOLL/P and will get back to you. — Sebastian 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: There are no plans for further steps. I am very sorry about that. — Sebastian 18:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Please, let's get this show on the road. Everything seems to have ground to a halt.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Deadline for decision of the dispute

It appears there could be some support (per the above) for setting a deadline for a decision at the end of this process. I propose May Day 2009 - i.e. 1 May 2009. If you support setting this decision deadline, please say as much below? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2 months seems fair Gnevin (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2 months seems like long enough to reach a resolution. Ive forgotten and i cant see it on the page but did we ever decide a deadline for all statements to be completed? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall we say 31 March to end statement taking? And 1 May for a decision? Gnevin (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Id be ok with that although the statement process has been open for quite some time already and i doubt many more would be taken. Someone suggested the other day perhaps it should be 1 week after the notification messages were sent out, so 1 more week would seem reasonable to me. That gives much more time for a choice to be made and it doesnt have to be rushed or pressured. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with a deadline, and 31 March for statement taking and 1 May for a decision seems fair. One week is rushed, seeing as proper notice only went out recently. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't support a deadline for a final decision. I would support a deadline for the end of the statement-taking process, and 31 March seems fine for that, but too many issues have arisen in statement-taking for the rest of the process to be artificially guillotined. I do not know how long it will take to work through those issues, but this dispute has been going on for years. It's more important to make a decision which is clearly reasoned, and in which the issues have been considered with sufficient care, than to make a quick decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I presume this discussion is not about the deadline for submissions of statements which was agreed to be a week from the announcement, but for the overall discussion? I wrote a note about the former at #Status, please correct me if that was wrong, or if there is a consensus for extension. — Sebastian 03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your presumption is correct Sebastian. This is about fixing a deadline for a decision on the substantive questions. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re User: Brownhairedgirl's statement above - As per Sebastian, "Users have been informed 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC), deadline to submit statements was agreed below as one week after that time", i.e. 12 March - so the 31 March deadline suggested is no longer relevant. The deadline for submissions has now expired. The Arbitrators now simply need to finish considering the submissions and make their decision. Arbitrators - Could I ask you to confirm a deadline for when you will be issuing your decision? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

When did you all become March_Hare's ,are you all rushing out some where , where is the fire? The Ireland question has dragged on for years and people want to have a week for statement. Have some patience, I think the 31st is a fair deadline Gnevin (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well im ok with the 31st if thats what others want but 1 more week seems reasonable enough to me. Statements have been open over month and if we say one more week then thats 2 whole weeks since the notes went out to peoples talk pages / article talk pages. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement may been open for a month but I only informed the majority of users 7 days ago. We probably should have informed them sooner but we need to give these people time. Don't worry , you won't be late for the tea party ;) Gnevin (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

When editors were notified that the statement-taking process was open, there was nothing in that notice about a deadline. There was nothing at that time in WP:IECOLL about a deadline, and there is still nothing there. If a deadline is to be applied, then please give editors prior notice of it by displaying it prominently at WP:IECOLL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I support 31 March 2009 as a deadline for the decision. Arbitrators - Please announce what your decision is. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is 1 May the deadline ? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#What_are_the_User_names_of_the_3_arbitrators seems to indicate it is Gnevin (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As to "Is 1 May the deadline ?" - It is. See User PhilKnight's (Moderator) response below. The timetable set out on the project is now agreed. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Timetable

I added the following section to the text of the ProjectPage because, I believe it reflects the timetable agreed by the Moderators above:

The following are important dates for those concerned with this process:

31 March 2009 - This is the date after which no further statements may be made; and
1 May 2009 - This is the backstop date for this process. If a consensus has not emerged before this date, the three project moderators will close the discussion on this date.

User:Kittybrewster reverted this addition (I've put it back up for now). Am I missing something. Is the above timetable not agreed by the Moderators - Moderators, please let me know if I have misunderstood - the timetable needs to be cleraly spelled out on the project page. Thanks. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Statements are being taken - dunno about what (yet) as a result of which a procedure will be proposed by the moderators and then discussed; that may involve further statements. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As BrownHairedGirl wrote above, it makes more sense to talk about deadlines when it is clear what happens next. I brought it up at WT:IECOLL/Panel#Status; Plan on main page, but we haven't reached a conclusion yet. Since these deadlines are only proposed and not agreed yet, I moved it under the section § Currently under discussion, which is the same as we did with the other proposed procedures. I also moved them under a section § Ireland naming question as these deadlines only apply to that question not to the project as a whole. — Sebastian 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but be a bit disappointed with this Sebastian. Setting a timetable is a basic ingredient for any credible process - and its not as if 31 March/1 May was an ambitious timetable either. My humble advice is that you and the two other Moderators need to first set the timetable, then work to it - you can decide the outstanding issues after you have set the timetable. Its always impressive how a timetable helps people achieve things. Remeber too that you and the other two Moderators are the leaders here and we are all relying on you. You may need to give the other two a telephone call to thrash things out after the timetable is set. Best wishes and regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

IP Statement

Just clarifying, are IP's allowed to make statements, vote etc? I know I should have more good faith, but in something as important as this, I think its quite suspicious.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the IP to be wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/archive2#Of_voting.2C_IP_addresses.2C_and_fire who doesn't want too create a user name for some reason, I think this IP is ok but no others should be accepted Gnevin (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to AGF in the case of anon IPs, given the many bans in place on socks around Ireland-related issues. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Two completely different answers. Maybe it's best if a moderator sorts this out?MusicInTheHouse (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Allowing IP addresses brings disadvantages to the community such as that we have to deal with names nobody can remember, and that there will be possible confusion with the accounts Bastun mentions. The only argument I can see for allowing the IP editor in question would be some view of "equal opportunity", but I think this is specious since the opportunity to create an account clearly exists; in fact, I am not aware of any reason not to sign up. I would be open to change this assessment if the IP user sent me (or any of the other moderators) a reason why it is not possible for them to set up an account. — Sebastian 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the idea of an explanation is a good one, but I am concerned about the notion of it being only a private explanation. There may be elements of detail which need to be private, but if the moderators do conclude that there are genuinely pressing reasons why an editor prefers to reveal more about themselves by using an IP address than a username of their choice, then I think it would be fair for the moderators to explain this strange situation as far as can be done without breach of privacy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree as a matter of principle. Any information that a person wants to keep confidential, and that I would not have known without the person entrusting it to me, is confidential to me. Releasing that information or a single-handed synthesis of parts of that information would be a violation of my pledge of confidentiality. — Sebastian 05:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this sort of situation arises frequently, and can usually be handled quite simply with a brief generalised summary which is agreed with the person concerned. For example, if the reason is "my husband will kill me if I get so far involved in wikipedia as to register a username", summarise it as "family concerns" --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion from which I can learn a lot. I am moving it to Wikipedia talk:Pledges#Is it OK to summarize statements? and will reply there. — Sebastian 16:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong Sebastian but is this not academic now because as you said "Users have been informed 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC), deadline to submit statements was agreed below as one week after that time", i.e. 12 March. No further statements can therefore be made. Its now a question of the three Arbitrators making a decision. Above, I have suggested a timeframe. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote that statement, I assumed that the deadline was a done deal. It was only later that I realized that there are objections against it. See #Deadline discussions above. — Sebastian 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am puzzled by IP not getting a username, but submittng a statement and not becoming a member. Others have become a member but that is it. Never mind; I guess the whole process is bumbling along with feet being dragged. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So am I. I really can't see any reason for that; my intention was only to be open to any such reason. — Sebastian 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just clarifying, are IP's allowed to make statements, vote etc? This has been discussed before on AN/I ... in fact even in relation to this very debate. Of particular irony is that on that occasion the username-editor that said IP-editors should not be allowed to contribute (because they may be socks!) was, in the course of the discussion, exposed to be a sock himself. In fact the first part of that discussion is that username-editor talking to one of his socks.

I think that the idea of an explanation is a good one ... OK. Why do I not sign up? Because Wikipedia is not a social club. It is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". I don't sign up for an account because, in my experience, username-editors loose focus on the aims of the project. Their contributions to WP become a social activity and, unwittingly, their engagement in discussions and attitude towards contributions become tainted by a lack of objectivity.

It is clear to me that by not signing up I arouse suspicion among username-editors. Is there any objective reason to be suspicious of me? No. Is there any objective reason to dismiss my contributions without reference to them? No. So why did discussion of me find its way onto this page? Because username-editors don't judge contributions on their merits, they judge them by who they were made by. I arouse suspicion because you "don't know who I am" (in fact by contributing under my IP I am far less anonymous than a username-editor). Who I am is an irrelevancy, just as who you are is. It is the contribution that matters, not the contributor. I don't sign up because I don't want my judgement clouded by the same distractions that I see plaguing contributions by username-editors across the encyclopedia. --78.152.249.182 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Who you are is of course an irrelevancy; we are all anonymous here, unless we choose to reveal our real-life identities.

However, registering a username of your choice is a mark of commitment to the wikipedia project, and also a device which makes it easier for other editors to identify you (a name is easier to remember than an 11-digit number). Registering a username also ensures that your contributions are identified as yours regardless of what computer you edit under, and regardless of whether your Internet Access Provider changes your IP address (most IAPs do not guarantee a fixed IP for residential connections).

For all these reasons, IP addresses are routinely discounted in other decision-making procedures on wikipedia. I have yet to see any reason why this process should be an exception to a principle applied routinely at AFD, CFD etc; instead the IP denounces the whole process of registering a username. That argument may or may not have merit, but in substance it's a call for abolition of the registered-user system, and this is the wrong place to raise that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope (was: Remit of this process)

As I noted in my statement, I am very concerned that this process is not fit for purpose, i.e. it only defines the problem in terms of the names of two WP articles: Ireland and Republic of Ireland.

How will a decision on the names of these two articles resolve disputes about how to refer to the 26-county state in other articles; or how articles such as Economy of the Republic of Ireland should be named?
How can a wide dispute be resolved if it is so narrowly defined?
What cognisance has been taken of the Ireland disambiguation task force, which appeared to be reaching a consensus on a compromise solution that covered all areas of issue and which, notably, attracted considerably more participation by editors than this process?

