Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Distorted poll - a shambles

It looks like the poll is distorted. That's what happens when it is only advertised in the United Kingdom. It should have been advertised in all of the European countries. This poll is a complete shambles, and should be declared "null and void", sorry to have to say! Tfz 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pity - perhaps inevitable - one of the problems with wikipedia, I suppose ClemMcGann (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This afternoon i actually came close to supporting a compromise, but this evenings actions have certainly changed my mind on that. The UK wikipedians share the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland.. this involves them. We have published the advert to this poll in many locations, on country projects / European projects this is not all British editors. You should of argued more earlier about adding places to the list, however i see no justification for other European countries projects to be notified.. this has nothing to do with those articles.

Considering about a month ago you made a grand exit from the collaboration project, it does not come as any shock you would be unhappy with the vote and reject it. However i think you are declaring it null and void way too early, this is only day 3 or 4.. theres another 38+ days to go yet and its far from clear that F will win. We are using a system that makes it very easy for one of the other options to overtake F in the final round. This isnt won / lost yet. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, it's heartening to hear that you were considering compromise. I'd like to reiterate my position. It's true that "Ireland" is a controversial name for the article about the State. Some people feel very strongly that that is the wrong name for the article. But so is "Republic of Ireland" controversial: some people feel very strongly that that is the wrong name for the article. This is the crux of this seven-year-long debacle. That's why Ireland (state) is a good compromise. It's accurate; it uses the formal name of the State; it contains a disambiguator. The best solution, I have come to believe, is to avoid trying to name the article either Ireland (my own preference) or Republic of Ireland. -- Evertype·✆ 06:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The UK wikipedians share the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland.. this involves them." unquote. Partly true, the naming of the island would have special interest to UK Wikipedians. But that's where I draw the line. It is not the exclusive interest of UK Wikipedians what the state's article title is. Wikipedia is extending a privilege to UK Wikipedia over Ireland Wikipedia in this case, and it is one of the most disgraceful episodes I have ever witnessed here. Tfz 12:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the very idea that United Kingdom wikipedians would not be informed about this matter disgraceful. If this was only involving the state then ofcourse its only for Irish wikipedians. We have options on this ballot paper which seeks to combine the island and the state which does not control all of it.. i find that disgraceful, the state claiming ownership over the whole island and its history.. unacceptable. Like it or not, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, matters impacting on the whole island of Ireland impact on UK wikipedians, can you not understand this? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry BritishWatcher, I just cannot let you away with this. You are distorting my reasons for objection again, and in all fairness you are continually doing such, and I am not quite sure that this is deliberate on your part or not. What I am talking about is an "exclusive" privilege given to United Kingdom editors in the naming of sovereign Ireland. This is a totally and absolutely abhorrent situation in that UK Wikipedians outnumber Ireland Wikipedians by a ratio of 15/1. We all know that the United Kingdom has a pov towards Ireland, 700 years of citations to prove it, and this biased polling situation is totally unacceptable. Tfz 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Im not distorting your reasons, i am stating my reasons why i think its totally wrong not to inform UK wikipedians. This is not only open to British and Irish editors, wikipedians from other countries are contributing and some are also voting for F. We all know the history between the people of the British Isles but a negative view of Ireland or Irish people doesnt apply today so i dont quite understand how all these British editors are somehow going to want to impose their views just to annoy Irish people.. They are voting that way because they know it as an acceptable term, its an acceptable term for the Irish government so i dont know why its not allowed for Brits.

The UK does have POV towards Ireland today, its a positive one not a negative one. Irish people are the only non commonwealth citizens who may run for office here, or become a lord. We have open borders unlike with the rest of Europe. As far as im concerned most here would view Ireland far more positively than we view most if not all other European countries. The past is over, move on. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep on distorting my objections, and now you are bringing 'straw men' into play. I'm not quite sure if you are doing this on purpose or not, but you continually do this. This issue will remain, and I intend raising it again when I have some more free time. Tfz 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well i am comfortable with the fact UK wikipedians project was informed, it seems only right as it involved part of the island the UK shares with the state. The UK project was not slipped in under radar.. I went out of my way to ensure that we were all clear what places would and wouldnt be informed. We had a debate about this on the collab page ages ago. To not inform UK wikipedians would of been clear bias. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"To not inform UK wikipedians would of been clear bias." unquote. But BritishWatcher I am not saying that. Tfz 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good the right choice was made then. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You almost cracked me yesterday Evertype u really did, you make a very good case and are convincing however the actions of certain other editors last night have cemented my position on this matter. I can not compromise in an effort to appease certain other editors here. I am sorry for those who genuinely do have a problem with the article title, but there are more important things in life and the status quo works. If F wins great, if it loses i will respect the outcome of the vote and the only change in my vote i will make is near the end of the 42 days if its clear F will lose and the alternatives are very close. sorry BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey BritishWatcher, I think I know generally where you stand in much of this issue, but what you have written above is showing up your attitude to the vote as being very fickle. If you believe in what you believe I wouldn't dare ask you to change your preferences, it shouldn't be done that way. The whole reason for this process was to put an end to seven years of edit-warring and disruption in order to make Wikipedia a better place for editing and editors. This is not a "quid pro quo" situation to be hangared over, it's a vote for the future of Wikipedia, and nothing else. Tfz 12:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe Republic of Ireland is the best title for that article, i was close to supporting a compromise not because i thought it was a better option but because a compromise is better than a very tight vote with many for and against the one option. However last nights actions have made me see there is no reason to compromise because of the actions of a few editors like last night. The poll is open, this will be decided one way or another not by me. You have declared the vote null and void just because you dont like the result so far, its still far too early to tell the result anyway but we didnt know how this vote would turn out at the begining.. I thought F would do more badly than it is currently, and if the vote was going another way im sure people wouldnt be so quick to abandon ship. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why there is even a poll in the first place, since Wikipedia is not a democracy. People should be presenting their points and then the person with the strongest argument wins via pure intellectual brute force and the fact that their argument is the most verifiable. Pleb democracy leads to a WP:Ilikeit/WP:Idontlikeit sort of meandering. Its only useful to find out what peoples naked biases are, not how an encyclopedia should be set out. In any case, I can't believe so many hours have been wasted by people on this issue, when the majority of Ireland's articles themselves are of such a poor quality. I'm talking even basic, non-controversial geographic articles here like County Waterford as a random example. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a poll because we were able to reach consensus that there should be a poll, and we were not able to achieve consensus on anything else. -- Evertype·✆ 06:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact more attention is needed for the articles themselves is a reason to have this vote. There would never of been consensus on this matter through debate, we just go round and round in circles and all the issues have been put on the table before Arbcom even got involved. Having this vote puts the question off the table for 2 years no matter how people feel about the titles.

Although on the options themselves, i can understand and accept Ireland (state) but A and B seem unworkable to me. A state less than 100 years old cant take ownership of the prime spot from an island thats been around centuries before. (Great Britain is for the island, it doesnt redirect to the Kingdom of Great Britain. As for the single article on the state and island, how can a state article talk about an entire island it doesnt completly control and claim ownership over its entire history. In the case of Australia which is a continent and a country it makes sense to have a single article.. but that wouldnt work for Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

e/c::A state less than 100 years old cant take ownership of the prime spot from an island thats been around centuries before. Though not strongly favouring that as the best solution I'd be intrigued if you could cite the Wiki-rule that supports your statement. Sarah777 (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think i said its against wikipedia rules, i said the options seem unworkable to me although in the case of that option theres plenty of reasons to show that the island is the prime topic and deserving of the top spot, not the country. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the constant edit-warring that gets in the way of *so much* article-improving. Think of all the time and energy that goes into the really really stupid stuff compared to the really really good stuff. Its why I believe that swallowing personal opinion and picking the option that will *eliminate* the edit warring is the best option for the project. Maybe some people need the wiki-drama. Maybe they also like Eastenders.... Hopefully they're in the minority and the rest of us can pick the right option for the project. --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But Highking this result will end the edit wars.. its going to be binding for two years no matter what the result so anyone engaging in edit wars (even if F loses and people try to put it back to ROI) will get into trouble and be stopped quickly. After the vote closes and final agreement reached on the collab page, the wikidrama is over for atleast 2 years.. after that time maybe people of got bored of this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If F wins, we've solved nothing. What do you think will happen at the end of 2 years? I can see by your comments that you understand that there is at least one option that will put an end to things permanently. --HighKing (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Two years is a long time, putting off worrying about it again until then sounds like a good idea. Maybe then something will of changed, the Irish parliament / government stop using it for example which would weaken the case. I can see a couple of options that would be less hated by some, however i dont think it will resolve everything. I can well imagine arguments about the future of Republic of Ireland and if its always going to be a redirect. Just because something is less hated, doesnt make it the right or best choice though. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I reckon I do more improving content of IrlProj articles in the average month than many of the the folk intent on enforcing British solutions on Irish articles do in the average year. Sarah777 (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)And no barnstars yet either! --HighKing (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have - try the archives. But where are you hiding yours?? Sarah777 (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• sob* one day ... --HighKing (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"British solutions on Irish articles" lmao blame the Irish government for using the term, blame the Irish government for making it the offical description of Ireland. Had those two things not been happening and ROI was a complete British invention then there is no way the article would be at Republic of Ireland BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I will not be blaming the Irish Government for the imposition of British naming solutions on Wiki. I have demonstrated how this this happening. Unfortunately you fellow-POV pushers don't like seeong the facts posted on this page. Sarah777 (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"I will not be blaming the Irish Government" lmao, so they made the term the description of your country, they continue to use the term, the Irish football team plays under Republic of Ireland and the Irish media have used it. yet only nasty British POV pushers are to blame? If the only mention of Republic of Ireland came from a British Act then there is no way we would be here with this title and i wouldnt be supporting it. The fact the irish government uses it all the time makes it a reasonable term to avoid the clear ambiguity problems BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Govt. does not "use it all the time". And they never use it in a manner that implies it is a name. The soccer team: FIFA, the group that allows the UK to have four teams imposed it. Sarah777 (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The irish government use it in parliament along with others to avoid ambiguity when talking about their country and Northern Ireland / the island. The fact remains they use it! so they cant be that offended by it can they? As for FIFA its an international organisation, FIFA statutes treat the British Football Associations as a special case, which is nice of them but its still the international organisations decision to have Ireland play under the name not Britains.. If people in Ireland rejected it they would not field a team.. its that simple really. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is anything but "that simple". Though I appreciate issues must be over simplified in order for you to get yer head around them. Sarah777 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

lol, this issue is simple enough for me :) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Sarah, I don't think you simply ignore the span of history that has gone before. The Irish government and the supporters of an independent Irish state have always emphasised the difference between the UK (a monarchy) and the Irish state (a republic). Lets face it, many Irish people are pround of the Republic making a break from the monarchy, and simply ignoring this fact is questionable, in the sense that ignores one of the key motivations for independence. Even if the Republic were to be comprised of the entire island of Ireland, I am sure the name "Republic of Ireland" would be retained for historical reasons.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Another "spread sheet"

Is this an attempt to re-surface the "little spreadsheet" under a different guise? It might not "name and shame" voters involved but the substance is the same. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(Note: This sub-section was removed by User:Monads. see contribs. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

I hope you are not implying I have any connection whatsoever to "Monads". Sarah777 (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The thought never crossed my mind. Nor do I believe that you set out to intentionally scare anyone away with your "spread sheet". It just happened that you did. I've stated that repeatedly since last night. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ra, it may surprise you but I really don't want to end up fighting with everyone. I much prefer doing nuts'n'bolts work on Irish geography, smiting the odd vandal, gracing Wiki with a new regional road. I accept you appreciate that I was illustrating what I think is a very important issue; not remotely trying to "intimidate" anyone. Sarah777 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And it may surprise you that I considered endorsing your comment above ("I reckon I do more improving content of IrlProj articles in the average month..."). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ra! I'll take it as done:) Sarah777 (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting the text mentioned above. I was trying to add a new sub section (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names#Clarification_on_precise_method_used_to_calculate_result) underneath the existing one, rather than delete anything that was already here. Monads (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Sarah777 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Restore the profiling info

The information should be restored, because what is happening now is, the people crying censorship because it has been removed, are claiming the data showed an inherent systemic bias in the poll in favour of British editors and against Irish editors, but they are quite wrong imho.

By my reckoning on the profiling dataset that was removed, what the data actually showed is that in this Wikipedia poll, the views of self declared Irish editors are actually given ten time more weight than British editors, and that Irish editors as a voting block, are actually more likely to follow their alleged nationalistic bias than Brits are.

When you compare these profiling findings to the real world population figures for Britain and the Republic, it becomes quite clear that it is totally false for anybody to claim that the real world disparity in population is being transferred to Wikipedia in the same way.

In actual fact, the two alleged blocks of bias (Irish and British editors) cancel each other out in real terms in this poll. The real issue of systemic bias in actual fact, is the dominance of British and Irish editors in the poll. I'd be interested to see anybody's proposal for how that is countered to achieve the neutral point of view.

So I say restore the data, and lets put to bed the lies and disinformation being spread about what it did and did not show. The information is after all public, and if people want to spend the time collating it, let it happen. Allow it to be verified even, so we can truly trust it.

MickMacNee (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's in the public domain, there should be no fuss about it. Tfz 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Let me summarise the above: If the analysis shows British bias, it must be removed. If it doesn't, it should be put back. Don't ya you just love the grasp of "freedom of speech" some folk have! (He is talking baloney, btw re what the poll is showing). Sarah777 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mick, the objection I raised above here is a problem that may not be solvable. That is, how do you determine nationality without verifiability? I could place a Vietnamese flag on my user page and declare citizenship and you have no way of disproving it. Further, aren't there Irish and British expats living in other countries? I am pointing this out as a procedural problem independent of the argument against profiling as intimidation etc. Sswonk (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It has a bunch of other problems aswell in terms of proving anything, but all of those issues can be highlighted when the data is published for open and honest analysis. MickMacNee (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, its public, but the fact that at least three voters (2 visibly, one on my talk page) are refusing to vote due to profiling means that such a cumulation of data is not appropriate on this talk page. If people want to privately compile that data, that's fine, but it cannot be included on this talk page or the like because there is clear intimidation on voters, even if that wasn't the original intent. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about how many voters are being unduly influenced by the unsubstantiated claims of there being an inherent bias to this method of resolution, and the impending whingefest if the poll closes a certain way without The Truth having been aired (and challenged) openly and honestly. MickMacNee (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee makes some very interesting points about what Sarahs little spreadsheet shows however it does not belong on this talk page. if she had done it in a neutral way then perhaps it would of stayed but her explanation of it and comments clearly are aimed to mislead.

If people really think this is acceptable would they have a problem with people being profiled by Skin colour on ethnic/ race disputes because its exactly the same thing. "15 White people support this.. 13 black support that.. there for the whites are biased on this matter." would that sort of thing be tolerated if possible to work out?

Or how about matters relating to homosexuality. Should we do a count up of openly gay wikipedians when trying to resolve disputes on those issues?

Its totally unacceptable.. Such profiling may take place after the vote but NOT during it when people are able to change their vote or may be put off from voting although i dont have too much problem with it being in their own userspace, trouble is its advertised here for all to see now. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Smells of Der Königgreatzer. Issues with openness, let us not go there. Tfz 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

profiling people based on nationality is the same as doing it based on religion.. thats something the Nazis did too. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are getting carried away. Stating that Irish pollsters are voting a particular direction is very interesting data, imo. You have reality problems. Tfz 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at data on peoples religions, skin colour, sexual preferences would all be very interesting to. Tfz do you honestly see no problem with profiling peoples skin colour (if it were possible) because its exactly the same thing.

If Sarah had been talking about White people and Black people in her little spreadsheet trying to highlight a bias in the white vote or black vote.. do you think thats acceptable and wouldnt lead to some pretty heated comments? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All discussion like this, no matter what it "proves", should be shelved until after the poll has closed. It's the wiki equivalent of looking over someone's shoulder in the ballot box. Stop it now and let people vote in peace. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Heck, hindsight is 20/20 - as noted on AN/I, this probably should have been a silent vote, with ballots going via email to me or another admin. We're unfortunately past that point, but we should be treating it as such, and not discussing the current results of the vote until Sept. 13th. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Live and learn. Sure we'll know for next time... --HighKing (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt of supported a private ballot, its important to see the votes for ourselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have expected that if we did private, a full accounting of the votes after the fact would have been made available to provide the transparency that (I presume) some would want. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Id still be against secret ballots on here, its right people see who votes for what however the biggest problem is vote changing. It doesnt matter if people can see the vote if they cant change it afterwards really but in 38 days time theres going to be lots of calculations going on in an attempt to fix the vote by changing preferences. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The first accurate observation you've made in several days BW! Of course they will. But re your attempted Nazi "analogy"; if editors were prone on a wide scale to putting up userboxes, posters, logos, symbols etc proclaiming that they are "white or black" - and if there was a major row about an article about Malcom X then it would indeed be legitimate to analyse voting patterns of those who state their colour to examine the NPOV implications. In fact, it would be a very useful guide to how WP:NPOV is affected by racial perspective. But of course folk don't say "I'm white" the way they will say "I'm British"; a lot of the Wiki posturing about what should happen, rather than what actually does happen is based on a refusal to look openly and honestly at reality. So we end up with an image of the Wiki Community that bears no resemblence to the one that actually exists. From that flows, amongst other consequences, the gross self-deception that Wiki reflects a "neutral" point of view. Sarah777 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept people dont often have babel boxes saying This user is white, or this user is black.. im sure there are ones saying this User is African-American though. But i would be totally against such racial profiling, especially if it leads to one race being described as bias.

One thing we probably do agree on is that wikipedia should come with a big warning tag above every article, just to remind people not to take everything as accurate and fair. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I once tried to write that into the 'lede' of the RoI article. Didn't last long. Sarah777 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've one simple question on all this. Why the rush? If this info is so important then why can't it keep until September 13th when the vote is done and dusted? We need to avoid any suggestion that the vote has been compromised in any way so there's nothing wrong with waiting until then. It's less than 40 days away. In the real world after all there are restrictions on what information can be published before a vote has been completed. We can discuss Sarah's little spreadsheet then to our heart's content. Valenciano (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Such poll-bans would be unconstitutional in Ireland, as I'm sure you must know?! But in Ireland, censorship is a complete no-no in the electoral system. So we have avoided one suggestion that the vote might be compromised and created another. Remember; 3 voters pulled out - two because of the spreadsheet; and one because the spreadsheet was banned (and several more were about to follow suit). Sarah777 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not censorship since the opinion polls can be published *after* the election is complete. Besides even in Ireland what you can and can't do in an election is restricted by law. The amount of ads I put up is restricted by campaign spending caps arguably disadvantaging independent candidates versus party hacks. My access to the ballot paper is restricted by how many signatures I can get etc so even Ireland doesn't follow your "anything goes" argument. Valenciano (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You freedom to present information up to and during the vote is a Constitutional Right. Sarah777 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)My question stands, what do you hope to achieve by posting this now rather than after the vote? Valenciano (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, Sarah, canvassing and other activities that may influence voters are illegal at and in the vicinity of polling stations in Ireland. Announcing voting patterns as voters of different nationalities left the polling booth would certainly not be tolerated. It is not tolerable here either. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I can stand down the road from the polling station (like a Wiki talkpage) and say anything I like. I can hand out leaflets saying the ballot is rigged if I wish. And I'm not inclined to allow my political opponents tell me what is "tolerable". Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So take it elsewhere until September 14th. (And we are not opponents.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is elsewhere, alive and analyzing. But it would be a pity to deprive voters of its insight till Sept. 14th. So I won't be following you instructions on that ra. And please; stop quoting fairytales at me. I can follow rules without buying into the intellectual mush and pretence that pads them out. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We must remember, editing on Wikipedia is not a right. It's a privillage (and privillages can be revoked). GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh..your point G'Day? Sarah777 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I note above you've completely failed to answer my question. I'll repeat it: what do you hope to achieve by posting this now rather than after the vote? You said that you can stand down the road and hand out leaflets about the ballot. Why would you do that unless your specific intention was to interfere with the conduct of the ballot taking place?

