This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
Ochón is ochón ó. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Evertype, most of the editors here wouldn't understand that, but Touché. It's pretty apt at times. Tfz
I offer something positive, then? -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Dry your eyes you play a major part in what is happening at this farce. BigDuncTalk 12:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you say this because you disagree with me (whatever you think my view might be)? My support for an STV poll according to Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's template is there to allow you, as well as those whom you consider to be your enemies/opponents/whatever to offer a range of options which you (and they) feel that you (and they) can support. In what way is this unacceptable? It is certainly a more neutral approach than others I have seen. -- Evertype·✆ 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
What's that phrase in English? GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No direct translation, but it's a way of saying that you're very sad. Used mostly in laments. FF3000 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ag caoineadh is crying, and ochón is a keening cry. BastunnutsaB 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be a better way of putting it. FF3000 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
'Alas and alack, ah'. I guess. Oy vey. -- Evertype·✆ 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Months later...Is this process just a ruse?
Latest comment: 14 years ago27 comments10 people in discussion
Some relevant recycling: Is this process just a ruse to ruse to stop the "disruption" caused by the RoI/IRL dispute by pretending that a process is in place to resolve the conflicting viewpoints? I hope this is a genuine process that will lead to a prompt decision but it looks unlikely to me. In particular, the ground rules on the project page state "Decisions for the WikiProject will primarily be based on the consensus of members". Is some one seriously suggesting a consensus will emerge? If no consensus emerges, does that mean there will be no decision (or another decision to make no decision as before)? What reason is there to think a consensus will emerge when it has not done so before? Is there a timeframe for this process? How long will it run? What is the deadline? I think those running this process should answer these questions and set them out on the project page. Participants can then take a view on whether this is a credible process. After all, who runs a project without having a clear timeframe? It goes without saying, I hope the project is successful. It should have credibility. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Time, unfortunately, is proving my original scepticism right. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC).
Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
If it's a ruse, it's an effective ruse. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it getting anywhere? well it certainly looked like progress was being made and we were close to having a vote in the coming days, that was until certain incidents have hijacked the conversation so the vote looks like its going to be delayed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
If it does get anywhere, I want to be informed so that I can take part in the vote or whatever. However, what is in danger of happening is that the more protracted things get, the more likely that the final result will reflect the views of the most stubborn rather than a genuine consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
See here. We'll likely have a timetable for a Single transferable vote poll on Monday. User:Masem's intention is to hatnote it on the Watchlist page when it goes live, so noone will miss it. We probably would have been a good bit further on if it hadn't been for distractions... BastunnutsaB 17:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Saying there is going to be a poll on Monday (to end when?) and lead to what outcome (? - perhaps months of more discussion because no consensus will emerge) is not a timetable. Indeed, there have been plenty of votes already casts - see the statements linked to the project page! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ya know folks (and it kinda tough to say it), perhaps we should leave the 3 articles--in-question where they are. It's been years now & Republic of Ireland, Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation) haven't yet got a consensus to change. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion is above, Redking7. It will likely be similar to this with *very* wide community input (alert message in the Watchlist, etc.) leading to a binding outcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Quite agree, there will never be a consensus. --De Unionist (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Any faith I had in Wikipedia has been shattered, that editors could not devise a system to gain consensus. Reverse process of elimination could have done it, with time factor involved. No structure, and this is what we get, one of the biggest "washing of hands" I have ever witnessed. Be careful what you wish for, my faith in the moderator is sinking pretty fast too, maybe he has run out of purpose, I fear. He shouldn't have taken the project on if that is the case. Tfz 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's process is a process of elimination. -- Evertype·✆ 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we'll end up with a result based on a political-pov of the most numerous, not what's best for Ireland, North or South, mark my words. Tfz 22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
If the poll is truly community wide a certain amount of common sense may be applied, since the unrelenting sectarianism has failed to yield consensus. At least the STV vote will allow everyone to rank their first preference (which will doubtless fail) along with other options which are more generally acceptable. -- Evertype·✆ 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) @Tfz: And I think that's the first time I've seen you make a suggestion such as "Reverse process of elimination could have done it"... it was open to you at any stage to propose something.
@Redking7: Read the page above. The moderator will outline a timetable (probably) on Monday, not the vote itself. It will be a STV poll covering all the options. The ground rules will be decided, and the poll will be advertised for all registered users when they visit their Watchlist. And it will be a binding outcome. Maybe not the one you want, or maybe not the one I want, but it will be binding. BastunnutsaB 22:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Just 50% fully support a poll, according to this [1], and not one of them live in the country being discussed, I discern. Mindblowing! Tfz 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Conaímse in Éireann, a Tfz, ar a laghad. And the Wikipedia, and its articles on Ireland, belong to EVERYBODY, not just people living in one jurisdictionr or t'other. Note Bastun's comment below. -- Evertype·✆ 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It would most certainly be very important for the poll to have more local support. That attitude wouldn't wash with me for one second. Tfz 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
In case you hadn't noticed, Tfz, this isn't a "local" encyclopedia, so "local" support is what it is -- nothing more, nothing less.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll be letting the "local" newspapers in on the 'scheme', no rules about that. I'll be composing my press releases tomorrow. Tfz 23:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Note, Tfz, that one of the ideas floated was severe punishments for meat puppetry. See too that it is both a majority of "Gaels" as well a majority of "Galls" are in favour of a ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't tell me we are not allowed to talk to the "free press". I won't be telling anyone which way to vote, so it cant be, to use your phrase, meat puppetry. They will invariably love this as it is something new, and Wikipedia will get publicity, either good or bad. Tfz 00:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't see anything at Wikipedia:Canvassing that would be against it, but I would be concerned about it inviting a lots of new editors unfamiliar with policy etc. (I know it was floated by someone to limit balloting to established editors). Check with the mods (and ArbCom) for what their take on publicising it (in a neutral manner) off WP would be.
Why don't you draft up a letter in your user space (so you can keep "ownership" of it) and invite comments from contributors here next week. (Since it will be in *your* talk page, you will be able to tell people not to edit it or revert their edits if they do.) Then, next week, when we get a clearer picture of exactly how we are going to run this, you could finalise the letter and post it off to the Indo or Times or wherever. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Why scare quotes around 'free press'? If you write neutrally and factually, then I'm sure the Indo, Examiner, Times, Metro and Herald AM will be beating down our door when they hear a majority of WP editors who expressed a preference, many of them living in Ireland, wanted to democratically decide whether the Republic of Ireland article should move to the place currently being used by the island page, or whether some other solution was possible. (How will you disambiguate between the two when you write your letter, I wonder?) They might be interested in knowing that the main opposers of a democratic vote appear to be - well, of a certain political persuasion. A really good journalist may well look at the contribution history and see where they've contributing and what they've been saying... I assume of course you won't be writing to just the one newspaper... BastunnutsaB 00:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit. Bastun, it was not my intention to scare you, sorry. Rannpháirtí anaithnid, thanks for the reply. No, I must demur from your invitation, the "Wikielite" didn't listen to me before, so I'm not going to put my "press release" here on Wikipedia for all to see in advance of issue. And all the Wikilawyering? "Thanks, but no thanks". Tfz 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
New schedule for polling
Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion
Given the above last check on consensus which shows that this project will never come to one in a reasonable amount of time, I now propose that the following schedule be used for voting on this matter (This will follow, with any necessary identify changes, the STV poll as listed at User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox).
Stage 1: Final input on polling issues (questions in terms of format or process) up to June 27, 2009
Stage 2: Polling opens for three weeks from June 28, 2009 and will end July 19, 2009
Stage 3: STV results will be evaluated over the week, posted no later than July 26, 2009
Stage 4: Finalize any other questions as a result of the poll by the end of August.
Final page moves (if needed) or any other impact due to the results of the poll will not occur until Stage 4 is completed.
Again, I am working off the starting point that attempting to achieve consensus will be a much longer and convoluted process that this project no longer needs, and that the poll is the next best option to resolving the issue. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need 7 days of discussion before the vote? 76.118.224.35 (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably. While User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has listed most of the options that have been discussed here at the draft poll page, there are probably others - some people want RoI to move to Ireland (country), I think, and there may be more variations. There also needs to be a decision on the winning quota - whether 50% + 1 is enough, or whether that should be 66% or 75% or whatever. There are probably other issues that need to be decided in advance. BastunnutsaB 23:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
@76.118.224.35 - I'd say yes - but less discussion and more preparing. This is not a simple 2-option ballot. If we are to ballot the entire community and the result is to be final then let's not muck it up. Better plan things properly and make sure we have everything running smoothly in advance.
Agreed. I was going to say that a week was too long, but if it's going to the full community, we should take the time to get it right. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
"Final page moves (if needed) or any other impact due to the results of the poll will not occur until Stage 4 is completed." - Thats a statement of a timeperiod before which they will not occur....what is the time period before they must occur if the poll calls for a move...? Does it mean that if there will be moves, they will take place before end of August? And who will enforce it...Are you a moderator? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Redking, you are about to get stomped on hard by Arbcom, as soon as they read your attempts to wikilawyer on the Clarifications page. Going around making up red herrings about whether I'm a mod or not, when you know darned well that Masem is one, and he's the one who set up the schedule, is not going to help your case at all.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This timetable sounds good to me. I don't know whether Ireland (country) works as an option along with Ireland (state) and Ireland (nation) etc as this could lead to tripling the number of options in the poll. I think that the potential for readers of the Wikipedia to confuse Ireland with an entity Arkansas is a red herring. (Note that Pennsylvania is a commonwealth at one level of abstraction but a state at another level of abstraction.) Yes, the U.S. state might be a "federated state" whilst Ireland is a "sovereign state" but that ambiguity exists in the English language and is not the fault of the Wikipedia. Ireland's constitution uses the term "state". This can be handled in the introduction to the article with piping: [[Sovereign state|state]] just as [[U.S. state|state]] is used at Pennsylvania. -- Evertype·✆ 07:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I have left a comment on the poll here. -- Evertype·✆ 07:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done a few mods to RAs version and posted it into my own sandbox. I think mine is an improvement. Kudos to RA for the concept. Fmph (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's difficult when you to make changes without indicating what the changes are. Can you? -- Evertype·✆ 10:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It may be teaching my grannie to suck eggs, but can I suggest the following:
The STV poll should be either on a project subpage, or on the main project page, with the majority of the current content archived.
We need to come up with a list of appropriate venues where notice of the poll should be posted
Why is notice of the poll being published at all....any selection will be wrong - if the poll concerns three pages, should the normal practice not be followed - advertise it on the three pages concerned (Island, State and Dab page) in the usual way. They are the only places where notice should be given....beyond those, you are into the dangerous territory of "politically" choosing who to notify. Lets just stick to the standard rules. After all, who is to say Australians, Canadians, French, Nigerian and Samoan users should not be notified too.....