What thought has been given to any of these questions? Mooretwin (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just articles. There are also hundreds of categories which use the phrase "Republic of Ireland" to refer to the 26-country state, in order to distinguish it from categories referring to the whole Island. There appears so far to be no mechanism in this process for addressing the consequences for all those categories (and for the useability of Irish categories as whole) if the head articles are renamed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may make a personal comment here: Someone complained about "feet being dragged" above, and I think the above posts are a good example how that happens: A decision is made (in this case by ArbCom as described below), and nobody says a word that they sees a fundamental problem with that. Only two months later, after some people developed a process based on that decision, someone uses brings up this problem to remit the whole process, and immediately two others jump on that bandwagon, and nobody speaks up in favor of the process. ~~This pervasive, destructive attitude is what's holding up our progress here.~~ — Sebastian 19:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe that anyone who has seen the level of BrownHairedGirl's contributions to the project could ever accuse her of feet dragging. Lucian Sunday (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested feet were being dragged towards a conclusion. Being dragged very constructively by BHG who seems to be fantastically well focused on the process. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the great reply. I suppose I misunderstood the meaning of the original "dragging" comment and remit my last sentence. — Sebastian 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not trying to remit anything, just to ensure that the process includes consideration of the consequences which a decision here will have for other articles and for categories. There is a principle with categories that they should if possible follow the naming conventions for the relevant head article if any, and if the two articles under discussion here are renamed then there will be an arguable case for a consequential renaming of the categories. When applied to articles, category names carry no explanatory text or footnotes or hatnotes: they are just bare titles. At the moment we have Category:Ireland covering the whole island, beneath which we have Category:Northern Ireland and Category:Republic of Ireland, dealing with the 6 and 26 counties respectively. This category structure intersects at many deeper levels (e.g. Category:Sport in Ireland includes both Category:Sport in Northern Ireland and Category:Sport in the Republic of Ireland as well as 32-county categories, many of which are in turn sub-categorised into ROI/NI).
Some topics have been covered by all-island articles, some by a 6/26 county split, and some by all three; this structure of thousands of categories allows for logical categorisation of 26-county articles, of 6-county articles, and of 32-county articles, and the existing nomenclature is both unambiguous and consistent with article titles. However, since some editors are determine to remove the phrase "Republic Of Ireland" from article names, we need to consider where this leaves all these categories, and what impact any changes would have on readers trying to use the category system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Yes indeed. And what we have works well. But I understand that we are not yet allowed to address whether ROI would become "the Irish country", "the Irish state" or whatever. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not our decision; it was decided by ArbCom at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names#Community asked to develop a procedure on 4 January 2009 that the goal is to solve the problem of "appropriate names for Ireland and related articles". Since then, there was ample time to raise an objection, but I'm not aware that anybody did so before we decided on this process. — Sebastian 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The way these things are decided is rather obscure from my perspective and I suspect the perspective of most WP editors. I don't recall being given the opportunity to object at that time. Mooretwin (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your objections with the ArbCom process, but that is something you have to bring up with ArbCom, not here. It seems to me the process at ArbCom provides for people to make such statements, and you made use of that opportunity already. I'm not sure if your statement contained that point back then, if it did and was not understood then you don't need to ask for permission to speak: We're all humans here (except for the bots, of course), so if you really don't know what to do, you can always leave a message on an arbitrator's talk page; there has to be at least one of the committee that you trust enough to take such a fundamental concern seriously.

As far as we are concerned, we have to go with the ArbCom decision. If you really feel the decision was wrong then it seems like Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_general_clarification is the right place to bring this up. — Sebastian 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the scope of "appropriate names for Ireland and related articles" cover Mooretwin's concerns rather well? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It can be seen to cover it. But it can also be read differently, as those of us did who took it to mean only very few articles. In hindsight, it would have been better if we had started with an agreement on the scope of this effort. — Sebastian 18:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What about a proposal that hasn't been submitted here yet?

(This was originally a continuation of a comment at #Remit of this process above.)

That said, I think you did good work at the task force, and your proposal there met no objection that goes beyond the level of mere "contradiction" in WP:IECOLL#Graham's pyramid. If it also addresses the concerns you are raising here, then I feel it should have a good chance of being adopted here. — Sebastian 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying it could form part of the outcome of this particular process? Mooretwin (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would hope so. The process has to be decided by all moderators together, but I feel any good process needs to allow for such an unrefuted plan to form at least part of the outcome. — Sebastian 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I add, from what I can see Mooretwin's proposal did not gain complete consensus and as that was so long ago and due to the fact consensus can change, I think only this process should count towards the process of solving this problem. That is why we are doing all this statement taking in ultimately!MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my previous statement was misleading! I thought that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyMooretwin was the same as his Proposal for an all-encompassing solution. Indeed, that proposal needs to be proposed here according to WP:IECOLL#The statement process in order to be considered; we as moderators can not admit any proposals through the back door just because we like them. — Sebastian 18:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the same! Why do you think it is not the same? Mooretwin (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I see that now. The reason why I thought it was different was the preamble that you added. — Sebastian 18:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is constructive it should be welcomed no matter how, where or when it gets into the wiki. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course we want to include all good ideas here. But I regard it as part of my task as a moderator to insist on the agreed procedure. ~~It shouldn't be so hard to just put it here.~~ — Sebastian 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Off topic text added by Purple Arrow was removed from this section by SebastianHelm. For the original text see [1].

What are the User names of the 3 arbitrators

I understand there are three arbitrators mandated to make the decision. What are their user names? As I have not hear any response from them on this page re a deadline on this process, I would like to post the question on their respective user pages. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

~~Top of the page, in the green box.~~ Sorry, I thought you were talking about the moderators. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There aren't 3 arbitrators mandated to make the decision, there's just the 3 moderators. PhilKnight (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

PhilKnight - Are these the three moderators?

SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) (Moderator)
PhilKnight (talk · contribs) (Moderator)
Edokter (talk · contribs) (Moderator)

I appear to be a bit muddled. I originally thought this was an arbitration process and that at the end a binding decision would be made. If they are not Arbitrators but Moderators - Does that mean they cannot make a decision but merely act as moderators in facilitating yet more discussion? Perhaps you could give me a steer on what this process of posting "statements" etc will lead to. If you are one of the three Moderators, perhaps you could give us your view on the deadline dates proposed above (31 March and 1 May also). Thanks. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Redking7, yes the moderators are SebastianHelm, Edokter, and me. The process originated with an ArbCom decision, however neither Sebastian, Edokter, or I, are arbitrators, although we are admins. My view is the role of moderator here is to facilitate discussion, and at the end of the process, close the discussion, in a manner similar to an admin closing a debate about deleting or merging an article. There's some discussion over at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel about how the moderators are going to close the discussion, however if all this sounds somewhat vague, that's because we haven't worked out all the details yet. Lastly, I think the overall deadline of 1 May is about right, and I'm ok with giving until 31 March for statements. PhilKnight (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for setting the deadlines (although the one for making statements has apparently already expired - see Sebastian's notes above). But frankly, my initial scepticism has, it appears been found to be entirely correct. This is just another discussion forum - no decision will emerge from it - you three are moderators and will have no mandate at the end of this process to make a decision. Lots of editors appear to be under the delusion that this process will lead to a decision "one way or the other" on the IRL/RoI dispute. Clearly, all you three are going to do is facilitate yet further discussion. I will try to let other Users know this so the wider community is not under a delusion (I know some are are). Thanks. Redking7 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Regards.

Redking7, the deadline for statements has not expired -- re-read the sections above.

As the closing of the debate, PhilKnight did not say that the mods had no mandate to make a decision. AFDs, CFDs etc are supposed to be closed by the admin weighing the arguments rather than vote-counting, and PhilKnight's comparison with XFD processes implies that the same practice is intended here. However, in the discussion at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel I see Edokter talking of vote-counting ("a poll") rather than argument-weighing, which is just about the worst way to conclude any decision-making process on wikipedia. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That was just a brainstorm. We look at every method possible to establish consensus. — Edokter • Talk • 01:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration another ruse?

By way of clarifying matters, I asked a number of questions re the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration on the project's talk page. Some editors (me included) suspected that the process was just a ruse to to stop the "disruption" caused by the RoI/IRL dispute by pretending that a process is in place to resolve the conflicting viewpoints. While it might be unfair to call the process a "ruse" (it is well-intentioned) - the process has little prospect of resolving the dispute. It is simply a discussion forum with three moderators. The three moderators have no authority to make a decision. Broadly, they view their role as facilitating discussion and then closing the discussion. For editors who are frustrated with current Ireland article naming arrangements, my advice is not to simply weight for the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to make a decision as a substantive decision is not in their mandate. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think, to the extent it describes the remit of you and the two mediators etc, is a fair summary of things? Am I missing anything? Thanks again. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a mandate to "establish a procedure" that will help the community in reaching consensus. But if these procedures fail, the procedure could well mean that the moderators decide the outcome. I just hope it doesn't come to that. — Edokter • Talk • 01:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redking7 seems to think that "closing the discussion" is some sort of passive act. At AFD and CFD, it is far from that: the closing admin takes a pro-active role in weighing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks BrownHariedGirl and Moderators - Yes, I did misunderstand "closing a discussion" - It sounds like the moderators will be able to make a substantive decision on 1 May after all. Well I am glad to hear it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for result, other articles

I thought we were meant to be keeping the articles stable as they are now and only make changes when the result here has been decided. However, over at Irish nationality law User:Blue-Haired Lawyer has ignored me reverting here potentially controversial changes as I said we should wait for WP:IECOLL to finish. The page said Ireland and the editor has changed this to say Republic of Ireland. I reverted this a couple times over the past few days, thinking that it was standard practice to wait for this to be over until making changes. He/She continues to revert and I'm not sure what to do? Does this process have any affect on what the articles are saying now? Were my reverts justified or is he/she perfectly entitled to change Ireland to Republic of Ireland at this stage?MusicInTheHouse (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

All editors are encouraged to pledge to no more than 1RR per day . I believe articles should stay at their current titles till IECOLL has made a decision ,there is no point in having move/terminology discussions all over the place Gnevin (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a title though, this is prose in an introduction. Blue-Haired Lawyer has broken 1RR, I have not but I'm not sure what to do in order to keep the article at its stable version.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I am sympathetic MusicInTheHouse, I think BHG is "perfectly entitled to change Ireland to Republic of Ireland at this stage" etc at this stage. This Project process does not even have an agreed timetable at the moment. It is hard therefore to expect Users to buy into this process - After all, who knows how long this will go on? It would not be realistic to expect Users to end "editing as usual" in the (indefinite?) interim. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

In the last two weeks, I have been trying to take a wikibreak. When I saw how many people put their effort here I felt bad about it and came back a couple days ago. But I feel my hands are tied. I had accepted the moderator role because I thought we could use the kind of reason based mediation that I’ve done successfully in the past. When I was unable to convince the community of the benefits of that approach, I readily accepted a different plan. I now realize that that was a mistake, because that plan fundamentally differs from my approach and my values, and I feel like a round peg in a square hole here. I therefore believe it is best if I hand in my resignation as moderator here. — Sebastian 18:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why with all the drama? You're not required to do much. You just have to help make a decision on what to do after all the statements have been made. How is resigning going to help anyone here? I think you should put a stroke through your above post and get back moderating.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here? I don't remember any approach being rejected let alone anything "reason based". Also I think its very difficult when you commit to a process to back out at this stage without first finding a substitute. --Snowded (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it is difficult to back out, and I value commitment - that's why I kept hanging on. But please remember that this is a volunteer outfit. I have put other things in my life aside for this, Wikipedia has become an addiction, and I need to reclaim my time.