You also merely muttered vaguely (and somewhat irrelevantly) "You (sic) freedom to present information up to and during the vote is a Constitutional Right." I don't see any section of the Irish Constitution which mentions such a freedom - certainly nothing in Article 16 says that. Nor do I see any section that prohibits the Dail from passing laws regulating the conduct of elections. Care to cite the relevant sections or was that just more "make it up as you go along" stuff? Valenciano (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If option "F" wins...

...how will we know whether this is because users preferred the core navigational structure or simply preferred the title Republic of Ireland and selected the only option that contained it? The latter is a separate issue that should not have been conflated with the former; options "D" and "F" (which are navigationally identical) should have been consolidated and worded to refer to "Republic of Ireland, Ireland (state) or another title to be determined separately" (with the same wording used in options "C" and "E"). —David Levy 09:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Because this is the final poll in the whole process, which has been ongoing since last December (if not earlier), and the options available in this poll are the ones decided upon by consensus at WP:IECOLL. There was already a preliminary poll to arrive at one of the options to be used in this one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. I just don't understand the logic behind this one portion of the resultant poll format. (Please see my reply to Rannpháirtí anaithnid below.) —David Levy 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

D and F are navigationally identical. Using the voting system we are using, voters can rank their preferences. So you can vote for "both". The counting of votes happens in "rounds". In each round, the lowest scoring option get "eliminated". So, suppose F get eliminated in early round, F voters who like the navigation structure will likely have ranked D next. This means that after F is eliminated, votes for F will get transferred to D.

The decision not to use the phrase Republic of Ireland in other options was decided by consensus during the (long) discussion period as Bastun has noted. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not suggesting that users who prefer the navigational structure of options "D" and "F" are going to have their input diluted by the split. As you noted, such individuals are likely to rank one of the two options directly behind the other, so those votes will essentially be pooled when either "D" or "F" is eliminated during the tabulation.

But some "F" voters are not ranking "D" next (or even at all), and my concern is that these respondents might be selecting "F" solely because they prefer the title Republic of Ireland, which could potentially lead "F" to win despite more users preferring one of the other navigational structures (simply because it happens to be the only one with that title attached).

2. I understand that such a decision was made, but I don't understand why. If Republic of Ireland proved unpopular compared to Ireland (state), it should have been omitted completely. What is the logic behind including one particular navigational structure with both titles? I realize that "F" is the current setup, but I don't see how this is relevant. If the community prefers a navigational structure that doesn't place the article currently titled Republic of Ireland at Ireland, which title to use for that article is an entirely separate issue (whether decided beforehand or afterward).

I realize that this situation has been highly difficult and stressful, and I don't mean to insult the users who worked long and hard to reach this point. I'm just hoping that something can be done to address what I perceive as a significant flaw. (It obviously is too late to modify the poll, so I don't know what steps could conceivably be taken.)

In any event, thanks for your consideration. Whatever the poll's outcome, I sincerely hope that the community can finally move beyond this unpleasant affair (and not merely for two years). —David Levy 13:54/14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There would certainly be justification for the inclusion of another option and it might of been a good idea to add it, but the main focus constantly has been the title which certain editors have a bigger problem with than the navigation setup. Obviously the status quo must be included on the poll but during the process to agree on the ballot options there wasnt much (if any i cant remember) call for an option with Republic of Ireland being kept but a change to the setup.

Also i dont think it would of had a big impact on the vote. If they liked option F enough to vote for it as their first option then they would likely of voted for it as their 2nd preference had their been a new option for moving the articles around but keeping ROI as the title. So in the end those votes would still be combined by the final round and decide the outcome. If people have a big problem with the setup then i doubt many would vote to keep the status quo.

One of the main arguments for change has been the claim by some that "Republic of Ireland is British POV". If that was the case, it would be in the interests of those who strongly support the ROI title to have a second option on the ballot with it in an attempt to get support from those who dont have a problem with the title but dont like the system. The ballot and the voting system itself basically makes it harder for the outcome to be the state at Republic of Ireland and thats probably understandable considering the title has been the main complaint by some over the years. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem that that two separate issues have been combined into a single poll question. The issue of what to call the article about the state (in the event that it doesn't receive the Ireland title) should have been resolved either before or after selecting the core navigational structure.

As someone who is neither Irish nor British, the emotional aspect doesn't exist for me; I have no strong objection to either Republic of Ireland or Ireland (state). If, as you say, this is the issue that most respondents care about, the poll's structure will ensure that whichever is more popular prevails.

My distress, therefore, pertains to the core navigational structure (which you say is of secondary concern to most of those involved in the debate, but which is of great concern to me). If your assessment is accurate, there is a high likelihood that the current core navigational structure will be retained solely because it happens to be the only one paired with the title Republic of Ireland in the list of options.

For the record, I regard this navigational structure as one of several reasonable possibilities, but I want very much for the poll's result to accurately reflect the community's will. —David Levy 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It may have been better if the question was split in two first sorting out the nav and then sorting out the names but after years of dispute there was an urge to put it to the vote sooner rather than later. If someone puts F as their preference then they must accept all aspects of it, i think its far more likely to lead to people not supporting F and backing an alternative than voting for F despite not liking the setup. So if anything, it hurts the status quo, it doesnt help it win. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You've noted that "the main focus constantly has been the title," which leads me to believe that a large percentage of respondents will vote primarily with that issue in mind. Those who favor the title Ireland (state) can secondarily select and rank whichever core navigational structure(s) they prefer (so there's no problem there), but those who favor Republic of Ireland are locked into the current core navigational structure.

The fact that numerous users have voted for "F" without "D" as a neighboring choice (in some cases, without ranking "D" at all, or even voting for "F" alone) corroborates my theory. —David Levy 15:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Those who have seeked change over the years which has led us to here have mostly been concerned about the name ROI. Anyone voting in this vote must accept every part of the option they support. I only voted F, i wouldnt of done that if i was uncomfortable with the navigation issue. From your comments,it sounds as though if there was an option with moving the articles around but keeping Republic of Ireland you may of supported it. But that option wasnt there so instead you rightly chose to vote for an alternative which happens to be the main challanger to F. You may be right that there should of been a further option on the ballot, but i think the missing option hurts the status quos vote like in your own case, rather than helping it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not suggesting that anyone voting for "F" is uncomfortable with its core navigational structure; I'm saying that some of these individuals likely are more comfortable with one or two other core navigational structures, but they're settling for that one because the title issue is more important to them.

So far, you and 11 others have voted for option "F" alone, and it's highly unlikely that all 12 of you prefer its core navigational structure over the other two proposed navigational structures that could accommodate the Republic of Ireland title.

2. My concern stems from a desire to see the community's will carried out; it has absolutely nothing to do with my personal preferences in the poll.

For the record, your guess is incorrect; I prefer the Ireland (state) title, which is why I ranked "D" and not "F." I also ranked "C" and "E," to which supporters of the Republic of Ireland title have no corresponding options.

3. If you're correct that the poll's setup actually works against the status quo, that's equally bad. No possibility should unfairly have the odds stacked against it. —David Levy 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well i dont know how others feel and decided to vote, but to put it as their first preference must mean they are ok with the status quo, sure there are plenty of other options that could of been given but this process did not start with this vote, there were long debates and attempts to get consensus to get to this point. In my case i actually feel more strongly that the island should have the prime spot than the Republic of Ireland title needs to be kept.

Sorry, I was just using ur vote as an example, it sounded from your comments that you might of considered voting for an option that kept ROI but moved the articles and im pretty sure there are some who will not vote F because of that.. which hurts F it doesnt help it. I agree people should probably of had more options on the ballot with the choice of article positions including ROI.

I do think the ballot and the voting system works against the status quo. Had each person been given just one option then i would be more confident the status quo would win, instead because of STV the status quo has to take on a combined vote. Im told that makes it fairer, but it makes it harder for F to win thats for sure. Especially as people are allowed to change their vote at any point in the next 40 days.. allowing vote switching in an attempt to alter the vote to beat F. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that others likely would have voted for options "that kept ROI but moved the articles." But their omission does not hurt "F" in the least; you're overlooking the important fact that someone who regards "F" as unacceptable would not have voted for it anyway, even if the missing options were included. Conversely, someone who considers "F" acceptable but would have preferred a hypothetical "G" or "H" (with the Republic of Ireland title retained but Ireland used for the disambiguation page or an "all-Ireland" article) is forced to settle for "F."

However, I'm not saying that two additional options should have been included; I'm saying that the issue of the title should have been excluded from the question (reducing the number of options to five, and ensuring that everyone was voting on the basis of navigational structure). —David Levy 17:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it may of been better to split the two problems and i agree someone wont vote F if they find it unacceptable. So i do not see how not having more options on the ballot will alter the outcome unless the final round of the results is between F and the other option which includes Republic of Ireland.. which would be very unlikely. Some may of voted for the new option before F< but if they vote F here then they would probably of put F as their 2nd preference which would result in it being counted anyway when F makes it into the final. Anyway nothing can be done, the ballot paper reflects what was agreed by supporters of many different options. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that "F" might ultimately prevail solely because strong proponents of the Republic of Ireland title have no other options (specifically, the ability to move the island's article to Ireland (island) and make Ireland either an "all-Ireland" article or a disambiguation page). —David Levy 17:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You have accepted that people who hate the system wont vote F which i agree with but that hurts option F, it does not help it because less will vote F. Some may prefer a different option to F but if they put F as their first currently.. theyd put it as their second if there was another option. So F might still win unless the new option beat it. So an alternative result would still mean the title would be Republic of Ireland. When this vote closes, if F wins you can be sure most will be moaning about the title not the navigation system. So this idea another option would change the result, would not change it to what those people want and the same amount of negative attitudes towards the result will remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood my point.

Yes, I'm referring to a hypothetical scenario in which the title would remain Republic of Ireland no matter what. My point is that the core navigational structure might be affected. I don't doubt that most respondents care more about that article's title than they do about the core navigational structure, but I am not such a respondent. I personally have stronger feelings about the core navigational structure, but that's irrelevant; the community's will on both issues should be fairly and accurately gauged. —David Levy 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to some the greatest issue is that "Republic of Ireland" is an unsuitable means to disambiguate the two. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And unfortunately, this separate issue appears to be distorting the poll's outcome. —David Levy 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is solely navigational. What to call the Irish state is a non-issue: its name is "Ireland". The problem is that there is another entity called by that name.

Hence the need to resolve the navigational problem. This is not of secondary concern. It is the only concern of this poll. Some say "Republic of Ireland" is a suitable means to disambiguate one "Ireland" from the other, some say it is not. Some say one "Ireland" is the primary topic, some say the other is, some say there is no primary topic. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The question should solely pertain to the core navigational structure, but the inclusion of option "F" has ensured that this is not the case.

Thus far, 12 respondents have selected "F" alone (without ranking any of the other options). 16 others have ranked "F" as their first choice without ranking "D" as their second choice (and of those 16, half did not rank "D" at all).

Is there any reasonable way to interpret this data that does not suggest that the tally is being inaccurately skewed in favor of the current core navigational structure? I find it highly unlikely that all 12 "F"-only voters actually prefer it over the other two proposed navigational structures that could accommodate the Republic of Ireland title. —David Levy 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I will point out, while moderating what would go on the poll, I did suggest one question on the navigation and a second on the name, but the consensus of the participating group was against doing that, so I did not push it farther. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is sadly too late to change anything now anyway. If people are comfortable with the status quo then they will vote F. if they are not comfortable with it then they wont vote F. The result is binding for two years no matter what happens. If the majority vote for F then they endorse the status quo, if the majority vote for something else then they dont support it and change will happen which supporters of F will have to live with and put up with for alteast 2 years (and likely forever). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Thanks for the effort, Masem. —David Levy 17:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by the "navigational structure". Both F and D are both acceptable and alternative means to disambiguate the article on Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island. One uses "another term ... or more complete name ... that is equally clear and unambiguous" (i.e. Republic of Ireland). The other uses a "disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses" (i.e. Ireland (state)). See disambiguation guidelines. The question of what to call the Irish state is not being decided here - only how users will navigate between the various articles requiring disambiguation.

As someone who voted F, my reason for doing so was because Republic of Ireland is a common means to disambiguate the the state from the island in normal usage. I voted for D second because another means to disambiguate one article from another is to add a word in parenthesis after the topic's common name. However, that would be my second choice in this instance compared to "another term ... or more complete name".

With regards to the name of the Irish state, it may surprise you to find that the members of WP:IECOLL that were most concerned with the name of the state did not vote for F. See position statements made my members of the project. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I fully understand that the state's official name is "Ireland" and the titular issue is one of disambiguation (an area of editing in which I'm active).

Secondly, I agree that both Republic of Ireland and Ireland (state) are acceptable means of accomplishing this disambiguation.

By "navigational structure" or "core navigational structure," I'm referring to the pages' relative positions as they would appear on a chart. In other words, I'm referring to the differences in the various proposals other than whether the title Republic of Ireland or Ireland (state) is used.

In this respect, options "D" and "F" are identical. But when it comes to options "C" and "E" (which would make Ireland either an "all-Ireland" article or a disambiguation page, with the article about the island moved to Ireland (island)), there are no corresponding options that would also retain the Republic of Ireland title. Therefore, someone whose priority is that the Republic of Ireland title be retained is forced to select option "F," even if he/she would prefer that the Ireland title be used for the disambiguation page or an "all-Ireland" article instead of the article about the island. —David Levy 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(Adds: the title given to the article on the state, and not the means of dabbing the articles, is the core issue for most that want to change the status quo. In particular, the title 'Republic of Ireland' is the core issue.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm getting the impression that "the title 'Republic of Ireland' is the core issue," which is why it's highly unfortunate that users for whom that is the priority are unable to select two of three possible core navigational structures in combination with that title. —David Levy 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

First, I didn't participate in any of the formation, heck I was barely aware of what had been going on and I haven't look in to the history hear in that much detail so bear that in mind. I agree that the way the poll as designed is a bit flawed but disagree carrying out two consecutive polls was the ideal solution. Remember we're using an STV system. While there are number of issues (particularly re: canvassing which isn't allowed anyway) in something like this there's no real need for two polls. You can just as easily fit it into one. While this can get unwieldy which can lead to excess confusion and people not selecting many options or even not voting because of it, it IMHO wouldn't be that bad in this case. Two polls on the other hand would make this issue linger for longer and is likely to lead to voter fatigue. And significantly if we put the naming poll first and there will be a lot of ill feeling and even designing the second poll would likely be hell (of course it could be potentially have designed earlier). Even if we put the other poll first, there would still likely have been some ill-feeling. And there would always be the risk those who 'lost' would have just chosen an option to try and ensure no one was happy or ensure the issue remains a large sticking point rather then a more minor one (this is possible in STV, but is less likely for a number of reasons IMHO). Also I can't help thinking there's a good chance once we have an outcome there's going to be a lot of more publicity which in the case of two polls is likely to have lead to a large number of new participants particular I suspect from those who feel they 'lost' (I'm not describing anything sinister here but rather uninvolved parties becoming aware and talking about it particularly when they don't like the result).

However as I've said, I feel the poll should have included more options with RoI. Now if I were designing the poll I would have suggested something like a C(s) C(r), D(s), D(r) (same as F) and E(s), E(r). We would have then ended up with 8 options, two more then we have now, but still not an excessive number. This would have allowed people to choose the naming they preferred and the navigation system. (This is obviously irrelevant for A and B) As to why this didn't happen, my guess is this because of those who designed the poll, who I'm guessing were mostly those who'd been dealing with this for a long time, cared a great deal in some way and fairly fixed in their viewpoints. In particular suspect most of the people wanting RoI didn't really care much about the navigation issue or if they did care, supported the current system and so never pushed for navigation choices. Those who did care about the navigation issue were largely supportive of Ireland (state) or even one of the A and B options. Therefore there was simply no one pushing for that. Sad but that's how it went.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You raise some excellent points about the potential pitfalls of conducting two polls. However, note that the two questions could have been asked separately and simultaneously (in other words, a two-question poll).

I agree, however, than a single eight-option poll would have been vastly preferable to what we have.

In theory, if there were consensus for this, the two missing options could be added to the existing poll (and all respondents notified of their ability to modify their votes accordingly if they so choose). Due to the poll's format (and the inherent impossibility for similarities among options to cause votes to be effectively diluted), I can't imagine that this would cause any harm. At worst, the two new options would simply be at a disadvantage (as opposed to never even being given a chance). Thoughts? —David Levy 17:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose altering the ballot after over 120 people have already voted. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that none of the existing options would be altered in any way (and no one's votes would be affected against their will), please explain what possible harm could result. —David Levy 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1. There are many more options that could be added if we re-open the poll now, not just your preferred ones. 2. It would be unfair to those who have already voted now. 3. It would be extremely disruptive to do anything that would derail the process now that it has begun. Please read the archives of WP:IECOLL. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1. My preferred ones? As I explained above, I've already voted for my preferred ones, and this has nothing to do with my personal preferences. My motivation is to ensure that the poll is fair and accurate, and it's quite disheartening that you evidently don't believe this (and instead think that I'm out for personal gain).

I realize that there are many other conceivable options, but adding those two would eliminate the problematic disparity that I have described in great detail.

2. How would it "be unfair to those who have already voted now"? Their votes would be completely unaffected unless they opted to change them.

3. Okay, that is a good rationale against modifying the poll. I withdraw the proposal on this basis (while reiterating my disappointment that my sincere attempt to improve the poll's fairness and accuracy was viewed with cynicism and suspicion). —David Levy 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Its simply out of the question. Extra options can not be added to the poll after it has already been started. If we were talking about a couple of votes perhaps under extreme circumstances it could be restarted, but not 120 votes being added and expecting everyone to come back here and consider changing their vote.. it would make this whole process a joke. I think consensus for adding more options will be impossible to find and if we can go as far as adding extra options then there are no limits to what other changes we should make. A dispute would kick off again about where this poll should be advertised, the locations were agreed before the vote started but if we can change the ballot theres no reason not to change that too. Again.. I strongly oppose changing the ballot. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. As noted above, I withdraw the proposal. —David Levy 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No altering the poll after it had begun. There are far more additional possibilities that just two. All of these possibilities were discussed to death as part of the collaboration project.

"I'm guessing were mostly those who'd been dealing with this for a long time, cared a great deal in some way and fairly fixed in their viewpoints." The answer is in the archives: having a "Republic of Ireland" option was only seen as relevant 1.) as the status quo and 2.) as an alternative to D. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's essentially what Nil Einne speculated; the poll's framers (well, those whose opinions led to consensus) acted in good faith to design the poll in accordance with the viable options as they perceived them (and understandably overlooked the issue that I've described). —David Levy 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suspicious of your motives - nor do I think that you are acting in anything less that good faith. I'm sorry if I sounded like I did or if I come across as irritable.

Running simultaneous polls (on the title/dabbing questions separately) had been discussed. It had even been tried on several occasions. While those attempts either collapsed in acrimony or were inconclusive (for a variety of reasons), they fed into a consensus (over several years, really) that in the event that the dabbing would not take the form of "Ireland/[dabbed title for state article]/Ireland (disambiguation)" then using Republic of Ireland for the title of the state would be undesirable/unnecessary. (The logic was that Republic of Ireland would be suitable for dabbing the state from the island only if the island was not itself dabbed already e.g. Ireland (island) would not need differentiating from the state via Republic of Ireland.)