In summary, here is the list of appropriate venues where notice of the poll should be posted:
As I understood it, this was intended to be a communitywide poll, and would aim to include Australians, Canadians, French, Nigerians and Samoan, and just about anybody else. Taking it out of the 'local' community would mean that an NPOV solution woul be more likely. Fmph (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Poll location - aye, either of those works. Poll notice - aye, all of those, certainly. But aren't we also going to get a Watchlist hatnote similar to when Arbcom elections are on, or the recent poll on the license to be used? BastunnutsaB 09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Oooooooooooo. I missed the hatnote proposal whenever it was mentioned, but it sounds great. Fmph (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Fmph, I'm not so happy about what you've done, because now we have a fork with two nearly-identical proposals. In this case I think it would be better if you offered the proposed changes on the Talk Page of RA's poll, and let him maintain editorship of the page (he seems to be even-handed). Would that be OK with you? Incidentally I dislike your voting procedure; it is quite confusing. But can be improved. -- Evertype·✆ 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago40 comments8 people in discussion
I have put together a proposal which I hope will move this discussion forward. I’m actively looking for the support of the community in this effort. While editors are welcome to participate, based on previous discussions I have place a number of guidelines on the proposal which are designed to prevent disruption, keep the discussion on topic and provide an environment conducive to rational and reasonable discussion. As this proposal is a work in progress which I will be placing before the community as a formal process, I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal, however, if one or all of the moderators wish to adopt the process (this should not been seen as an endorsement of the proposal) it would be very welcome. The guidelines must be viewed as part of the process, and will themselves form part of the final proposal. I have placed my rational behind the proposal on the proposal page which is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article. --Domer48'fenian' 09:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the same proposal you already put forward. It wasn't accepted. You were disruptive when you put up the previous one, and now you are threatening to be even more disruptive: "I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal". I appeal to the moderators to refer this to Arbcom. BastunnutsaB 10:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Very different proposal! Clarified guidlines. --Domer48'fenian' 10:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, granted, a different proposal. It is one option that can be included in the "Final poll" that the Project has indicated it wants to proceed with. Why not include it in that? BastunnutsaB 10:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Per Masem "I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here." I have stated here on both occasions. You did not read the proposal before you commented, and as to the poll, I addressed this issue in my rational on the proposal page. --Domer48'fenian' 10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Already editors are trying to disrupt this proposal. Despite clear guidlines they still ignore them, [2], [3]. I used the exact same guidline as Masem on the oppose section asking editors to just sign their name and not to post comments and it is ignored [4]. This is being just plain disruptive. Next thing is to is edit war to put their unsourced opinions back in, and have their helpful Admin come along and block the page. While editors may not like the process or the proposal this type of carry on should not be condoned. --Domer48'fenian' 18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, this is typical to what is powering the "show" at the moment. Countries stealing names [5]. I don't think Ireland ever stole anything. Talk about political agendas, is this the future of the poll? Tfz 19:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Lmao, where is the political agenda in my comment? It is fact that the island of Ireland had the name Ireland LONG before southern Ireland decided to use the name Ireland for their country, perhaps they didnt steal it, but they certainly copied it =). Besides, i consider that page a complete joke and knew the trigger happy self proclaimed moderator would delete my comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You knew posting comments which had nothing to do with the proposal would be removed. So you were being disruptive to make a point. It's not the page that's "a complete joke" as indicated by Tfz above. Having a lets see which POV has the highest number of votes is a joke. --Domer48'fenian' 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
My comments were about ur proposal, i just knew you would delete anything you didnt want to hear as has happened before. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
And the guidlines say "Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time. Moderator/Proposer will remove all infractions of this conditions." So you did exactly what you did before! You just can't seem to understand a simple instruction. You have to comment on an editor, and not the edit, you can't help yourself making sweeping claims and generalisations, and you could not provide a reference to save your life. It's because of this, that this whole talk page is a joke. Because of editors like you can't back up your POV. Now I know the guidlines cramp your style, because they were meant to. I trying to create informed discussion and personal POV's play no part. --Domer48'fenian' 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether this is a good solution or not, who is going to have confidence in any outcome when the proposer, someone heavily involved with a self evident point of view, is also the self declared arbiter of what is and is not allowed in support or opposition? As we saw from the previous attempt, what we end up with is a propaganda piece where the arguments presented are massaged to suit the POV of proposer/moderator. Have you considered that just because Domer doesn't accept an opposing justification or citation as valid, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth considering? It may just means Domer doesn't want his proposal criticized.
Have someone neutral "moderate" your proposal, or let editors express themselves without fear of you editing their comments to suit yourself, and you might get people taking it seriously. Until then, there is a process being developed under the guidance of a neutral, ArbCom appointed moderator. I suggest editors engage there instead. Rockpocket 00:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The moderators should be helping out with the proposals, failure to act is a dereliction in their duties, and I blame ArbCom for their stark lack of leadership in this regard. This is why I have lost confidence in the whole process, and no doubt some form of result will be an outcome. But it will not be a NPOV outcome, it will have a very British bias I'm afraid. As can be seen from this link [6], there has been an unhealthy relationship with the UK ever since Ireland left the UK in 1922, however this is becoming history of late, but yet a residue remains. I fear these POVs will spill heavily into the Wikipedia vote, and give a 'politically' skewed outcome. We already have seen a microcosm of this today where an editor accused Ireland of "stealing" its name. From whom, I ask myself. For that reason I support editors who will work here to achieve a consensus, and an amicable conclusion. Tfz 01:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should ask both Irish and British editors to recuse themselves and leave it to the rest of us, without the weight of history on our shoulders, to decide on what the most neutral outcome would be. Up for that? Rockpocket 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Would have no problem leaving the vote to a truly neutral, non-b.commonwealth, non-Irish, non-British elective body of editors to decide. Tfz 02:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I do find it weird that the editors that are going to get notified of the vote are exactly the people who might hold some POV even if that is not their intention. If I was running the show I would have Irish/NI/British editors stand back and see what people from the rest of the world think.76.118.224.35 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Rock do think anyone her for one minute considers you neutral, "leave it to the rest of us, without the weight of history on our shoulders, to decide on what the most neutral outcome would be." As per my comments above: You edit warred [7][8] to keep your snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. Saying you were not aware the page had been protected, holds no water here. Because you also said "even if [you] had known it was protected [you] would have still made the edit." So then adding "once the page is unprotected I'll be withdrawing both my !vote and my comments" show how hollow your arguements are. Why did you not just use your Admin tools again to remove them, why wait for the unblock, when the block did not stop you putting them back in? Your real motive in my opinion is obvious, because you wanted to "encourage everyone else to do likewise" and disrupt my proposal. Not one of yeh could come up with a policy based reason to oppose it, and all you could offer the discussion was inane comments. Well the guidlines prevent the POV pushers from disrupting the proposal, and it seems to have worked. --Domer48'fenian' 08:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Tfz, I agree with you 100%, "the moderators should be helping out with the proposals, failure to act is a dereliction in their duties." --Domer48'fenian' 08:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a personal attack here Bastun, seems you must of missed it. --Domer48'fenian' 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I remember reading that, it was an extremely rude and offensive piece, and AFAIK didn't get a warning from any admins, and not even from Bastun, although I told that particular editor at a later encounter that he was rude, and would ignor him. Tfz 11:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I suppose a neutral Admin would have spotted that and said something. --Domer48'fenian' 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, excluding self-declared British & Irish editors from a final vote would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested below (A serious proposal) that everybody who has taken part in the debate until now be excluded. Let the unaligned decide, free of pressure from within this debate. Scolaire (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I took part in this poll in good faith.[9] My comment was not disruptive, inflammatory or disparaging of anybody else's point of view. It was deleted by Domer.[10] Note the edit summary. I don't think it is reasonable to require that editors spend the afternoon in the library before commenting. In all fairness, I would have to question the good faith of the initiator. Scolaire (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Your bizarre and unreasonable dislike of being censored by Domer is not supported by reliable sources and therefore, obviously, is POV, OR, RS, WTF (and lots of other acronyms, too). If you don't agree with how Domer's interpretation of our policies informs Domer about how to moderate Domer's proposal then you are clearly disrupting the process, putting the entire encyclopaedia at risk and, very possibly, driving the space-time continuum to collapse. Rockpocket 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I note that you also were unable to provide any sources to back up your opinion, only you edit warred to keep your POV in and outline above. It now appears that you are now reduced to a poor attempt at sarcasm to distract from this, which does not look well coming from an Admin IMO. However, I don’t think it is product to any reasoned discussion and could be viewed as disruptive.--Domer48'fenian' 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Here again are the guidlines for the discussion:
Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderator/Proposer will remove all infractions of this conditions.
Here is the Editors comment:
In my view, the primary meaning of "Ireland" is the 32-county country which is currently partitioned between Ireland (the 26-county state) and Northern Ireland. The 26-county state article should therefore have an alternative title e.g. "Ireland (state)". Republic of Ireland - if it is not the title - should redirect to it, since "Republic of Ireland" is, in Irish law, the description of the state. Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are the referenced sources which contradict their POV: here. Their responce of "I don't think it is reasonable to require that editors spend the afternoon in the library before commenting" is a bit lame when one notices the policies cited against their POV. To then claim censorship hold no weight in light of the fact. The guidlines are part of the proposal and outlined above so it is my view that the editor simply wished to make a point. --Domer48'fenian' 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so "our" policies means Domer48's policies! Way to achieve a consensus, Domer! Scolaire (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It's disappointing to see you reduced to trying to mislead editors. Our policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV and it is right to ask for WP:RS. Our polices mean references talk and BS walks. --Domer48'fenian' 20:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh please, Domer, say what you like, but spare me "disappointing"! Scolaire (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What's the status of the other proposal? has it been dropped? GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No it's still active. --Domer48'fenian' 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Final Poll - decisions
Latest comment: 14 years ago222 comments19 people in discussion
Looking at the recent sections on the STV "Final poll", I think we need to come to decisions on the following items:
Single location for draft poll;
Inclusion of any additional options;
Drafting of statements promoting each option;
Decision on winning quota;
Organising advertisement of poll, including hatnote;
Or put it at on a Draft page so we can get everything sorted before placing it on a VOTE page. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It should be moved out of my/Fmph's sandbox anyway. WP:IECOLL/VOTE sounds good for an ultimate location, but maybe draft it up at somewhere like WP:IECOLL/VOTE (draft) (so people don't confuse it with the final thing before the actual date) then move it to the ultimate location when the ballot opens. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of any additional options
Currently we have six options:
A: The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.
B: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
C: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
D: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
E: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
F: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
Some editors have indicated preference for other options - e.g., use of Ireland (country); or "Ireland -> Ireland (island), Republic of Ireland -> Ireland, replacement of RoI with article on the term." These need to be collated and included.