By the other approach, I meant what I called "reasonable consensus" here and in other places. I do admit though, that I never presented a consistent plan for that. I wanted us to build up the plan from basic agreements. I got agreement on Graham's pyramid, which made it onto the main page, but it has no relation to the current plan. In fact, the current plan, by explicitly ruling out rebuttals, diametrically contradicts the very aim of the pyramid of refutation. I went along with that because I thought there was a bigger plan, but I see now that that was a mistake. To answer MusicInTheHouse's statement "You just have to help make a decision on what to do after all the statements have been made". If there is consensus that all that's needed is a team of unbiased arbitrators to pick and choose from among the presented proposals, then I will be happy to cast my vote; but I have to get used to this idea; it's not what I had thought was required of me, and it doesn't square well with my preconceived notion of what's fair. Also, I want to add that I have put in much more time than MusicInTheHouse seems to think. Work others do always seems little. — Sebastian 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I volunteer for many things, I hope I don't back out without finding a substitute. I think the statements of fact is going well, but what is now needed is for that to be summarised to identify issues and confrontations (that needs a small independent team but critically needs someone with knowledge of the politics of this) and present them for creation of evidence tables and then move to make decisions. That small team could be appointed representatives of the different parties (active editors) or outsiders. Overall there has been so much drift here and what is really needed is leadership. Given Arncom's knowledge of Irish issues (the Troubles and elsewhere) I think we all assumed they had appointed someone who would have been comfortable with the (shall we say) difficult environment here. From what you have said above and elsewhere is was not fair to ask you to do it. In your shoes I would ask one of Arbcom members who knows about Irish issues to drive the next stage --Snowded (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe then you're smarter than me and you simply don't volunteer for commitments without knowing how long they would take, or for jobs that are so hard to sell, that finding volunteers itself is a full-time job. You said it was unfair that I was asked, but I think it's hard to find people that are more qualified for this job. One reason that this job was so hard to sell is that it is very restrictive in the conditions about applicants: Candidates have to be administrators to begin with; which is not a practical necessity, since so far I think none of us has ever used any admin privileges. On top of that, canditates have to be interested enough to participate for months, but get rejected when they actually edited Ireland related articles. This is the squaring of the circle!

I share your value that if you make a mistake, it's not simply enough to say "I'm sorry", but there is an obligation to minimize the negative effect. That said, I don't really see a negative effect. I've held all along that we are too many moderators. I think the leadership problem you mention is a direct consequence of that. I have held a leadership role for two years (minus a wikibreak) at WP:SLR, and can tell you first hand that it's hard to lead here. The difference is not that Irish people are more antiauthoritarian or more argumentative than Sri Lankans, or that the disagreement is deeper rooted in the country's or Wikipedia's history: The difference that makes leadership here hard is that we are three people, who've never met before, and have to work together for months, towards a backdrop of continuously changing situations, such as the one brought up in the previous section. Nobody would head an army with three equally ranked generals. I asked a professional mediator, who said she'd never have accepted such an assignment.

That said, your idea of asking ArbCom is good; I will do that officially. — Sebastian 00:15, March 19, 2009 (UTC)

Done - no reply so far. — Sebastian 16:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's understandable to feel that the current approach is a mistake. It has no means to reach a decision. It's slowness is, however, useful because of the cool matter-of-fact nature of the statements. Before, arguments were pilled in on top of each other. We Irish are excellent at rhetoric, the current process pins us down to logic. What is necessary to move it on is dialectic. If we allow free discussion we'll find ourselves back at rhetoric again, so let's keep the current non-rebuttal system, but move on to a rebuttal stage. By this I mean one where those that stated their opposition a current statement statement, state why below it (keeping Graham's pyramid in mind). Then editors can state that the support or oppose the rebuttal, but without engaging in a rebuttal of the rebuttal themselves (in the same way that we don't allow discussion below the statements now).

I know that this is a very slow process, but slow is not necessarily a bad thing. We want a conclusion we all can live with. If it takes time, so be it. I don't see a Wikibreak of two weeks being anything to worry about during that sort of time frame. --78.152.238.198 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points! I'll have to think about that. — Sebastian 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My idea behind the non-rebuttal process was exactly that; to stop the piling up of arguments. Anyone sane trying to deduce consensus from that would go mad. I agree that slow is better then nothing at all. Sebastian, I hope you reconsider. — Edokter • Talk • 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will give it some more thought. If we proceeded with the IP editor's proposal then I can imagine there will be a moment at some point when more moderators are needed. I'd be happy to come back as an assistant moderator to assess the rebuttals (or "refutations", as Graham calls it) - similar to WP:3O. — Sebastian 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The value to this exercise in the contributions from the level-headed User:BrownHairedGirl are immense. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a long time ago that she be asked to lead and structure the debate and her statements indicate an ability to do that. --Snowded (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Moderators - Timetable please?

Can we take it that the Timetable which has been labelled "under discussion" for some time now is agreed? This is a question for the Moderators. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a rough consensus the dates are ok. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with a closing date of 31 March for the taking of statements, but I still have some doubts about it in practice because its unclear what comes thereafter. Setting a closing debate for the rest of the process seems to me completely wrong at this stage, because there is not yet (so far as I can see) a clear statement from the moderators of exactly what further stages are needed to complete the process.

After all this time, I can see little merit in rushing any further stages of this exercise. From all that the moderators have written, it seems that the process they are applying is a somewhat novel combination of various approaches, and I suspect that even they are unclear aboiut where some of the further steps will lead us.

Rather than applying some arbitrarily-chosen deadline as a final cutoff for the whole process, it would be much better for the moderators to now say clearly that there will be no final deadline set at this stage. If this process is going to create the sort of coherently-reasoned answer that the moderators have been seeking, then they will have to be clear that the process will be completed when all necessary stages are complete, however long that takes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

concur, lets have a deadline for each stage (31st march for statements seems fine), then go step by step. If nothing else its not clear who is running this show! --Snowded (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I too concur. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I Concur as well. — Edokter • Talk • 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. "I have no problem with a closing date of 31 March for the taking of statements, but I still have some doubts about it in practice because its unclear what comes thereafter." I will clarify: Statment process closes. Moderators (the three of them, chosen after all, as independent persons) will decide if a consens has been reached. Clearly, no consensus will have been reached (in that regard, see the statements made to date). The 3 Moderators will then have a full month to consider the statements that have been made and make their own deliberations. Then they make their decision on or before 1 May 2009. What is unclear about any of this? Its a very simple process. Re being against "applying some arbitrarily-chosen deadline as a final cutoff". The real deadline (1 May) is certainly arbitrary but without it this "process" could needlessly carry on forever. Indeed, those attacking these not very ambitious deadlines are not even suggesting alternative deadlines....just let the process "run" and "run". The Moderators (3 persons) have to make a decision. There is no reason why a full month after statements have closed is not enough time. Without a deadline, the process has no credibility. Moderators please agree your position on the exact deadlines and set them out here so we can move on. Redking7 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see the position among the Moderators is:

All support the 31 March for end of statemnts.
Support 1 May final deadline - PhilKnight;
Against setting a final deadline - Edtoker;

Sebastian - You are the last Moderator whose position I am not sure of. You appear to have the casting vote. Are you with PhilKnight or Edtoker? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I gather Sebastian resigned as moderator. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

unanimity or majority??? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the hurry Redking7 (but it's not just you)? After more than 3 years what's another few weeks, or even months if we get a solid solution? Hang loose man. Let the moderators tell us what their timetable is instead of having people pushing all the time. That is a part of the problem in the first place, people always attempting to fix this issue quickly and it never succeeding. Apparently people have forgotten what patience is? ww2censor (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so there's a consensus for the 31st March date, but not for the 1 May final deadline? PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the 31st of March but i dont think we need to set ourself a limit of one month after that to resolve everything, it puts more pressure on everyone. I think what happens after the statement deadline passes is more important than setting a deadline to complete everything by. Have the mods agreed what will happen after the statements are all in because i dont understand or know what happens next. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (to PhilKnight). Also RedKing7's statement does not reflect the process as I understood it so some clarification would be appreciated. --Snowded (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The only problem for me setting a deadline for May 1 is not knowing the next step in the process. We need to think about the next step. Once we know what to do, then a deadline is fine. — Edokter • Talk • 13:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Edokter/PhilKnight - I am disappointed. A credible process has deadlines. Frankly, not having them is makes the process a joke and no one has given good reasons why there should not be a straightforward timetable. Also you mention that "we" - need to figure out the next steps etc in the process. My suggestion is this - you and PhilKnight need to decide things - not we. This is essentially the Three Wise Men procedure (though we are down a man at the moment - I've nominated myself below!). The three Moderators assess the statements and make the decisions. As always, my simple practical suggestions (like having a deadline and Moderators taking leadership) will presumably not make me popular but there you go. Keep in mind also that one Camp in this debate is very happy for no decision to issue - after all they want the status quo to remain - so appeals for "more time" (as if it was needed) should not be seen as necessarily impartial contributions. Only those who want change, like me, want a decision. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Redking7, I dislike the assumption of bad faith in that comment: I don't see anyone here arguing that there should not be a decision. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that a) some editors want no decision to be made, and b) that the moderators will choose a particular course of action for the next stage. I personally do want to retain most of the status quo, but I also want a clear decision from this process to settle the issue and produce a workable and stable solution. What I don't want is a decision rushed against an arbitrary deadline, because that runs the risk of producing an outcome which lacks the clear basis for a workable and stable solution. I think it's a great pity that you have repeatedly chosen to cast this process as some sort of ruse to buy time.