Ultimately, after much argument and ill-will, WP:IECOLL was formed to decide on the Ireland-articles names (or a process for that decision). After nine months, we couldn't agree on how to dab the pages but we could agree on alternatives that we thought most likely/most suitable. It is, by necessity, a subset of every possible option - but we have put great thought into each one, they were not decided on a whim. Since we can only agree on that subset, we are asking the community to decide from among them for us. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And also consider that those involved with the IECOLL project are likely the editors with the most to "win" or "lose" (in so as much those terms apply to WP) in the sorting out of the naming issues, and thus determining the options based on solutions they thought best to proceed with make the most sense. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Many at IECOLL disagreed with this poll process including me. Very few of these editors voting ever made an edit to the RoI page, or to the Ireland page, it's like asking people in China to select a new president for the USA. "F" looks the most ubiquitous, thanks to UK political persuasion, and so many editors follow the "F" like lemmings to a dreary end. Tfz 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet less than 24 hours ago you and ur friend striked out your votes in protest that every single european country project was not informed. Talk about wanting it both ways, lmao BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest idea of the extent to which nationalism played a role in the drafting of this poll, but it seems to me that requesting the participation of uninvolved editors (particularly those from countries other than Ireland and the UK) would have reduced whatever appearance of impropriety (real or imagined) exists. —David Levy 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue that editors lacking a vested interest in the dispute's outcome would have had an easier time examining the proposals and evaluating them from a neutral, dispassionate perspective. —David Levy 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I truly admire your faith in the wisdom of the masses to solve such delicate issues, don't have your faith, I'm afraid. Most Irish editors have removed themselves from the discussions, and it was advertised in only one other country. Tfz 22:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A few Irish editors have removed themselves, funny how its the ones who have opposed Republic of Ireland and they have seen how the voting is going so far. This was not only advertised on the UK / Ireland projects.. its been advertised at country, European union, History (i think), Geography.. these are projects which DO attract contributions and editors from all over the world. This matter involves the Island of Ireland.. part of the island is part of the UK, UK wikipedians had to be informed just like the Irish project did. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are twisting again, and returning with straw men. I have no problems with the UK being informed, but I have problems with it being the only country informed. Tfz 22:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not the only country informed.. UK wikipedians have been informed and so have Irish wikipedians.. these two are vital. You attempted to have other country projects added but you never made a good case and it was refused. Why should the USA or Germany be informed, you urself just said it was a bad idea when saying its like having the chinese vote for the American president. Besides i could understand ur complaint if it was ONLY advertised on UK/Ireland wikiprojects but its not.. Geography, EU, WP countrys.. these all have many different nationalties who will take part here.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding on my part.

Thanks also for providing additional background. I suspect that it's tricky for those of us who haven't witnessed this intractable dispute firsthand to fully appreciate its nature.

By the same token, I suspect that the years of debate, back-and-forth accusations, and general frustration contributed to an atmosphere within the WikiProject that simply wasn't conducive to broad analysis; when one is that close to an issue for such a long time, it can become difficult to step back and see the big picture from others' perspective. In this instance, what seemed like foregone conclusions to members of the WikiProject might come across as less clear-cut to those of us looking in from the outside with no preconceived notions.

This, of course, is entirely understandable (and likely unavoidable). What possibly could have been done differently (and this can be kept in mind for the future) was to invite the greater community to participate earlier in the process (before the poll's format was finalized).

Anyway, I sincerely hope that everything works out (one way or another). —David Levy 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Many at IECOLL disagreed with this poll process including me." - so, you, User:Domer48, User:BigDunc... and...? Genuinely curious here as to who else opposed the poll, because I'm not seeing it on the talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, have posted that a poll is not an appropriate way to resolve this issue. (not that I have an alternative). In general, Irish editors will oppose F. In general, British editors will support F. All that will be gleaned is that there are more British editors than Irish. A possible hope is that outside editors will become involved. Perhaps they will. Hopefully they will first pause and dispassionately consider the issues. Perhaps? ClemMcGann (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, anybody being taken in by the idea that the difference in British/Irish populations is having any affect on this poll, look at the polling data for yourselves, which gives the real picture using actual data. Background at #Restore the profiling info. The analysis of declared other non-Brit/Irish nationalities, and the trend of undeclared voters, is also well worth considering. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To come back to David Levy's question: "If option 'F' wins, how will we know whether this is because users preferred the core navigational structure or simply preferred the title Republic of Ireland and selected the only option that contained it?" – It's possible that we will not know this, but there is actually a good chance that we will. In fact, if the poll was over right now (with 135 votes), then F would win and we would know that a majority of voters prefer "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (state)". That's because 70 voters (more than half the total number) prefer F to D and only 51 voters prefer D to F. -Hans Adler 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. The issue is not that we wouldn't know whether Republic of Ireland had been selected over Ireland (state); it's that we wouldn't know whether the "F" voters actually preferred to leave the island's article at Ireland (instead of moving it to Ireland (island) and making Ireland a disambiguation page or an "all-Ireland" article). Republic of Ireland cannot be paired with either of those options, so anyone whose priority is to retain that title has no choice but to settle for the status quo in its entirety. —David Levy 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for having missed your real point. We can apply the same kind of analysis to that question as well, only the result is less clear. The only options for which this problem even arises are C and E. That's because D/F is a "(state)"/"Republic of" pair and for options A and B "Republic of" would make no sense. Now let's assume that some who voted for F did so because their naming preference ("ROI") overshadowed their structural preference. We can still see what's going on by discarding all votes for F (and also for A,B to save some tedious work) before evaluating the poll. We get D > E > C, with D and E almost equal. After discarding C we still get D > E, but by only 2 votes. Therefore at the moment, the effect of not having options C' and E', which would be "ROI" variants of C and E, is probably that F wins against E with a relatively clear margin, rather than against E' with a much more narrow margin.

Short version: If my two analyses were correct, the first 135 voters prefer "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (state)", and as far as structure is concerned they are about evenly divided between "Ireland" = disambiguation and "Ireland" = island. If there were an option E': "Ireland" = disambiguation linking to "Ireland (island)" and "Republic of Ireland", then E' and F would be the two most popular options and about equally popular.

This implies that the omission of options C' and E' has the potential to change the outcome, but not dramatically. (I.e. F may win even though E' might have been slightly more popular if it had been offered.) Hans Adler 20:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside perspective

In light of the discussion a couple of threads up, I thought that I'd share an outside perspective.

I'll note that while I've encountered only bits and pieces of this very old conflict, I have taken part in a somewhat similar recurring debate regarding the naming of Georgia, Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). As I'm from the United States, it's common for opposing editors to assume that my position (in favor of the status quo, rather than moving the country's article to the base title) stems from bias. Some have made very unkind and insulting remarks about "American arrogance" and such, so I know how it feels to have one's views dismissed in that manner (while believing that an opposite bias actually is coloring people's opinions).

From what I've seen of the Ireland debate, there appears to be a similar (and perhaps more intense) distrust between some (certainly not all) British and Irish editors taking part. And because the vast majority of such editors are acting entirely in good faith, it's the attempted defense against perceived misconduct that probably causes most of the unpleasantness. (In other words, the problems stem not from devious plots, but from suspicion on each side that the other is engaged in devious plots.)

Regarding the poll, I'll be blunt (and hopefully not cause offense in the process). As I've stated above, I believe that otherwise uninvolved editors should have played a larger role in drafting it, if only to eliminate the appearance (right or wrong) that its format was heavily influenced by internal prejudices. Here is how the situation comes across to someone looking in from the outside:

Firstly, it seems as though the options were determined not by attempting to compile a balanced list of realistic possibilities, but by compiling a list of the possibilities regarded as preferable by two highly partial groups. In other words, I see all of the choices that could prevail if the decision were up to group "X," and I see all of the choices that could prevail if the decision were up to group "Y," but I don't see all of the choices that could prevail when turning over the decision to the entire Wikipedia community (which is said to be the poll's purpose). From the perspectives of the aforementioned groups, "well, all of the best options are there," but from the perspective of those of us with no vested interest in the outcome, some highly sensible options (not my preferred ones, but ones that seem entirely reasonable) have been inexplicably omitted.

To delve a bit deeper, I'll explain how these omissions are likely to come across:

• Many Irish editors regard the title Republic of Ireland as insulting, so they opposed setups that included it.
• Meanwhile, many British editors prefer that the article about the island remain at Ireland, so they saw no reason to bother including the Republic of Ireland title with any alternative configurations.

As a result, we're left with the two sides' preferred combinations, apparently with no consideration given to the fact that editors from outside these two groups are equally likely to prefer other combinations that didn't make the cut. In theory, this could even lead some to simply shrug and walk away (though I hope not).

Perhaps these perceptions are oversimplified and/or inaccurate, but at the very least, the appearance of imbalance could have been avoided if impartial editors (namely those not from Ireland or the UK) had been more involved in the pre-poll decision-making process. I note this in the hope that such a situation will be handled differently if one arises in the future. —David Levy 05:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

David

You have made a good faith attempt at summarising the situation as you see it. There are a number of problems with it.

1. By your own admission, you haven't read all the archives and therefore don't understand all the nuances.

2. The project has been entirely open to outside influence and has had much input from our North American cousins

3. It is unfair to the participants to suggest that there is (not your words) systemic bias in the option choice when the project had so much difficulty in recruitng outside influences as moderators, never mind as participants

4. Your categorisations are very simplistic and are not accurate

This part of the process is at the end of a long, bloody, disruptive and draining period. It is our best efforts. Challenge can be good but frankly in this case your intervention is not in the slightest bit helpful. Fmph (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood. As I tried to make clear, I was describing likely perceptions, which I explicitly noted might be oversimplified or inaccurate (but nonetheless stand to hinder the attempt to solicit outside feedback).

My point is that the appearance of systemic bias (regardless of whether it actually exists) could have been avoided if the situation had been handled differently.

I'm well aware that "this part of the process is at the end of a long, bloody, disruptive and draining period," and that's precisely why its preparation could have been better handled with greater participation from editors lacking the resultant baggage.

If, in fact, the WikiProject sought such involvement and failed to receive it, that's unfortunate. However, I was unaware of the poll until this message was posted, so perhaps more could have been done to spread the word. (I'm sure that various earlier messages were posted, but maybe their quantity and locations were less than ideal.)

But again, I fully realize that this has been an extremely lengthy and difficult process and that many people have worked very hard to resolve the dispute. I merely seek to inject an outside perceptive (something that invariably becomes increasingly difficult to approximate as a conflict drags on and its participants' emotional investment grows), and I'm sorry that you view this as "not in the slightest bit helpful." —David Levy 07:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate very much the time and obvious patience it has taken you to consisely articulate your view. It is good to get an unbiased outside view. I don't view your contributions as unhelpful - in fact I wish more people would get involved. In fact, it would be far better if the outside neutral views completely outnumbered the "involved parties", thereby removing any charges of POV from whatever the result. --HighKing (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the comments by David Levy. He is correct. The process of selecting the choice of alternatives to the problematic "Republic of Ireland" was seriously flawed and cut short without agreement, ironically, because of the failure of an "outside" Moderator to appreciate why "Republic of Ireland" was completely objectionable in a way that the numerous variants of Ireland (republic) is not. Clearly such a flawed process is unlikely to put an end to anything. Sarah777 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that supporters of the British status quo having managed to ban facts they deem unhelpful to their campaign now appear to be trying to intimidate neutral editors who fail to line up behind them. This bullying, censorship and intimidation by a small group of editors must call into question the validity of any outcome that retains the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that you never raised the concerns about these other options with Republic of Ireland during the process Sarah. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, there is no doubt that you are going to create absolute hell about the result whatever happens, despite the fact you are totally unwilling to explain just how the poll is being affected by any systemic bias, beyond your usual unfounded allegations along the usual lines. I'm all for letting you say your piece out in the open, because when examined using logic rather than emotion, it is pretty nonsensical. I urge everybody to look at Sarah's little spreadsheet which remains on her talk page, and more importantly, the lack of any decent reply to questions about it. If you were truly being censored, it is odd that every thread on ths page contains a piece of your mind, whether anybody is interested or not, or whether your contribution is relevant or not. That, combined with the continual unfounded smearing of others and general innuendo, certainly looks like bullying to me. And to save you some embarassment if you were planning on one of your usual factless retaliations, for the record, I repeatedly called for a sitewide notification of the poll, and I also supported the view that there should have been an Ireland (republic) option. However, the repeated baseless accusations, false withdrawals, drama whoring, and general toy throwing at the IECOLL page meant that I could never be that bothered to press it home any harder than I did. Ironically, I wish I had, if only for the peace and quiet. MickMacNee (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that constructive input Mick. Sadly you conflate "decent reply" with a reply that you like. Whereas it appears in your case a reply would need to be illogical meandering poppycock before you'd like it. Sarah777 (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As usual you don't say anything at all in reply, while including the usual attacks. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I also support the essence of David's remarks though, in the absence of any disinterested contributors, I fail to see how the outcome could have been otherwise. It's a bit late now but I think his contribution might have received a more friendly reaction had he explained some of the alternative options that he clearly has in mind. --Red King (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree that the outcome was to be expected "in the absence of any disinterested contributors," and this is why I believe that such individuals should have played a larger role in the poll's planning.

2. Please see #If option "F" wins... ("the discussion a couple of threads up") for in-depth discussion of the "options" issue. —David Levy 12:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think a lot of disinterested and even semi-interested contributors have been somewhat put off by the seemingly endless talk pages (who is going to read through all the archives of this?), many of them full of the same old points being asserted with a lot of issues either not addressed or the addressing hidden, and with no clear process to actually take a decision. Some have deliberately sat out in the hope that by not increasing the numbers involved it would help get some progress. But short of forcing people what could have been done to get more input into the preliminary discussion that wouldn't have dragged it out even longer?

The "missing" options that several users seem to want to be able to consider would appear to be:

A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Republic of Ireland.

A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Republic of Ireland.

Certainly that's what most in the comments here are implying. Has anyone got a direct link to the past discussion that states if these combinations were considered and the reasons for why they were rejected? Certainly it's of a different order to versions using "Ireland (republic)" or "Ireland (country)". Timrollpickering (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You've pretty much ignored the existence of Option C imo. MickMacNee (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whom are you addressing, and what do you mean? —David Levy 13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You, as per the indent. In reply to what you originally posted. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. In what respect have I ignored the existence of option "C" (which I ranked as my second preference, incidentally)? —David Levy 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting all the options were partisan, and not remotely representative of something the community at large would have come up with. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm not suggesting that at all. The problem isn't that any of the individual options are inappropriate; it's that certain combinations were included, while other combinations of the same elements were omitted. As a result, it's impossible to advocate that the Republic of Ireland title be retained while simultaneously moving the island's article to Ireland (island) and making Ireland a disambiguation page or an "all-Ireland" article. My concern is that editors who strongly favor the Republic of Ireland title are settling for the status quo despite preferring one or both of the omitted combinations.

As I stated in my first post to this page (in the #If option "F" wins... section), I believe that the poll question should have contained only five options (with a separate determination of what title to use for the state's article in the event that neither option "A" nor option "B" prevails). —David Levy 15:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Its all very well saying other uninvolved editors should of taken part, but this battle has been going on for many years and has not been restricted to certain people. Anyone could of joined in the process following Arbcoms ruling, it was over 6 months ago. Those that chose to put in the time came up with the ballot we have now, there is sadly no way of going back and adding options or changing the process. There has never been majority support for a change to the status quo, but because some have campaigned endlessly taking it all the way to arbcom we had to resolve this one way or another.

There was clearly no way consensus was going to be reached so it had to be put to a poll. Those who took the time to be involved in this process chose the ballot options, although interestingly agreeing on the ballot options was less controversial than everything else. Im sure no one involved would say the collaboration process was a great success, but nobody else was doing anything. Arbcom simply handed it back to people and did nothing. This result is binding for two years, it will end the dispute for 2 years. The vast majority who have voted have not come to this page asking for more options, as pointed out in the intro there are many different ways these sort of things are handled across wikipedia.

Anyway there is just no way of changing things now. One side of this dispute did not decide the ballot options by themselves, one side did not rush the process to this vote. People from all sides where involved and whilst its true a few editors have rejected or looked down on this process, no one made a big deal or raised hell about there being no other ROI options on the ballot. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. I object as soon as I became aware of it. Sarah777 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

objected to what, where and when? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Object to only two options being selected. How many times do I have to say the same things over and over? Sarah777 (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"I note that supporters of the British status quo having managed to ban facts they deem unhelpful to their campaign...". I note that Sarah777 is still pushing the POV boat out, insisting that status quo is "British". I note that many Irish editors have expressed a preference, to some degree or other, for the status quo. I note again that there must be a hell of a lot of Irish-speaking "British POV pushers" around, because the Irish-language Wikipedia has had their version of our Republic of Ireland article at "Poblacht na hÉireann" (the Irish for "Republic of Ireland") since May 2004, without any of this drama. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Object to only two options being selected." Which options and when?? I do not recall people pushing for further Republic of Ireland options on the ballot paper. As i said before the ballot options were not that controversial from what i can remember.. far more focus was on the intro, statements and locations to advertise the vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You exemplify the problem there BW. I have pointed out surely 10 times in the past week that there are no other "further Republic of Ireland" options. RoI is a vastly different proposition to Ireland (republic) - for the reasons explained numerous times by myself and other. Sarah777 (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been complaining about no further ROI options for 10 days? where and why didnt you raise ur concerns about no ROI option when it was discussed on the collab page when the ballot was being drawn up. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher: To be clear, I'm not suggesting that any attempt was made to exclude disinterested parties from the process. I'm saying that more could have been done to recruit them. Had I been aware of the poll during the planning stage, I would have taken part (and I imagine that many other disinterested editors would have as well). —David Levy 13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that more should of been done David and that there could of been more options on the ballot and further input would of been helpful. Ive always thought we should take as much time as possible before going to the vote to ensure we got it right. I just think its too late to change anything now. The majority wish of the collab page was for the vote to take place. Looking back we certainly didnt give enough attention to the ballot options themselves, its clear far more time was spent dealing with things like where to advertise, the statements, method of counting votes, the wording for the intro. Although i do not think including the other options with ROI would change the final outcome of this vote, because its STV if someone would of voted F first here then theyd probably put it 2nd anyway taking it into the final with the same number of votes. As i said before, i consider this ballot and a voting system harder for the status quo to win, it doesnt help it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that what's done is done. I suppose that my hope is that we can learn from the mistakes that were made (and avoid making them again in the future). As dreadful as this is to ponder, we don't want similar issues arising when the debate inevitably reignites after two years have elapsed. —David Levy 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed lessons should certainly be learned, the project had major problems. I wouldnt blame a single side and i certainly wouldnt blame Masem.. we had mod after mod drop out, Masem managed to get us to this vote which all other mods failed to do and whilst there may not be all the options on the ballot some would like. The vote will be decided by the majority who were not involved in the process. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How the other language Wikipedias handle this

Following the comments above about the arrangement of the island at "Ireland" and the state at "Republic of Ireland" being followed on other language Wikipedias (including the Irish) I've had a look through to see the full state of play. Here's my best attempt to summarise how they arrange this. I may have made a few mistakes as I can't easily read some of the non-Latin scripts.

Note that in some languages the distinction between "state" and "country" isn't too clear, and not every language uses capitals as we do. Also where the "Ireland" option isn't listed it's either a disambiguation page or empty space - there don't seem to be any "all Ireland" articles separate from ones about the island.

