Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 11

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Evertype in topic Outrage
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

More nonsense at Republic of Ireland talk page

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is more nonsense taking place on Talk:Republic of Ireland. Can the moderators please take a look. thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Drafting of statements promoting each option

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

This was one of the issues raised above but with all of the other points made it appears to of been overlooked and nobody has commented, its something that we need to ensure is sorted well before the vote begins.

Is there just going to be the wording in the vote itself, or will there be statements / explanations on each of the options so those who come from outside this dispute can know all the facts. If there is to be some statement (i think it should be bullet points rather than a long statement) so its simple to understand, there really should be negative points as well. So we can explain to people why some feel the country article shouldnt be at Ireland or Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather the arguments be left off, actually -- some of the pro or con arguments are going to look really stupid, and I'd rather not prejudice the results that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Generally agreed on the need for bullet points. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Position_argument_summaries would seem to be an obvious starting point? (Incidentally, would you mind moving this section up to the "proper" section above, so all discussion on each subtopic happens in the one place? This page is getting very unwieldy... ) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 
Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments
Sarek - remember a lot of people are likely to coming to this issue completely "fresh" and may not appreciate the sometimes subtle differences between options. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


I agree about the sort of method on that link, Argument, counter argument, summary seems very reasonable. On moving the post back up to the top i will if needed, but i wanted to make a new section to draw attention to this point because so far nobody else posted on it, it seemed to of got lost in all of the other points like voting / advertising and yet this is something that we need a heads up on as quickly as possible so agreement can be reached on wording of such statements if they are to exist. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
As regards #Position argument summaries above, I think the arguments and counter arguments are well stated, but I feel that several (not all) of the summaries are biased towards either the pros or the cons. I think it would be better just to present the pros and cons, and allow voters to draw their own conclusions. Scolaire (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It's very difficult to summarise beyond a quick statement of the pros and of the cons. And in each and every case, both the pros and cons can be backed up by verifiable, reliable sources; the reason we're here is that those sources conflict with each other. Hopefully we'll be keeping the pro and con sections short, so they'll already be summarised about as far as they reasonably can be. — ras52 (talk) 08:37, 24 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. Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments,--Domer48'fenian' 07:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The validity of arguments is what the community will be deciding on when they partake in the poll. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No they will not, they be presented with a mix of POV options and asked to pick. The validity of arguments is what the community should have addressed before the options were put forward. --Domer48'fenian' 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If it should come for time to vote

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Remember, this is the Summer Holiday period and we in Ireland/Eire/RoI take them damn seriously - so lots of notice please; the fact that I'm not saying anything here doesn't mean I'm not interested. Same would apply to several others I know of. Sarah777 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Consensus seems to be for a twothree-week voting period, with ample advertising of the poll (at minimum, the various Irish/British noticeboards and hopefully a watchlist hatnote), including specifically notifying users who've previously been involved and/or those listed at the Arbcom case. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it's fair to notify users about the poll only if the poll is about to close and they haven't cast a vote yet. They will be contacted both on their talk page and by e-mail, where applicable. FF3000 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I favour a three-week voting period, as did Masem. -- Evertype·✆ 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
3 weeks is good in my view. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
3 weeks sounds good in my view too. Maybe we should have a 1 or 2 week "advertising" period too? (The actual ballot page could be locked but questions, etc. could be discussed on the talk page during th tperiod?). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, 3-week voting period. Fixed above. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Three weeks seems good. Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sub pages of the Ireland project (part 2)

Latest comment: 14 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion

Again i would like to complain about the disgusting and offensive treatment taking place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article. There is a vote ongoing there which could be used to justify scrapping all of the above mentioned plans for a STV vote. As thats the case can REAL moderators please take action and stop Domer from acting like a dictator and deleting peoples comments or points which challange his position. It is resulting in people removing their vote because they dont want to be part of such a joke. This is unacceptable BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