As to the "moderators take statements then make a decision", I have not seen such a process agreed by the moderators, who have discussed other options. I dislike the way that you appear to be to be trying to railroad the moderators into that option, because it seems to be only one of the possibilities at play. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that I have "repeatedly chosen to cast this process as some sort of ruse to buy time" etc. I think that is unfair. I think my notes on this page have asked fair and probing questions that have pointed out where the Moderators are failing to give leadership right now. I have encouraged them to take the lead and make decisions - about things like a timetable - things that will make this a more credible process. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Third moderator

I formally propose that User:BrownHairedGirl become the third moderator in place of Sebastian. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

She has my Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose User:BrownHairedGirl being chosen as a moderator. A moderator, as I understand it, is supposed to be as non-partisan and independent as possible. Clearly BHG holds (as she is entitled to) clear and strong "partisan" views on the substantive issues - so I do not think she fits the criteria for being chosen as a Moderator on this topic. If "partisan" candidates are being welcomed, then I nominate myself (though I admit, like BGHG, I am not impartial nor independent). I suggest there must be a procedure in place somewhere for picking independent moderators. Edokter and Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose, don't know anything about BrownHairedGirl but I saw she has made a statement on this process, I think best to try to have somebody that has not been involved incase that is used as an arugment against the final outcome of this process. --T*85 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very flattered to have been nominated, but as others have noted, I do have strong views on the substantive issues. So I think that I would not be a good choice as moderator, and that it would be best for the moderator to be someone from outside these islands.

AIUI, the moderators were appointed by ArbCom. So shouldn't the task of appointing a replacement for Sebastian be entrusted to ArbCom? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I withdraw my candidacy as well and agree that only genuinely independent persons should be picked as Moderators. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For further clarity, who is the third moderator? Is Sebastian still on board? If not, may we have a Lord High Substitute? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not a moderator anymore. After some people encouraged me to reconsider above, I wrote that I would do so; but when another moderator took me off the list, it made my decision easy. — Sebastian 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I think the next thing is to appoint a third moderator. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What happens after the statements

Just curious what happens after the statements? I had been following the process up until a few weeks ago, what I am confused about is what happens between March 31st & May 1st? I have looked at the statements and it appears people for the most part agree that "Ireland" is disambigious but many of these statements are open to interpreation. How is the process going to come to an end? How are you going to measure the votes of the statements when there appears to be no simple way of doing that? --T*85 (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re "Just curious what happens after the statements?" - Normal procedure, should as I understand it, apply - The 3 Moderators take some time (I suggested a month but the timetable was rejected) to make a decision. No further involvement is required by non-Moderators after 31 March - we should just wait for the 3 moderators' response. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How is that 'normal'? I have to say that that was not clear to me before the process started. In fact, non of the process has been very clear to me. Looking back at ArbCom, the suggestion was that the moderators role was to facilitate the decision making rather than to make the decision themselves. Fmph (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand what happens after all the statements are in but it would be nice to know. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, then we all make statements about what should happen next. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes then we can all make statements about everyone elses statements =) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

More on IPs

There have now been 5 IP addresses which have in some form participated in this process.

I'm guessing that one, two or three of these are the same editor who's made a statement and who has been around for a while but refuses to register. But what about the other two? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful, if a returning un-registered user, would inform us of his/her previous involvement. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The IPs that want to be involved but are unprepared to Register should sign all their statements with a name or code just so we know whos who and whos saying what even if its just IP-A or IP-B BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous. There is no need for some magic code, because there is already a perfectly straightforward mechanism by which an editor can demonstrate that they are the same person who made earlier comments: register a username. No persuasive arguments have been put forward against registration, so the simplest solution would be ignore comments from IPs. Let's make this simple: if someone wants to participate, they can register a username, and use it; but registration means no voice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Those contributions were are made by three different people. 78.152.-.182/163/197 (me) connects with Vodafone, which is a DHCP connection, thus the different IP every time. 86.44.111.162 is Eircom and 78.16.4.12 is BT.

On the other hand there is no way to determine if Blue-Haired Lawyer/GoodDay/BritishWatcher/BrownHairedGirl (or whoever you are/choose to call yourself today) is not one and the same person without performing a CheckUser ... which, and I'm sorry to demystify it, means simply checking if he/they contribute from the same IP range under different usernames. With us honest IP folk, you get that for free every time.

Lose the paranoia and concentrate on contributions not contributors. --78.152.249.17 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So, the IPs concerned are dynamically allocated by a mobile telecoms company, which means they could be used by anyone passing through a given area. That means there is no way of knowing whether the edits from that IP pool even come from people resident in or staying in the area, so the contributions history of those IPs tells us little. By contrast, the checkuser process is a lot more sophisticated than you give it credit for ... and if you have any reason to believe that Blue-Haired Lawyer/GoodDay/BritishWatcher/BrownHairedGirl are one and the same person, then please hop along to checkuser and lodge your request now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem isnt that they may be the same person using different IPs on purpose, its that we dont know for sure whos who. The 86.44 is clearly a different person but 78.16.4.12 and 78.152. are not that much different and could have been considered the same person, we shouldnt have to do whois check ups to find out its a different person. So where is the harm in IPs who want to contribute and are unprepared to register, to just include a code at the end of their comments, like IP-A for 78.152, IP-B for 78.16 and IP-C for the 86.44 guy. That way we all know whos who and their past contributions without having to check up on all the different IPs and without those IPs having to register an account. I dont mind them not registering, but each IP contributor needs a nickname or code so we know whos who. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What you are prposing is effectively that the IP editors choose a name, but don't register it. What's the point in that? Anyone can use that name, and because it's unregistered there is no way of checking who is using it.

We have a straightforward and simple registration system which takes care of all this. Why indulge those who choose not to use it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Beside which, it seems the anonIPs wish to remain anonymous but fail to realise that the majority of registered users still remain anonymous by choosing a username that does not identify them personally. So we should ignore all non-registered posts here for the reason mentioned above by BHG and others because the very reason used to remain anonymous is still preserved by registration. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Until the rules are changed and registration is mandatory contributions from ip's should not be ignored. Be honest everyone, how many of you contributed to Wikipedia before actually registering a user name? Jack forbes (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a few contributions before registering, but as soon as I realised I wanted to get more involved and wanted to be able to join in wider discussions, I registered a username. That's all that's being asked here: the anon IP is quite entitled to edit as an anon, but anon IPs are routinely discounted in debates on deletion or policy, because of the risk of vote-stacking and/or sockpuppetry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that having a username makes for an easier time on wiki for everyone involved, but until the rules are changed it has to be lived with. The problem as I see it is, if for example there is a straw poll or discussion that could decide consensus and a number of ip's are involved they would be ignored for the reasons already given. What is to stop a number of these ip's from taking it further and objecting to this, because as far as I know there is no rule to say an ip's opinion is any less important than a registered users. Jack forbes (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not so much about the importance of editors opinions, more the old dictum of 'Vote early and vote often'. Oh dear, I've gone and used the V word. RashersTierney (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There's one thing, that's certain. The IP(s) will never create an account & sign in. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BrownHairedGirl that this is becoming ridiculous. Wikipedia is set up to allow IP editors for a reason. If you don't like it, go to Citizendium. (This paranoia is similar to the sock puppet scare.) — Sebastian 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it, but I accept it. I know the IPs-in-question, will never register-in. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to drag this out because it is not ridiculous. The issue is not whether anonIPs should be have to register or not; they don't have to and that is unlikely to change. The issue is whether we can trust the statements made by similar (or even completely different) anonIPs are made by different people or by the same people because we know that registered users statements are from distinctly different individuals. We don't know if one or more anonIPs are trying to sway the opinions here by making multiple statements; maybe that is the case, maybe not. If we could somehow verify each anonIP statement comes from different individuals there would be no problem. Until then anonIP statements are a problem that I think should to be addressed in some way. What that way is I don't know but forum shopping may indeed be going on here. Besides discounting the statements of anonIPs I don't know of any verifiable solution. ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What I object to, isn't that there are IP participating in discussions, or even making statements, but rather that two IPs: 78.16.4.12 and 86.44.111.162, seem to have sprung into life solely for the purposes of voting. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above replies, I realize I came across the wrong way. I didn't mean to criticize anyone here in particular. I believe the sock scare is a collective hysteria; once a critical point is reached it's hard for any single editor to swim against the current. I believe what should count is not who says something - which would be rather futile, given that everyone can hide behind any user name they choose anyway - but what people say. Why make our life complicated? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, so I decided to refer to any IP editor simply as "an IP editor". — Sebastian 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Life gets complicated when some IPs are very similar. obviously it doesnt matter when we see one with an 84. IP and one with a 78. IP, but if we have two editors that have 78. IPs it would be nice if we could tell them apart for sure. Its not a case of thinking either of them are lying but it would just be easier if we always knew for sure which were which. Until the IP commented, i thought we had just two IPs one with the 78 and one with the 84, i didnt know there were two different IPs starting with 78.

It would also help if IPs would be listed on the members list. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Life gets complicated"? It's not that you're a hapless victim, like someone struggling to survive the Great Famine! It's your own choice. IP editors only make your life complicated if you choose to differentiate them. As I said, you can make it easier, if you want to. — Sebastian 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that when a proposal for mandatory registration was brought up it was rejected. and not for the first time. Not many users actually took part in the discussion I saw, but then if it was advertised throughout wikipedia that the debate was taking place it would probably be seen as forum shopping. Jack forbes (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All this talk about registration not be compulsory (and sod-off-to-Citizendum-if-you-don't-like-it) is a red herring. Anon IPs can edit, which AFAIK has always been the case, and it will continue to be the case unless a decision is made to change things. (Although anons are no longer allowed to create new articles)

But the reason this is a red herring, is that we are not discussing here the editing of articles. This is a decision-making process affecting a huge number of articles, and it seems to me very surprising that we are not following the rules of XfD debates, where IPs tend to be ignored, or of Arbcom elections, where IP contributions are struck out altogether.

Can the moderators please explain why they want this process to be be more open to IPs than an XfD debate? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I'm not a moderator anymore; my word has no more weight than yours, or probably less, since I have not been active in Ireland related articles. I take "edit" to mean any action where you click the "edit" button, unless otherwise specified. One notable exception is voting, since it would create problems with counting the same person twice. I don't see such a fundamental problem in the case of proposing a solution or making a statement. That said, there are some inconveniences, as I pointed out earlier, such as having to refer to a statement with an awkward name such as "Statement by 78.152.253.163". That could be overcome by renaming statements to names that are independent of the proposing account. That would be a good idea, anyway, since it would help people focus on the proposal, not on the person. — Sebastian 21:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The red herring is discussing whether IPs should contribute or not. This purpose of the discussion on this page is supposed to be to reach a decision on where to located two articles. (Another red herring is to say that that would affect "a huge number of articles" because those issues are covered by the long-standing consensus agreed over at the WP:IMOS. That consensus is beyond reproach.) Please take it to User:Jimbo Wales if you have a problem with this being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (as opposed to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit so long as they sign up").