Extended content

The island at "Ireland", the state at "Republic of Ireland": Afrikaans Anglo-Saxon Brezhoneg Català Cymraeg Ελληνικά English Español Gaeilge Gàidhlig Gaelg Interlingua Íslenska Malti Norsk (nynorsk)‬ Nouormand Português Rumantsch Scots Simple English Shqip Српски / Srpski Tagalog Tok Pisin Winaray The island at "Ireland", the state at "Ireland (republic)" Latina The island at "Ireland", the state at "Ireland (country)" Nederlands The island at "Island of Ireland", the state at "Republic of Ireland": Asturianu Euskara Bahasa Indonesia Kernewek Tiếng Việt The island at "Island of Ireland", the state at "Ireland": Беларуская Eesti Suomi Hrvatski Lietuvių Runa Simi The island at "Island of Ireland", the state at "Ireland - Éire": Galego The island at "Ireland (island)", the state at "Republic of Ireland": Беларуская (тарашкевіца) Български Bosanski Norsk (bokmål)‬ Romani Română Русский The island at "Ireland (island)", the state at "Ireland" Česky Dansk Deutsch Italiano Polski Slovenčina Slovenščina Türkçe Українська The island at "Ireland (island)", the state at "Éire": Líguru The island at "Ireland (island)", the state at "Ireland (state)": Occitan The island at "Ireland (island)", the state at "Ireland (country)" Esperanto Føroyskt Français The island at "Ireland (geographic)", the state at "Ireland": Svenska The island at "Éire-tó", the state at "Éire": Bân-lâm-gú Different single words Magyar Articles missing: The state at "Republic of Ireland", no article on the island: Fiji Hindi Basa Jawa Lëtzebuergesch Dorerin Naoero Novial Kapampangan Norfuk / Pitkern Саха тыла Ирландия The state at "Ireland", no article on the island: Aragonés Azərbaycan Boarisch Žemaitėška Нохчийн Corsu Kaszëbsczi Zazaki Dolnoserbski Estremeñu Võro Frysk Avañe'ẽ Hawai`i Hornjoserbsce Interlingue Ido Lojban Қазақша Kalaallisut Kurdî / كوردی Коми Ladino Lingála Latviešu Монгол Bahasa Melayu Nāhuatl Plattdüütsch Иронау Piemontèis Ποντιακά Armãneashce Sicilianu Sámegiella Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски Seeltersk Ślůnski Xitsonga Tatarça/Татарча Удмурт O'zbek Vèneto Volapük Walon Yorùbá The state at "Eire", no article on the island: Kiswahili The state at "Ireland (country)", no article on the island: Nedersaksisch Zeêuws The island at "Ireland", no article on the state: Sardu One stubby article unclear: Cebuano Eʋegbe Kreyòl ayisyen Кыргызча Limburgs Two stubby articles, unclear: Чӑвашла

Quite a mixture! Yes a lot use "Ireland" for the state, but 46 of them don't have an existing article on the island to disambiguate from. Of those that do have two articles, nearly all use either "Republic of Ireland" (37) or "Ireland" (16) for the state and "Ireland" (27) or "Island of Ireland" (11) or "Ireland (island)" (22) for the island. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting.. Over 35 different languages use Republic of Ireland, whilst in most of these cases its possible they have just copied the method used on English wikipedia, there is no getting around the Irish one using Republic of Ireland. It clearly shows its not a big problem to Irish editors of the Irish language wiki. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

They would take a lead from en.wiki . Saying that, the Dutch have 'it', imo. Tfz 17:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! This makes the point re British pov on En:Wiki a slam-dunk! Despite the fact that so many Wikis take their lead from En:Wiki, 76 use a name other than RoI and only 37 use RoI! Clearly the unsuitability of RoI is now no longer an issue to anyone bar supporters of the British solution. Sarah777 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of those that dont use ROI fail to understand there is a difference between the island and the country.. we can hardly take comfort in their failure. Why does the Irish language wiki use the same method we use here.. clearly the majority there aint offended. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry BW. YOU are the person who obviously doesn't under the issue of RoI as a "name" for my country. End of. Sarah777 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

please explain why the Irish language wiki uses the same method we use here? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I never imagined there were so many British gaeilgeoirí out there ... the translation department at MI6 busy spreading their evil propaganda, no doubt!! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ask them. I never been there. Maybe we need to change that too? Maybe they copied E:Wiki? Maybe they reckon that in Irish the dynamics are different? But I suggest you ask them. Sarah777 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Back here we have Irish editors voting 75% "not RoI" and British editors voting by 75% for "RoI". Case proven, beyond any reasonable doubt. Sarah777 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i only speak English so i cant ask them there. The point is thats mostly going to be Irish editors involved in that language wiki and yet its at ROI so surely they would of moved it sooner if they had a problem with it? Just blaming it on English wikipedia all the time doesnt work Sarah. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! So when it comes to Irish speaker using Poblacht na hÉireann, it's "ask them" ... but when it comes to an an indigenous language of the Philippines using Republika han Irlanda, it's ask you? LOL! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

76 use a name other than RoI and, despite the known fact that many Wikis follow En:Wiki a mere 35 use "RoI". No need to ask anyone anything; the figures speak for themselves. Sorry folks, you've been holed below the waterline. (As my spreadsheet had clearly demonstrated anyway; without this additional verification of the fact that the British POV title is maintained by the votes of British editors voting 75% for their favoured (insulting) solution. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So you should be glad then that you have showed that in terms of the NPOV, Irish opinions are given the proper weighting when compared to British ones, and bizarrly, they then cancel each other out. I personally can't explain why there has been a sudden shift in other nationalities to the alleged Irish position, when 30 votes ago they were equal, maybe these newer voters have been taken in by your constant propaganda on this page, without looking at your dubious claims objectively. MickMacNee (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah your fighting an increasing sad and pointless "British POV" battle. Get real while you still have an opportunity. Djegan (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Back here we have Irish editors voting 75% "not RoI" and British editors voting by 75% for "RoI". Case proven, beyond any reasonable doubt." There is no other way to put this now except that you are deliberately trying to mislead people. This is disruptive. Not only have you admitted that you are classing people from Northern Ireland as British (wonder how Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness would feel about that? Ian Paisley would admittedly be delighted), but you are also refusing to acknowledge that rather than "75% not RoI", many of those voting from Ireland (the state) are expressing preference for Option F, even if its not their first preference. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey! If presenting hard facts is sad and pointless how come you folk are getting so spooked, running to Mammy, inventing straw men and avoiding confronting simple facts? As Gerry and Martin would make it very very clear on their pages that they ain't British (if they had one) the piffle Bastun is talking is just, well, piffle. Simple fact folks:

• Irish editors voting 75% "not RoI" and British editors voting by 75% for "RoI". Case proven, beyond any reasonable doubt.

You can talk about Ian and Gerry and howl at the moon. Doesn't change the simple fact that:

• Irish editors are voting 75% "not RoI" and British editors are voting by 75% for "RoI".

OK? Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess the reason the vast majority of non-English Wikis across the globe reject "RoI" is 'cos they don't have comedy double act "Bastun and DJ" leading the campaign for a British article title. (Lucky for them and for WP:NPOV)Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You are intentionally misleading people and pushing anti British POV. Your methods have been questioned but you refuse to accept theres a problem. You are not counting Northern Irish people as Irish. You are classing anyone that votes F as their second option as against ROI.. this simply makes your two stats silly. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your most recent spreadsheet.. 35 British editors, 136 editors in total. Atleast 50 are known to be Irish or "non British" so clearly the non British editors are in the majority and have the ability to easily outnumber the British vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Vast majority? 62 by my count (not 76) have the state at your preferred option, Ireland. 46 (not 35) have the state at Republic of Ireland. Including the Irish-language wiki. If you're going to tell lies as well as engage in personal attacks, it may be better to do so without the evidence in front of our eyes. So, not quite the "vast" majority you're claiming. Approximately 50% of the population of Northern Ireland are nationalist. If they break down similar to the unionist figures, then 90% of them will identify as Irish. But you're ignoring that. And the simple fact that many more than 25% of Irish voters (even using your narrow Free State definition) have expressed a preference for Republic of Ireland, even if it's not their first preference. (And Tim, thanks for the work!) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't change the fact that Irish and British opinions in this poll are equally weighted, satisfying the NPOV. You can't change the fact that the supposed Irish bias and the supposed British bias is currently self cancelling in the only metric that actually matters, weighted voting numbers (or is the population of Ireland really 40 million?). You can't change the fact that you clearly think applying your POV is satisfying the NPOV. You can't change anything Sarah, which is why I think the ratio of factual statements to bold text in your posts is decreasing. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about "weighting" - it is about numbers. The numerical superiority of British editors enforce British pov on the name of the sovereign country of Ireland. Period. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Weighting is the cornerstone of NPOV, how on Earth can you not know this? If the population of Ireland was 400 million would you still be acting this way with these same figures, because without weighting your figures would still represent the same 'evidence' of British 'bias' using your borked analysis technique. MickMacNee (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Commencing of the Poll

'Tis great to see the commencing of the Poll. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The waters are kinda rough, but we're still in motion. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Strike out votes

Per the diff, I removed strike outs X X X X X as shown here of two votes and indicated in the edit summary that the strikes were commentary and thus not allowed in the voting area. I then reverted that removal after considering a note left on my talk page about my action. I feel that only unambiguous and unadorned votes should appear in the voting area. It was suggested that rather than removing the strikes I could instead move the votes out of the voting area and into the Comments section below the voting area. I was not comfortable with that as the Comments section begins with the notice: This area is for comments about the ballot. It is not for comments about politics or ramifications, or for voting tactics. Given the edit summaries of the original striking editors, I felt that moving the votes to Comments would violate the purpose of the Comments section. Therefor a dilemma exists. I believe my action removing the strikes and asking the striking voters via the edit summary to either remove them or keep them in without the striking commentary is the appropriate solution. I am asking the striking voters to consider those options, or that a policy against striking out in this way as commentary be included in the voting instructions. Sswonk (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the you leave them there. In most elections or ballots there will be "spoiled" votes. For my part I consider this ballot to be an inappropriate way to establish facts. It leads to mob rule. However I cannot propose an alternative. ClemMcGann (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I support your initial action. The strike-outs function as commentary. If the intention was to remove the vote, then the votes would have been removed. This is a clear attempt at commentary in the voting section and should be reverted. Or the votes removed altogether. The voters can always add them back. Their strike-outs may harm the process, but nothing about reverting them or removing the votes can "harm" the voters (ultimately). As to spoiled votes, they will be removed. Since the "ballots" are already visible to all, there is no use in not removing them now. Nobody but election officials ever need see spoiled ballots. But we are free to establish our own electoral rules here, and I believe the "no comments" rule justifies and even necessitates reverting the strikethroughs or removing the votes. Srnec (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. While it is true, as you say, that Nobody but election officials ever need see spoiled ballots. Is that not also true for all votes? When the number of votes cast are announced, so are the number of "spoiled" votes. Let's avoid a "hanging chad" scenario. Just leave them there. ClemMcGann (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. So is your point that this is nothing like most real elections? I would agree. And it is for that reason that the fact that spoiled ballots are common in real elections has no bearing here. Ballots are spoiled to make a point, which is exactly why the strikethroughs are comments and are against the rules governing this vote. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a paper election, there is no logic to considering any vote spoilt when it can be unspoilt at any time. MickMacNee (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so remove the strikethroughs or remove the votes. Let the voters then decide whether to either remove their un-struckthrough votes or re-add their removed votes. The point is that Sswonk's original conclusion—that the strikethroughs are comments and are thus prohibited—was correct. Only votes, signatures, and time stamps allowed, and a strikethroughs are none of the above. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Clem to let the strikethrough votes remain. I've seen strikethrough !votes being registered in the past on WP so I don't see why another drama is being created for the sake of what? Aesthetics? And there's already been a discussion regarding allowing votes changing, so this is just another vote change...and they might even change again and again before the deadline. --HighKing (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Because a spoiled vote is no longer a vote, but a comment. Agree with you on avoiding drama, though. I don't think this is a huge issue. Easiest solution is to simply ask BigDunc and Tfz to delete their strikethrough votes (I'm sure they're reading here) and/or have Masem or the other moderator rule on it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I started this thread not concerned with aesthetics, but the rules. The strikes are commentary, which is proscribed in the voting area. An examination of votes also shows I am not aligned against the strikers "politically". Also, although I am 10 to 1 sure that they were meant as a removal of votes, there is also an element of ambiguity, that is: do those votes still count? Other voters might add !!!!, ;)) or ???? to their votes and that would be commentary as well. If drama were cholesterol, this page would have suffered several heart attacks long ago. This thread was placed to avoid any edit war within the voting area that might have occurred over the strikes' removal. Aesthetics is not at issue, I agree with Bastun re: resolution, enough has been said about the practice. Sswonk (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the strikevotes were a clear political stunt, considering people are allowed to add / remove their vote at any time there is no reason for the striked votes to remain which would make sense if people couldnt change their vote. I dont have a problem with it really, its just grandstanding which we have seen throughout the process by some. Before the end those who have striked their votes will either unstrike them if they think they can win the vote or remove them completly claiming the vote is void if they think their options will lose. It is only to be expected. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

BW, in case you're not getting the messages from other editors, or if being subtle is flying over your head, will you lay off the overly-emotive unfactual posts please? Labelling something as a clear political stunt is tactless, and IMHO deliberately designed to get a reaction and create drama. If, as you say, you don't have a problem with it really, why in the same breath call it grandstanding which we have seen througout the process by some? C'mon, enough already. --HighKing (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry what term would you like me to use instead? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems perfectly factual to me. Maybe not tactful to say, but then the stunt in the first place isn't exactly tactful either. Quantpole (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read carefully what I said (what I *actually* said, not what you thought I said), you'll understand why now, I wonder, are you trying to talk about factual. And what I'm asking is that you resist the temptation to post responses that provide commentary on other editors, or what you believe to be their motives. That way, perhaps, we'll avoid instigating a new drama every couple of hours here. --HighKing (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents - if people want to strip their votes out that's fine, but it's acceptable (and preferable?) to strike them, as to indicate that you rescinded your vote as a statement to this poll. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, it is not a vote and therefor should be removed from the voting area, full stop. Sswonk (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

They've been unstruck by Srnec. [1] MickMacNee (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed. This process is getting scarily and sickeningly unpalatable to me. Was there a consensus for this? I think not. I expected better control of the voting area, and having editors mess with other editors votes within the voting area is just never a good idea. I'll wait to see if anything happens on this. It's a bit of a line in the sand as far as I'm concerned. --HighKing (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Srnec should restore them. They were not his votes. ClemMcGann (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Restore what? Were they votes or weren't they? They were struck. What does that mean? If they are not votes, they ought to be removed. If they are votes, they ought to be unstruck. The line in the sand is the rule regarding the voting procedure. There is no allowance for this nonsense. If a moderator won't act, I will, in full confidence that in any prolonged dispute over this matter I would easily carry the day. I, too, expected better control of the voting area and am frankly incensed that two voters would get away with these shenanigans if not for the boldness of one editor. As you can see from my own vote, I am in disagreement with the voters who struck their votes. In order to avoid any appearance of impropriety I originally only unstruck the votes (to remove the illicit comment), but was reprimanded by one of the voters on my talk page for "refactoring". But what did I refactor? Since it cannot be a comment he must think I changed his vote. This indicates that the strikethrough was intended to nullify his vote and I have accordingly removed it from the voting area to prevent confusion over whether it should be counted at the end of the day. Of course, the voters have a lot of time to add their votes back. If the striking voters wish to protest the poll, which has been decided upon by apparently binding arbitration, they must find another way. If they wish to have it, I offer them a page at User:Srnec/The "Poll on Ireland article names" should be nullified, as proof of goodwill and opposition to any form of censorship. Srnec (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of the "no statements on the ballot" was to basically prevent people cluttering what is expected to be a well-voted ballot with a lot of text that will make it difficult to understand what vote is what. Striking a vote is not the making of a statement. It simply means that user may wish to note they voted, then rescinded, as opposed to removal of the vote that may be interpreted as the person not voting at all. It's as much of a statement as someone voting for a single option or the like. As long as people are not marking others votes, there's no issue with strikethrus or removals. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that a voter has the right to state that they voted but that they do not want their vote to count, in the voting area? Are you assuring me that struck votes in the voting area will be discarded at the end of the day? And what purpose does noting that they voted in the voting area serve? Can they not note that elsewhere? Does not the history of the page note that? There was never an issue with removals, but there is an issue with strikethroughs. A user who wishes to note that he voted but votes no longer must find another way than leaving what amounts to a comment in the voting area. Do we need User:Srnec/Those who have rescinded their votes in the Poll on Ireland article names? (There has already been uncertainty expressed over whether struck votes will be counted here.) Srnec (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the easy statement: I will assure that struck votes - at the close of this poll - will not be counted, and will be treated the same as a "spoiled" ballot that opts for none of the solutions. This is different from removed votes which we can't count at all.

And again, there's just as much of a "statement" in the striking of a vote as a legitimately placed vote - it's showing the preference the user wants, which may be none in the struck vote case. We've obviously note preventing that type of statement otherwise the vote's useless. The "no statements" again it meant to apply to actually text or prose or whatever that tries to clarify their vote beyond asserting their STV choices. If they want to state their mind, this talk page is here. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(Do not make comments in this area—only your vote) is a statement. A vote is a vote. A stricken vote is no longer a vote. Masem, I think your gymnastic equivocation regarding the use of the word statement raises questions regarding your fitness as a moderator here. Your ruling is the equivalent of saying "of course the ostrich with his head in the sand can watch the day go by." The distinction is so clear cut between what are votes and non-votes that I think even you must have trouble believing in your own "ruling" on this matter. If someone wishes to remove their own vote, they must do that, remove it. By allowing it to be left behind as a martyred non-vote with a strike-tagged "cross" adorning it, you are allowing non-voting commentary behavior in the voting area. There is no wonder with that sort of ambiguous guidance that the legitimacy of this poll is now in serious danger. Sswonk (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I still have a very difficult time with the equating of a struck out vote the same as a comment akin to "I chose this option because of this reason..."; the reason to remove comments was to make sure it was clear what the vote was and avoid engaging debate in the balloting area. That said, as it seems that this is unacceptable to some indefinitely, then would be ok to say that struck votes should be, at the discretion of those that voted, to either remove them or replace a struck vote with a vote that supports no option? --MASEM (t) 13:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you not just leave them alone? If, as you now seem to recognize, removing a spoilt vote is unacceptable, why would altering a vote, as you now seem to propose, be any more acceptable? Could you not just leave them alone? ClemMcGann (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally see no issue with leaving the struck votes alone; it's Sswonk and Srnec that are seeing this as a serious issue, and do not appear satisfied until they are dropped. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we see their presence in the list in a different light. What is wrong in my view is that the phrase "only your vote" is violated. I don't oppose the strikers, either in sentiment nor in their action of striking. But, after striking someone needs to remove the stricken, by definition no longer votes, text from the voting area. The same would hold true if votes were turned green, orange, red or blue through the use of CSS, that stylistic adornment would need to be removed. It's obvious commentary in any case, and keeping stricken votes invites other stylistic or typographical manipulation of appearance of other votes so as to skirt the spirit of the prohibition on commentary. Sswonk (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Exaggerated demonstration: C B A D E  Sswonk (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC) – (I hope you saw the annoying blinking text before I turned it off) Sswonk (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus supporting your interpretation of the rules, and the rules were specifically to address comments which sometimes appear in !voting areas. A struck out vote is *not* the same thing as a comment and although I understand your reasoning, there are editors here that disagree. Please restore the struck out votes. --HighKing (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove them, Srnec did. I am no longer going to edit the voting area under promise to BigDunc. You, he or anyone else can add them back as stricken, I won't remove them. Sswonk (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is an open vote and every editor who casts a vote is making a comment. BigDunc 15:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If a vote is a comment, then this poll is mired in self-contradiction and should be nullified. The rules are clear that only three things are allowed in the voting area: votes, signatures, and time stamps. If you wish to construe any one of these as a comment, then you must regard it as a licit comment, since they are expressly allowed. In other words, the only comments allowed are votes and signatures. On the other hand, no provision is made for striking votes. What does that strikethrough mean, given the rules? Frankly, I think struck votes ought to be counted, since there is no provision for interpreting strikethroughs as removals of votes. Unfortunately, I have not seen any reasoning coming from opposing points of view. They merely assert their disagreement. Why, if BigDunc and Tfz, wish not to have their votes counted, do they not just remove them, so as to be clear? Is it not because they are trying to leave a comment that is not a vote in the voting area? Masem, if the votes will not be counted, why can't they be removed? It is a matter of public record (via article history) that they voted and that they struck their votes. Srnec (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, BigDunc's comment here demonstrates that the strikethrough means exactly what we anybody would think it means: a criticism of the very poll itself. Is it still not a comment? Remember, I would prefer that the strikethroughs be removed and not the votes themselves. The procedural rules state that comments will be removed, not votes. Srnec (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

C D E  Sswonk (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC) :: I have stricken my vote in the voting area as shown. The primary reason is given in the edit summary I left upon striking. The questionable actions of administrators in the case of Sarah777, the abdication of responsibility on the part of the moderator, and serious questions regarding the decision process which led up to the current poll format and notification process have in my view made it invalid. It should not be used to perform or justify any two year lockdown. Sswonk (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The split vote problem

Clearly the failure to include Ireland (republic) or any variant of it is a serious flaw in the process, but it is still no guarantee that we'd get over the core problem:

• The British vote gives a huge #1 boost to the British status quo
• This makes it near impossible for any other option to reflect the consensus that RoI must go

So I suggest:

• (1)It is clear that a large majority do not favour "RoI" and that a huge majority of Irish and "Outside" editors do not favour it.
• (2)Therefor we declare it unsuitable and get down to sorting out acceptable alternatives.
• (3)Or we run a first round "F" v. "not F" and if F is rejected vote on the alternatives. (This option does not eliminate the pov problem, of course, but it might just overcome the F block).