Editors my like to read this discussion here, as it illustrates how Wiki policies are the only solution to this content dispute. --Domer48'fenian' 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i posted the wrong link there appears to be two ongoing votes in different locations, this is a mess and very confusing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/proposal for Ireland Article. Im complaining about both of the pages i have mentioned because they are being run by a dictator but especially about the removal of my comment on the one i just listed. Oh i should of said its being held in 4 places because the votes / comments appear to being made on both the main page / talk page on each making matters even worse. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
But the policies there are, not to add spurious uncited claims. Those are the rules there, pity we don't have them here. Tfz 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish you cant just remove any comment you dont like, i clearly said i will provide sources if you really need them. This type of censorship is unacceptable, especially as the votes on there are going to try to be used to justify ending the above agreements on STV. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't remove comments I don't like, I remove unsorced and unreferenced opinions. Do you have a problem with our policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:RS? --Domer48'fenian' 21:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with an unelected "Moderator" dictating terms on this projects subpages. If it was on ur userspace ofcourse you can do what you like, but its not. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A simple question, do you have a problem with our policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:RS? Yes or No? --Domer48'fenian' 21:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I support those policies for articles on wikipedia. I do not support those policies being used to impose censorship on talk pages and leading to removal of reasonable comments by unelected moderators. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are the two proposals:

The guidlines are included and are part of the proposal. They are to prevent disruption, and provide a forum for reasoned and informed discussion. They are based on our policies and guidlines of WP:V and WP:RS. Now you can support or oppose and don't have to comment. However, if you do comment you are required to support your comments with references. Otherwise, like this discussion page all you get is POV, bias, and unsupported opinion. You are also able to comment on the process/proposal on the talk page. You can challange the sources I provide, but again it must be informed and based on supporting sources. The only ones to date to complain are the editors who have added opinions which are not supported by references, and which do not address the proposal itself. That the discussions are free from the type of comments/POV/bias and opinions expressed on this discussion has proved it point. --Domer48'fenian' 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me where it says YOU have the authority to impose such restrictions on a wikiproject page. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting both a proposal and a process. Now you accept the policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, so I impose no restrictions other than what the wikiproject imposes on all of us, that is the process. I implement, that is I put into practice policies which we all accept, so I reference and source all my comments. My proposal is referenced and sourced per our policies, is it not reasonable to ask editors for the same. --Domer48'fenian' 22:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but we do not have to provide verifiable sources to make posts on talk pages, that only applies to articles. On this wikiproject, there was consensus early on that the moderators would have a right to remove any content they deemed unacceptable, i fail to see where people gave you the authority to remove content from that wikiproject subpage. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If one or both of the proposals were to have consensus, would they need approval at this Collobration page? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, I have explained my proposal and the process. As part of the process yes you do have to provide WP:verifiable sources. This whole issue is a content dispute. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I provided referenced sources to support my proposal, you have not. So you reject both the process and the proposal, fine. Nothing more needs to be said. GoodDay, what I'd like is for the Collobration page to accept the process first off, and secondly, to test all the suggestions put forward for the poll per our policies. Consensus can be reached with this process because it would remove all the POV/bias that has bogged down this discussion. The policies of the project do work, we just need someone with the intrest of the project first to apply them. --Domer48'fenian' 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay - of course they would need approval at this page! Problem is, it won't arise, because Domer is treating the pages like a personal fiefdom even though he's not a moderator, so people are refusing to participate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Im sorry but im still waiting for someone to tell me when u were given the authority to remove any comment you dont like or dictate the terms of what is and isnt acceptable on this wikiproject sub pages. You are not a moderator! I also note u dont appear to be removing certain comments by those agreeing with ur proposal despite them not providing sources either for some of their claims.
Again i seek input from a real moderator on this matter. Does Domer (whos not even signed up as a member of this project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Member_list) have the right to impose such radical restrictions on a page that is not in his own area. He seeks to have the planned STV mentioned above cancelled and his own proposal adopted instead, yet he refuses to let people challange him on these matters there resulting in people removing their vote (which will end up stacking the vote the way he wants). BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
@Bastun; Domer's "rules" seem pretty basic and straightforward - I cannot see why anyone should be "put off" from participating. You weren't! Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I dunno, Sarah, you really should WP:CITE a WP:RS to WP:V your WP:!VOTE or else your WP:OR will be lacking WP:NPOV.
I propose a parlour game to lighten the mood around here and boost participation in Domer's proposal. I suggest that everyone should participate, but here is the fun part: should Domer "moderate" one of your comments per some "policy" of his choosing, you get to select any one of his comments somewhere else in Wikipedia space and "moderate" that in return. To be fair, you may only choose a comment of his that lacks citations, makes a sweeping claim or generalises. (You might think these are hard to find, but since you get to choose what qualifies, it really couldn't be easier). You might be concerned about your ability to "moderate" fairly. However, all you need to do is read what he wrote, than change it so it now says what you want it to say. Bingo! You're done "moderating". Feel free to not tell Domer which of his comments you have "moderated", and await the hilarity that will ensue when he later returns to the page to find that his comments have been fucked about with so that they no longer say what he intended. Don't worry about getting reverted, because you are allowed to edit other's comments as you see fit so long as you anoint yourself as The Moderator in advance. Who wants to go first? Rockpocket 02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Lmao thank you Rockpocket, that is the first time ive been able to laugh about this issue over the past few days. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Per ArbCom, "The community [thats us] is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism [the process] for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles [the proposal]. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures [Wiki policies] 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."