The basic principle that is being missed is that we are not voting. RashersTierney mentioned above that he fears that IP contributors (by benefit of DHCP and other technologies) can "Vote early and vote often". That might be a genuine fear ... if we were voting! We are discussing (the hint is in the text on the tab above). There is nothing to fear from "Discuss early and discuss often".

BrownHairedGirl, you mention areas where IP !votes are ignored. You mention Arbcom elections. There, IP contributions are ignored. IPs are ignored in Arbcom elections (and RfA elections) because - guess what - they are elections ... votes ... democracy ... where the fear of "vote early and vote often" is real and justified. IP !votes are routinely ignored in XfDs also because routine practice is for closing admins, without knowledge of the subject matter, to simply look to democracy when they make their decision.

If it is democracy you are after then the matter being discussed on this page has been voted on time and time before. Time and time before the result of those votes has been to keep the status quo. This page exists because some editors are unhappy with the result of the democratic decision. We are past democracy. We are not voting. We are discussing. If you have issue with a statement that was made please comment on it here. If you have issue with who made as statement (or that you don't know who made a statement), take it to User:Jimbo Wales because it doesn't belong on this page.

What might help, is if the moderators could point to 'what happens next'? If that is made clear then it will be visible to those editors with concerns that "vote early and vote often" is a non-concern. (the IP that has has posted here often before [78.152...., ...]) --89.101.215.249 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

IP, if you bothered to read what I wrote, this isn't about IPs being able to edit wikipedia. This is about IPs participating in a dispute-resolution process where a) people are asked to support or endorse statements, and b) everyone else has been asked to sign up to sign up to a few simple commitments relating to conduct. If an editor is not prepared to adopt a stable and unique identity for the purpose of this process, then both these crucila points are undermined. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it is stupid and unproductive that IP editors do not have to sign the members list. Although i do agree with IP89 about finding out what happens after the statements are complete would be useful. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is undermined so long as contributors comment on the contribution not the contributor. Whether an editor has an account of not bears no relation to the merits of their contribution or teh value that their perspective can bring to this process. Now, can we please get back on topic? --89.101.215.249 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the topic for this section of the talk page. We are still waiting to find out what happens next so whilst we do that perhaps we should address the fact that IP editors have not signed the members list? I dont have a problem with IPs contributing as ive said before but they should sign the list so we can atleast check how many there are. Until one of ur previous comments i thought there was just two IPs but apparently theres 3. Those 3 should atleast sign the members list so random IPs dont pop along weeks down the line. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"For this section of the talk page" ... the question is should it be on this talk page? Regarding membership of the project, [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/archive3#Publicity_.2F_notice|I brought that up before]] but got no adequate response. In any case, participation in this process is no more restricted to "members" of the Ireland Collaboration project than it is to contributors with an account. --89.101.215.249 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You did get an adequate response; it contained a pertinent question which you chose not to answer.

Back to the topic, I completely agree with your point that people should focus on content, instead of the user name. As I said before, the inconveniences can be dealt with. That said, you could more easily resolve all inconveniences yourself by signing up. It is a reasonable desire of any WikiProject, or, for that matter, most social organizations, to be able to address its members with an understandable name. By insisting on having the benefits of membership without accommodating to a reasonable request, you are not just making a point, you are making a WP:POINT. — Sebastian 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What now?

Statements have closed, but nobody seems to be clear about what is happening next.

Please could the moderators explain what their intentions/plans/idea/whatever are to move this process on towards a conclusion?

There may not be a complete plan in place, but it would help enormously if the moderators could give some hint about where this is all going. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Agreed. I made a suggestion in this regard before. From what I can see it is the only suggestion as to what to do next. --89.101.215.249 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly some people dont even think the statement process has closed yet. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Only one person, AFAICS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No the deadline has passed. There was clear consensus for this; why the sudden issue with it? Rules are rules you had plenty of time to do another statement.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it had passed and i thought everyone agreed it had passed until the recent added statements. Looking back at the actual talk page and the project page it was never officially announced. The project page simply says currently being discussed so perhaps the statement process isnt closed?

If its not then im going to be adding a statement - This process is a complete mess BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MusicInTheHouse, you just reverted the addition to the index page of my statements, without apparently checking their creation dates: the first was clearly within deadline, the other one was 30 seconds over, but per WP:BURO that's no reason to remove it. I have reinstated them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

PS the "one person" I was referring to above was Domer48 (talk · contribs), who second statement was created 20 hours after the deadline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't the Moderators "close the discussion" - there was no consensus....so now its time for their decision. Its as simple as that....No mystery...No "next steps"...They simply need to "close the discussion"....It makes a farce of things that there is no timetable for closure. Its not as if there has been any substantive discussion on this page lately....Very few postings were even made this past week...Its simply time for the Moderators to "close the discussion" (i.e. make up their minds on what the result is). Moderataors, your silence is letting us down. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been no discussion. Just statements. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was away for the day, and also involved in a dispute of my own. Now that we have the statements, I'm going to call the mods into the panel and discuss what happens next. Please stand by. — Edokter • Talk • 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just made two further statements after the deadline (though I didn't realise that when I made them, of course). A moderator can feel free to remove them, if they like, I will not protest. Rockpocket 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Two points: (1) editors can still endorse/oppose statements or remove their endorsements/opposition; (2) there are some statements with very high or unanimous levels of endorsement. We need to take those forward. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When there is no sign of any decision having been made on what the next steps of the process should involve, let alone of it having actually started, I see no useful purpose in disallowing the post-deadline statements by Domer48 and Rockpocket. This is not a bureaucracy, and if either of the statements have something to add to next steps, it would be foolish to exclude them. Personally, I don't think that they add anything useful, but I'm sure that many would feel the same way about some of the statements made before the deadline (maybe including mine?), and the purpose of the statement process was put evidence on the table to allow it to be assessed. If the evidence added since the deadline does have relevance, how does it help the process to exclude it? And if it's not relevant, what harm does it do?

We'll have to have a cutoff eventually. But in the absence of any other activity from the moderators, I don't see how a rigid adherence to this deadline would help anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We also need a third moderator. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this process, as I understood it, was the address the three individual problems that need to be resolved. I have consistently made the point that an evidence based process is doomed to failure. There has been mountains of evidence offered over the preceding years, but how much value one puts on any given line of evidence vs another is entirely arbitrary, and varies greatly between individuals with different perspectives. We all know what the evidence is, we simply disagree on how much it matters in the face of opposing evidence. Therefore I offered a rational, pragmatic solution based upon the premise that a compromise solution that is acceptable to almost everyone, but favorite to hardly anyone, is the only solution that can ever reach a stable consensus. One doesn't need evidence to reach that conclusion, a simple appreciation of the positions of the opposing camps is sufficient. Rockpocket 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rock, we also don't need evidence to see that ambiguity exists because the name of the state is the same as the name of the island, yet we have statements here demanding that evidence. Your compromise proposal is, so far as I can see, just a variant on all the other proposals which do not start from the primary importance of using as a name for the state a clear, unambiguous and non-contrived term in plain English. I'm sure your intentions are good, but I think that your proposal just creates a different form of mess to the other alternative messes. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Its ashame that when we agreed the membership terms we didnt also have people agree to a few basic core facts which no sensible person can dispute, There is a country called Ireland and an island called Ireland, we might of got somewhere if wed all agreed that simple fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is true that my proposal only addresses the name of the article and there would still require a discussion on a clear, unambiguous and non-contrived piped term, for distinguishing between the state and the island in articles. Rome wasn't built in a day, however, we solve this article title issue and then move on to that one.

This whole issue is a mess and I'm certainly not claiming my compromise proposal is perfect. For example, ONiH makes a very good criticism which would need to be resolved somehow. But here is bottom line, BHG: the aim was for this to be resolved by a consensus of interested editors, and my proposal (or a variation thereof) is the only one that has any chance of achieving that. We could go with the ROI solution, which you elegantly argue for, but that decision will not satisfy a reasonable proportion of interested editors. No matter how much evidence you provide for it being an accurate alternative, it will not override its perceived offensiveness for some. There simply is no quantitative way of comparing these disparate lines of qualitative evidence, so you are never going to convince a person who does consider it offensive. I said this before this process started, and its now even more clear a few months later: Either we all put our primary preferences aside and be willing to accept compromise or else we put this in the hands of a third party and let them make a decision for us. There is clearly no other way. Rockpocket 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket, it's very simple: I just want a solution which actually works, and you make no attempt to claim that your solution works. I'd be delighted if we could find an alternative solution which worked, but so far every proposal other than Republic of Ireland creates a bundle of big new problems. I'm astounded that you seem completely unconcerned by them, and that on my talk page you have denounced my "intransigence" for insisting on a practical solution.

Please think that through. If everyone in this process was intransigently insisting that whatever solution was implemented was a practical one, we'd have resolved this years ago. So it seems that what you are really saying is "please let's choose an impractical solution" just to end this dispute. I hope I have misunderstood you, but that's how it looks.

I think, though, that you are right to emphasise that the problem here is the "perceived offensiveness" of "Republic of Ireland" for some editors. I find that position bizarre, which is why I have suggested that editors should have a space to explain why they take such offence. It may be that we have here a gaggle of Irish monarchists, in which case the offence would make a lot of sense, but since that seems unlikely I'm curious as to why the prefix "Republic of" is such a shocker. This is what I posted about below, the elephant in the room: it's why this process became necessary, but it's the only thing we are not discussing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A space for explaining the elephant in the room

Having read all of the statements, and the discussion thereof both the statement talkpages and on user talkpages, I am still left puzzled.

One of the things that is very clear from this process (as well as from previous discussions) is that many editors feel very strongly that calling the state the "Republic of Ireland" is a terrible and offensive thing. Personally, I share that outrage when the state is called "Southern Ireland", but I don't share it when it is called the "Republic of Ireland" for disambiguation purposes, and the gap between the different personal reactions to these names underlies the strong feelings expressed in many places.

It has been important that this process is evidence-based, but the focus on evidence has prevented any explanation of the passions which this issue arouses. I think that a lot of light could be shed on this process by providing a space for some sort of personal "essays" in which editors could express in whatever way they like their own feelings on the subject, and/or their own understanding of why passions run so high.

At the moment, I feel that the absence of this material is like the elephant in the room; a central factor which may not be part of the problem-solving process, but which when unacknowledged weighs down on everything else. It seems to me that a lot of the discussion would make much more sense if editors were able to express some of these passions. Some of the material so far appears to me to be a rational expression of deeply-held views whose basis may not be so clear, and this has led in many places to speculation about the motives of other participants in this process (e.g. here).