Sarah777 (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

LMAO! BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason Ireland (republic) was not included in this vote is because we had a poll BEFORE this main vote, in which we invited people from most of the places they have been invited this time. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_(xxx) .. There was only a couple of votes for Ireland (republic) so it was not placed on the ballot. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And again you exemplify another aspect of the problem here. It finished third, and was dismissed because a the Admin thought it was "the same" as RoI. Making the same error that you are still making. Sarah777 (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats the problem, ur first sentence in section attacked the fact Ireland (republic) is not on this ballot. I am explaining VERY clearly to everyone why its not on the ballot. We held a separate vote before this main ballot, in which a message was sent to most of the locations this main poll was.. over 50 people took part in the vote. Less than 5 put Ireland (republic) as their first option, so it was judged there wouldnt be enough support for it. We could not have dozens of options on this ballot. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But then Sarah was a participant there, and knows all of this already. There's an expression about feeding... something... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

.....the Gondolas. Sarah777 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What a load of horse manure from Sarah - obviously Sarah is horrified at the possiblity of her "naked self-interest" losing out and therefore has distilled down to feeding us any bo**ocks she can think up to force the "solution" she sees fit. For better or worse we're going to have to sit this out and whatever the final result its a two year solution. No going back, now. Djegan (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems Sarah is expecting an outcome that she doesn't like and is therefore trying to rewrite the rules of the game in order to obtain an outcome that she does like. Mooretwin (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe she and others should have more strongly supported my compromise proposal from the Task Force, which I pushed to be accepted as part of this exercise, but which was ultimately ignored/dismissed. Mooretwin (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you'll find that I was one of those who did support your compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh lots of people supported it at the time, but I was effectively a lone voice when I tried to push it as part of this particular process. Mooretwin (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've pointed it out at least 5 times in the last 10 days. As far as I'm concerned, that was a good idea. Makes me wonder why some of the people who supported that idea are now supporting retaining the status quo.... anyone? --HighKing (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same reason as others, including Sarah, would be supporting the outcome of this poll if the vote were going differently. At the end of the day, however, my compromise was rejected and this process was agreed - I can do nothing about that and must accept it regardless of the outcome. If the outcome happens to coincide with my favoured solution then I will obviously be content. It still, however, won't solve the issue of how to refer to the state within the texts of articles (something else which I kept raising but was ignored). Mooretwin (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise failed, it wasnt a single side that rejected proposals for compromise. We are here at the vote, this is binding for two years. we just have to wait for the peoples vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling this was going to happen. It appears the only "serious flaw" is that things didn't go your way. Consensus, even voting, shouldn't take into account where the people live. Seems that the worries about your profiling the voters were not unfounded. Since this looks like this is going to be a "my way or we'll just re-do it because there must be something wrong with it" game, I question the legitimacy of the poll. It's clear that my "Outside" vote for F was discounted for COI reasons, so feel free to remove it. --Kbdank71 13:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat: I voted for Ireland (republic); it came third; the Admin decided to send two forward on the grounds that Ireland (republic) was the same as Republic of Ireland. Bastun knows that; but then Bastun is better at trying to get Irish editors blocked and banned than debating with them. Kd, you are registered in the appropriate box based on your location. I think you are unknown. Sarah777 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow thats unfair Sarah.. in the recent incident over ur spreadsheet Bastun said.. "I'd support oversight of the profiling and a ban on it recurring on Project pages or userspace, but would oppose a block or ban on Sarah at this time." hardly trying to get Irish editors blocked and banned! BritishWatcher (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happens we will not get an ideal result. The best we can hope for is a compromise which all can accept - as a compromise not an ideal. Few advocated Ireland (republic) as an ideal - it is not, imho, an ideal. However it might be compromise which could be accepted. ClemMcGann (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "compromise"? Are you suggesting that the outcome of this poll will be ignored and a different "compromise" imposed? Anti-ROI editors were involved in this process and rejected the option of getting rid of Republic of Ireland in return for acceptance of its use as the main disambiguator in text. That ship appears to have sailed. Too late to be asking for a "compromise" now. Mooretwin (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Ireland (republic) is awful. Id rather Ireland (state) than that. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also puzzled by the idea that Ireland (republic) is any better than Ireland (state). I don't support Republic of Ireland because I think it's incredibly important to point out that Ireland is a Republic. I support it because I oppose parenthetical disambiguation in cases where it's unnecessary. Ireland (republic) is just as bad as Ireland (state) in that respect. john k (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The status quo is not British. There is no consensus "that RoI must go". Fmph (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is clear that a large majority do not favour "RoI" " Currently 132 have voted, at the final count, 68 people support option F, 33 option E, 29 option C, 2 non-transferable. Either Sarah should upgrade her calculator or she should stop factually inaccurate mischief making. Valenciano (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol @ upgrade her calculator :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"I note that supporters of the British status quo having managed to ban facts they deem unhelpful to their campaign...". I note that Sarah777 is still pushing the POV boat out, insisting that status quo is "British". I note that many Irish editors have expressed a preference, to some degree or other, for the status quo. I note again that there must be a hell of a lot of Irish-speaking "British POV pushers" around, because the Irish-language Wikipedia has had their version of our Republic of Ireland article at "Poblacht na hÉireann" (the Irish for "Republic of Ireland") since May 2004, without any of this drama. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

LMAO are you serious?? , the Irish wikipedia has the country article at Republic of Ireland too? OMG, thats the first ive heard of that.. That certainly can not be blamed on British editors, most of us struggle with English let alone a second language. Although i bet a few editors will pop across and try and change that now. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia] also recently moved the country article from "Irlanda" to Republica de Irlanda. I guess they along with the Irish Prime Minister are all part of the dastardly British conspiracy. Valenciano (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You should pay more attention when you read position statements, then... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

lol oh yes i see it on there now.. woops =). Id of added that on mine if id of noticed that. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Irish wikipedia's entry is all the reason we need to dismiss all this "pro-British" business for what it is - utter nonsense. john k (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Anybody even thinking of believing anything Sarah says about what 'the British vote' affects in this poll, or what other people are 'clearly' giving 'huge' support to, should first give themselves a slap, then read #Restore the profiling info (which did not even address the revelations produced by her later distinction between Unknown/non-Brit-Irish votes), and do the maths for themselves, starting from the real world fact that the population of Britain is 60 million, Ireland 4 million. She clearly thinks that if she says something enough times it becomes true, but ironically because she compiled the profiling data to attempt to show this, she actually proved she is talking out of her backside, and that the alleged systemic bias of British/Irish editors is having no effect on the poll, due to the massive over representation of Irish voters in it, and their higher tendency toward the alleged bias than the Brits. Combined with the later data that shows that the undeclared voters more closely follow the Irish opinion than the British, yet the declared non Irish/Britsh voters show no swing to either alleged nationalistic bias, makes her claims even more dubious as to what the Brits are/are not doing. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You know damn well I cannot restore my analysis as your fellow pushers of the British solution have ensured that. I'm going to update it now and the facts that clearly show that Irish editors oppose "RoI" by a huge margin while the more numerous British votes prop it up will shine through the fog of your obfuscation like a searchlight on a clear night. Sarah777 (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's your understanding, then you should sue your maths teacher Sarah. Given the fact that at last count, the weighting produced 1 for 1 equality between the indicative British and Irish populations on Wikipedia. But, we might finally be getting to the heart of the matter, that you do actually believe that the current weighting on Wikipedia of Irish opinions over British of ten times the real world, combined with their higher tendency toward bias, is still not sufficient for the Irish opinion to be properly accounted for on Wikipedia in terms of balancing bias to achieve the neutral point of view. How much more weighting would you like for The Win? Would an indication that Ireland has say, double the population of Britain in the real world be enough? Or do you want three times just to be safe? As usual, my pointing out that there is no bias in the poll, using her own figures, is turned into me being a pusher of this or that in her mindset. It's tedious, and rightly, should be ignored. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Give us a shout Sarah when your ready to come back to the real world. It is clear that your "arguments" are unsustainable by the facts. Djegan (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And this is where I must give great credit to Domer48 and BigDunc and a few more editors who stuck with the collaboration page through thick and thin, and predicted this end. This was predicted, this is an unseemly 'battle of the povs', and nothing else. The citations say that the name of the state is Ireland, and Eire when speaking Irish language. If Wikipedia followed the citation, and gave weight to that, then we would not be in this mess today. I genuinely believe that the intention to have a poll was done in good faith, but in reality, the wisdom of the masses is not used to solve complex issues like this, that's up to leaders to do, and the the masses are usually channelled into war machines, just like we are having here. Arbocm has been found wanting again. Tfz 14:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You,Domer and BigDunc should have done more to support my compromise, then. (PS. Citations also say Ireland is the name of the island.) Mooretwin (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was very predictable that certain editors would moan about the vote after it had started and consider it invalid. We have opened up this matter to over 100 people who have not been involved in it before, if the majority choose for the status quo to remain then we must accept it for two years.. just like if F had lost then wed have to accept it. I wish you guys would of told me F was going to be doing aswell as it is now, because i was worried it would be losing(but theres still plenty of time for things to change). Although i agree with complaints about Arbcom, they should of sorted this instead they just passed it back for others to deal with (and take the blame for the result). BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but this is not and never should be "up to leaders to do". This is an open encyclopedia, its not somthing were a few "gifted" people can come in and make the decisions. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but nor is it a dictatorship either. If people are going to give there time freely then they should have some say at least. This is a complex issue, but its not a geometry theorem that has one strict answer. The rules were layed down the "qualifications" for voting. Theres no going back now. Djegan (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

@Djegan. "This is a complex issue, but its not a geometry theorem that has one strict answer.". I am glad you 'get it'. And for that reason a mass of voters, some informed, but many uninformed, cannot be guaranteed to choose the best disambiguation method. We do not see governments polling the public on every issue and law of the day, and we know that this does not happen. And your 'model' of Wikipedia is a joke and is just based on 'opinion' of the vociferous, and to hell with the facts. Tfz 17:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So instead of listening to the majority view open to anyone to take part, we should accept a small group of editors who have raised hell about this matter for years? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Tfz - you have your own agenda here - some sort of elite core group of people who "get" the right answer. No thanks to that. There is no going back now just because you don't like the result. I say again the "qualifications" for voting were clear and thats it. If people want a "solution" they need to respect the rules even if they disagree with the result. Djegan (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lmao! you have your own agenda here! The core group is a number of British editors a tiny handful of Irish editors who are desperate to keep the British status quo imposed on the article about the sovereign country to the extent of denying all reality and all evidence presented. Sarah777 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

21 Irish versus 35 British according to your latest figures, with the Irish more biased than the British, and bizarrely, you are calling everyone from Northern Ireland British. What's the population of Ireland and Britain Sarah? You are full of shit, and you know it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On that last point - very stark terms - but essentially right! Djegan (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is pretty shocking she is refusing to count people from Northern Ireland as Irish, and ofcourse if someone votes for F as their second option, she labels them as against F. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, many people from Northern Ireland class themselves as British, especially those of a Unionist persuasion, and that's their designation, not mine. Tfz 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse and im very glad about that fact, the trouble is if someone has Irish+ British on their userpage and they are from Northern Ireland, Sarah is only counting them as British. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is little point in lawyering about that. There was a survey done in the last year or so, and about 90% of Unionists classed themselves as British first, and not Irish 'at all'. Don't ask me for link, but I'm sure it's on the Internet somewhere. Tfz 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your words bring great comfort to me but you miss the point. Sarah is making a claim that only so many Irish people are voting one way and all the British are voting the other. If she isnt counting all the people of Ireland (the island) as "Irish people" then its misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but 'the times they are a changing' [2]. It's more complex than that, much more. Tfz 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

LMAO the link goes against ur original point. You said 90% of unionists claim to be British not Irish there for it doesnt matter if Sarah aint counting people in the North as Irish. The link you provide says theres a growing Northern Irish identity (from the quick read through i had).. So doesnt that justify people from the North being included as Irish in her little spreadsheet?? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Sarah only counting Unionists as British? Or is she counting anybody from Northern Ireland as British, including Nationalists? The latter is totally absurd. As to the former, Unionists have as much right to be heard in this dispute as anybody else. john k (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The next thing ya know, somebody will suggest barring British & Irish editors from the Poll. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, that's a great idea. Tfz 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Binding?

Is this honestly going to be taken as binding? If so, this is just a horrible idea. Voting with no reasoning at all produces no consensus at all. It also isn't fair to minority views, especially if the majority really has no reason for the arguments. This is especially a problem in a dispute involving countries where one or more countries has a substantially higher population than others in the dispute. In the Macedonia dispute, all participants had to provide a rationale for the positions they supported based on policy, and those who provided no reason or whose reason was inconsistent with policy were discounted by the referees. That sort of approach can produce an actual consensus. This one cannot, and violates Wikipedia policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the Macedonia dispute totally sorted out and no longer a problem, with no editors moaning ever? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly quieted down. Of course there's still occasional moaning, but there's no way out of that on contentious issues like this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been going on for many years, the status quo has been how the articles have ALWAYS (from what i can tell) been laid out on the English wiki. This went all the way to arbcom and we have just spent 6 months trying to reach consensus. One of the early stages was for people to make big statements on what they think should be the solution.. the problem is nobody agrees. Its been divided with people supporting different options. in the case of macedonia there was only two options surely (republic of or no republic of).. here we have many options and possibly layouts.

Consensus was impossible so its gone to a community wide vote. This does not violate any wikipedia policy. This is the end.. this vote will be binding for two years no matter what the outcome and when that happens "it will mostly quite down" for this issue too. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is binding, per the arbitration ruling. Every side has a referenced policy based argument for their position. The idea that Ireland is under-represented in this poll is just a lie (but to show it you must go to another place and examine data not allowed to be on this page). MickMacNee (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee is right, this is being talked above also but the facts on this are very clear. So far (according to sarah who opposes option F) there are 35 British editors, 136 editors in total. Atleast 50 are known to be Irish or "non British". There for unless almost all of the unknown editors are British (which is very very unlikely) there is a non British majority which could override every single British vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even counting non British voters BW, you simply have to apply the real world populations to the voting numbers, and their respective tendency to 'bias' (and a few other errors caused by Sarah's simplistic profiling technique), and you do not get a figure that gets anywhere near close to saying that the British have a majority and the Irish a minority. We haven't even got close yet to touching on the effect of the Irish diaspora and the real and proven systemic bias of Wikipedia, because that would just be speculation. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it says this is binding; but if it is, the British POV issue will have to be resolved despite the remarks of the hysterics above. (Having dismissed my methodology completely, Bastun is now quibbling about the scale of the huge majority of Wikis that reject the British-favoured formulation "RoI")! He knows full well that some of the most ardent British Nationalists in these islands live in NI but seeks to have them included as "Irish" for the purpose of analysing British POV in this issue! As I said, a comedian. He is also a good man for dishing out personal attacks and then running to Mammy when he gets his served returned. Sarah777 (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Binding for two years, that's a fact, the final solution handed down by arbcom. Which is why people with ardent viewpoints shouldn't have spent so much time in the consensus / discussion phase throwing their toys out the pram and making ridiculous assertions (or in your case, dissappearing completely) until the inevitable vote came around to solve the deadlock. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a funny for a while but it's getting boring now. Sarah, try reading for comprehension. What I actually said was that the population of NI splits roughly equally nationalist (Irish nationalist!)/unionist. So half will be Irish, half will be "British". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"the huge majority of Wikis" do not reject RoI. A large number do not have this issue at all because there is so far no article on the island and so there is only one claimant to the "Ireland" name space. It is meaningless to co-opt them to either side of the argument. But of those with two articles more do not have the state at "Ireland" than do, and by far the most popular means to disambiguate the state is to use "Republic of Ireland" including the Irish Wikipedia! It is not "British POV [sic]", it is the result of a natural disambiguator being preferable to an artificial one. Now unless de Valera was a very effectively disguised British secret agent it wasn't the British who created the name confusion in the first place, unless Costello was one it wasn't the British who invented the term "Republic of Ireland" and unless the Irish government is still packed with British agents it's not the British who use the term in the Dail. This assertion that use of the RoI formula is an imposed British POV has been debunked many times by editors from all over the world and is getting beyond tiresome. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways to bring it to the community than a vote. The Macedonia discussion went to the community, but remained a discussion that required reasoning. And no, it was not two options; in fact, the options were substantially more complex than in this one because we had to deal not only with article titles but with name usage within articles on international organization and Greece-related ones. In saying that it was simpler you are greatly mistaken, BritishWatcher. I never said Ireland was under-represented; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were over-represented since they tend to be especially interested in the topic. This kind of thing is completely open to off-wiki canvassing and various other things. It is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy, contra BritishWatcher. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This vote does not violate wikipedia policy. The issues with how / when to use Ireland / Republic of Ireland in text is a matter that has to be agreed after this vote. If the status quo was to loose, no changes are allowed until AFTER there is consensus on those matters. Anyway there is no single correct way of proceeding. Arbcom ruled, those who got involved took us to this vote, now its for anyone and everyone to vote and the result is binding for two years. Heimstern, you may like to take a look at the archives of the debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration. We were going round and round in circles, there was no option but a vote otherwise that would of gone on for another few years. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. But I have been pointing out to the blind editors (or, if you prefer, The Three Monkies) that this was a solution imposed by weight of superior numbers of British editors. This is why they can reject all compromise. This vote has given us a chance to demonstrate that graphically. Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The three monkies???? Im deeply offended. Are we allowing such personal attacks and grossly misleading statements by editors on this talk page? 35 British editors, 136 editors in total. Atleast 50 are known to be Irish or "non British" The majority of people in this vote are NOT British, there for they can override the British vote, those are your OWN damn figures. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the three Monkeys; SNE, HNE, SNE. Never heard of them? Why am I not surprised! Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

nope never heard of them, ive lived a sheltered life and i dont like being called a monkey if your comment was aimed at me. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, you're going to get yourself blocked if you keep saying things like that. BW, you are mistaken in saying there was "no choice". I'm quite aware these discussions have been going around in circles. The Macedonia ones did exactly that, too. The refereed (key word: refereed) discussion solved it in a binding manner. There's no reason a similar solution can't be made here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree there may of been otherways to proceed but no alternative was being offered at the time that got agreement, the majority involved supported a poll open to the community which has led us here. The reason a similar solution cant be made to work here is because a vote has already been started. If after all this has ended there are still huge problems and the vote was very very cloes then a new solution may have to be tried. Some (including myself) supported a compromise which was basically option D, but it proved impossible to get full consensus and over the past 6 months i have seen endless evidence to back up the status quo and very little to justify a change which is why now i have only voted for F. Im sure in the case of Macedonia there are a couple who refuse to accept the outcome, well its going to be exactly the same here. We cant please everyone. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the triumvirate above would get blocked first; read the history of the exchange. Could someone link me to the Arbcom decision to impose a 2 year settlement regardless of what this poll reveals? Sarah777 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names states a two year freeze on page moves following the outcome of the process setup. That process was the Ireland collaboration project and the majority supported a vote. The ballot paper states this vote is binding for two years. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The ruling says: If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. That didn't happen, did it? Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've checked - it was clear in those first 14 days that a vote was likely going to be the best process. Sure, its been much longer than 14 days to get the vote, but when I checked after becoming moderator, the Arbs felt that clause was not yet passed. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also Arbcom has known this process is ongoing and supported it. Otherwise why would they of ruled that Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at the collaboration project.[3] Your attempts to find a flaw in the system to void this vote counting are predictable Sarah. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

just as a really brief history of my exposure (as moderator) to this:

• This has been going on for years. Yes, the ArbCom case for this was at the start of 2009, but clearly it's an extension of The Troubles, even if it's not that much of a problem. The ArbCom solution was to put moderators into the process to help guide discuss to a process to decide how to name the respective articles. The initial three moderators dropped out due to wear and tear of the discussions (and this is not to slight anyone involved, but it's rather obvious to see what those were like looking at the arguments on this page); that's where I came in. You had two trenches, no one was going to move towards a consensus view - sure, solutions were proposed and discussed, but it always almost always over the use or non-use of the RoI term that would fail to draw any close to the process. And I've looked at the sources provided, and there's no clear answer here either. With the way the people invested in this discussion could go, discussion and consensus would take years, and may only come about by pure exhaustion by one side or the other.
• However, when the concept of a vote was mentioned, it was considered by most (not all, granted) to be a fair way to resolve the stalemate. And thus making the change binding for 2 years would prevent edit warring. No single solution present on this poll is perfect - someone's going to have a problem with each one, but these at least fall within appropriate interpretation of WP policy, past resolutions, and what the sources provide. Maybe in those two years someone will strict on the "perfect" solution and propose it, great, if there's discussion and agreement, I can certainly see breaking the "binding" to put a more-agreed solution in place. But without such (and I think it would have been offered much sooner for as long as this hsa been going), the "binding" statement just helps to allow the two entrenched sides to settle down and focus back on improving the encyclopedia, even if they have a nagging problem with an article title. In two years, we can re-evaluate and see if consensus changed. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I agree strongly that there is no "perfect" solution. But I also stress strongly that there is/was a compromise solution which we had agreed to before this vote, which is Option D (or maybe even E). So I find it very odd (disconcerting, worrying, annoying) that many of the editors that agreed to that compromise have now abandoned that spirit of compromise and "moving on" to impose the existing POV. TBH, I feel tricked (betrayed, led on) by the comments and support now being given to option F. I feel a fool (or have been fooled). Retaining option F will solve nothing. Just my 2c. --HighKing (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ireland/Ireland (state)/Ireland (disambiguation)" would have been a fine compromise, amenably to almost everyone. It would however have been a compromise because for most people the status quo is just fine. They don't see any need to change it - and indeed they think it is the right way to dab the two pages. It would have been a compromise to a minority to whom the status quo is not fine, but in order for it to happen the majority of people would have had to concede to the compromise. They would have had to concede that the minority had a point; that the minority was reasonable in what they wanted; and that the minority's perspective was not so far removed from something that we could all agree over and so have room for compromise between us.

As things happened, the minority were so extreme in their view, so far removed from basic lived reality - with their insistence that ROI was a "British imposition", that it demonstrates a "British POV", that it is "disrespectful", that it "is never used in Ireland", and so on - that it was impossible for the majority to reach that compromise with them. You compromise with reasonable people, over reasonable things. You don't compromise with the lunatics fringe, babbling nonsense and hurling abuse at you. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"with their insistence that ROI was a "British imposition", that it demonstrates a "British POV", that it is "disrespectful", that it "is never used in Ireland",.... ". That's what I call spinning a lie, for want of a more appropriate word. I for one never said it was a British imposition, but that a poll would bring out a pov from UK voters and skew the poll. It seems that a certain few are prepared to stoop to any tactics to discredit the opposition, BW, Rannpháirtí, and a handful more et al. Quite frankly I find that totally disgusting. Tfz 19:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)It could be argued that there are fringe fanatics on both sides of every argument. And often, the fringe shout louder. Abuse and nonsense appears and has appeared from both sides. You appear to be dismissing this entire 7 year disagreement as bowing to a minority, but I don't believe that you really believe that. This vote is/was an opportunity to silence the fringes, and remove excuses for drama and edit wars. I still hope (okay, I still believe that people are, deep down, good and sensible) that this can be the case. --HighKing (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, i supported the middle ground, backing what is now option D. I did that from when i first got involved in this debate (about 6 months ago) and all the way up until a few months ago. Your statement which you added to the statement page, i was prepared to endorse that and support some form of compromise along the grounds you were suggesting. However the past few months have totally changed my mind and i fully support F, this is in large part due to the lies and hate spread by certain editors who have a clear agenda. The claim that Republic of Ireland is British POV, has been proven false with more and more evidence justifying the status quo, at the same time those who strongly oppose it have provided no evidence to require change, apart from to compromise to make a few editors who raise hell happy. The time for compromise is over, this nonsense has gone on for enough years. The vote will decide the articles names, the majority who vote are not and will not be British or those people involved over the past few years. We must accept the opinion of the majority (of non involved editors) no matter what the outcome. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah - you are wikilawyering, you are all over the place - you are discredited. Even your own are distancing themselves from you. Djegan (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't see your British solution getting much support from your fellow Irish editors, do we? There are clearly question marks over numerous aspects of this process which will need to be examined. Including (but not restricted to); the selection process in the "sub-poll"; censorship of factual presentation of data; bullying and intimidation by pro-RoI faction; imposition of British pov on Irish article titles by weight of numbers; lies and misrepresentation of opinions presented here by the certain members of the pro-RoI minority. Sarah777 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Superlatives again DJ, some things never change. Here is a graphical depiction of the voting bias [4]. Wikipedia and ArbCom cannot ignore this data, that's if Wikipedia is ever going to be accepted as a mainstream reference repository. Tfz 02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

LMAO, awww you made a pretty little pie chart. The problems with Sarahs spreadsheet have been explained on many occasions above. Im slightly confused about what your chart actually shows.. I first thought it was just dividing up those who voted F as their first option by nationality. But is your chart meant to be showing 40% of non British / Irish editors voted for F as their first option, 29% of Irish editors voted F as their first option and 69% of Brits voted F as their first option?

If thats the case then its very misleading to only talk of the first option when the vote is going to be decided in the FINAL round not the first round. The fact 40% of non British/Irish editors voted for option F first whilst there are 6 options on the ballot is a positive thing and just under 30% of Irish editors voted F for the first option (irish editors sarah is prepared to count) shows not all Irish editors are against F. Finally it just does not put anything into proportion. It fails to show that whilst 69% of Brits may of voted F as their first choice, they only account for 35 out of over 135 who have voted (if you are using sarahs most recent figures). BritishWatcher (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis, I hadn't studied it yet, and it's a representation of Sarah's figures. Oh my, the chart is all red, wondered how that happened. In any case 'pie charts' are excellent at presenting data in a visual form. I have other tools and will introduce them later. Tfz 03:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Such analysis should wait until the final result is announced. Oh and all that red only represents 24 votes. This vote involves over 135 voters so as i said before dont forget to put it into proportion. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To summarise (in coherent language) what BW has just said : The British solution is acceptable because 40% of non British/Irish editors voted for it and only 70% of Irish editors favoured something else. Sarah777 (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To sum up, your figures say there are 35 British out of 135 voters. There are more known Irish/Non British editors than British editors there for you can not blame all this on British people, the British vote can be totally overriden by non British editors IF they agreed with your point of view. Thankfully they see past your anti British POV pushing. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

-General comment-: Any disruptors after the September results, should be given a 1-month block (and increasing monthly blocks for repeat disruption). GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If some of us bother to stay with the project, that is. @BW, claiming other editors are anti-British is a modus operandi of, well, a certain clique. It is also an ad hominem attack on other editors, and it should be withdrawn. You are constantantly on the attack of everyone who disagrees with your 'point of view' (pov), and it is getting very tedious indeed. Masem should look at your constant attacking, or are you serving a purpose for a cabal of a 'collaboration page'. Otherwise I have no other issues with you. Tfz 13:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ive not attacked everyone who disagrees with my point of view. I am responding to certain editors here who are clearly pushing an anti British POV. One of them has a clear track record and sanctions for such things. I oppose attempts by certain editors to mislead others by unverified profiling which has many flaws. Especially when its claimed someone who puts F as their second option is somehow "against F". Im not here ranting, im simply responding to others rants. If you want to look for "attacks", go look at Sarah last night calling people monkies. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant as to whether a voting editor is Irish, British, Canadian, American etc etc (and it should be irrelevant). If Sarah wishes to continue complaining, then simply ignore her. If editors want to leave this Poll? let them. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know something GoodDay, if had ever edited Ireland, or the Republic of Ireland, or any other related articles, then I might just respect your advice, but not necessarily take it. Since you don't edit such articles, and probably never will, I totally reject you last comments as unhelpful. Maybe you should leave? Tfz 14:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but the we're not getting our own way, so we're packing it in crowd are becoming a bore. My preference looks like it isn't going to get adopted (if the current trend continues), but ya don't see me crying foul. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't be suggesting other editors leave the poll/discussion. Tfz 14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested no such thing. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

People wanna leave the Poll? fine. If they want to continue to 'complain' in the discussion? fine. Eitherway, the September results will be respected (for 2yrs). GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clear there is going to be some form of attempted 'appeal' if a certain result wins (or alternatively some large scale rabble rousing and sniping by the usual suspects, certainly no dogs will be left sleeping or dead horses left unflogged that's for sure), but I predict that if the evidence in any appeal is not backed up by a "reasonably competent statistician" to borrow a recent phrase seen by me, who actually knows something about applying appropriate weight to opinions before claiming there is a definitive net effect of alleged nationalistic bias in the poll, then it rightly will be dismissed out of hand (assuming of course we have some equally competent statisticians on arbcom - as this poll is an arbcom directed means to an end to the dispute, appeals can only be sent to arbcom.) MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They seem to of tried to start an appeal already with all this presentation of "evidence here" and trying to find ways to have the vote declared void. lol, its far too close in the final round to know for sure that F will win anyway so i dont get why this has already started, 30+ days to go yet. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone really think the result of this poll would be embraced by all participants? That would be naive in the extreme. Considering every step up until now has been marked by efforts, of certain editors, to ensure their preferred solution would be adopted, there is no reason to believe that leopard will change its spots now. I'm sure there will be appeals, there will be efforts to circumvent the resolution, there will be continuing bad blood and grumbling. But so what? Let the appeals be heard (by ArbCom if they so wish to accept it), the efforts at circumvention can be dealt with by admins at Arbcom enforcement and just ignore the sniping. This poll was the last throw of the dice; we are stuck with the result and no amount of appeals based on selective statistical analysis will change that. Rockpocket 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

True colours showing Rock? What would "unselective statistical analysis" be, pray tell? Sarah777 (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The vote has not exactly supported my preference either, I'm simply making an observation on the rigor, or lack thereof, by which you carried out your data analysis. You are trying to claim, using F vs Non-F analysis, that this poll is unduly biased. That may, or may not be the case, but we can't know unless we have something to compare it to. A non selective analysis would, for example, include the same analysis for A vs Non-A, B vs Non-B etc. Instead you selected one metric and tried to make a case using that.

Further, you seem to be confusing what you have shown and what you have inferred. what you have shown is that one demographic differs from another in primary preference. That isn't exactly a surprise. What you claim (currently without data to support it) is that this has somehow unduly altered the outcome of this poll. You are in a position to address this, but have not done so (again, due to your selective analysis). Here is what you need to so: Calculate what option (A, B, C, D, E or F) is currently the primary preference of the entire electorate minus the British voters. Then calculate what the primary preference of the so-called "neutral" electorate. If either is still F (and I suspect they both may be) then I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on. Rockpocket 00:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I too studied statistics, deviations and all that, permutations, combinations, just name it, I did it. You may have missed the copycat voting trend, that's why the ballot should have been in secret, if anything. I would disagree with your conclusion. Tfz 01:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as I haven't drawn any conclusions, I'm fascinated to know what you disagree with. All I am asking for is evidence that "British" editors have significantly skewed the result of this vote. That is what is being claimed, so if you disagree, you should be able to point me to the supporting evidence. Rockpocket 02:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you did say to Sarah, "I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on", and that was the conclusion I was referring to, it was also the conclusion of the last sentence, so there were two angles on that score, surprised you missed both. The evidence, though not exact, is there for anyone to see, and I for one am satisfied that about 69% of UK editors were voting F, and only 29% of Irish editors were voting F. They are significant differences, and very significant at that, and indeed the people who edit these articles are having only marginal say, but what do they matter? Also, any random errors in the collection of the 'data' should cancel eachother out, assuming the data was 'good', which I'm sure it was. Tfz 03:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you missed the rest of the sentence in your selective quote. I said "IF either [group's preference] is still F ... then I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on." That much is self evident: if the result is F without British participation then the British editors clearly cannot skew the result to F. If that is what you disagree with, then your understanding of basic logic is clearly lacking. You may well be satisfied with the relative percentage of Irish/British editors that voted F, but since that metric doesn't support the claim Sarah is making it is not particularly germane. Rockpocket 04:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have missed my sentence again, "You may have missed the copycat voting trend". Clearly you are being selective in you interpretation. Tfz 04:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it appeared irrelevant. If I am wrong, perhaps you would be so kind to explain what a "copycat voting trend" is, how you calculated it, and how it supports that claim that British editors have skewed the result of this poll. Given your statistical studies, I anticipate that it is a statistically significant trend, or else you would appreciate its irrelevance. Rockpocket 05:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't participate, nor have I read much of what lead up to this. But as I understand it, a consensus was reached to hold a poll. A consensus was reached on the poll wording etc. Therefore, the belief/hope is that whatever the outcome of the poll, all those who were part of achieving the consensus for the poll would abide by the results. It's possible that some who didn't partake in the original discussion will try to overturn this consensus, but as there will be a large number of people from all sides of this debate who hold to this consensus, it will likely be difficult. Of course it's possible, probably even likely, that some of those who agreed to the original consensus may try to wheedle their way out of it when the result goes against them but I think they may find it difficult as many people are likely to see their 'change of mind' as extremely poor form. This would hopefully include a number of people who otherwise support their viewsNil Einne (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Implying RoI is the name of the sovereign country is offensive, wrong and contrary to WP:NPOV. The name is maintained by the numerical preponderance of British voters and the fact that they heavily support imposing "F" as the article title. This is now proven by the voting that has taken place. Sarah777 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If the 'F option' wins out in September? you (like myself) will not go against it for 2yrs. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Implying RoI is the name of the sovereign country is offensive, wrong and contrary to WP:NPOV. The name is maintained by the numerical preponderance of British voters and the fact that they heavily support imposing "F" as the article title. This is now proven by the voting that has taken place. Sarah777 (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

'Tis up to you then, get blocked (after September). GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The process is clearly flawed, not least the censorship of facts vital to inform the wider community of what is actually happening here. As always, I will stick within the rules in defence of WP:NPOVSarah777 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you'll go against the September results, if it's the F-option? GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I will examine the options available to defend WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What if the Poll turns out in favour of changing the country name? GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Then we accept it as binding for two years. Same as if the Poll turns out in favour of retaining the status quo. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As none of the range of alternatives to F impose blatant British pov the problem will have been resolved by a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it offensive to imply that South Korea is the name of the Republic of Korea, as well? If not, why not? If so, why so much energy to this, and so little to that? Also, didn't Tfz get mad at me for saying that people thought "Republic of Ireland was offensive? And now here's Sarah saying straight out that it's offensive. john k (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I never got mad with you, though you might like to believe that. I remember you saying, "all this is getting very tedious", maybe it was you that was getting a little 'mad'. Oh what a tangled web we weevie... Tfz 03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah - as always the drama queen. Any vain attempt to throw the poll in her favor (but it won't work). This is a two year solution, whatever the outcome. Djegan (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your confidence in the numerical superiority of British editors to support your British solution is well founded. Sarah777 (talk)

There's that phrase again, numerical superiority, as if there is no need to look beyond a simple dumb count (now a pie chart amusingly, as if this wasn't amatuerish enough) to show the poll actually respects the NPOV and nobody has genuine 'superiority'. To believe that, you have to believe the republic has a population of 40 million people. You cannot defend the NPOV when you don't even know what it is. Simple counting, it isn't. Proper counting and accounting, it is. MickMacNee (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

When the final bell rings in September, Option E will be the victor, ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Binding POV

The imposition of British pov on the article has been maintained by weight of numbers of British editors for 7 years despite objections from the Irish Wiki-editor community. There will be a problem until the imposition is removed. Sarah777 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You would have a much stronger case Sarah had the Irish government not made the term ur country's offical description. If the Irish Football team didnt play under the name Republic of Ireland. If the Irish government, and members of the Irish parliament along with the Irish media didnt use Republic of Ireland as well. But they do, so everytime an Irish minister says "Republic of Ireland" is he really pushing British POV? Your attempts to mislead people on this talk page are disgraceful. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

BW, it's this shocking ignorance of the germane facts that appalls me at this stage of the debate. You open by acknowledging that RoI is a description, which nobody disagrees with. The you start in with the fact that a football team plays under the name of RoI, which actually has absolutely nothing to do with this debate and is very disappointing that you don't know this. I also haven't stepped in and replied to the many editors that trumpet the fact the Irish ministers have used the term - mainly because I didn't fully comprehend the point. Now I believe I grasp what is happening - it is an attempt by some editors to make it appear that this vote is about RoI as a term, and the vote is whether to continue to use the term or not. This is yet another example of extremist polarisation of this debate - nobody, but nobody, is trying to rid WP of the phrase RoI. It has it's place in the right context. Mooretwin's suggestion outlines an arrangement that most editors agreed to. *This* debate and vote is about one thing, and one thing only - the title of the WP article. You mentioned (very grandly) previously that you used to support changing the title. Now I'm beginning to wonder just what has happened in the intervening months to change the debate, in your mind, from an article title change to ridding the term altogether. As I noted previously, I wish this debate would ratchet down a notch or three, and I hope that commonsense prevails. A lot of the comments here are just wwwaaayyy over the top. Many editors now appear to be engaging in distasteful displays of triumphalism which goes against the fabric of WP. I for one am now seriously considering withdrawing from this process, now that I see where it appears to be heading. It is no longer about compromise, or improving articles. It is about scoring points, and rubbing "your opponents" noses in it. --HighKing (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Those things have everything to do with this. Sarah is trying to mislead people into thinking that one option is a "British POV" option. All the things i mentioned show that this isnt British POV, how can it be when it was created by the Irish government, is used by the Irish government / members of parliament when talking about their country. 6 months ago i did not know i was being misled, i never knew it was used often by the Irish government / ministers for example. Certain editors continued attempt to claim this is "British POV" when it clearly isnt, simply weakens the case for change. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"British pov, blah, blah, blah..." by Sarah --- sigh/shock/horror -- are there still dinosaurs and relics like you in Ireland today? Do people like you consider yourself Irish? You belong to the 1950's - a dead Ireland, a decaying Ireland, a monochrome Ireland -- an Ireland of old worn out men sitting around at bars telling tails of old times and what could be. Get real and come into the present. Stop pedaling this bo**ocks. Djegan (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Things will go better if you too avoid those kind of statements. You are free to dissagree with Sarah777 but makeing less than kind assumptions about where she is comeing from is not acceptable.©Geni 23:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And what about Sarahs accusations and attacks on British editors? This talk page would be nice and calm if she wouldnt keep trying to mislead people into thinking a certain option is "British POV" when all the evidence about its use in the real world by the Irish government, members of parliament and Irish media prove this to be false. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

are there still dinosaurs and relics like you in Ireland today? Look at your fellow Irish editors. Looking at the vote count we seem to be in a very large majority. I guess you'd be rather lonely here without you British supporters? Abuse as a substitute for rationality isn't the way to go. Seriously. Sarah777 (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this will go better if you all stop commenting on each other's behavior at this point. It is not resulting in productive discussion.©Geni 00:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As you wish Geni, but i hope you will continue to enforce this and seek to prevent wild accusations and claims from all sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