Comments
Adding an option Ireland (country) would divide the vote for those who want it at either Ireland (state) / Ireland (country). I still think we should have a quick poll before the main one on if Country should be used or State in the main poll. This is something that should be decided before not after. On if the ROI should redirect to the country article this should be a separate question agreed after the main one IF the country article is moved. options for that would have to include - Redirect to country article. - Have suggested new article on the description or take to a disam page where the country is listed but also the Irish football team etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I don't know whether Ireland (country) works as an option along with Ireland (state) and Ireland (nation) etc as this could lead to tripling the number of options in the poll. I think that the potential for readers of the Wikipedia to confuse Ireland with an entity Arkansas is a red herring. Yes, the U.S. state might be a "federated state" whilst Ireland is a "sovereign state" but that ambiguity exists in the English language and is not the fault of the Wikipedia. Ireland's constitution uses the term "state". This can be handled in the introduction to the article with piping: [[Sovereign state|state]] just as [[U.S. state|state]] is used at Pennsylvania. -- Evertype·✆ 18:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that the vote is going ahead, here is another to consider. Some people don't like 'state' as it's too much like a state as in USA, and others object to 'country' because the '32 counties' is the country of Ireland. There is a more neutral article name, Ireland (sovereign country), in that it describes the sovereign part of the country of Ireland. Entirely NPOV, and describes exactly what its supposed to describe. Tfz 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldnt have a problem with (Sovereign country) although it wont have the support (state) will have. Lmao @ "the sovereign part of the country of Ireland." How pathetic. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You obviously have issues with Ireland, that's your prerogative. Tfz 19:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"Lmao" and "pathetic" and "issues" aren't helpful tropes at this stage, are they? -- Evertype·✆ 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I dont have problems with Ireland, i have a problem with your wording there Tfz. The "sovereign part of the country", implying the other part is occupied huh? There is an island called Ireland. On that island there is a sovereign country called Ireland (described sometimes as Republic of Ireland) and there is Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom. If you had said the sovereign part of the island youd be correct, but ALL of the country "Ireland" is sovereign. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No you have picked it up wrongly. You should have quoted more fully "and others object to 'country' because the '32 counties' is the country of Ireland". It's what some folk think, whether we agree or disagree with them. That's why we have a term here at wikipedia called "point of view". Anyway it is a good proposal. Tfz 19:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Clearly the majority "point of view" is that its not a good proposal. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, the idea here is that it suits both POVs. Surely that must be a good thing? Tfz 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As I say, I don't think this is wise because (!) it multiplies the options in the poll, (2) "sovereign country" isn't a precise term (161,000 raw google hits) as the common and precise term is "sovereign state" (724,000 raw google hits), and (3), the State is self-described as a State right there in the same constitutional clause that has been used as strong evidence against the whole "Republic of Ireland" issue which is a primary cause of this entire debate. I really think that there is no credible argument against the word "state" except some sort of "lowest-common demoninatorism". and in fairness just stating "some people don't like 'state'" isn't enough of an argument to double the items in the poll, in my view. -- Evertype·✆ 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"Sovereign country" does have currency, and the whole idea of the poll is to give people the choice to select their preference, no our our preference. It's as common as "Ireland state" imho.Tfz 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)~~
You've not made any argument. You've simply gainsaid me. The phrase sovereign country has much less currency than sovereign state, and I still believe that doubling or tripling the options in the poll is a bad idea. Ireland (state) is not credibly ambiguous, and having all the options repeated with both Ireland (sovereign state) and Ireland (sovereign country) just because some Americans might mistakenly think that Ireland was on the par with Missouri. Let's set the bar a bit higher, shall we? -- Evertype·✆ 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The time for arguments is now over and it's up to the voters/editors to select the term that's most appropriate. Neither term is particularily correct anyhow, for I have never seen the string "Ireland (state)" written anywhere, except here at Wikipedia. To claim a 'primary string' for disambiguation is a wide open debate indeed, and there is no 'right way', only 'better ways'. Tfz 20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I still think the solution to this problem would be to have a quick vote before the main vote starts. Just so we can see which option (country) (state) (sovereign state) (something else) should be placed in the main vote, rather than splitting votes by including different options in the main one. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
So what Tfz is saying is he wants:
A: The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.
B: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
C: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
D: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
E: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
F: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
G: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
H: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
I: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
J: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
K: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
L: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
M: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Republic of Ireland.
I would like to see consensus on this before it is accepted. I oppose it, but will accept consensus. RA? Fmph? Masem? -- Evertype·✆ 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be very messy and complicate matters yes, i also strongly oppose it. The quickest and simplest resolution to this problem is a quick poll on what term should be used in the main vote. (country), (state), (sovereign country)(sovereign state) etc. Its likely to be state that wins but atleast we will know its what the majority support. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
My personal take is that these options have very limited support, but perhaps the solution is to have a single polling option covering all 3. So
X: ...... The state at Ireland (<dab-phrase>)
And post PRSTV, if that option is selected by the voters, then we re-poll on what the <dab-phrase> should be. But I doubt it will be selected. Fmph (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, thats a bad idea. Scrub that. Instead add an Option G: None of the above. That may well prove popular with lots of people, and will allow the disgruntled to make a meaningful vote. If it proved to be the most popular option, then we would have to go back to the starting blocks. But we've been there before. Fmph (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Totally disagree with a "None of the above" - that puts us right back at square one, where we were in Decemeber. (It also leaves the status quo, which is my preference anyway - but I'd rather have the status quo retained by community consensus expressed through this vote than face another year of arguments, polls, edit wars, etc.) BastunnutsaB 09:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
A "none of the above" vote approach has been implied from the past - since a user does not have to rank all options and has been suggested that if they are totally against one option to not rank it at all, a user could submit a totally empty vote implying "none of the above". Yes, if that "wins" we're back at the table, but I see this as a necessary inclusion but a slim chance of happening. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody really need to see "sovereign state" or "sovereign country" in the poll? I have not heard anyone saying "Hey, I absolutely cannot live with 'state'! I insist on other options!" All I have heard is some people saying that some other people might be confused about the status of Ireland vis à vis subdivisions of the US or Australia. That's not a compelling argument to add 6 new options to the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a poll before hand to narrow down the Ireland (state/country/sovereign entity/intergalactic time traveller HQ) options. While in theory all options can be put in an STV poll, in practice too many similar choice split the vote for those options - hence, for example, why political parties usually only field a number of candidates equal the number of seats up for grabs in a constituency. I think two variations on the theme is the most we should include in the ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed before that instead of spelling exactly "Ireland (state)" in the options above, instead to say that the name is requested at a second question on the poll, and then to have another STV for that aspect. That keeps the options above manageable to six while still resolving this part. The only question is: if you support any option that currently is listing the country at "Ireland (state)", would your choice change if that was instead "Ireland (nation)" or something else, presuming that we're talking a disamb. phrase within reason? --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
A concern with having a "Republic of Ireland → Ireland (xxx)" option in the ballot, with what "xxx" is decided afterwards is one option will represent many possible alternatives, which otherwise may not attract a single "bloc" of voters. Image, for example, that the "Ireland (xxx)" option wins the ballot with 50%+1 (and that another option have 49%). We might then have another ballot for what "xxx" is to be where "nation" wins with 33%+1 (not having even reached the quota!). That would mean that the "winner" for the ballot overall would have the support of only 17% of the community (and we would have thrown out an option that had 49% support).
If it was to be done, the ballots would have to be done the other way around i.e. first poll on options for "xxx" then the top options from that poll in the actual ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
To reduce this as an issue, the wording of the second question would asked "Regardless of your response to the previous question, which of the following choices do you believe is the best appropriate disambiguation phrase to describe the 26-county nation called Ireland?" It removes the necessary tie in with the previous question. Now, there may be people that want the county to be at "Republic of Ireland" and refuse any disambiguation name, and will null vote here. That's ok as a result. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not the issue. Imagine another ballot: one where the question is do you want a) chocolate or b) toast or cheese. The "toast or cheese" option is like the "Ireland (xxx)" option. It would attract an aggregate of votes (i.e. votes from people who want toast and votes from people who want cheese). In reality, people who want toast may prefer chocolate as their second choice. However, the consequence of having one "toast or cheese" option is that not matter what their real preference, the votes of all people who vote for "cheese" would be treated as if their second preference was "toast".
It would be better to split "toast or cheese" into "toast" and "cheese". In the same way it would be better to split "Ireland (xxx)" in to (say) "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (country)". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I realize what you are saying, but I'm trying to judge this: how many people, given that they were separate options on the main question, would rank them in an order like this: "Ireland (state)", "Republic of Ireland", "Ireland (nation)". Based on the opinions I've seen here, I'm having a hard time seeing this type of opinion forming, though it could happen - the question is, is this likely going to affect the results? I'd rather keep the choices on the STV fewer to make it easier to understand the results, but if we need to address these at the same time, then maybe we have to do that. But I don't want to have one poll to decide on the possible name, and then a second to put that name into place for the solution. I really think that a two-question approach is not going to skew the results; maybe we can asked a secondary question that is "Do you feel the choice of disamb descriptor for the country article would have affected your choice in the first question?" - if there's more than a handful of responses here, then maybe we take the result of the disamb descriptor question and start a new vote using that. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue can be avoided entirely by polling the "xxx" options first and including the most popular options in the ballot. Either way we would have to run two polls. Polling the "xxx" options first avoids the possibility of a catch-all "xxx" option distorting the results. It's clearer too to vote for an known value (e.g. "Ireland (nation)") rather than an unknown, to-be-decided-in-future value. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, we should have a mini vote before the main vote to decide what term is placed in (----) after Ireland for the country article, such as state/nation etc. I think its far better to have a known word there rather than voting for something with may change as some people would support Ireland (country) but may not support Ireland (state) because of its like a US state rather tha a sovereign one, BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This really pisses me off, BritishWatcher, and it seems to me as though this is a blocking tactic. I'll try to assume good faith however. I have given fair arguments for preferring Ireland (state) to {sovereign x) above. You're just back here reciting the unsubstantiated claim that "some people" would be confused by the polyvalence of the word "state". This is easily remedied. (1) in the poll, state that "In Ireland (state) the word state refers to Sovereign state", (2) in the eventual Ireland (state) article, clarify state in the first sentence and you're done. The term state should be preferred, because that is what the Constitution of Ireland calls it (so you can blame that), regardless of US and Australian practice. The words "country", "state", and "nation" are all polyvalent, but that problem is outside of the Wikipedia. Please, please, can't we get a move on? -- Evertype·✆ 08:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I provided evidence that it is confusing for readers. Your claim that it is "unsubstantiated" is wrong. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The point is that some people may have the preferences: 1. Ireland (state), 2. Republic of Ireland and then far down the line Ireland (country). Having one combined Ireland (xxx) option in the ballot and then deciding what "xxx" is afterwards means that by voting for Ireland (state) their second preferences automatically goes towards Ireland (country). It would be better to run the polls the other way around: to first poll on what "xxx" options should be included then include only the top two or three of those in the actual ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Who? What people? Who is saying "I don't want Ireland (state) to be the option on the poll, I want something else instead"? What is wrong with using Ireland (state) given the use of the term in Bunreacht na hÉireann, and indeed, the historical Irish Free State? Which editors here are saying "I get confused every time I see the word state"? Where are you going to poll the (xxx) options? Community-wide? Here? I find this really frustrating. I see it as a way to prevent progress. -- Evertype·✆ 08:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I don't mind whether the vote on the disambiguator comes before or during the poll but I do think that Masem has a strong point that no-one who wants "Ireland (whatever)" is going to prefer "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (not the particular whatever they preferred as a first choice)". DrKiernan (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with that too. -- Evertype·✆ 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that it logically follows that someone who favours any "(xxx)" option would have every subsequent preference for any/every other "(xxx)" solution. I think it will end up distorting the poll greatly. In the event of a second poll then to decide what "xxx" means, we could very easily find ourselves in the position where the range of options are such that everyone is left unhappy. Far, far better IMHO to run the polls the other way around (and it's not as if it is extra work). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
To give myself as an example, I would rank "Ireland (state)" above "Republic of Ireland". Somewhere thereafter I would rank a merge of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, followed by moving the state to "Ireland". "Ireland (country)" would be far down my list and I wouldn't vote for "Ireland (nation)" at all. Having one "Ireland (xxx)" option would force me to give my 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th preferences to the "country", "nation", "sovereign state" and "sovereign country" options despite them not being my preferences at all. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That's clear. I'm saying that I don't see anyone saying "I insist on having options other than Ireland (state) in the poll". I have suggested that adding those options increases the size of the poll needlessly. If there is a NEED to be added, we should add them. But I think this is predicated on a big "some people might be confused by 'state'" pseudo-argument, since nobody is raising their hand saying they are actually so confused. -- Evertype·✆ 11:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I gave an example on the 17th June, and there must be others because I remember it being raised as an issue in the past. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Having every permutation of "Ireland (xxx)" on the ballot would be insane (and despite STV theory, in practice it might split the "(xxx)" vote). IIRC the most likely options were "(state)" and "(country)". Was "(sovereign state)" a contender too? I too remember conceding that "state" might be misunderstood (by non-Europeans?).