It seems to me that rather than having this sort of speculation happening in corners, it would be much better to provide some space where editors could express their own personal feelings about the issues involved. My suggestion is that this should be a statement-only process, with support or oppose section, to serve purely as a place for editors to express their own views on these issues whether, those are based on evidence or on gut reactions. I think that if this turned into a debate or discussion, it could be destructive, with labels exchanged for pejorative purposes ("partitionist", "unionist, "imperialist", "nationalist" or whatever), so it might be best to ban discussion on the talk pages of any such statements. what I am suggesting is that editors should be able to explain their own feelings, not attack those of anyone else.

I am aware that this suggestion risks personalising the process, but so far as I can see that has sadly happened long ago, which is partly why we are in this mess. :(

None of the speculation I have read about about the motives for supporting the use of "Republic of Ireland" comes remotely close to the Tone or substance of my actual views, and I for one would much prefer to be able to put my cards on the table than to watch others speculating. Similarly, I would welcome some explanation of why passions run high amongst editors who take a different view to me.

I have drafted something myself, but will not post it unless this idea (or some variant of it) is approved. May I ask the moderators to consider this idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Constructive proposal. I agree. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm i thought that is what most of the current statements were anyway. It was basically people expressing their views and people agreeing or disagreeing with them. There was very little "evidence" provided in the process most of which has already been done in the run up to gettin ARBOM to hear the case. I do not think another statement process is a good idea because at the end of the day you will end up with the same people voting for the same points of view as they did before, its just delaying matters and creating more work for after the statements close.

I have no idea how we move forward now which is why that should of been agreed before the statement process was opened in the first place. Sadly the only way this matter was going to be resolved in my opinion was a vote allowing people to pick 2 options or rank all choices in order. This would of removed the two positions that some people feel strongly against and resulted in a reasonable compromise to both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not suggesting any sort of vote on these statements -- quote the contrary, I think it would be a very bad idea. Nor do I think that anything else need be dependant on this exercise, so it needn't hold anything up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know u were not suggestion a vote but i think thats the only way this matter is going to be resolved unless the Mods simply pick which option they think is best. Seeing a full statement on peoples views would be interesting i just dont think its going to make the result come any quicker or make it any easier. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A vote will not resolve anything, neither will moderators picking an option. Best to spend time as necessary, We need to get the statements summarised and I think it would be useful if BHG extended her statements by way of summary? Getting a series of statements including what is held not to be acceptable and then allowing the essays is a good idea. --Snowded (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The deadline for Statements ended some days ago. User:BHG - Why are you adding new suggestions etc - Why did you not include them in your statement. Wasn't that the idea of the statement process? Its now time for the Moderators to assess the statements and close the discussion. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Snowded and BHG are 100% right. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Redking7, the statement-process was evidence-based, so I stuck to that. My suggestion here is for something else.

Snowded, what do you mean by "extended her statements by way of summary"? I know that sounds like a silly question, but extending and summarising are usually different processes, so I'm a little confused. Maybe you could spell out what you have in mind, 'cos I think I've missed something :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Sorry I should have been clearer. Many of the statements represented a "position" and we had the usual agreements and disagreements. Yours on the other hand was a series of shorter statements, some of which said the same thing in slightly different ways which had the potential to allow a solution to emerge. In asking you to extend that I was in effect asking you to complete the process by summarising elements from the other statements. --Snowded (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob, I see now what you mean.

I set out a substantive position in my two later statements (second statement and statement on 2.1); the idea of the first set of propositions was to see if we could establish some baseline facts to work on. My idea was to try a further set of such propositions building on the first ones, but I didn't pursue that idea.

I shied away from it, because I didn't think it would achieve anything, having been astonished and rather depressed by the outcome of the first attempt:

Two editors don't believe that the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 does what it says on the tin. It's one of the shortest and simplest Acts of any Parliament that I have come across, yet two editors don't agree that it does what it says.
Two other editors don't believe that the "Republic of Ireland" is not the official name of the 26-county state.
One editor believes that it was false to say in 1798 that "Lough Neagh is a lake in Ireland". (was it on a gap year in China at the time?)
5 editors disagree with the proposition that "An event which happened in Belfast in 2008 could accurately be described as having happened in Ireland"
3 editors disagree with the proposition that "A person born in the Bogside area of Derry in 1950 was born in Ireland"
5 editors believe that Omagh is no longer in Ireland

I'm afraid that the main conclusion I draw from that bit of the process is that a non-trivial number of participants in this process have either parted company with reality or are playing some sort of game; I'd like to find a more benign explanation, but I can't see one. That impression was further reinforced in a discussion on my talk page where one editor involved insisted that the huge number of uses of the phrase "Republic of Ireland" in Acts of the Oireachtas and in statutory instruments is not a "name", but a disambiguator+name ... yet if wikipedia uses that phrase to disambiguate an article title, the same editor insists that it's an inappropriate name. Elsewhere, another editor insists that evidence is required for the assertion that "Ireland" is an ambiguous word meaning both the 26-county state and the 32-county island.

So at this point, I don't know what's going on. I haven't seen you doing any of those things, Snowded, so I'm sorry to appear be throwing this back at you. That's not my intention, but I am hesitant about putting any more energy into trashing over the details when there appears to be something strange going on in quarters. When 5 out of 21 people disagree that Belfast is in Ireland, I don't see how we can possibly reach consensus on anything more complicated.

So far as I can see at this point, ROI is widely used around the world, including in Ireland and by the Irish govt whenever a distinction needs to be made between the state and the island. The only coherent objection I can find to its use is that the UK govt used to insist on using it for all purposes, even when no disambiguation was necessary, causing long-standing offence ... but much of the rest of what I see in the statement process is a series of elaborate (and deeply flawed) efforts to come up with other reasons to underpin a basic position that some people don't like the name because of the way it was misused by the UK. If it wasn't for that, I seriously doubt that we would have five Irish editors banishing Belfast from Ireland and (in Proposition 12) three editors defining Martin McGuinness as non-Irish (I chose 1950 precisely because it is his date of birth).

With such a wide reality gap, no wonder the moderators are staying away!

So I dunno. Snowded, I appreciate your willingness to work for a solution, but I honestly don't see how a reason-based process can work when such outlandish stances are being taken by a significant minority of participants. Have you any ideas? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the essence is in your summary of statements and the various responses. One way is to take each one and modify a bit, I disagreed with you one for example not because the statement was wrong, but because it failed to record subsequent context in the use of the term (The UK Government use of it and the GFA agreement to use Ireland) which is one area where we may disagree. That said I don't object to ROI for disambiguation in limited circumstances if the article is renamed, most of the time I think the context makes things clear. So an additional statement would allow me to say yes on that one. I think the same could happen with the others, to the point where nonsense was clearly exposed as POV editing. By the way the idea of a loch being on a gap year in China cheered up an otherwise depressing Sunday in thunderstorm plagued Singapore so thank you for that. Coming back to the subject, we could ask those editors who reject a proposal to make a secondary statement as to why. That would allow subsequent refinement until we got to a series of statements that have clear majority support. I think that is stage one, it needs support of the moderators and if it takes another month then so be it. --Snowded (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Demand to stop

Re. BHG -"Redking7, the statement-process was evidence-based, so I stuck to that. My suggestion here is for something else." - The statement process was where you should have set out your "suggestions". You appear intent on reopening discussions. We could all start setting forth our "suggestions" (just as we have already don on our "Statements" and in many many previous discussions) like you appear to be intent on doing. Lengthy discussions could ensue. But thats not the process that was set up here. The statement page was where you should have set forth your "suggestions". Why didn't you set them out there? Please respect the process - the statement process is now over. The deadline has expired. I for one do not want to have to discuss your "suggestions" or have to engage in making "counter-suggestions". We had ample opportunity in the statement process. Note to Moderators - Have you abandoned this project? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Redking7, please calm down.

Yes, the statement process is now over. The moderators will be the ones who decide what happens next, and I am making a suggestion of something that might help the next stages -- it will be up to the moderators to decide whether to pick up on the idea.

However, the evidence-based statement phase was not the place to set out suggestions on the process by which this should be taken forward. Suggestions on process belong here, just like your repeated demands for the moderators to brong the whole thing to a close right now. Those are legitimate here, but would have been inappropriate as part of a statement.

I can see several ways in which this process could proceed, and no doubt there are other possibilities I haven't thought of. You have your view on what should happen next, but right now you give the appearance of trying to shout down any other ideas. I hope that I have misread things, but that's how it appears. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with BrownHairedGirl. There was a proposal to have 2 deadlines, of 31 March for statements and 30 April for the overall process, however only the the 31 March deadline was accepted. In my understanding, the deadlines weren't merged, it was just the second deadline wasn't accepted. PhilKnight (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Ireland_.28the_sovereign_country.29_naming_issue. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Leading on from BrownHairedGirl's comments on the bizarreness of some of the voting, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyMooretwin (Problem 2.2) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRockpocket (Problem 2.2) are essentially the same. However, Kittybrewster and MusicInTheHouse have endorsed one but opposed the other. I think perhaps "!voters" need to read statements more carefully before leaping to endorse or oppose, and would urge everyone to re-visit the statements and change their endorsements/opposition where appropriate. DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Some of the !votes made during this process simply don't make any logical sense. People are !voting because they don't like the question (or the questioner) rather than addressing the specifics of the statements themselves. Rockpocket 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit one of !votes is wrong. I miscalculated the context of the statement and it wasn't brought to my attention until now. My talk page is always there if people are a bit confused by something I've done.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement Process is Over - Moderators Action please

Moderators - The Statement Process is over and there is no further substantive role for us participants - When will you close the discussion? Please do not allow the process to disintegrate into yet another unwieldy discussion where every one makes yet more "suggestions" etc. We all had our opportunity to make a Statement. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Moderator action ... next step

It seems relatively clear where this needs to go now. The statements of the most involved editors have made it clear what the options are. There are now two things to do: 1) Launch a binding (as far as the ArbCom ruling allows) community poll on article locations; 2) depending on the result and based on the involved user statements, devise terms that govern how each article will be linked, disambiguated (in text) and how sub-articles will be named. The matter of the disambiguation page will be clear from the result.

1) We should take Talk:Gdansk/Vote as the model for the article name poll. On this model

i) the Island of Ireland (currently at Ireland) should be called:

Ireland

Ireland (island)

ii) the state of Ireland (currently at Republic of Ireland) should be called

Ireland

Republic of Ireland

Ireland (state)

In the case of Ireland being the most/more popular location for both, the option with the more votes wins and the one with the lesser vote number takes the next down. In the extremely unlikely event of a tie, either the island gets it (force of default) or the community is repolled with that one remaining question (use of the page Ireland), with resultant location being determined by the next more popular in the first poll.