Now look at Rocks latest attempt at sarcasm, this is coming from an Admin one of two who edit warred on the process/proposal to cause disruption. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [1] [2] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. Saying they were not aware the page had been protected. However they also said "even if [they] had known it was protected [they] would have still made the edit." Adding then "once the page is unprotected [they'll] be withdrawing both [their] !vote and [their] comments" show how hollow their arguements were. Why did they not just use their Admin tools again to remove them, why wait for the unblock, when the block did not stop them putting them back in? Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in: [3], [4], [5], and on the proposal page, [6], [7] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page.

Rock went a step further however and attempted to "encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, and so scupper my attempt to move things forward. Now having been ask by ArbCom to try come up with a process and a proposal, and having made the attempt I have an Admin being actively disruptive and trying now with sarcasm to do what they could not do with policies. Sad really, but one only has to consider what the response of moderators would be if I actively tried to prevent their proposal?

If you read this discussion here editors will see the comments I removed, and notice how most of them were from Editors who supported the proposal. The most telling of all though, is the editors who have been the most active here, are less so on the proposal page, would that have something to do with being asked to back up their opinions with references? I will continue to 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. --Domer48'fenian' 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Domer, you're just going to have to accept that events have overtaken you, and be content that your proposal is one of the options in the community-wide poll which the members of this project have supported. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"The community [thats us] is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism [the process] for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles [the proposal]."
Yes. And the community has been discussing it - since December '08. "Consensus or majority view". The consensus and majority view of 75% of the participants here of late is that we will use a community-wide STV poll. End of. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Get back on track

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

There seems to be a few different discussions taking place.

  1. Where to advertise the vote?
  2. Should the voters be provided with statements
  3. Domer48 also seems to be trying to work on a different solution