... but Sarah, I've just pointed out on your talk page that a majority of Irish editors are voting for the status quo ... I thought that you had read that message (or did you just delete it)? In any case, you'll be happy to know that the status quo is *not* a British imposition. It's what the majority of Irish editors want too. Freedom. Self determination. Irish people deciding what Irish people want. It's what I forefathers died for. And it's great to see in action, isn't it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Current vote: Irish (non-British) editors 15 - 6 against F. But we can't exercise self-determination while your tiny group of 6 are supported by sheer weight of numbers of British editors. Sarah777 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, I am exercising my right to fREEDOM, rather than fOLLY. Stop trying to sterotype. Djegan (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stereotyping; I'm just counting. Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What does "not F" mean? I don't see an option for "not F". Are you sure you've made all of the transfers? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, you don't know if you are counting or weighting, that's why your claims of rigging are absolute nonsense, and you are just resorting to the tactic of 'repeat something enough times and it becomes true', starting a new section every time you want to repeat yourself no less. You have gone silent and/or reverted to this tack every time you are asked to explain your results when properly adjusted for the NPOV, considering real world population figures and the more extreme alleged bias of Irish editors than British, which actually shows a neglible net effect of nationalistic bias on this poll. And that's just going on your simplistic first option analysis, as others have alluded to is totally deficient in showing anything aswell. If you do intend to appeal, I'm going to present as evidence the number of times you have been asked and failed to answer these basic questions, and simply returned later to hot air and invective, despite claiming to be a reasonably competent statistician (and that ludicrously implies this is anything but basic stuff here - take figure X, times by figure Y, subtract from figure Z, etc). That at least will be one simple integer count that indisputably shows something. MickMacNee (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another McStraw Man: I never suggested or said anything about "rigging". All of the questions asked have been dealt with, repeatedly: and will again after a week. The "competent statistician" comment was specifically in reply to comments by Rockpocket. Again, you continue to conflate as follows: "answers McStraw doesn't like/understand = no answer" Sarah777 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Current vote update, no change: Irish (non-British) editors 15 - 6 against F. But we can't exercise self-determination while your tiny group of 6 are supported by sheer weight of numbers of British editors. Sarah777 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As it's a transferable vote - current result after transfers among Irish editors only F17 - E14. Sorry Sarah but your dishonesty isn't fooling anyone. Valenciano (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

One Week Partial break

This is almost as time consuming as replying on my own page; so, starting now I will not reply to any further nonsense for one week so I can get some Wiki-work done. There is only so much time to devout to maintaining WP:NPOV. In that week I will re-post my summary of the facts in response to attacks on WP:NPOV - but will not, until August 16th, reply to the repetitive individual nonsense being served up here. Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be a nice and peaceful week then thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I too have a busy RL schedule, and don't have much time on hand for this. A more ordered way forward, can I offer a suggestion. Obviously this page is getting pretty hectic, with wild accusations being flung about like 'snuff at a wake'. Many of us are unhappy with this poll for various reasons which I will not presently explore. Cruise O'Brien had a nice little word to describe it, GUBU. Perhaps it is now time to setup a page of "NO CONFIDENCE" in response to this very strange and bizarre 'poll', for want of a better word. Tfz 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

But what happens next if we do that? I can understand why some think there is a better way than a poll, but i dont see how a solution is suddenly going to be agreed on. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Grotesque, Unbelievable, Bizarre, Unprecedented ClemMcGann (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What is? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The poll is gubu. Tfz 01:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ive yet to hear how we would of solved this, suggestions of certain other methods are all well and good but there is no assurance there would be consensus. This vote will solve the problem one way or another. I think you are all rather too quick to think youve lost the vote.. F aint that far ahead in the final round. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please consider for a moment that for some of us, we'd prefer that this vote wasn't getting polarized as an "us and them" situation - suggesting that "you've lost the vote" isn't (most probably, hopefully) reading in quite the same way as you intended. In contrast, posing a valid question of "there would be no assurance there would be consensus" in relation to other methods (options) is an excellent question. From my experience, there are a number of options here ("D" and "E" instantly spring to mind) which removes the foundations of 99% of the constant edit wars. Coupled with an adoption of Mooretwins proposal earlier, I believe, gives us a very solid foundation to end this. I still hope that if we can remove some of the drama from this page, editors might get a chance to weigh up and evaluate the prize of no more edit wars. --HighKing (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the only intention of the comment about winning or losing was this vote is far from over, theres over 30 days to go it can certainly change in that time. I dont see E as a good compromise, if F is going to lose i intend to switch my vote and support C. There is not going to be any more edit wars following this vote though, the ruling is clear, the articles are to remain at the chosen locations for 2 years... there will be no need for edit wars or months of fighting over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"...if F is going to lose i intend to switch my vote and support C" - I'm of the same opinion. There is some truth in what Sarah says:

1. If this was a vote of Irish/British editors the race would be between F and D; with the "international" (adds: and British) dimension E is the challenger to F, which does even get past the first round in a British- or Irish-only tally. (What is incorrect about what Sarah says is that there she believe that there is a difference between British and Irish voters - adds: in relation to F - there s not. The difference is between Irish/British voters and "international" (adds: and British) voters (adds: over E).)
2. Transfers to F from those (of all nationalities and none) that do not have F has a first preference are extremely weak. There at least some degree of polarisation over the term. On the other hand those that don't rank anything after "F" as a first preference are few and far between, and I think more driven by anger at the way this debate has been conducted by the "anti-ROI" contingency than anything else. (Where Sarah is not right is to say that there is a majority of any nationality against F - F is the majority preference of all nationalities and none.)

IMHO D or C would be fine to most Irish or British (adds: and "international") editors. F is the preference of the majority (both Irish, British and international) but if it looks like E might win, I'm going to switch since E is the option that is least desirable to the two parties that matters to most (British and Irish), myself included. Whether I really do switch, however, will depend on the mood among contributors at the time - and, while E is the only real challenger to F, it still isn't laying the pressure on enough to truly scare me.

I'd suggest it is still in the grasp of all editors to reach a consensus (a sort of 11th hour consensus). WP:IECOLL started the poll and WP:IECOLL can stop the poll ... but the clock is ticking. If September 13th comes and there is still no consensus from WP:IEOLL, then majority rule it is and right now that looks like F (or at best - worst? - E). It is behooven on those that want change to make good the time they have left, heal the wounds they caused, reach a compromise with those that are happy with the status quo, and convince them to call off the vote ... because if they don't, September 13th is coming and there will be no take-back after that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that options A and B appear to be out of the running, I'm also prepared to switch to option D or failing that C or E conditional on agreement being reached that Republic of Ireland can be used as a term in articles where a disambiguator is necessary i.e. Cork is the second largest city in Republic of Ireland. If it were an option I would also support Sarah's suggestion of Irish Republic as I feel that makes for far better prose in articles than the clumsy Ireland (state) e.g. "The Irish Republic joined X" is much better than "Ireland (state) joined X". I believe Sarah really hasn't helped this debate with her constant playing of the ethnic/national card. In fact it's notable that before her little spreadsheet surfaced support for Option F had fallen to 37% of first preferences but in the subsequent controversy rebounded to 45% where it's stayed since then. Valenciano (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If folk are serious about this then I would suggest we take it to WT:IECOLL or a sub page thereof. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I do point out that I did suggest way back that the results of the poll need not absolutely used but instead spark further discussion on IECOLL to decide the best option, and probably even hinted at the case that may be developing here (that a certain option may win the first round but that nearly everyone universally agrees their second pick, we could decide to go with that). That's going to be up to the rest of the members of IECOLL if they are willing to use the results to guide to consensus instead of blinding accepting the mathematical winner. --MASEM (t) 12:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Its very hard to support a compromise when certain editors are grossly misleading people and claiming British POV pushing. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

When the final bell rings in September, Option E shall be the victor, ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone is seriously suggesting we halt the poll now for another round of discussion, or that we declare that 'Option X won - therefore we'll use Option Y'. The fact of the matter is that is this is supposed to be the final poll, as decided by consensus at the project. The fact of the matter is that one person is disrupting this poll with what can only now be decribed as personal attacks, blatant lies and misinformation, after several people have pointed out the gross errors in the analysis upon which they're basing their statements. The fact of the matter is that counting only Irish editors, option F wins. Counting only British editors, option F wins. Counting only non-Irish, non-British and unknown editors, option F wins. That's at this moment in time. Come September 13th, whatever option wins, wins. Per Arbcom, it's binding for two years. I'll stand by the community's decision in the poll, thanks, whatever that decision ends up being. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya wanna believe it, the Final results shall be respected. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to halt the vote. No way. I'm suggesting that those opposed to "F" should stop the name calling and misinformation. Instead they should focus their energies over the 37 days that they have left to make up for the opportunity that they squandered at WP:IECOLL. Come September 13th, it's majority rule ... but if they can convince WP:IECOLL of a agreement before then all-the-better.

Such an agreement, to my mind though, I must say, would require a pound of flesh: an ArbCom resolution, for example, that certain editors would never again use accusations of "British POV" etc. to attack editors, arguments, positions or edits (not only on this matter but across WP), admission that "Republic of Ireland" is not a British imposition and is a valid name for the state ... and more again. If they can't do that, ... well, democracy is a fine thing isn't it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support such a compromise if it ended the grossly misleading claims that Republic of Ireland is "British POV". BritishWatcher (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may re-emerge briefly from my partial break: I think Masem is now finally realising that a "win" for F does not address the problem. That is not a compromise, but a continuation of the imposition of F, by the means I've explained. As someone above said, a "win" for E or D would be perfectly acceptable to 90% plus of all (Irish, British and other) editors except for a tiny hardcore of Irish editors supported by a much larger number of British editors. This group have consistently rejected all compromise from the start, smugly confidently that they can muster a big enough number to force F through year after year against the clearly expressed wishes of the Irish (non-British) Wiki community. Just look at the "retired" Wikipedians who have only come out to maintain this POV solution! Same folk who were defending "RoI" years before I arrived here in 2006. If BW supports a compromise I'm more than happy to cease the "profiling" that is causing such over-reaction around here. I do it to illustrate what I beleive is the dynamic behind the permenent maintenance of "RoI" when the vast number of editors from all nations (and none) would be happy with a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I never that; I noted that I suggested back before the poll was started that we could always have compromised based on the results of the poll, but there were people that insisted that the results be treated exactly as they came out. That was the majority opinion there, so, in so far as what I can do as a moderator, that was fine. Now, we're still not at a point where we have to accept that the results flat-out have to be enacted as poll explicitly dictates, and it's quite possible that further discussions may proof out that a more popular, but second-place answer may be better than a first-place answer that wins by a slim majority. This is not a statement in support of any specific option. I've only looked at the poll page to make sure there's no nonsense going there and have made no calculation of the vote to date, but there is enough talk here to tell me where it's going and a possible way forward if the IECOLL members so choose. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing is set in stone but to override the results of this poll, we should have one (or both) of two things. A strong consensus to override and a good reason to do so. The reason being offered is that the outcome of the poll is being skewed along geo-ethnic lines. As it stands, there is no reliable evidence to support that. Until that is provided, we are left with WP:IDONTLIKEIT - hardly a good reason. A consensus to override may form around a strong case for bias (I'd certainly consider it). Without a strong case, there is no chance of a consensus. Rockpocket 16:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that a strong consensus to ignore the formal poll outcome can't be formed unless the poll is flawed in some way. One reason is that the technique we are using to evaluate is not exempt from Arrow's impossibility theorem. Another is the following: Suppose in the last round X wins against Y by only one vote. But half of the votes for X are from editors who don't care about the distinction between X and Y and simply put them into alphabetical order. Or who just voted to be helpful and are not going to visit the articles ever again. While all those who voted for Y feel very strongly about it. Then clearly Y is a better outcome than X. And yet another: There could be a consensus that an option that wasn't even offered in the poll is better than the outcome of the poll. (Maybe this option wasn't offered because it was nobody's first choice.) Hans Adler 17:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I postulated way back (and so if it actually resembles the results of the poll, that's happenstance). Say option X gets 51% of the vote on the first tier, all options going to option Y, but if we look at everyone's second choice, there's a 90% or greater acceptance for option Z. Now, in a straight up vote, yes, X would win, but that's the one thing we don't have to do here on WP, as we're not truly a democracy; since Z seems to be acceptable to most, then that might be the better solution even though it doesn't win. I still leave that as an option for IECOLL editors to consider - that while we'll run the numbers just like we promised for the STV vote, it is useful to break down stats and see what the overall tally looked like and possible where a better form of consensus may sit. That needs to be decided by IECOLL (I can moderate as much as I can, but I can't force that on them). --MASEM (t) 17:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If F loses this vote, even by 1 vote we all know that the status quo is going to change and there is nothing supporters of F can do about it, it does seem slightly unfair that we set a far higher standard for the status quo to win and count. Id be happy to accept compromise even if F won by atleast 10 votes, but its impossible in an environment with editors like Sarah clearly pushing anti British nonsense and making misleading claims about a certain option. A couple of days ago Evertype almost convinced me to change my vote, and i would have if it wasnt for the disgusting attacks on British editors here. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree about Sarah's nonsense. Perhaps I am missing similar things from the other side because they are a bit more subtle, but Sarah is so obsessively arguing for an unreasonable claim (that ROI is anti-Irish) that it seems blockworthy to me. Hans Adler 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That has been the essence of the "anti ROI" argument for years. It's maddening that it was ever entertained. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't argue with that reasoning, Hans, but you are describing a different scenario than overriding the result because of perceived bias (which is what I was referring to). No voting method is flawless, and if the result is extremely close, it would certainly be worth discussing it further. Rockpocket 17:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The bias doesn't exist. The majority of Irish editors support "F" also. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats a nice analysis, Ra. In as much as it models the actual STV outcome rather than a simplistic primary choice analysis. But using your data, its also possible to show that even by primary choice, the data does not support undue British influence. If one strips out British editors, the primary choices are: (A-4, B-10, C-20, D-7, E-19, F-45). Thus even without the influence of so-called "British POV", F is twice as popular as any other option. I think its fair to say that we can put this claim to bed once and for all now. Rockpocket 18:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"As someone above said ..." That would be me. "...except for a tiny hardcore of Irish editors ..." And that would include me also? LOL ... you're really getting your knickers in a twist, Sarah. Including me in both the those that want compromise and those that oppose it? "This group have consistently rejected all compromise..." Errmm ... am I and BW not proposing compromise now - even as we stand to win the vote and even in the face of your abuse and misinformation? In any event, I withdraw my offer of compromise. It's clear that any such compromise would be impossible in the face of accusation and misinformation.

Masem, unfortunately the votes don't fall that way. Stripping out "F" only leads to a slim win for "E" (which is the least preferred option among Irish editors), stripping out "E" only leads to a slim win for "D", and so on. Support for "D" and "C" combined do represent 92% of voters ... but at that stage is all you are really saying that A and B combined can only muster 8% between them?

In any case, I extended a fig leaf and got thrown back in my face. It's nothing new. It's what got us to the point where only a vote was possible. So, majority rule it is. And if the majority of Irish, British and international editors (both as individual groups and as a whole) want "F" then what right do a belligerent minority have to stand in their way - no matter how much abuse and lies they see fit to throw? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please no WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. That's the third time this last two days you mentioned lies. Where are the lies, and give differences please. Tfz 18:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For the lies, read the page. For the civil - your request would be a bit more palatable if you'd demanded the same when she was busy slinging names around the last couple of days. Or doesn't it count when it's someone from your "side" doing it? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, WP:NPA, my request is very reasonable. You will have nobody to talk with on this page but yourselves, if that continues to be the norm here. Tfz 18:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your request not to be attacked is indeed reasonable. What I said was your request for WP:NPA is completely absent when it's Sarah making the attacks. Which is also a reasonable point. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how WP:NPA is selectively invoked. Djegan (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, Hans who'd censor the Irish side of the debate with blocks (seems the a favoured tactic of those who miss the obvious, which is: Current vote update, no change: Irish (non-British) editors 15 - 6 against F. And if British "F" votes are deleted, F falls. When/if the tally changes the facts I will still post the results. I will NOT be bullied off the page by the censors. Sarah777 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, the majority of Irish editors are voting for F. You are lying. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep repeating that ra. And I keep repeating that I am explicitly counting non-British editors. There are so far 21 of those, not 32. As you are aware of this because I have pointed that out to you several times I demand you withdraw the statement "you are lying". Because that is manifestly a lie. Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, Sarah, "lying" is maybe not right. That would mean you were intentionally passing of untruths as truths. I know from experience that you heartfeltedly believe the things you write. So, "lying" is not right. But you are incorrect in what you say. "F" is the most popular option among Irish voters. If you still think I am wrong then show all of the stats, not just "F" and "not F". Show the numbers that vote for each individual option. Post the list of ballots, the full list of preferences for each voter that you are using (but not the names of the voters). We can do an STV count on them to see how the "Irish vote" goes. If you don't want to ... well, we all know what it means. That deep down, you know it's a lie. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, for an example of lies and abuse all rolled into one, read this one sample of what this page has had to endure: "The imposition of British pov on the article has been maintained by weight of numbers of British editors for 7 years despite objections from the Irish Wiki-editor community. ... a tiny hardcore of Irish editors supported by a much larger number of British editors. This group have consistently rejected all compromise from the start, smugly confidently that they can muster a big enough number to force F through year after year against the clearly expressed wishes of the Irish (non-British) Wiki community."

It a lie because the facts are that year-on-year a majority of Irish Wikipedians have supported the status quo. This year is no different. It is abusive because accusing that majority of Irish editors of foisting a "British POV" is a personal attack. We all know that West Brit is a pejorative term in Ireland.

Now, please do read WP:NPA. Please read the section entitled, "What is considered to be a personal attack?" Pay particular attention to the sentence, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." If I have made a personal attack, or if I behaved with incivility, please state where and how. On the other hand if I have called a spade a spade, just reply "quack". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I did ignore putting the warning on two other occasions, but if this is going to be continuous, then it does deserve a warning. You have called your opponents liars, not once, but several times. I guess you are including me, and I have asked you for differences and you have not produced them. Tfz 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And the lines quoted by you are opinions, and they are worth a rebuttal, but please don't call editors who disagree with you, 'liars'. Tfz 19:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not including you ... or Evertype, or HighKing, or Rockpocket, or Scolaire ... or anyone else that I simply "disagree" with. We are not at war on this project. There are no "opponents". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I go away for five days and what happens?