2) As is clear from the Danzig poll, options about the specifics of terminology can be clearly polled, though there may be no need as it already seems like there is rough consensus on some points. The statements made already should make it clear what the questions needing to be asked are, though I won't make suggestions on this point for now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

60 million people in UK versus 4 million in Ireland? I don't think so. If a vote is going to take place then a Irish vote should count for more than a vote from a UK editor based on population and I think that is stupid. The moderators of this whole thing screwed up. The statement process is over and yet nobody knows what is going on. --T*85 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To secure the vote gets the legitimization necessary to secure stability, it has to be widely advertised, precisely so contributions are not limited to one geographical area. This is what made the Danzig vote so successful. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This should not be decided by !vote but by weight of arguments. First thing is to have three moderators. Second is to ask for statements concerning feelings. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To have a vote is to make a mockery of the whole process. Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV not the bigger numbers gets their way.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not a popularity contest - it should be an accuracy / npov comparison ClemMcGann (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Will this never end? Jaqian (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking? No. There'll always be editors who'll disagree with which ever namings are decided for the 3 articles-in-question. Wiki life would've been easier, if the Republic would've chosen another name for itself. Then again, Northern Ireland could've chosen to be named Ireland aswell (YIKES). GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight guys, you want this to be decided by the few most committed members and deprive the general community of a say and a chance to make their own conclusions about the statements? No no no. The arguments are clear, and exclusive on both sides. The only way to decide it is with numbers anyway, so why count only the numbers who happened to turn up here. This won't secure a respected decision. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, British & Irish editors should be barred from participating in such a vote. That way Political PoV accusations, would be nulified. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure both sides would agree that's fair, but totally unenforceable (i.e. you can't verify the nationality of users). The national bias I suspect is only partially accurate, partially tendentious. Seems to be an internal island of Ireland thing as much as anything. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Outsiders are needed. Those of us who've been in the thick of the Naming discussions (these last few years), are collectively guilty of ownership. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If we were going to have a vote, we could have done so ages ago, but for all the reasons set about above it's a very bad idea. This process was launched by the moderators as a reason-based process, where contributions would be assesed for their importance and their relevance to the core problem; if that principle is to be be abandoned now, then we have been wasting our time with the statements.

I look forward to the moderators' assessment of the view that Lough Neagh was not in Ireland in 1798, that the ROI Act 1948 does not do what it says on the tin, and that Martin McGuinness was not born in Ireland, as well of the editor thinks that evidence is needed that the word Ireland may mean either the state or the Island, and all the other bizarre notions which have been advanced in apparent seriousness by editors. Maybe we should have a whip-around for some headache cures for the moderators?> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've formulated the options now and now, if it wasn't before, it is clear what we have to put to the community. The statement process was carried out pretty much because they didn't really know what else to do. But you can't go forward with this without putting it to the wider community. The users here are not representative of the community, but represent only the most extreme and committed element of it in relation to this topic. GoodDay said it above. I do not accept any process that avoided doing that would result in a legitimate change. Thousands of redirects and links are going to be changed, and only then with the majority of the community hear of whatever coup has taken place here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I had misread your proposal as being a poll of those who showed up here, including the Lough-Neagh-not-in-Ireland brigade ... and I think that would get us nowhere.

However, since you are proposing a wikipedia-wide poll, I think that may be a better idea, since it does seem to have settled some other disputes. It would certainly be much better than a poll of the 30 or so people who have signed up to this process.

But for any such poll to work, I think it needs clear statements setting out a case for and against each option. Those statements could either be drawn up the moderators (if they still exist) from the statements so far, or be drawn up the supports of each option. If it's done in either of those ways, then the statements process won't have been wasted.

In fact, the more that I look at this, the more I think a broadly-advertised poll will produce the most stable outcome, because it will have the widest support. If we do follow this path, how can it be widely advertised? Could we have it linked from one of those hideable boxes which appears at the top of each page? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as the 2 moderators are going through the statements now, they'll be well placed to draw up summary arguments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good news. Let's see what they come up with.

Any chance of a last-minute compromise solution along the lines of Gdanzig? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It going down at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Panel. The Gdanzig is obviously the best next step. The result of the latter vote has led to years of stability, when originally it was an issue even more disruptive than this one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have invited User:Chris_73 to become 3rd moderator. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kittybewster, I'm sure that was a well-intentioned move, but I'm not sure it was a good one. Chris_73 may well be a great person (I don't think I know anything about Chris, but I am AGFing that ze is an intelligent and objective person who would strive to understanbd all sides of an argument) ... but tensions are running so high around this issue that if any IECOLL participant were to nominate this guy or this one or even the sandal-wearer, they would fall under suspicion because of who proposed them. I do think that since arbcom established this process, arbcom should appoint a replacement for Sebastian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw he led the gdansk stuff and I have never heard of him so i reckoned he would be impartial. But he has declined on grounds of time. I wish arbcom would get on with appointing a third person. Maybe they don't know sebastian has stood down. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether Sebastian or any of the other moderators has actually notified arbcom that they need a new moderator? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Yes, here. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Phil. Pity that there's still no sign of a response from arbcom. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

On disambiguation pages

Doesn't it appear from the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Panel that a disambiguation page has the least resistance? Could we not try to work on this and see if we can come up with something? Maybe a short version of the statment process where people give their arguments for or against a disambiguation page and people can vote to support or reject their arguments. This way people have to give a valid reason why they would object to a disambigation page. My opinion is that a vote where we try to get people who might not know much about the subject to vote should be a last resort.--T*85 (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This was supposed to be an evidence-based process rather than an attempt to find the line-of-least resistance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any evidence available that will satisfy all of the editors involved. So how can it be an evidence based process when people choose to accept or reject, or interpret it this way or that, based on their own opinion? Also a disambugation page it is not only an attempt to find the line of least resistance, it is an acknowledgement that both sides have valid arguements and that the island and country share the same name and it is not possible to come to a conclusion which should have precedence. --T*85 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The first vote should be whether to have a disambiguation page or not - then we can decide exact article titles. A result on a vote on using a disambiguation page is almost already known anyway; all of the statements back up the fact that there's ambiguity and neither article is more important than the other.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so. There are indeed only a few people who deny that there is any ambiguity, but a significant number of editors have argued both that the broader, longer-term article (which currently covers both Ireland up to 1922 and the geography of the island) is a more important article. There is also the option of the Mick McNamee solution, and a binary choice on whether or not to have disambiguation page obscures the other options.

As I noted before this process began, the order in which questions are asked has a bearing on the outcome ... so the best way of avoiding such structural bias is to put all the options on the table together, as Deacon of P proposed above.

There have of course been arguments made on both sides, and the two sides are unlikely to satisfy reach other. That's why it would be much more effective to put the proposal before the wider community, who can see what they make of the evidence collected. Don't forget that the process which led to the Good Friday Agreement was achieved by the heavyweight participation of uninvolved parties -- Bill Clinton and then George Mitchell. In a wikipedia context, we have already seen how the Gdanzig question was settled by a wider poll of the community. Why not do the same here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is what I'm thinking about. Voting doesn't equal consensus. Talking about the problem such as what we did with the statements I think is better. With voting, the island could be moved to "Cloud Cuckoo Land" if enough people voted for it. Editors could be put off because random members of the community could come in with no real knowledge and just vote for their own POV. Editors who have put effort into this Ireland Collaboration Project mightn't accept that leading to exactly what we don't want: a disputed result.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A few posts ago you were arguing for a poll, now you say that "Voting doesn't equal consensus". Have you changed your mind, or does voting=consensus only when it is conducted amongst a small self-selecting group?

We were promised a reason-based promise, and that's what I signed up for. I for one certainly won't accept the result if it is to be resolved by a head-count of a small group which includes a significant minority of editors who advance daft propositions such as that Omagh has not in Ireland since partition, Lough Neagh was not Ireland in 1798, that the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (which has been neither repealed nor amended) does not define "Republic of Ireland" as the description of the state, that Martin McGuinness was not born in Ireland, and ven that there is no ambiguity in the term. That's no basis for a stable decision, so either we leave it to the moderators to assess the evidence or we put it out to the wider community for a poll to assess the quality and strength of the arguments put forward by those of us closet to the process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

The easiest thing to write is that Martin McGuinness is from Northern Ireland, and Henry Joy McCracken was from Ireland. I think we are getting too complicated on this. My solution is to treat everything to do with Ireland, as being Ireland, right up to present day. That is, except for the 6 counties that left the consensus, they should be treated as Northern Ireland from 1922 to present, and that is in fact where Martin McGuinness was born, and it's also where Stormont is, and Lough Neagh is in Northern Ireland too. -- Ireland the state, which controls a vast 85% of the area, which can claim to be the title-holder of the Greater Irish Nation, gets primary use of the term. So the nation goes from Early Irish History right up to 2009, in the Ireland article. For geological purposes, there does not need to be a "Ireland" article, the article can be labeled "Geology of Ireland", and the heading can say that it includes all of the Island of Ireland, ie including both Ireland and Northern Ireland. The labelling of the articles will not solve the naming difficulty, this can only be solved by finessing the application of information into a set protocol. There is no other solution, mark my words on this one. PurpleA (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Purple Arrow, this proposal could be of interest to you. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)@PurpleArrow: No other solution? You gotta be joking.

"Martin McGuinness is from Northern Ireland" might be the easiest thing to write, but it's not what many people accept -- and it appears that many of those who object to it are those who also want "Ireland" to be the article on the state.

The article on Martin McGuinness currently says that he "is an [[Ireland|Irish]] [[politician]]". I suggest that you try changing that to "is a [[Northern Ireland|Northern Irish]] [[politician]]" and see how many milliseconds it takes for your edit to be reverted.

Whether from a Republican perspective or not, the status quo in the McGuinness article works because Northern Ireland is in Ireland -- a statement which makes sense only if the primary meaning of the term is somewhere in the nexus of the island and/or the historic unpartitioned nation. But if the primary meaning of the term is defined to mean the 26-county state, then this is wrong, and we will logically have to apply the phrase "from Northern Ireland" to all the articles on republicans in North Ireland. How do you think that's going to go down at Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism?

As to the historical situation, you seem to be suggesting that we should write [[Henry Joy McCracken]] was from [[Ireland]], linking to an article on a state which didn't exist when he was alive and whose territory does not include the area where he was born and raised.

For all that has been written in this process about the Good Friday agreement, this idea seems to me to fly right in the face of that, by subsuming the history of Northern Ireland pre-partition into the history of the modern 26-county state. We don't appear to have any unionists involved in this process, but I can imagine them having a few choice things to say about that.