I think we're talking across each other, Everytype. The argument I'm having is over two options:
a) to have "Ireland (xxx)" as the option on the ballot paper then, if that is selected by the vote, to run a second poll to decide what "(xxx)" should be (i.e. "state", "country", "sovereign state", etc.)
b) to run a poll first (here?) to decide the "best" one, two or (max?) three "(xxx)" options then include those in the poll.
I'm saying that I would be dead set against a) because it would distort the vote (by aggregating all "(xxx)" votes as if they were the same) and not allow for expression of preferences around the "(xxx)" options (e.g. like ranking "state" higher than "Republic of Ireland" but ranking "country" lower than that again). BritishWatcher was of the same opinion above. Masem thinks that a is the way to go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment, State is very poorly done here on Wikipedia, and gives all the wron impressions. Has the word "state" a more modern loose meaning, as it sounds like province/territory. "Country" I think is more common, but can't offer a citation on that at present. Tfz 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting pretty sick of this unsubstantiated guff. The word "state" is polyvalent. That means "it means more than one thing". In terms of Ireland, the term "state" is precise and correct, and is specified in the Constitution of Ireland. In the meaning A particular form of polity or government it is attested as far back as 1538 STARKEY England 56 Ther ys the veray and true commyn wele; ther ys the most prosperouse and perfayt state, that in any cuntrey, cyte, or towne, by pollycy and wysdom, may be stablyschyd and set. In the meaning A republic, non-monarchical commonwealth it is attested as far back as 1656 WALLER To Evelyn 2 Lucretius, with a stork-like fate, Born and translated in a State, Comes to proclaim in English verse No Monarch rules the universe. 1651 HOBBES Leviathan IV. xlv. 365 When Augustus Cæsar changed the State into a Monarchy. 1673 DRYDEN Amboyna Prol. 22 Well, Monarchys may own Religions name, But States are Atheists in their very frame. Its modern use, meaning the body politic as organized for supreme civil rule and government; the political organization which is the basis of civil government (either generally and abstractly, or in a particular country); hence, the supreme civil power and government vested in a country or nation., is attested also in 1538 STARKEY England 48 The kyng, prynce, and rular of the state... The gouernance of the commynalty and polytyke state... He or they wych haue authoryte apon the hole state. Ibid. 53 Whether the state of the commynalty be gouernyd by a prynce, by certayn wyse men, or by the hole multytude. Here are some more: 1538 STARKEY Ibid. 53 Whether the state of the commynalty be gouernyd by a prynce, by certayn wyse men, or by the hole multytude. 1590 in Cath. Rec. Soc. Publ. V. 179 For the better understanding of the trewthe of matters agenst her Maiestie and the Stayte. 1594 [see PILLAR n. 3b]. 1617 MORYSON Itin. II. 17 Which may concerne the good of the State. a1618 RALEIGH Rem. (1644) 2 State is the frame or set order of a Common-wealth, or of the Governours that rule the same, especially of the chief and Sovereign Governour that commandeth the rest. The State or Sovereignty consisteth in five points. 1. Making or annulling of Laws. 1622 BACON Hen. VII 8 As one that hauing beene somtimes an Enimie to the whole State, and a Proscribed person. 1681 DRYDEN Abs. & Achit. I. 174 Resolv'd to Ruine or to Rule the State. 1697 Virg. Georg. IV. 229 All is the State's, the State provides for all. 1834 ARNOLD in Stanley Life (1844) I. vii. 376 The State, being the only power sovereign over human life, has for its legitimate object the happiness of its people. 1879 M. ARNOLD Democracy Mixed Ess. 42 The State is properly..the nation in its collective and corporate capacity. 1884 SPENCER (title) The Man versus the State. 1891 C. LOWE in 19th Cent. Dec. 858 The railways..in Prussia are now all in the hands of the State. The modern usage as found in the US and Australia, is not as old: One of a number of polities, each more or less sovereign and independent in regard to internal affairs, which together make up a supreme federal government; as in the United States of America or the Commonwealth of Australia. Attested 1634 Mass. Bay Rec. (1853) I. 117 When I shalbe called to give my voice touching any such matter of this state, wherein ffreemen are to deale, [etc.]. 1774 JEFFERSON Writ. (1892) I. 420 A proper device (instead of arms) for the American states united would be the Father presenting the bundle of rods to his son. Even in Ireland before independence we find this: 1882 M. ARNOLD Irish Ess. 97 State-aided elementary schools. Not "Country-aided elementary schools". -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
By copying all this from the OED, you've just defeated your own argument by confirming that "state" has meant a state in the American sense for over 350 years. DrKiernan (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Eh? There is one hit for that meaning from 1638, but the others are from North America 1774. All of the other hits were about the non-US/Australian meaning, going back 100 years earlier! Are you really confused by the use of the word "state", DrKiernan? -- Evertype·✆ 00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sovereign state, is what I think Evertype is looking for. I see Evertype citing the Constitution of Ireland, BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN, that's nice. Tfz 19:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason to have anything but Ireland (state) and I have yet to see a credible counterargument. -- Evertype·✆ 00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me suggest two options (they can be handled separately):
To figure out the best "xxxx" options to include for "Ireland (xxxx)" names for the country, I will open a quick feedback poll to ask editors to submit, irregardless if they feel the country should be at RoI or "Ireland" w/o disamb, three options they feel "xxxx" should be. This will close Friday, and the top 3 (or 4 if a tie) will be used as options in the STV poll.
My gut feeling is that editors outside of this group are going to care less exactly what "xxxx" is, as long as it resolves the naming dispute - there may be purists (as exampled above) but I think the majority may not care. Furthermore, I worry that if we push the number of options to 12 or 15, non-involved editors (the ones we want to participate) may skip the poll thinking it too complex. Regardless, let's keep it an option but manage that expectation: In the presentation of the questions where "Ireland (xxxx)" is an option (such as presently B on the 6-choice poll), I propose that we keep the main option as say "country at 'Ireland (xxxx)' where xxxx is some appropriate disambiguation descriptor.", and then provide options B1, B2, etc. for each of the possible "xxxx" choices. In voting, a user can opt to preference vote for any individual option and/or the general B option. In tallying, if the general B option is eliminated before the winner is selected, all "B" votes immediately morph to the current best scoring sub-B option. So for example, say that B1, B3, and B remain, but B is eliminated - at the time B1 has the majority of remaining highest preference votes and thus all those Bs are virtually treated as B1s. Now a few rounds later, both B1 and B3 remain, but now due to other factors, B3 is the highest in preference votes - at this point all those Bs that were treated as B1s become treated as B3s. This allows for the generic option as well as the specific options to be used. I'm trying to think of scenarios that might be difficult to understand the results from in this but I can't think of what they might be. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
When and where will you do this. Masem? There are four or five options (state, country, nation, sovereign state, sovereign country). -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You've missed (republic) again. I think it would be easier to run this as an STV poll, just selecting the winning option. As some people don't seem to understand how STV works, it might also be a useful trial run. DrKiernan (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Holy hand grenades. You want Ireland (republic) on the ballot? What a farce. This has never been proposed by anyone before. Ireland is DEFINED by its Constitution as a State, even if DESCRIBED as a republic in an Act of the Oireachtas. Your suggestion seems outrageous. -- Evertype·✆ 00:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ireland (Republic of)? In any event, I don't see these "minor" options being very likely. There's no point in fussing too much over options that are likely to get eliminated in the early rounds. But ... it's Wednesday so can we get a bullet list of what we are going to include? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course (Republic of) will be eliminated. That's partly the point of having a poll: to eliminate unfavourable options. If these options are not eliminated in a transparent way, then there is a danger that someone will come along later and say "Oh, but, we never discussed/voted on 'Ireland (land of the leprechauns)' so the vote is invalid." I want to ensure that the most favoured possible option for change is selected, whether it be state (I hope not), country (I hope so), republic (I wouldn't mind), nation (I oppose strongly), sovereign state (I hope not), or (Republic of) (the winner! [not]). DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I put a draft poll for this together. See below. -- Evertype·✆ 10:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Drafting of statements promoting each option
We presumably need a clear, short, statement (max of x words) for each option explaining why each one is "viable" or should be chosen - with links to the previous Project statement pages?
Comments
This is certainly needed as we will be opening this up to anyone and everyone probably best in bullet points rather than a statement. But i strongly believe each option should also provide the counter arguments. So for example on the country is at Ireland option we have Say yes because.. Ireland is the commonname for the country. But we also say Say no because Ireland is ambiguous. The island of Ireland had the name long before the state etc.
If we are doing bullet points then everyone can add what they want and it just needs cleaning up by someone, if its going to be a written statement we may need a vote on which statement to use (or just go with the one the majority clearly support). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we not first assess the validity of arguments, rather than promoting each option. This just opens up the whole issue again. We know what editors positions (POV's) are, lets policy test them before we present them to the community. --Domer48'fenian' 07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The validity of arguements will be judged by those partaking in the poll. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
verifiable, reliable sources are of paramount importance, as in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Any lazy approach to these factors is amateurish in the extreme, and quite startling if not addressed before anything proceeds. Tfz 11:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
With STV, 50%+1 is what you would tend to get. The process, by its mathematical nature, does not need to show a greater majority. If we ran a simple first past the post ballot, it might be prudent to require a greater than 50% majority. The whole process of PRSTV obviates that requirement. And in the end, ArbCom and the WP bureaucracy could always overrules a decision from here if it were obviously a bad decision. Fmph (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
We certainly need a majority of atleast 50% for the option to win without a tranferable vote. If say something got 55% but a second option won 95% with the transferable vote then i think the mods should agree to implement the one with an overwhelming majority rather than the 55%. Im not sure what the figure would have to be to override a majority of 55% but it would have to be over 80% or something like that on the transferable vote to justify overriding the majority on the first vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, BW. If we're running this under Single transferable vote (which is the consensus), then if an option passes the quota (which yes, reading Fmph's comment, should almost certainly be 50% + 1), it wins. If on the first count, no option reaches the quota, then the least popular option is eliminated, and those who voted for it have their second preferences (if any) counted and added to the results from Count 1. If there is still no option reaching the quota, a second elimination takes places and there is a third count - and so on, until an option does pass the quota. BastunnutsaB 16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I found First Past The Post very confusing when I first moved to the UK. That an electorate would allow themselves to be governed by a political party which did not command the support the of the majority of the electorate is very confusing to many democrats. Fmph (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Cut-off targets should probably be something like : 75% option 1, 60% option 2, 51% option 3. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
These strange voting systems confuse me, its why i like First past the post which is nice and simple. If an option meets the quota set then it should win, all im saying is if there is another option that with transferable vote has like 90%+ support then in the interests of reaching an option that the most people are satisfied with it should probably be chosen despite the other option winning the original vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not let everyone have multiple choice voting, that is voting for their more popular choices and not voting for the choices that they don't like. That would work like proportional voting, and give a less contentious result. For instance, if a voter 'could live' with 3 different options, then that voter could vote for all those 3 options, and ignore all of the other options. It's worth considering. Tfz 23:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Because we have consensus for STV, and STV means you should rank your preferences. Note that I *have* suggested that people be allowed to vote "0" (zero) for any choice they "can't live with". (I always fill out my ballot completely, so as to prevent anyone from filling in a box I left blank. Also for the pleasure of putting the unacceptable at the bottom of the list.) -- Evertype·✆ 10:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. And in any case I don't see how a STV vote would be any more contentious than a multiple-choice vote - you have more "say" in the outcome of an STV vote than you would under multiple-choice. BastunnutsaB 10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
flowchart for counting IRV Votes @MickMacNee. If you're only choosing a single winner using single transferable voting, cut-off levels are not really necessary. According to Wikipedia, STV to choose single winner is sometimes called instant-runoff voting, though I've not encountered that term before. With a bit of thought you'll see that when only a single winner is being chosen, in every circumstance, the Droop quota (requiring 50%+1) yields precisely the same result as the flow-chart on the right, and indeed as the less-commonly-used Hare quota (which requires 100%). (The Hare quota requires many additional iterations to get the answer, but once a single option reaches 50%+1 it cannot fail to eventually get to 100% once all the fifth, tenth, twentieth... choice votes are factored in.) Cut-offs, whether at the top end to allow a winner to be declared early or for multiple losers to eliminated early, are just algorithmic devices to simplify and speed up the calculation of the winner without changing the result. Saving an iteration or two when you have millions of paper votes is a big benefit; saving an iteration or two when you have a few dozen electronic votes really isn't much gain. So we can do things nice and straightforwardly and use the flowchart on the right until someone reaches 50%+1. —ras52 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Most logical. -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Easily the best proposal. FF3000 (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Even BW could follow it! (joke!) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
lol Bastun, only after id read it a few times ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Just as a comment and need for clarification, it appears we are allowing users to null vote for certain options, with the implication that you absolutely, positively cannot live with null voted options. This would imply that 1) it is possible for the final winning option to fail to get 100% when all choices are considered, and that 2) it is possible that no option could get more than 50% when all options are considered - meaning that the community has rejected all the solutions, and we will need to return to the discussion board.