Lordy. Sarah? Stay off our side. BritishWatcher? Don't punish moderates like me by letting your choice be decided by a fight with someone who's not moderate. If you were (nearly or otherwise) won over by my plea for something other than A, B, or F, all of which are provocative to at least somebody, then please think about it again. Sheer numbers might make the status quo (F) win. What will that accomplish? It won't make the issue go away. It will lurk about, in snipes and jabs, and two years from now, we'll be back here again, after 7 months of proposals to move from Republic of Ireland to something else, anything else, ochón is ochón ó. But guess what? If we could manage to encourage a vote for Ireland (state)—there won't be any reason to return to this soul-destroying process. We will, oh surely we will, if the status quo "wins" here. Look at the tallies. A lot of people can live with C and D and E. So here is a challenge I give the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration: Can we possibly learn from what we have seen, and encourage voters to avoid giving weight to A, B, and F, because we know that those three options are not really compromises? It's true, we did not come to compromise on anything but having a poll, and it's true, we've agreed to 42 days of polling. But it's the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration that's holding the poll. We could (somehow) agree to compromise, to encourage all voters to compromise, if we learn from what we have seen in the polling so far. We could be realistic. We could recognize that only C, D, and E give hope to a long-term end to the fighting, point-scoring, and general ugliness. For my part, I did it. I removed support for A and B from my ballot. (I hadn't supported F anyway.) Philosophically I like A and B. But In a spirit of compromise, I know that none of them can help us. -- Evertype·✆ 19:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If others feel the same way i am prepared to compromise and support option D which keeps the setup of the articles the same but does away with the Republic of Ireland title which some do have a problem with. If D was chosen and binding for 2 years, that would have to include that ROI is a redirect and the mention ROI is sometimes used in the introduction would need to remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

BW, I believe that your concerns are already covered by what is referred to as Mooretwins compromise. I would also be prepared to switch to option C or D. What do others think? --HighKing (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not with out a ruling from ArbCom with regard to the behavior of certain editors and acknowledgements of the basic facts around the issue (e.g. that certain editors would never again use accusations of "British POV" etc. to attack editors, arguments, positions or edits, admission that "Republic of Ireland" is not a British imposition and is a valid name for the state, etc.)

Resolving the title of the article on the state is only part of the problem (and the smallest one). The much larger problem, the one that really lurks and lurks, is the belligerent and accusative style of certain editors. If they cannot keep their cool when it comes to politics, they should not the allowed to participate. One is already restricted for pages where she makes anti-British remarks. And now, lo and behold, here she is rattling her saber against an imagined "British POV" once again. I agree that a compromise would be best, and D looks best of the lost, but there's no way I can agree to it as things stand now. What would that solve? If it's not this they're shouting and accusing about, what will it be next? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Adds: in the event of the assurance being forthcoming, I would see no need to "switch vote". If there is a consensus to among WP:IECOLL to go with one options then we can simply override the poll (as Masem agreed above). But the onus is on those who oppose "F" to reach that consensus. Evertype, I'm sorry, but Sarah is on "your side". If you can't keep a handle on her antics then there little chance of me agreeing to a compromise. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí, your concerns are tangental to the real issue here. They may be valid concerns, but this is about what options are acceptable to the most editors on either side, —it's not about behaviour or comments of loose cannons. OK? -- Evertype·✆ 20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not tangental. They are the issue. We would have long ago agreed a solution over something a simple as this, if it had not been for the accusations and aggression of a small number of editors. D is a fine compromise. I put it forward first in the past (before even Mooretwin, see the archive on Talk:Republic of Ireland). But it is a compromise. And while I would be happy to compromise with you or HighKing or Rockpocket, I cannot compromise with those that would throw abuse at me day-in-day out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Everytype as you are one of the more reasonable editors on this are you able to answer the big question (and some of the smaller related ones) that so far seems difficult for many to fathom? Namely:

1). If the article on the state can't be located at "Ireland" then what is objectionable about placing it at "Republic of Ireland", which seems to be the main term used for disambiguating it outside Wikipedia? Surely a natural disambiguator is usually preferable to a created one?

2). Is the government of the state's diplomatic objection to the use of "Republic of Ireland" or to the non-use of "Ireland"?

3). If the term is so objected to, why is it regularly used as a disambiguator within the state itself, such as the many occasions of its use in the Dáil linked to in the past?

So far most of the stated objections to using ROI as a disambiguator have primarily come across as being based on some Wikipedia editors having a dislike of the term and the desire for a peaceful life rather than on presenting why the term's use should be avoided. This is why many people (myself included) have first preferenced F as they just can't see a reason for not using it beyond a handful of editors. If someone could give a greater reason as why the term is best avoided then many may well be willing to consider a switch to option D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, HighKing, it's not about which (C, D, E) is chosen. For my part I don't care which—any of them will solve the core issue. It's the core issue—that A, B, and F are irretrievably problematic. We're in an STV vote, right? But if we (as a prpject as a whole) can accept that it would be beneficial to encourage people that leaving the problematic A, B, and F off their ballots entirely would make this set of articles a better place, then encouraging (but not obliging, I guess we can't do that) people to do that would be helpful in the long run. (Seems that this is not so very different from what Masem suggested above.) -- Evertype·✆ 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll point out that "E" is the least preferred option among Irish editors. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Evertype, you are certainly not going to convince me to take F (my first choice) off my ballot without bothering to tell me first why you don't like "Republic of Ireland". It seems to be the second most frequent way of referring to the Irish state: internationally, in Ireland, and in the UK. Including by state sources everywhere. So what's wrong with it? There may be a reasonable answer somewhere in the archives, but I am not going to dig for it.

So long as I haven't seen a good explanation I am bound to suspect it has something to do with extreme nationalism and territorial claims. (The idea being presumably, that if the same word is used to refer to a state and an island, then they must be coterminous.) While I don't care at all which state the north eastern Irish counties belong to, such a suspicion would definitely not encourage me to drop F. Hans Adler 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Extreme nationalists use 'the Freestate', or 'the republic' most often, they would avoid Ireland (state), or Ireland for that matter. All this has been discussed previously. Tfz 20:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It may have been discussed previously, but there is no convincing explanation for the objection to ROI in the background information that was provided with this poll, and I have not seen it on this talk page either. If there is a convincing explanation and you want people to follow you, it's not in your best interest to make people jump through hoops to find it. Hans Adler 20:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen any serious reason against Republic of Ireland yet, i still think its a perfectly acceptable option and theres certainly nothing wrong or incorrect about it. Compromise to something acceptable by all sides so its more stable and theres less bad blood seems to be the only reason for change. Id be prepared to accept that.. but the misleading claims make it so much harder. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for readers, not editors. Avoiding bad blood is not a valid reason to go to a stupid title. john k (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What you see in the position papers is about the sum of it. In the main it comes down to indignation that "Ireland is being singled out", as one editor once put it. Apart from the "British POV" frindge, the main argument is a desire for the state to be at it's official/common name. The counter argument is that ROI is the common way to dab the island from the state. Some then counter that the island should come second. To which the counter argument is that the practical reality (e.g. sport, religion, culture, language, history, geography, etc.) is that state is a subset of the larger topic of "Ireland". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I have gathered so far, except the bit about being singled out that makes no sense. Two obvious other examples that come to mind are the states that are most frequently called US and UK, whose official names are United States of America and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that reside here under United States and United Kingdom. That's a very similar situation to Ireland/Ireland/Republic of Ireland, and there seems to be no reason to be offended unless one wants to be offended. Yes, I know, there are slight differences. But they reflect the slightly different constraints that we must work with, not an anti-Irish bias. Hans Adler 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Or South Korea for the Republic of Korea. The whole thing is tiresome. Personally, let me say that while I think it would be stupid to have Ireland be the article about the state, I'm beginning to think I'd prefer that, or A, to the "compromise" positions of C, D, and E. At least they avoid the nonsense of an article called Ireland (state). john k (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is to be a compromise it would need agreement on the option we are switching to. I think D is the most reasonable, looking at it quite a few of those who voted F put D as their second option and its certainly seems acceptable to all sides. I do think if we reached agreement here or on the collab page and all of a sudden people from both sides changed their votes to JUST D it would send a big signal and provided many from both sides in this switched D to first option it would win.

I dont think we need to get into whos done this or whos done that, but i think an agreement by the Ireland Collaboration project that Republic of Ireland is NOT British POV, would make it ALOT easier for supporters of F to accept compromise, because it clearly rejects Sarahs claims and if its possible to seek Arbcom to agree to that view too when everythings agreed it would certainly remove the possibility of future fights breaking out, if its accepted that to claim this is British POV is a violation of WP:AGF or something like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say most of the "compromisists" would happily switch their primary preference to D if it meant ending this. Many of us have said time and again, that any of the compromise options are fine. The real issue, and this is essentially the issue that has dogged this project from the start, is whether individuals who have spent their time stating only one option is acceptable are willing to accept an alternative. You know who you are, renounce your "nothing but..." positions and you will find others will fall into line behind you. Who is up first? Rockpocket 21:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there are only two reasons posited for a move:

The first is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Backed up by "IT'S IMPOSITION OF BRITISH POV" screamed ad infinitum, with false statistics used to back up the argument. Excluding British voters (thus far)? F wins. Limiting the vote (thus far) to Irish users? F still wins! The majority of Irish editors are perfectly happy with the status quo.

That leaves the second reason - to preserve peace on WP. That's an extremely poor reason to ignore WP:NC and that the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimised for readers over editors. It gives a carte blanche to anyone to just scream loudly and long enough, and even if they're in a minority - they win.

"Compromising" at this stage - I'm sorry, any compromise now means changing the titles, and therefore hands victory to Sarah. I'm not prepared to do that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bastun, if the Ireland Collaboration project was prepared to accept that "Republic of Ireland is NOT British POV". which clearly rejects Sarahs claims and consider that such claims in the future should be considered a violation of WP:AGF or something along those lines. Would you be prepared to compromise? I agree Sarahs actions and comments... hell shes just made afurther statement below dont help, but if the majority rejected her claim that ROI is British POV, then its not a real victory for her. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of the six options listed; D is the favoured option of (non-British) Irish editors; F is the least favoured. Despite all the hysterics above that is a demonstrable fact. (Check my talk-page as I am censored here). I'm chuckling at the notion that stating simple facts are being presented as "anti-British". (And yes, I believe the effort to maintain "RoI" is a reflection of British editor pov and superior numbers. Therefore everytime someone says "it's not" I feel obliged to point out that the poll clearly supports my observations. It seems some editors would be happier in places where pointing to the naked emperor can get you shot. Pathetic. Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

E is the least favoured. F is the most favoured among Irish editors. This is an STV poll. One man (or woman), one vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

More lies... you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that if only Irish editors are counted, F still wins. End of story. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I note Bastun has a new way of deciding naming this article: WP:SARAHDOESNTLIKEIT. This is his idea of reaching a compromise and solving a 7 year old problem ??! Sarah777 (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So what compromise are you prepared to offer? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The project has been dogged by a small subsection of editors that drive the rest of the body apart over touchy issues. Unfortunately, that subset prefer "D" (or at least "not F"). Now, I see nothing wrong with the status so, but "switching" would be something that I would happily do for you, Evertype, or many others. But I will not be switching until something is done about them. Repeatedly, the same editors cause havoc on Ireland- (and Ireland/British-) related articles. We can give a sop to them on this matter but they will only raise hell on something else immediately thereafter. Agreeing to something for ROI will not solve the problem. The problem will just move on to something else. (And of course, not all "non-F" voters are among that cadre.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If I changed my name to something in Irish would that help I wonder? I would argue that a much smaller hard core who have supported "RoI" for long before I was ever involved would solve much of the problems if "something was done about them". Sarah777 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

@Bastun: A title that doesn't present the description of the country as a name (though it was a name in British legislation). My position statement outlines the compromises we have already twice made only to have them rejected by a hard core of "RoI" supporters. I could live with Ireland (state); Ireland (republic); Ireland (Republic of) even - though of the alternatives that is getting too close to suggesting a name. I certainly don't like it, but then currently it isn't on offer). Sarah777 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, 62% of Irish 'compromisists' not currently residing in NI think that 52% of the the British-POV 'compromisists' who didn't choose C as their #1 option, prefer butter to margarine. Fmph (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you fancy you're a comedian - don't give up the day job. Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing well with that 'One Week Partial break', aren't you Sarah? It took just 15 hours before you couldn't resist sticking your oar in again. 87.113.158.9 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

== Compromise seems possible == From the above conversations it seems many are prepared to compromise, but looking at the vote now it seems very likely those being asked to compromise the most are the supporters of F. Some supporters of F have clearly said theyd support an alternative but one of the main problems is claims being made about ROI being "British POV". So who (from all sides) would be prepared to accept something like the following..

• The Ireland collaboration project agrees that Republic of Ireland is NOT British POV.
• It considers such claims to be a violation of WP:AGF, with the aim of getting Arbcom to agree with that view when all of this is sorted out and the outcome is made binding for two years.
• Republic of Ireland is to remain a redirect to Ireland (state) and its mention in the introduction of the country article should remain.
• People from all sides switch their votes to D and encourage others to consider doing the same.
• Allow the vote to continue as scheduled then move on to getting agreement about when ROI can and cant be used in text and other things like changing other article titles if needed (seen one today about supermarkets in Ireland causing problems).
• Changes are implemented and enforced for two years.

Who would have a problem with the above, or want something else? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, even if a bit of polite pretence is involved. But would I have to join the collaboration project and sign up? Sarah777 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be good if you would sign up to it yes Sarah. But you would be prepared to accept the first two points?, if that is the case then i think it will certainly help get supporters of F to support this. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't trust a word she says. She promised to take a one-week break and was back spreading her venom within the day. If she reneges on such a basic promise, you can't trust her not to go back on any compromise when it suits her POV crusade to do so. 87.113.158.9 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't a promise! It was what I had hoped to do but I got drawn in by the endless attacks on my analysis. Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Which you wouldn't have even seen if you were really on a break. How does that fit in with your stated aim: 'starting now I will not reply to any further nonsense for one week so I can get some Wiki-work done'? 87.113.158.9 (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. So what? Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It just goes to show that your word cannot be trusted. You twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. 87.113.158.9 (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats why if a compromise is to be formed, it needs to include that this is not a POV term and should be considered a violation of WP:AGF, if Arbcom agree to that then those making such claims again are clearly breaking the rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a POV term, and it is obviously the term which should be used in numerous contexts. Agreeing to this compromise will, if anything, encourage attempts to remove "Republic of Ireland" from any other context. You are basically willing to give up on the main issue of dispute in return for nothing that you aren't entitled to already. john k (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in such a compromise. In my opinion, Republic of Ireland is a better title than Ireland (state). The fact that there's people who will complain on the talk page if the article stays at Republic of Ireland, but would not if it is moved to Ireland (state), does not change this. This "compromise" is clearly about optimizing Wikipedia for editors, rather than for readers, and I, at least, reject it. Furthermore, this is not a compromise at all - it is a concession by those of us who prefer Republic of Ireland. The "Republic of Ireland" is not British POV, whether or not Sarah says it is, and I don't really care whether Sarah, et al, agree that it is not British POV or not. The redirect and mention in the introduction should obviously remain, regardless. If F loses the poll, then so be it, but I don't see any reason why I should support a "grand compromise" which involves basically giving in to people I don't agree with simply because they are yelling louder. john k (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see any reason to make a concession to this Irish monarchist, or whatever she is that causes this unreasonably strong objection to Ireland's being, and being called, a republic. Hans Adler 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking more broadly - why this desperate search for a compromise? For those of us who do not think that Republic of Ireland is an unacceptable title, the only coherent rationale for a compromise seems to be to make life easy for editors, not to make wikipedia better for readers. This is exactly the wrong reason to make changes. Sometimes there are situations where two competing sides both have a point, and in that case compromise is warranted. Compromise is warranted when it can make our articles better. I do not think that moving the article to Ireland (state) will make it better. I think it will make it worse. So I'm going to oppose any pseudo-compromise of this sort. john k (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per Bastun above, the only reason (adds: being discussed) for such a compromise would be the appease a noisy minority (that doesn't mean all "non-F" voters" of course!). The insinuations of "British POV" is also not limited to the term Republic of Ireland, is it a recurring accusation made against editors (of both British and Irish nationality) and their edits/perspectives by the same cadre of editors time and time again across the encyclopedia. Renaming the article on the Irish state will not solve that problem. It will only appease them for a moment then they will be onto something else. Worse still, it would encourage them in the thought that by shouting and screaming and making hell for everyone else that they can always get their way. Any ArbCom ruling would thus need to cover that subset of editors across the board.

Finally, this doesn't do it for me simply because it is an "F" voter that is doing the work of making the compromise. That only shows how topsy-turvy this situation is: "F" looks like it's going to win the vote, so "F" voters (myself included) start talking of compromise - at least in part because the fear of the recrimination from the same cadre of saber rattlers. If there's going to be a comprmise, it needs to be a "non-F" voter that makes it. Why should the majority have to yield to (very tiny) a minority for fear of recrimination? Per John Kenney above, I have heard no decent reason for a move so if I changed my mind now to anything else it would only be because I was bullied into it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Rannṗáirtí was always rather moderate. It seems that hurt feelings have turned you back into Sony, who was always a bit prone to extremism. That's a shame. The lines you are drawing in the sand now don't help improve the Wikipedia. They just satisfy your righteous indignation. -- Evertype·✆ 22:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What doesn't help improve Wikipedia is your insistence on catering to the tantrums of a small minority of wikipedia editors at the expense of our commitment to end users. This is just "compromise" for the sake of compromise. john k (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

@BW - An Arbcom ruling "covering a sub-set of editors" is not even remotely acceptable. As I said I'd go with (1) and (2) as statements related to the term "RoI" as you suggested; as "policy". It is not something I believe is factual especially as I have just clearly demonstrated that "RoI" is the preferred British option and least preferred Irish option - in is maintained by dint of British votes! (And Sony was never "moderate"; as soon as anyone disagreed with his pov he was leading the charge for blocking and banning. Leopards, spots and look! - he's at it again. Lies are also still an important part of his "arguments" - that, too, remains the same. Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you got some important Wiki-work to get done, Sarah, rather than wasting your (and our) time here? I thought that's what you said. 87.113.158.9 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See, any attempt at "compromise" is totally hopeless. Sarah isn't willing to take yes for an answer. She just keeps repeating the same bogus nonsense over and over again. Does anybody really believing that giving in to her over this would result in her ceasing this kind of behavior? Can we just have the vote now? john k (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that clinches it for me. Still no response to the fact that the tally of solely Irish voters proclaims F the winner (so far) - and a repeat of the blind assertion that F is the least favoured option of Irish voters. No chance of compromise. Per John Kenney and RA. On with the poll. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Hm. Rannṗáirtí was always rather moderate. It seems that hurt feelings have turned you back into Sony, who was always a bit prone to extremism." LOL. Rannṗáirtí hadn't run into Sarah before now. But point taken. Point taken. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) I like the comment by john k about making things easier for readers as opposed to editors. I think it is clear that readers are much more likely to expect the single title "Ireland". Using the dreaded Ghits method, trying http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Ireland&num=50 reveals that of the first fifty hits, exactly four use the term "Republic of Ireland" in the title and results summary. Those four are hit #3 wikipedia.org; hits #22 and #23 from FIFA.com, and hit #48 from interrailnet.com. All editor POV arguments aside, based on familiar popular presentation of information that suggests to me rather convincingly that readers are more likely to expect and comprehend "Ireland (anything)" than "Republic of Ireland" at first glance. Sswonk (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been on WP all weekend, but I log on now and find this! Compromise?? Those viscerally and irrationally opposed to the term RoI see that the poll isn't going their way and suddenly start demanding "compromise"?? Are we to believe that if the poll was going the other way and those in favour of ROI demanded "compromise" that the ROI-opponents would agree? I think not! The Task Force compromise option was - for whatever reason - rejected by Arbcom and this (supposedly binding) half-solution was imposed instead. (I say it is a half-solution because it doesn't deal with the text-in-article problem - despite my protestations during the process. I also fought for the Task Force solution during the process and received no support, so forgive my cynicism now.) Mooretwin (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you pick your jaw up off the floor and address the current suggestion that the Project as a whole recommend against giving any weight to A, B, or F, and focus on the genuine compromise solutions of C, D, and E? -- Evertype·✆ 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said I haven't been on WP all weekend and therefore I'm unaware of such a suggestion. My reaction, though? Absolutely not. You can't change the rules after the poll has begun just because you don't like the way the people are voting. A compromise was suggested and rejected during the process - stand by your decision. How is that a "compromise" anway? It's simply giving in to the anti-ROI brigade! Mooretwin (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)