I think instead of all this arguing we should decide

  1. Do we just want to advertise in areas directly involved with the subject (Ireland, NI, UK) or do we want to include other areas. If we do include other areas is this not just going to lead to more arguments ("if Spain is included why can't I add Mexico" "if China is included why can't I add Vietnam".....)
  2. If we are going to provide statements to the voters, is this just going to lead to more arguments about what to include in the statements?
  3. Should Domer48's proposal continue to be even discussed when we are 6 months into the process and the moderator has decided that there is no chance of consensus?76.118.224.35 (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Per ArbCom: "ArbCom has received an e-mail from Masem forwarding your [Domer48] question and considers Remedy#1 still valid." Moderators are currently looking for consensus on the method of their poll, the type of options, who can and can't vote, were it should be advertised etc... So my proposal / process is still a valid alternative. That this approch has never been attempted is something positive, that it is policy based, is positive and that to date it has prevented the type of disruption that has been the hall mark of the above discussion is positive. The poll in my mind is just a collection of editors personal POV's not one of which has been tested against our policies. Which ever POV is the most popular wins! That is not the way this project works. --Domer48'fenian' 08:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Noone's really arguing, 78... things are being thrashed out and good progress is being made. We've even got consensus on some of the things that need to be decided - even to the point of me and Sarah777 agreeing with each other. The points you've made are perfectly valid, but why are you trying to split the discussion across yet another subsection? Please contribute in the relevant subsections above. If I want to contribute to the "advertising" question, for instance, I don't want to have to do it in its subsection above and down here, where you've mixed it in with two other topics. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This poll has not yet been put before the community and various projects. 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. The community, like ArbCom may view this as a content dispute and request that our policies be applied to the various POV’s to see if they are supported by verifiable and reliable sources. They might want them tested to see if they conform to our policy of neutral point of view. We already know the use of Republic of Ireland being used for the name of the Irish State is against WP:NPOV, and very much documented with verifiable and reliable sources. It is however being presented as an option. Is it possible then that my proposal might be considered an alternative? --Domer48'fenian' 09:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
RoI should not be an option, re Domer above. It does not withstand the "acid test" of verifiable, reliable sources (and not Wikipedia). Wikipedia must act in concert within professional standards if it's ever to be taken seriously by lecturers and students alike. Tfz 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I caught a news ticker on the BBC World News broadcast the other night referring to Republic of Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 02:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The BBC have always called it that. They also seem to like to call the Netherlands "Holland". Neither are correct.MITH 09:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't, that's the whole point. Any academics that I talk to in the UK or the US have nothing but disdain for it...I wonder why? --De Unionist (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Really Canterbury, what a catch! The queen of England will be amused. lol Tfz 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:) This was on a ferry in Canada as well. Never said it was correct, just that it's used by something usually considered as a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft Poll on Ireland (xxx)