However, I will agree (in contrast with my earlier statement) that 50%+1 as the winning option seems best, though the tally will work through all the numbers. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Ras52. There's no advantage to setting a higher quota to find a "winner" - any option that gets 50%+1 will beat all others (always).
That said, an advantage to running iterations of the count past 50%+1 would be if we set a quota - not for declaring a "winner" - but for deciding a minimum before the "winner" would be deemed to be *binding* on the community (e.g. only if the "winner" got 66% of preferences would it be deemed to be binding on the community). Fmph has recommended software for calculating the result (OpenSTV). Using that software some options will perform the Hare method - which would allow us to see if any option got greater than, say, 66%.
Also, what Masem says is true. It is possible using STV that the "winner" will have less 50%+1. In such a circumstance, will be declare that although we have winner (under the formula), we will not accept it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This vote should end the dispute full stop. Obviously if a majority vote is gained, there is a consensus for it to get the go-ahead. If this vote isn't the end, we will be back to square one and many more months of endless, pointless discussion will continue.
It must be made a rule though that all of the options A-F must be numbered 1-6 like this:
1. A
2. D
etc.
Otherwise the vote won't work. FF3000 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Not true - because we have not listed all possible solutions, a possibility of no option winning 50%+1 exists and is useful; it means we need to seek other options (For a matter of principle, editors will be encourage to suggest options if they don't see one they agree with on the voting talk page - these won't be part of the vote, but they will be our next steps if this fails). The chance of that happening here? WP:SNOW. We'll worry about it if it comes to pass, but nothing that requires us to alter how the vote should be conducted. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. There's no advantage to forcing people to use up all of their options. It doesn't create consensus by forcing people to artificially rank their preferences.
With regard to "If this vote isn't the end..." - we have to options either
a) this is the end and the "winner" of the ballot (regardless of whether it be SNOW or less than 50%+1) is binding on the community
b) this may be the end
If is it b) then can we please set out metrics before the ballot happens for what will constitute a binding result? e.g. if a Hare quota is used will 50% be binding? 66%? If an option gets 90% will it be binding? (This too is another reason not to force people to use all of their options because that would artificially create a 100% Hare quota.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to Masem's comments about "null votes", this is problem that real-world elections have to deal with too, and the standard way of dealing with this (see single transferable vote and related articles) allow for this. If a voter's top preference is for the least popular option in a given iteration of the scoring, that vote is discarded and their next highest preference is used in the next iteration. This is true irrespective of whether they've specified a next highest vote. The result is that once all of a voters preferences are exhausted, the vote is treated if an empty ballot paper were handed in — i.e. it is treated as if it were a spoilt paper (though typically not added to the tally of spoilt papers). That's the standard procedure in any STV election where it's permissible to omit your least favourite choices. This means that sometimes in the final stages of the election, the number of active votes is reduced, but you still inevitably eventually get 100% consensus from those whose votes are still being counted (which will include everyone who ranked all the options). If you think about this, this is good. Clearly in any election someone who chooses to vote is going to have more effect on the result than someone who abstains. Similarly, someone who doesn't fully rank all the choices may get less say than someone who does. Though in practice, if you genuinely consider all unranked preferences to be equally bad there's absolutely no need to rank everything.
In answer to Rannṗáirtí, I think there's some confusion here. If you go for a Hare quota, then by definition you need 100% quota to get a binding decision. Not 50%+1, not 66%, and not 90%. However per my previous paragraph, because of the way it deals with unranked options, you are inevitably guaranteed a 100% quota because anyone who has only ranked minority options eventually gets remove from the voting. (And as a corollary, by ranking everything you will never have less influence on the outcome than if you omitted your least favourite few.) Yes, arguably this is artificially creating a 100% consensus. But any voting system is to some extent artificial. And I think we would be better off using a well-documented, well-understood system such as standard STV. To repeat the gist of my earlier email: whether you use a Droop quota, a Hare quota or the IRV flowchart makes absolutely no difference to the outcome in any circumstances (because we're only after a single winner). — ras52 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should just clarify — I'm not saying we shouldn't do something that may fail to reach a decision because of unranked choices. However, if we want to do that, we need to be clear about precisely how we are going to conduct the vote because saying single transferable voting is no longer sufficient as what we would be doing would not be a standard STV. So by all means do something different, but make sure the procedure is fully documented beforehand to avoid subsequent arguing about how to interpret the votes. — ras52 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely. I believe we should accept the STV outcome of 50%+1, with the proviso that - as ever - the mods and admins can enforce a different decision (poss going back to the drawing board) if they are not happy that the result will best serve the community. I think we are chasing a red herring on quota.
@FF3000 - It is NOT pointless to try and get a consensual decision like this, even if one of the options may be "go back to the drawing board". We cannot possibly have an infinite wisdom and knowledge, nor to be prescient of what's to come. I am quite sure that is entirely possible for the whole process to be scrapped because of something we have not foreseen. But that is no reason for not trying.
@RA/@Masem We should not try to second guess the electorate by assigning reasons for their actions and assuming we know why they have voted in a particular way. Null votes, incomplete ballots, 'lazy' '1234567' votes, are all acceptable. Let the community decide how they want to cast their votes. Don't try to 2nd guess. Fmph (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Fmph/Ra52 - The "quota" doesn't matter. Forget about it. Let's stop even talking about it. This is a "one-seat constituency" so we will *not* be using a quota for *anything*.
Fmph, I think you believe that the quota will be used to determine a winner. No so (but it is commonly thought that that is what it is for). It is entirely possible for an option to be elected without having reached the "quota" - and *always* at least one candidate in an a real-life election is elected without having reached the quota. (Although anyone that reaches the number given by the Droop quota is guaranteed to be elected, hence the misconception that the quota signifies a winner.) The real purpose of the quota is in calculating transfer ballots: ballots cast for a candidate in excess of the quota are transferred to other candidates. Depending on whether you use the Droop or Hare quota the number of ballots transferred in this way will be different.
Since we will only be electing one candidate, there will be no such transfer and so there is no "quota". 50%+1 only comes into it because this is the magic number - if any options receives that number of votes then it is guaranteed to be the winner - but it is also possible that the winner may not receive 50%+1. No option will receive a "Hare quota" of 100% unless *everyone* who votes uses *all* of their preferences. Neither of these numbers represent the Hare or Droop quota in any real way (because ballots in excess of them will not be transferred), so please can we stop talking about "quotas".
The only point of running an election based on the "Hare quota" is because - **in our case** - the Hare quota represents 100%. It would mean counting all ballots and making all possible transfers until we are left with just one option and a percentage to say how close to 100% it got (it will *not* get 100% in practice). Regardless of what percentage that option got - even if it is less than 50%+1 - it will be the winner under STV rules ... *BUT* we can decide to attach an extra proviso: to only accept as binding a winner that got, say, greater than 50%, greater than 66%, greater than 90%, etc.
The question is not about "quotas" in the STV sense but about an extra bench mark we can set for ourselves. The choices are a) to accept the result of STV as biding regardless of what percentage the final option got or b) to only accept the result as binding if it received a super majority after transfers. STV will give us a) regardless (even without reaching a "quota"). The advantage of b) is that is would give extra democratic legitimacy to a binding decision - but risks us not agreeing on a *final* decision. (I think the benefits of b) outweigh the risks, especially we we set a relatively low super majority of, say, 66%.)
"We should not try to second guess the electorate by assigning reasons for their actions and assuming we know why they have voted in a particular way." I don't know what you mean by this. I never said any such thing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Organising advertisement of poll, including hatnote
A list of pages/projects is published below. Presumably we should also inform those who have previously contributed to the Project. Does anyone know how to go about organising a Watchlist hatnote similar to those used when Arbcom elections are on, or the recent one on change of WP's licence?