There is a much simpler, more straightforward solution: to follow the example of the Irish government itself and of the international news media by calling the 26-county state the "Republic of Ireland" whenever disambiguation is required, and leave the name "Ireland" to retain its primary historical meaning as a term referring to the whole of the island of Ireland and its people and its history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to BrownHairedGirl; It would be upsetting to both Republicans and Unionists alike if my proposal was adopted? It must be a good proposal then. My basis of understanding is that Ireland the nation/state is the same Ireland of 800 years ago, when it were so rudely interupted by the next door neighbours. Don't get me wrong, history is history, and what happened happened, and also I have Irish, English and Welsh blood flowing in my veins. So this has nothing to do with national favouritism on my part. My point of view is that Northern Ireland left the Greater Ireland, and that Ireland is the very same country as it was 1,000 years ago, much the same way that Wales, England and Scotland are too, and that Ireland is "not" a new state, it's now 32 counties minus 6. My purpose here is to offer a workable solution to this naming difficulty, your solution is the only other workable one, and the second best one available. PurpleA (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But from a unionist perspective, it's the 26 counties which left, not the 6. Your entitled to your POV, but there is an opposing one, and there's no need to choose between the two views, and if we are following NPOV we shouldn't choose between them.

By keep the present structure of having Ireland as the name of an article in the island throughout its history, with separate sub-articles on the two modern states as well as on all the previous states, we have a neutral solution which doesn't need to define who left and who didn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Still think ROI or Ireland(State) are a fudge. Nobody is going to be satisified by either of those choices, apart from a handful of fringe editors. PurpleA (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest this thread is discontinued? The whole point of the statements process was to avoid this sort of threaded discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Jaw jaw, is better than war war"! Anyway, I can see why you want it ended [2], but I wasn't reading that in the discussion boards. PurpleA (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re BHG's "I look forward to the moderators' assessment of the view that Lough Neagh was not in Ireland in 1798" Is Hohhot (a city of about 3m) in Mongolia? Yes - but not Mongolia! Is Arlon in Luxembourg? Yes - but not Luxembourg!. Is Pago Pago in Samoa? Yes but not Samoa. Is Bouganville in the Solomon Islands - Yes but not in the Solomon Islands! Now lets put the question again - Is Lough Neagh in Ireland? - Yes but not in Ireland - Why should places in Ireland be treated any differently to those in Mongolia, Luxembourg or Samoa? A bunch of countries have geographic sounding names that do not correspond fully with their borders. Ireland is no exception and should be treated no differently to the others. Here we are, the process has crumbled and we are back to our own arguments again - or "suggestions" as some would phrase it. MODERATORS - You have let us down. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blame Arbcom for not having the guts to take responsibility and resolve this matter or atleast set the framework themselves, its really not the moderators fault for this mess which they didnt have to volunteer to get involved in. Some of the people do not help though, when certain people refuse to even accept that theres an Island called Ireland as well as a state called Ireland, its clear to everyone no method is going to make people happy or end this dispute. Only half a dozen bans from wikipedia will probably resolve it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, I thought the Moderators had the authority to "close the discussion", i.e. make the decision. Am I wrong? If they have the authority, they should make their decision. Redking7 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom have the ultimate authority and they could of sorted this mess out but they chose not to. Instead after weeks of taking evidence to get them to even hear the case after years of dispute, all they did was say to people.. Go and sort it out urself. Perhaps it should just be handed back to Arbcom with a little note saying "your problem, Fix it". BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

@Redking7: what I was trying to do with those propositions was to gather pointers to the different ways in which people us the word Ireland. Please look at them again, carefully, because I deliberately mixed ambiguous statements in with unaimbuous ones.

For example, take my proposition 8, which I worded very carefully. It says, in full:

“

The following statement was true in 1798: "Lough Neagh is a lake in Ireland"

”

That statement is true if the reader believes that their preferred primary definition of Ireland, from those available in 1798, includes Lough Neagh. That was 120 years before partition. So far as I am aware, partition was not even a glint in anyone's eye at that point. (Plenty of other big things were on various agendas, but not, AFAIK, partition). So forget Mongolia or anywhere else: please explain what sense of the word "Ireland" that was in use 1798 was Lough Neagh not in Ireland?

Or consider my proposition 11, which I worded very carefully. It says, in full:

“

An event which happened in Belfast in 2008 could accurately be described as having happened in Ireland.

”

It doesn't say "can only be described as having happened in Ireland". It very deliberately doesn't say which possible definition of Ireland (island or sate or historical nation) is being applied, but the sentence is structured in such a way that it is false only if the observer believes that no definition of Ireland which they would consider in 2008 includes Belfast. (It is similar to dealing with a person X of Spanish-Australian dual nationality: it is true to say that "X is Australian" and true to say that "Z is Spanish". Both statements are incomplete, but neither is false)

So those who opposed proposition 12 are asserting that that there is no definition of Ireland which they accept that includes the city of Belfast. They evidently don't believe that the word Ireland can in 2008 mean the island, not even as a secondary definition.

The same applies in reverse to Proposition 13, which reads in full

“

When Ireland was partitioned under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, Omagh ceased to be a town in Ireland

”

. Proposition 13 is true only if partition created a situation where no definition of Ireland includes Omagh. Now maybe some people believe that, but 3 of the five people who support the notion that Omagh is left all senses of the word Ireland in 1920 also supported Proposition 6, that "The official name of the state is the same as the name of the island". So the only conclusion is that either HighKing, Jeanne boleyn and MusicInTheHouse genuinely believe that in 1920 Omagh was physically removed from the island of Ireland, or they are not thinking coherently about what they are saying on this subject.

I could pick these contradictions apart further, but those points illustrate what concerns me about this process. Several participants either believe something bizarre or aren't thinking carefully about what they are saying, yet here we have Redking7 popping up to studiously miss the point again.

That's why I'm so concerned that a headcount of those of us close this issue will not produce a stable and workable answer, and why we need wider community involvement to assess the evidence presented so far, and why its is wrong to use a headcount of participants to exclude options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow I cannot believe just you said I was not "thinking coherently" because I was not thinking like you! Sorry but that's quite arrogant. Did you stop to think about how the context of the statement might explain how several people disgreed with it? Did it pop into your head that when discussing things of a political nature that using terms like Ireland are also viewed are political and therefore 'Ireland' becomes the sovereign country in the context? With editors like you accuseing people of bad faith and/or downright stupidity, its no wonder its taken so long for this to be sorted out.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

An accusation of bad faith is an easy way out, so I'll ignore that bit.

What you are saying, though, appears to be that after 1920 a contemporary use of the word "Ireland" has to be read as meaning the 26-county state, and cannot be read as meaning the island, even when that defines Omagh as being outside Ireland. I find that astonishing, because Omagh is still part of the Island of Ireland (can we agree on that?)

Article 2 of the constitution as adopted read "The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas" ... and Article 2 as amended by the 19th Amendment reads: "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation"

So even if you were referring to the sovereign state, "Omagh is in Ireland" was false in the from 1937 to 1998 only if you reject the original Article 2, as many unionists did. Do you reject the original article 2 as invalid claim?

Or do you believe that it was the 19th amendment, a consequence of the Belfast Agreement, which booted Omagh out of Ireland? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that using 'Ireland' in a political statement gives someone the means to interpret it in a political way. Politically Ireland is the 26 county country (thats a fact), while geographically Ireland is the 32 county island (also a fact). It's quite simple. It has nothing to do with my interpretation of an act or the constitution.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So when anything political or legal is mentioned, Ireland is magically redefined to exclude the whole of Northern Ireland?

The statement refers in any case to 1920. There was no state called "Ireland" for another 17 years. So if the 1920 Act removed Omagh from Ireland, where did it put it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ireland isn't magically redefined to exclude the whole Northern Ireland. It's defined by law; namely the Irish constitution and I'm sure some UN legislature as well. Ireland is the modern name for the Irish Free State which was the name of the same state after partition. So when the island was partitioned Omagh did indeed cease to be a part of the country whose capital was Dublin.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

BHG - Following your logic, should Wikipedia rename the Mongolia article? Should Wikipedia rename the Luxembourg article? If not, why not? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Unlike MITH, I'm not surprised at BHG's response at name-calling anyone that disagrees with her opinion, or the emotive language in the arguments, etc. In response, I believe that BHG is failing to accept that the context of a sentence is often taken into consideration (as it should) in order to interpret meaning. In proposition 8, Ireland is used in a geographical context. In proposition 11, it is used in a political context. My answers are consistent with accepting "Ireland" as the name of the state - I would argue that BHG's usage fails to take context into consideration and is not consistent with using Ireland as the name of the state. --HighKing (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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?

Which would lead to Martin McGuinness being born in Ireland (disambig)? Dublin was in (historical country) and is in (state)? Belfast was in (historical country) and is in (island)? (state) gets created when there is no encyclopedia in the world with an article with such a title and RoI already exists?

Incidentally why is the moderators page on the talk page and not on the project page? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, KB, that the option with most support amongst participants is the one that you outline, with all those logical flaws. That's why I hope that the moderators will stick to the plan which they announced to participants and on the basis of which I (and others) signed up to WP:IECOLL, of using a reasoned process to sift arguments, rather than than just doing a headcount among participants. Thereafter, once the various bits have been weighed, the results of this evidence-gathering process should be put before the wider wikipedia community for them to decide on the merits of it.

If the wider community agrees that Lough Neagh is not in Ireland and that Martin McGuinness was born in (disambig), then so be it. But such a far-reaching set of decisions should not be left to those with the most entrenched views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "historical country" alternative is very undesirable IMHO. It would just create another page to war over. Surely the article, history of Ireland is the place for this anyway? And may I ask, why are they still producing travel books about this country if is so "historic"? (Maybe because the Ireland they mean at the Rough Guide as the same as the one we mean at Ireland?)

I also think we need some discussion about the disambiguation page proposal. I don't think it's possible to tot up endorsements for statements that contained proposals as endorsements of those proposals. I know that I endorsed statments that proposed to dab Ireland. I did so because I endorsed the statement as a whole, but not necessarily every part of them in particular. --89.101.234.155 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, there were statements which supported an outcome I like, but where I didn't support some of the reasoning along the way. Some of the statements raised a lot of issues, and it is not surprising that editors resopnded to those statements in a variety of ways. So trying to extract a single conclusion from statements is a bad idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're becoming vocal now that the consensus looks like it'll be against what you want? Please stop telling the moderators what they're doing is wrong and let them do their job. They are the neutral party and they know what they're doing. Let them sort it out.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AGF?

I am being vocal because the moderators do not appear to be following the principles set out when editors were called upon to join this project, and because the moderators have provided no explanation of how exactly they are arriving at the support and oppose numbers which are set out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Totals. That's no basis for ruling options in or out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)