Latest comment: 14 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion

OK, everybody, thanks for the input above. I am now putting the bullet list together which Masem said he wanted to ballot. I have seven items on it, in alphabetical order: country, nation, republic, Republic of, sovereign country, sovereign state, state,. Here is how I ranked them. I placed them in alphabetical order as you see, and then went to http://www.random.org/sequences/ and generated a random sequence of 1-7. The sequence I got was 1546273 so that is the order I have put them in the list. I have also given a summary source rationale, which I believe to be neutral. Please see the draft poll at User:Evertype/sandbox -- Evertype·✆ 10:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. DrKiernan (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. How many winners do you propose to select? Just one? Three per Masem's earlier suggest? One further comment: much as I like the idea of blocking for 12 months anyone caught fiddling the election, do we actually have the authority to do that? Masem has, per this (formally enacted) Arbitration Committee case amendment, the ability to unilaterally ban anyone from this WikiProject for up to one month. But that's all I'm aware of. — ras52 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
"Results of the vote are final and binding for a period of two years" is confusing, as all we are picking is what option(s) will appear on the final ballot? Apart from that, I think it looks fine. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Three winners seems too many, doesn't it? Because it makes the main poll much longer, I say we pick two winners, reserving the right to go with one only or choose a third depending on how the poll goes. Regarding the blocking provisions, these were pasted in unchanged by e from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll which I took as a template. And I didn't edit the Results of the vote section; I was concentrating on getting the choices down and getting neutral wikilinks to material which can assist people in understanding the choices. -- Evertype·✆ 11:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I like. What is the end-date for this? I think running it as a "two- maybe three-seater" is reasonable - but I imagine that whatever the result people will want the third one included. Doing it that way would allow us to better understand STV anyway - and we could all take part in the calculating process, so it's a good "dry run" for the *BIG* ballot.
RE: "You are not obliged to give a weight to any of the options that you do not wish to support at all; it is easiest to leave the number as zero, i.e. Z=0." I'd put this onto a seperate line. and rephrase it to something like, "You do not have to express a preference for all of the option" (or probably better wording that you can think of). Technically, also we are not giving weights. Also I'd change "... that you do not wish to support ..." something like "... that you do not wish to support (or have no preference about)..." since not ranking a preference means that 1. your ballot won't go to supporting it, 2. your ballot might not go against it either. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm making changes which are more or similar to what you've proposed. I'm editing this section here and will say when I've saved the changes to the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is it (Republic of), surely it would just be (Republic)? MickMacNee (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I made the suggestion above (half tongue-in-cheek). Republic of Ireland → Ireland (Republic of). I don't expect it to be popular. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Should be neither, it's like saying UK (Monarchy), or UK (Monarchy of). Tfz 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't get bogged down discussing trivial details. Stick "Ireland (Republic)" in as an addition if you must, but it's unncessary to discuss each option in detail. They key thing is to hold a quick vote on all the options and get it over and done with. DrKiernan (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not support having both Ireland (republic) and Ireland (Republic). Please let us not make this more farcical than necessary. -- Evertype·✆ 15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was thinking more like "Germany (Federal Republic of)" or "Netherlands (Kingdom of)". The monarchy of the United Kingdom is something else. I suppose the UK equivalent would be "Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom of)" ... a bit of a mouthful! But I don't expect "Ireland (Republic of)" to poll so highly so don't worry about it.
We should put "Ireland (Republic" in there too. In fact, the whole caboodle of alternatives. We've discussed them all to death by now anyway. And the more options in this poll the better. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The options above are better as they also deal with the name for the island. This proposed poll doesn't. And we won't have "Ireland (Republic of)" as the title of the article if that option wins. It'll be "republic of Ireland". FF3000 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You've misunderstood. This is the pre-poll to decide on which "Ireland (xxx)" option is presented in the main poll not the main poll itself. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh now I understand. FF3000 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on, people. Republic of Ireland is already the cause of this. I do not want to sit here editing and editing and adding and adding a whole caboodle of alternatives. I have put in all of the ones that have been proposed so far. Let us, I beg you, have done. -- Evertype·✆ 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was suggesting only a simple (non-STV) poll asking each person here to list the three terms they thing are best for the (xxx) part of the disambiguated country, and then using the three terms (possibly four if there's a tie) that were selected the most often as the choices in the community poll. There's no need to get to a detailed STV vote for this. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that it's just as well we use STV for this. Good practice for us. How long should this poll be? Two weeks? One week? Masem, please understand that if we had ONE winner from this poll, that would lead to three options in the main poll. Two winners gives us six options. Three winners gives us nine options. Four winners would give us twelve options. For my part I would rather not see so many options on the main poll. -- Evertype·✆ 15:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the draft. I cut the socking punishment to one month as discussed above. -- Evertype·✆ 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If you read the reasoning for this poll, the problem is that the question of what "(xxx)" is cannot be asked seperately on a community wide poll since it's possible one may prefer "Ireland (state)" over "Republic of Ireland" but also "Republic of Ireland" over "Ireland (nation)" (for an example). As there's three options on the main poll that have "Ireland (xxx)" as a possible option, that means every option we give for "(xxx)" will be repeated three times, so we can't have all the options. My proposal was to have a brief poll here and only here (within the naming project) to establish the likely best three choices for what "(xxx)" is, which would result in 15 options total for the poll. It wasn't meant to be a long or elaborate poll and it would have been done before the main poll was started (like, as planned, on Sunday). The community would still be left to pick among the top three "(xxx)" options. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
"If I had read"? This page is pretty long. I understand what you are saying. I think 9 is too many. I think 6 is better. 12 is certainly too many. That's why I've said we'll pick 2 options unless there's significant support for a third. Maybe it's likely we go for a third but I thought it would be good to be able to aim for 6 even if we end up with 9. OK? -- Evertype·✆ 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I initially thought, like Masem, that a single first-(few)-past-the-post vote was sufficient here. But I think there's merit to Evertype's suggestion of using STV simply to get practice with it. If we're going to have an argument about how to interpret the results of the STV vote, far better to have it with this (relatively) insignificant poll rather than later with the real poll when the whole world and his dog are watching. STV would also reduce the likelihood of a tie. As to the duration of this preliminary poll, I'd say a week is more than adequate if we let the top three options through. And I think Masem is right to want to allow three options through — this really is just an initial filter to dispose of the options with insignificant real support. (Minor correction, Evertype: if we allow three winners through, the final community poll will twelve options, assuming the version in Rannṗáirtí's sandbox is up-to-date. A, D and E don't involve an Ireland (xxx) article.) —ras52 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, only B, C, and F do, so three options = 9. I agree, a week is fine. Shall I move it to a subpage over here and start the poll? -- Evertype·✆ 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Errr... so that's A, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3, D, E, F1, F2, F3 which is more than I can count without taking my socks off. :-) —ras52 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
But if that goes on for a week will it delay the starting of the actual vote? FF3000 · talk 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If that is what this group seems to want to do, there is no problem delaying the start of my proposed schedule to include this. If we do do this, I recommend having *this* poll completed by July 1, with the new schedule then pushed back a week for all other aspects. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I shall be bold and make it so then. -- Evertype·✆ 17:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