Do we notify individual users? There is a real danger of an explosion of canvassing if we do. Fmph (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should at least notify the users who have previously participated here. It could be done with a template written by a moderator to ensure neutral wording - little more than a pointer to the poll page and what the closing date is? BastunnutsaB 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
And also notify all the named parties in the arbitration case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
A full watchlist notice is probably not going to happen; those that maintain that really discourage from topics that only affect a small number of editors and articles (which this truly is) from using that space (otherwise, everyone's pet cause would be up there). WP:CENT needs to be added. As for individual users, the only two sets I would use are those that have been named in the ArbCom case and those that are members of this project; attempts to bring in anyone else specifically may seem to be canvasing. However, with all the other locations, this should probably be wide enough. - Oh, and also add in ArbCom as a place where it will be advertized - at least in the sense of notifying them this is occuring. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we edit the {{WikiProject Ireland}} template to show the notice, and maybe let a few other people know about it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
We can at least request a Watchlist hatnote, though? This is, after all, an Arbcom initiative to resolve a long-running dispute. BastunnutsaB 16:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Im ok with the above listed although i dont know why Scotland is listed and not England and Wales as well. My main concern is that if the Ireland wikiproject / notice board is listed the UK one MUST be listed as well, not too fussed about Scotland/Wales/Englands projects. I certainly think everyone signed up to this project should be contacted, maybe all those on the list for being involved when trying to get Arbcom to act on this should also be sent a message. Agreed there needs to be a template placed on certain articles talk pages too. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I repeat my request for a full watchlist notification, this process has gone on for so long, and I have seen much more trivial rubbish on the wathclist before. I recently spammed an Rfc regarding a massively important issue which was relevant to the entire pedia, in all the relevant venues including wp:cent, except the watchlist; it has to date got barely 30 opinions. We should not start cherry picking which projects get a say. Canvassing individual users is utterly out of the question (barring Sarah777, I am genuinely interested in how she would vote) MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the USA notice board being listed. That is not related to this dispute unlike Irish / Northern Irish / UK ones. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree. --De Unionist (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I would also tend to agree. Many Americans can hardly distinguish England from Britain, never mind Scotland, Wales, or Ireland—even those who are reasonably good editors. It's a "feature" of the educational system (and I went through that system though I'm 19 years in Ireland now). I don't believe listing the USA notice board is appropriate, any more than listing the Australian or South African notice boards would be appropriate. -- Evertype·✆ 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What has the change in the RoI page to do with Britain then, that's one of the reasons why this whole process is all wrong, if you are correct. Tfz 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
We need to be realistic here. The goal is to get a solution which, at least for a time, reduces the levels of conflict. That means involving the Irish Diaspora. Over the years there have been a lot of Canadian editors involved as well as Australians etc. etc. All of those are part of the complex political heritage that has produced the problem in the first place. Also we need an international perspective on this, not just the hothouse that is the editorial group who have failed to achieve consensus so far.--SnowdedTALK 07:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
So how do you decide which country noticeboards get notified? There's a small but significant Irish community in Argentina, for example (an Irishman founded their navy). I know a couple of Irish people living in Nepal. Someone has added Wikiproject Middle Ages, above. I don't see the relevance at all, but it may well be valid. Really, this points again towards the really obvious noticeboards Irish/British noticeboards and needing the hatnote... BastunnutsaB 09:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Leave the navy out of this. Argentina should be there on the list, as it has many friendly relations and historical ties with Ireland. And countries like Nepal can bring NPOV factors into the voting. Tfz 12:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆ 10:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Why should Argentina be deemed NPOV and be included and Nepal be deemed POV and excluded? What about Nigeria? Lebanon? Ingushetia (oh - another state not on its official name)? Who decides? Really, the various Irish and UK noticeboards/projects/pages should be the only ones in addition to the likes of WP:CENT - and are the only ones necessary if we can get the hatnote. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Tfz, Nepal may be NPOV, but we DO also want some measure of intelligence applied. We could announce it to Iran noticeboard. I've been there several times and one thing I can tell you is that when you mention Ireland they all think of two things: Bobby Sands and Chris de Burgh. How's that for well-informed? If we include the US noticeboard, we will need introductory information describing the constituent countries of the UK, since many, many Americans do not distinguish between the UK and Great Britain and England. Yes, there are folks out there who think that Wales and Scotland are in England, because Elizabeth II is Queen of England. -- Evertype·✆ 13:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The only reason the USA has been added is because certain editors dont like the fact that UK wikipedians should be informed. This message is going to be placed on many different wikiprojects, Countries / Geography boards will attract many Americans and non British / Irish editors so i really dont see the need of including individual countries other than the UK / Ireland / Northern Ireland. I dont really see the need for England,Scotland and Wales to be listed but ok either way with that. Just as long as UK editors are treated the same way Ireland editors are.
Dont get me started on the American media and their incompetence on reporting the British monarchy. Youd think international organisations would know better than to make silly mistakes like "Queen of England" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I still don't get it that UK are getting special concessions over the moving of the RoI article. Tfz 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not just about the Republic of Ireland its about the island of Ireland aswell. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shares the island of Ireland with the republic. Most of the people in Northern Ireland are UK citizens there for they are UK wikipedians. Tfz, honestly there will be plenty of non British ./ Irish input if we advertise on geography / countries etc so we dont need to advertise on different country boards BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It's more in the structure of the 'whole' process, that I have my reservations. That's what I mean, why should everything be tied together, one would almost think that Ireland and the British isles were all one. Anyway, the initial concern was a move from RoI to a less pov-infected name, and we end up with a multi-dimensional voting process of almost trans-galactical proportions that has become overgrown to the original notion of an article name change. Tfz 14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
lol well what ever the voting system used im pretty sure that the country artcle will be moved from the Republic of Ireland article at the end of the day, so surely thats better than the current setup. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆ 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason to notify any other country WP outside of those already listed. The naming is central to the ones listed, much less so for the other ones, so there's no vested interest in those. There will still be general notification via CENT and VPP. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
All the countries of Europe must be informed, especially those of the EU. Countries with strong connections with the state of Ireland too, especially in regard to the renaming of the RoI article. Tfz 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
the UK shares the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. This vote is NOT only on the future of the sovereig states title, its about the island aswell. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Why WP:USA? It seems bizarre. And Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages - WTF!? UK and Ireland forums only should be the only "ethnic" forums contacted (and I think it would be better to avoid projects such as Irish Republicanism for fear of forgetting Irish Unionism). For completeness, I would like messages posted at forums for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I would not put a notice of Irish Free State (it is a historical state). Other notices should only be put on "neutral" forums e.g. WP:CENT and the Village Pump. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This is getting stupid now, why are we adding countries like spain and portugal... this is pointless. British and Irish forums are the only nationalities that need to be informed, non British / Irish editors will see the messages on the other projects like Countries, Geography etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
When I see words like bizarre being used, I know that argument being offered is empty and devoid of any real substance. Firstly France, Spain, and Portugal are neighbours of Ireland, check it on the map, and they should be included according to your own criteria BW. There are more Irish people living in the USA than the whole population of the Channel Isles and Island of Man combined. You should understand that this is a community wide poll. Tfz 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with what i said. I said the UK noticeboard must be notified because the United Kingdom shares the island of Ireland with the Republic. France, Spain, Portugal DONT. Again i strongly oppose this idea of posting on different country projects other than that of the UK / Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and the UK does not share RoI. QEDTfz 20:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's why it should be a different and completely seperated issue altogether. Bundling 'things' together at Wikipedia is a new and ill thoughtout manouver that is making a complete laugh out of the project. Tfz 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well we cant change the mandate of this process it makes sense to have a central debate on this matter to decide the outcome of all the pages. Otherwise u could be in a case where people on ROI decide something and people on Ireland decide the complete opposite, whod vote would be more important and override the other?? We have to deal with what we have, this is a vote on all the Ireland naming issues, there for that includes the island of Ireland which has a direct impact on UK wikipedians aswell as Irish ones. I fail to see how any other country is impacted besides UK/Ireland BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
UK has absolutely nothing to do with the RoI page than the USA, Russia, or China. Weren't UK kicked out in 1922. It's nearly 100 years ago, to use your own words. Tfz 23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If this was just about the ROI then yes it has nothing to do with the UK. But this isnt, its about the ISLAND of Ireland. Like it or not part of that island is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland there for anything on the island of Ireland involves UK wikipedians. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am talking about special arrangements for UK voters above other countries. Fundamentally flawed. Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented. Tfz 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You are talking about one article, this process involves several. I know you dont like that fact but u should accept it. Part of the Island of Ireland is the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]s land, you cant exclude people in such a case. If we wanted to do something about Europe ud have to wikiprojects for every European country. This involves the island of Ireland there for both sovereign states wikiprojects must be informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to exclude the UK, it's editors here trying to exclude other countries, is my point. Tfz 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What do these other countries have to do with the Island of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland?? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
"When I see words like bizarre being used, I know that argument being offered is empty and devoid of any real substance." I didn't offer an argument. The reasoning is surely self evident? One of the pages being discussed is Ireland. Two states occupy Ireland: the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Hence, it's fair assume that this ballot might be of interest to editors that watch the Ireland and UK notice boards. You are of course free to post notices to other countries' notice boards. I just think the people that watch them will scratch their heads and wonder why-in-the-hell you're so keen on telling about some ballot on renaming an article that has nothing to do with the topics of their notice board. But, sure, if it makes you happy, knock yourself out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
GUBU was a phrase used by CJH, in case you didn't know, and would you? I might have more respect for your "snide remarks" if you had some extra 'article edits' under your belt. We are talking about a level playing field for the poll. The poll should not be advertised in any one jurisdiction above another, otherwise it will be a flawed poll, and "will never be accepted" here at Wikipedia. Can you look ahead? Tfz 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with WikiProject Gaelic Games? It is very much related to Ireland and has many users who are not on any other wikiproject. FF3000 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
(Internet ate my response) WP:GAA has 27 members, 2 of whose names I recognise from elsewhere on WP. So hardly "many users". The problem with including one niche wikiproject is that you'd then have to include them all. Where do you draw the line? The main article pages/country noticeboards/central discussion areas should be sufficient - though again, I really think we should try to get the Watchlist hatnote notification. Oh, and something in WP Signpost. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
But what's the harm with it? Seeing as it is an Ireland project full permission should be granted for advertisement there. The "line" can be drawn between wikiprojects that are an aren't related to Ireland. FF3000 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not a problem, it's an opportunity. Tfz 14:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
A serious proposal
I've put in that heading because I don't want anybody to think I'm just stirring it. It has been suggested a number of times that Irish and British editors should be excluded from the poll. An obvious objection to that is that there is no way to definitively determine an editor's nationality. But what if everybody who has taken part in the debate until now were excluded? The poll would then reflect the views of truly uninvolved editors, and participants would be uninfluenced by the "heated" contributions of involved editors. Since people here are presumably still split 50/50 (otherwise it wouldn't have come to this), excluding ourselves should not have a material effect on the outcome anyway. Thoughts? Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Totally reject this crazy proposal. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this interesting idea should be rejected. Good lateral thinking though. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Attention Masem
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆ 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason to notify any other country WP outside of those already listed. The naming is central to the ones listed, much less so for the other ones, so there's no vested interest in those. There will still be general notification via CENT and VPP. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are you saying that this issue is central to the USA noticeboard? Irish emigration went to Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand just as much as to the US. Please either (1) delete the US noticeboard or (2) add the others or (3) explain why you are keeping the US noticeboard but excluding the others. Right now it does not make sense. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
What about WikiProject Gaelic Games? It is a very active wikiproject related to Ireland, with lots of users that are not part of any other wikiproject? FF3000 (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see someone included the USA noticeboard. Of course that should not be included. The wide-spread announcement should be limited to national/regional WikiProjects and Noticeboards that deal with Ireland, the United Kingdom, and all of Europe / Western Europe (but not other specific countries of Europe). --MASEM (t) 15:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Voting rights
Who should be entitled to participate, in order to eliminate WP:SOCKS, WP:SPAs, etc.
Comments
Limit voting rights to editors who have exceeded 150 'main article' edits for the last 6 months, that should take care of any trolling accounts. A weighted figure could be calculated for editors with under 6 months editing. Also limit the voting rights to editors who have joined before 21st June 2009. Tfz 11:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The 150 in 6 months idea is impractical, but I do like the shortstop registartion date Fmph (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
A cut off date of editors who have joined before the 1st of June seems reasonable, rather than 21st. IPs should be banned from voting without a doubt. On 150 main article edits, i think thats unfair but every person that votes should have their edit history looked into by the mods to see if there is any chance of it being a sock, and those suspected need to be checked fully with any tools held by admins. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Masem suggested a pre-qualifying date. I can't remember what it was, but I agreed with it - nobody registered after tha date can vote. The potential for fun and games is just too great. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Masem said June 1st, is hard to find now as theres been so much text over the past few days. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It was in my first polling schedule. I still think it's fair, but again, I leave that up to others. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh my paws and whiskers, do I detect consensus? At least on this point. If the vote lasts for three weeks, a cut off date of three weeks prior to the beginning of the poll seems reasonable. Also I agree that IPs should be banned from voting without a doubt. And a look into a voter's edit history should be part of the tallying procedure. -- Evertype·✆ 18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It does seem like we have consensus, then - nobody registered after 1st June can vote? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, autoconfirmed users only would be allowed to vote. This would be achieved by semi-protecting the page while the poll is taking place. FF3000 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure, but I think that would allow someone to vote even if they'd only registered an account up to three or four days before the poll closes, and they'd made a few mainspace edits? There really doesn't seem to be anything unfair about using 1st June as a cutoff. Just like being on any electoral register, there's always a cutoff. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's worry about semi-prot until the poll happens; if there is an influx of IP votes despite instructions, we may need to semi-prot and put instructions to put your vote on the talk page to be transferred to the actual page should they not yet be autoconfirmed. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I think any IP's votes should be deleted immediately and should be completely prohibited to prevent sockpuppetry. I think the page should be semi-prot while the poll is taking place regardless of what the cut off point is. FF3000 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protecting the page sounds like an easy way to prevent socks. (Edit: Actually, it's not *nice* to do that.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well socks have to be prevented as it could put the whole thing in jeopardy. FF3000 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
With only those already registered before June 1 (a date that's past) being allowed to vote, only pre-existing socks may come into play. I'd not worried about this situation. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Anything else?
Actually deciding the winner
Fmph had a good idea for the actual *counting* of the votes. Part of that was to use software (OpenSTV). His proposal was to have three tallymen counting the votes and answering to a single mod. If their calculations didn't match they would have to go back and count again.
A problem with this is that the STV formula sometimes calls for random selection to eliminate tied candidates and so the three tally men could (in the realm of the possible) come back with three slightly different counts. I think overall Fmph's suggestion is good so I propose the following:
One moderator to act as a presiding officer.
Three editors act as counters
After the ballot closes, the presiding officer runs down the list and strikes out invalid votes (e.g. prople who have give two 1st prefences, or have a first and third preference but no second preferences) - there should be an attempt to correct these either by "fixing" the vote if it is clear what was meant or by contacting the editor and giving them e.g. 3 days to fix their vote.
The counters should then individually prepare ballot files for the OpenSTV software.
The ballot files should be returned to the presiding officer who runs a diff on the files.
If the files don't conform then they should be returned to the counters (saying what the diff was) for them to fix errors.
If the ballot files conform then the presiding officer should select one at random and run the software to determine the winner
The ballot file and the software's output (which shows the details of how the winner was decided) should be posted on Wikipedia alongside the result of the ballot
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments
I don't think advertising the poll should be constrained. People will do it anyway. I do think a watchlist hatnote should be requested, even if it has to be requested via ArbCom. It doesn't open it up to every pet issue. This is a major on-going issue which were are trying to resolve, and one of the main problems is that it is dominated by such a small and in parts highly radicalised crowd. This poll needs as broad a base as possible, because the broader the more legitimate the result. But make no mistake, this is the solution. So we should go ahead when everything is ready. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
We need to do regular sweeps of 3rd party forums to check for vote rigging. In a recent vote on something about the British Isles it was advertised on a Irish forum in an attempt to rig the vote. We need to decide what should happen if its clear its being advertised like that and its impacting on the voting result.
If Republic of Ireland becoming a redirect is not added on to the end of certain vote options then we need a vote on it in phase 4 as stated, it seems commonsense that ROI becomes a redirect to where ever the country article goes but some people have moaned about that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of checking to see if the poll is advertised on forums? As long as there is a cut-off date, the only people to be alerted (and who could vote) would be Wikipedia editors - which would be no bad thing. Daicaregos (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of wikipedia editors that use certain forums. In a previous vote which involved Irish Nationalists there was several attempts at rigging the vote, including posting on an Irish forum. I think its important we try to check such rigging isnt being tried again. If we are allowed to advertise on 3rd party sites however, all sides must have that right not just one acting outside of the rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No need to make a 'federal issue' of it just because once upon a time an editor posted something on a forum. I was involved in that case, and it didn't make the slightest difference to the outcome, and no extra editors voted either. Another thing that should be addressed, now that nationalists has come up. British Nationalists outnumber Irish Nationalists by 16/1. Should this be taken into consideration in the vote count? Tfz 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It didnt make any major difference to the vote because it was closed very quickly after the canvassing was detected. The page had several hundred views in a very short period of time, had that vote remained open for 3 weeks who knows how it would of influenced the outcome, there were a couple of suspicious contributors to that vote and lets not forget it was VERY close between the two main options. Vote rigging is a very serious matter, if we are allowed to post about it anywhere so be it, but if thats not the case we need to do sweeps of certain forums to keep an eye out. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The point remains: as there will be a cut-off date, only established Wikipedia editors will be entitled to vote. Therefore it would not be possible to rig the vote by advertising it. 'Advertising' in that way would only ensure that as many editors as possible are aware a vote is taking place. You are being unnecessarily dramatic. Daicaregos (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
How long will the poll last? 1 week? 2 weeks? FF3000 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Masem said "Stage 2: Polling opens for three weeks from June 28, 2009 and will end July 19, 2009" i support something along those lines, it seems a reasonable amount of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Well OK but is that long really needed? FF3000 (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Far too long. --De Unionist (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Two weeks or less, particularly during the summer, is too short - people may completely miss the vote. A full month is too long given the scope and how many places this will be announced. To me, three weeks seems the most appropriate aspect. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about the format of voting so that it is clear what people are choosing. We should make it very easy, and foolproof both for the voter and for the tallyman. Also, if we have six options, do we insist that a number be given to each option? Perhaps we should start with a state like A-0 B-0 C-0 D-0 E-0 F-0. I think we should keep this order in all instances and ask people to change the 0 to their preferred number, 1 being the most favourite and 6 being the least favourite, and to tell them that if there is an option they DON'T support they should just leave it at 0. -- Evertype·✆ 18:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest a template that I can make up that will look like:
{{irelandvote|a=4|b=3|d=2|f=1|~~~~}}
Which can be made into a quick table to represent the votes without too much problem, and also emphasieze that to completely opt out of a solution, just don't vote for it at all. This format will be very easy to copy and paste in a polling page. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not really understand the nowiki template you have described. -- Evertype·✆ 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, Masem, we don't want people to inadvertantly spoil their votes. STV is unfamiliar to many people. I recommend starting with {{irelandvote|a=0|b=0|c=0|d=0|e=0|f=0|~~~~}} and letting people change the numbers accordingly. If you have people free to omit choices they don't like they could inadvertently omit the right one. -- Evertype·✆ 07:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If someone submits an obvious spoilt vote, then they can always be advised on their talk page of the potential that their vote could be spoilt. It's not a showstopper! Fmph (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are you saying that you oppose my suggestion? Or just that I am foolish for making it? I have made it in the interests of clarity and ease of interpretation for both voter and tallier. Masem, I propose that you use a template that will look like:
{{irelandvote|a=0|b=0|c=0|d=0|e=0|f=0|~~~~}}
All right? -- Evertype·✆ 10:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Evertype, I think you and Masem are both proposing the same template - just yours is 'blank' and he's showing what a 'completed' one might look like? BastunnutsaB 10:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, mine would be the blank one. The difference is that I think people should NOT delete any option. If they dislike an option and want to give it no weight or support they should leave the digit 0 in place. Otherwise the should rank from their favourite 1 to their least favourite 6. So normally you would rank 123456, but if you wished you could rank 123400. I just think it is unwise to suggest that people should delete any of the items from the template, because that's asking for error. -- Evertype·✆ 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Example:, let's say someone likes the vowels, in alphabetical order, more than the consonants, and likes the consonants in reverse alphabetical order. So taking the template A=0 B=0 C=0 D=0 E=0 F=0 they would rank A=1 B=6 C=5 D=4 E=2 F=3. Or let's say that the voter likes the same, but wants to give NO weight to the last two. That would be A=1 B=0 C=0 D=4 E=2 F=3. I believe that this is "safer" in terms of getting the vote, and also probably easier to tally. To put it another way, I think that allowing A=1 D=4 E=2 F=3 could introduce error or confusion. -- Evertype·✆ 13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Asking voters to rank options with numbers could be confusing and ambiguous. I propose that to register a vote an editor should be asked to add just a single line with option letters in order of preference. For instance, if I were to vote for Evertype's example above, it would simply appear as:
This would be simpler for people like me who don't understand templates. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't favour that approach, and the template can be easily explained. -- Evertype·✆ 18:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
A template sounds good - it could prevent mistakes - but I would be against a template being compulsory. We would have to be careful not to cause more problems that it would solve. Some users may be scared off by a template or may not understand how it works. A "smart" template could alert the user if they made mistakes (e.g. if they had two 2nd preferences or if they had a 1st and 3rd preference but no 2nd preference). We would have to make sure that the template would allow for all possible kinds of votes e.g. vote for only one option, or vote for all options ... or something in between). The template should, IMHO be designed so that it doesn't infer one style of voting or the other.
I think we should bullet point up some requirements for any such template. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Masem should make the template and we can see it. -- Evertype·✆ 08:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any problem counting the votes if everyone lists their choices clearly. FF3000 (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I was bored so I did this:
* {{stv-ballot|D=1|C=2|A=3|F=4|~~~~}}
... or ...
* {{stv-ballot|A=3|C=2|D=1|F=4|~~~~}}
... will produce:
D C A F rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It isn't "smart" (i.e. doesn't check for spoilt votes). The template is here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope noone "spoils their vote". Either vote or don't vote. Any vote that all of the options aren't numbered should be deleted. FF3000 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it should not!!!! It is up to each individual how they vote, not YOU! If I want to vote for just one option, then that is my right! No one should be deciding for me. Fmph (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree. I remember seeing a photograph in the Times after the (last) Lisbon vote. It was of a ballot paper cast in Co. Donegal. No option was picked, instead - in real old man's writing - was written, "I don't know." To me, that one vote said more than the other 862,414 ballots cast combined. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If only one option is picked then the voting system with a majority of 50%+1 won't work, I think. And this isn't like the Lisbon referendum. This is an online vote so if you don't want to partake, then don't vote instead of wasting space on the page with a "spoiled vote". FF3000 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It is NOT a spoiled vote. If you don't understand how it works, then go and read up. You are talking nonsense. Fmph (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not under normal circumstances, but to ensure the smooth running of this vote, each option should be numbered. Obviously, the options numbered last are the options you disagree with. Also remember hat only one option will be picked, so it's not like an election. FF3000 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Elections very often only have 1 option. Think by-election or presidential election. They still run perfectly smoothly under STV WITHOUT any requirement to complete the entire list. I repeat, you are talking nonsense. It is entirely possible to vote for one, or all, or just a select few. It makes no discernible difference. Unless of course you have an real life example which proves me wrong? Fmph (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but this is different. We won't have ballot papers.
Another question, does the 50%+1 majority include all remaining votes i.e. votes that haven't died away due to lack of numbered options, or does it include all original votes. FF3000 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've read them and they don't answer my question. FF3000 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"...does the 50%+1 majority include all remaining votes..." If any option receives more than 50% of all (unspoiled) votes then it is impossible for any other option to "beat" it (since the best imaginable alternative would only have 50%-1 votes, thus losing by a vote). In a real-life election (e.g. the presidential election), 50%+1 is the point at which a candidate knows that they have won (and so people stop counting and go home).
It is possible that no one reaches 50%+1, if there is a low number of no transfers from eliminated options to more popular ones. In that case, after all possible elimination rounds have been done and all transfers have been made, there will only be one candidate remaining. Even if they have less than 50%+1, they are declared the winner.
For our purposes, we can set a proviso in advance that if the "winning" option doesn't receive 50%+1 of the total (unspoilt) votes cast then we won't accept it as being binding on the community. We could set a higher proviso ... or a lower proviso ... or no such proviso. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
We do need to make it clear that a completely null vote is assumed you mean that you agree with none of the options. This isn't like a regular paper poll where you're given a piece of paper and a few minutes to figure it out and if it's too complex you simply write nothing on your ballot - in that case here, you simply should choose to not participate. I'd also say that if 50%+1 of the votes are completed null, then we need to reconsider our options and not work off the majority of remaining votes. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It is *possible* that the result will be less than 50%+1. Forcing voters to rank *all* of the options in their ballot would prevent that possibility. But what is being solved? If the problem is that a result of less than 50%+1 lack democratic legitimacy then *forcing* people to vote for options they don't want is hardly a solution. Setting a minimum that we would accept as being a *binding* result (e.g. 40%, 50%+1, or 66% etc.) would solve the democratic problem, but would risk that proportion not being reached.
Masem, I don't think that we can count non-transferable ballots as meaning "none of the above". It could just as legitimately mean, "any of the above, I don't mind". A "None of the above" option would be an explicit way for a voter to say, "I want this, that or the other, otherwise none of the above." (An "Any of the above" option would not be workable because the permutations for how to transfer it would be so difficult to calculate.) A person voting using a "None of the above" option would fall into the "null" votes pile. A "None of the above" would also not necessarily have to be the last placed pereference in a ballot. A person could vote, "None of the above, but if 'none of the above' is not going to be the winning option I want my vote to go to such-and-such". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
So if I understand it, you're suggesting adding a 7th (or whatever) option, "None of the above", which implies that after selecting options they prefer (none if the case) they should then put None as the next preference? (and thus technically, if someone ranks an option below None, that becomes a bad ballot and should be fixed?)
And thus a null ballot is not a None of the Above, just, "I don't care" - so if a voter has a 1st and 2nd pref, both which are eliminated early, their vote is then always group with the current winning option? (Whatever this is, we need to be explicit and careful how people fill votes out, and make it clear leaving options blank means you don't care which wins). --MASEM (t) 19:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
We have to keep things simple. If people want to suggest another option, let them do it now. Otherwise we could have a thousand different proposals. I don't think "none of the above" should be an option. FF3000 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
@Masem, pretty much except for two things:
1) we would get it for "free" (i.e. we don't have to do anything special when counting it: "none of the above" would just be another option like everything else, "none of the above" might even come out as being the "winning" option)
2) "none of the above" doesn't *have to be* the last ranked option in any ballot, it could be (and more often that not, I suppose, would be) but a person could place "none of the above" higher in their ranking (which would means something like, "None of the above, but if "none of the above" is going to be eliminated as an option then I want my vote to go to such-and-such.").
As for "null" votes, once all possible transfers of any particular ballot are used up, the ballot has no more influence on the outcome of the vote - so it is effectively becomes, "I don't care".
NB: It would still be possible with a "None of the above" option that the "winner" would still get less that 50%+1. That's just how STV works, there's nothin we can do about that except for: a) forcing people to fill in the full ballot or b) add a provisio that unless 50%+1 (or whatever percentage we pick) is achieved by the winner we won't accept the result as binding.
@FF3000, "none of the above" is not a usual option in a vote (I think the Greens have a policy where they want it as an option in Ireland). Normally, it is meaningless (except for expressing dissatisfaction) because, whether you like the candidates before you or not, they are the only candidates and saying "None of the above" is not going to conjure up anymore out of thin air. In our case, "None of the above" has meaning because we (the Wikipedia community) are the ones coming up with the options. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
But we've had months of discussion! A thousand different options could be proposed but we have to get this over with and choose an option. FF3000 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Which is a good argument against having a "none of the above" option and not having a "proviso" of 50%+1. The counter argument is that doing so might force an unpopular decision on the community. (To be honest, I would be willing to bet money that even with a "none of the above" and a "proviso" a ballot will result in a "winner" - and have greater legitimacy because of them ... but there is always the chance.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
What if the community once it’s advertised across wiki reject it, saying polling is not an acceptable solution? On the polling options, editors like me are currently excluded because we have no option listed to object to polling. This is not the same as an editor who "spoils their vote" and is a valid option. --Domer48'fenian' 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I would support a none of the above option, which results in coming back to the debate to try and reach consensus. If that option was to win however it would mean the country article would remain at Republic of Ireland for a lot longer and im not convinced when it comes to the vote itself if people will be prepared to boycott it or waste their vote in that way. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
@Domer48You are not excluded. You are choosing to exclude yourself. You object to the poll. That's your perogative. Don't expect the rest of us to wait around until you change your mind. Fmph (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A very valid issue. It is why I think it is important to have the opportunity to "spoil you vote" by casting a comment.
More practically, has anyone gone back to ArbCom with this proposal? Or is Masem's backing good enough? I know Bastun has pointed out below that they did say "consensus or a majority" but we should get their blessing before running a poll. Like the Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation, ArbCom overrule "normal" policy so ArbCom's sign-off would copper-fasten the genuine concern that this is a vote and not consensus.
Masem, I don't get what you mean by a "null" vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It means that if no votes are fully numbered, the votes of elimanated options can't be distributed and therefore the voting system of 50%+1 can't work. FF3000 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I get you. (Read what I wrote above starting, "The 'quota' doesn't matter.") Ordinarily, after all possible transfers have been made and still no option has 50%+1 then the option with a plurality is declared the "winner". If we insist that - for our purposes - a winner must have 50%+1 we are tacking an extra proviso on top of normal STV. This "proviso" doesn't have to be set at 50%+1, it can be any proportion (higher or lower).
I would be in favour of setting a higher "proviso" (something like 66%) because it would give a binding agreement a greater legitimacy. But, of course, the higher we set it, the less likely we are to reach it. I think 50%+1 would be easily reached in a ballot with 6 or more options ... and I certainly think that if the "winning" option did not achieve it then it would have no legitimacy as a binding solution.
No matter what, I think it would be best to run the count until all transfers are exhausted (past 50%+1) so that we can see the proportion of people who had a preference for the winning candidate (ideally this would be in the region of 80-90%, but maybe that's a pipe dream).
Did I get you right?
BTW, what is the situation with ArbCom? Have they given this ballot the OK? Do they need to? Their official sanctioning of it would be of benefit IMHO. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I am double checking with ArbCom. I personally feel the STV poll, given that this community brought the idea themselves and have been developing the poll themselves (with some hopefully-helpful nudging by the moderators), means that it is an acceptable replacement for a normal discussion-driven consensus - however, we'll verify if ArbCom has a say in it. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of a normal discussion-driven consensus, a poll can not be described as an acceptable replacement. The poll was put forward as the only solution IMO, and is based foremost on the strength of numbers in the absence of strong arguments. We have had circular arguements, repetitious arguments but none of it source based. When has any editor been challenged to support their assertions? I can’t concede that Wikipedia has failed in its ability to deal with a content dispute. So again, show us were this normal discussion-driven consensus was attempted? --Domer48'fenian' 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been plenty of source-based discussion, starting with the Statements (not all of them, but there's enough sources there to support a number of different naming schemes. But because the whole of the group cannot agree towards even one direction, the agreement to vote is the next best step in resolution. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Clarify: The statement process
"The statement process is the first step in gathering facts, findings and opinions regarding the naming of Ireland-related articles, and will be in the form of a non-rebuttal debate. Editors can post statements in which they plead their case for one of the proposed solutions above, or formulate a solution of their own. Other editors can either endorse or oppose these statements, but may not enter into discussion. The only way to 'argue' is to create a statement of your own, which others will endorse or oppose."
So what was "The statement process"? Yes! Another Poll, just like were having now. --Domer48'fenian' 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the part of the process that they never got round to:
Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments, moderators will use the pyramid to the right.
Sorry, the Statements is not a normal discussion-driven consensus! I'll provide you one example, just one to illustrate my point. Republic of Ireland used as the nation-state of Ireland is out of contention considering the overwhelming evidence which prevents its use. I would suggest that our policies of WP:V and in particular WP:NPOV would also prevent us using this option. Were was this challanged? Were was this overwhelming evidence which prevents its use challanged! --Domer48'fenian' 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
On the the Statements, I provided editors the opportunity to put forward the Links that support “The term "Ireland" is ambiguous” to determine the level of ambiguity I received only three examples, all of which could be challenged. Fourteen Editors rejected my statement and only three references provided. Based on consensus and the strength of argument what would your view of this be? Since then, as illustrated above the number of sources to support my Statement has more than doubled. Because the whole of the group cannot agree towards even one direction, we have to decide by the quality and quantity of sources based on both verifiability and neutral point of view would that not be a normal discussion-driven consensus! There was no one there to do that, the three moderators walked off. --Domer48'fenian' 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I will point out what ArbCom remedy #1 is: The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement. ArbCom basically has said that if you want to avoid Remedy #2 coming into place, to select some means - which I read from the avoid to include a vote or poll since it calls for "majority view" - to resolve this. Consensus did not work before the ArbCom, during the ArbCom, or the first few months off this project - it is not suddenly going to work now.
Now, I do agree with you that all solutions should be within WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - "Ireland (magical happy land)" is completely unacceptable. But I've read through the statements, and every naming scheme that's been proposed of late and currently being considered for the poll is backed by sources and is neither NOR or NPOV - the problem is that the sources are conflicting. At that point, we turn to WP's ultimate rule: Ignore all rules. We need to consider all these options since no single one is obviously better than the others. We also have to use common sense - we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland as a name is equally ambiguous between the island and the country", but common sense tells us it clearly is otherwise the naming issue would have been resolved months ago. Given that many members of this project are agreeing to the STV poll, it may not be the most desirable path in normal Wiki-venues, but it is both an acceptable path and the path of least resistance that will end this dispute once and for all. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but what was this, "ArbCom has received an e-mail from Masem forwarding your question and considers Remedy#1 still valid." Now the very same editors who ignored the "Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments" I mentioned above and just focused on a vote, are the very same editors of this project who are agreeing to the STV poll! Now please show us were this normal discussion-driven consensus was attempted? Because all you have done to date is say that you have read through the statements, and every naming scheme that's been proposed of late and currently being considered for the poll is backed by sources and is neither NOR or NPOV and I'm saying your wrong. I offered you one example above to illustrate the point and you ignored it. I've provide an alternative process that would "be within WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV" and you ignored it. You have not considered all the options, and its your opinion that we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland as a name is equally ambiguous between the island and the country" and your wrong on that also. Your path of least resistance, quick fix is based on nothing more than numbers. An example of your intrest in anything other than a poll is when you said above, on my first proposal "I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here, otherwise, as happens here, it looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive." Problem was I did state what I was doing, I started a whole section, which you missed. Now is Remedy#1 still valid per ArbCom or not? --Domer48'fenian' 23:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