On the section for polling options there are a number of comments posted under each option such as:

Were was this agreed too? They are very misleading and none of them are supported by sources. --Domer48'fenian' 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Misleading in your opinion. Please stop being so pedantic on insisting on sources for the obvious. It's not an article, its a poll. If anyone does want to find the sources for anything Evertype wrote, such as why "Ireland (Republic)" might be an option for them, all they have to do is click on the links he provided and see the sources there. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Were was this agreed too?--Domer48'fenian' 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

Latest comment: 14 years ago37 comments9 people in discussion

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have indicated above the venues where I have announced this poll. -- Evertype·✆ 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately you cannot impose sanctions on other editors based on your say, and you have no authority to decide upon a blocking term for an offense based on your say so. Also voting isn't how to resolve things on Wikipedia, consensus is. Saying if someone canvases makes what they say irrelevant isn't right, and isn't enforceable since what someone says carries weight, what someone votes doesn't. Canterbury Tail talk 19:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree! --Domer48'fenian' 19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It will be for the ArbCom moderator to decide who gets a 30-day ban if the rules (which are clear and which HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED above) are breached. Obviously I myself have no such powers. The text was agreed. Unless you're planning to breach the rules and hoping not to get caught, I don't see why you should be concerned. Assume good faith please. This is a step forward. -- Evertype·✆
Will the Arbcom moderators please say if this poll is a part of the process or not? I've been busy for the last fortnight and have not really followed the detail, but an official sounding announcement appeared on my talk page so I voted. If its not sanctioned then I will withdraw it. --Snowded TALK 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh nooo, everytime I 'vote' at something concerning this topic, my vote ends up null & void. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Masem has indicated just above that this is the way that we are getting some answers which will help us put the REAL poll out there. This is only to winnow down the number of choices on the final ballot to a manageable number. Please look it over. You will see nothing sinister, and if you look above you will see a number of people from all sides who are satisfied with the content of this poll. -- Evertype·✆ 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page BigDunc asked me:

"What criteria did you use for the editors you chose or were they cheerypicked to notify of the poll? BigDuncTalk 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Good question. First please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Proposed_locations_for_advertising_of_poll which tells you who I notified. I notified a number of non-superfluous related artiicles, in which editors of both "sides" participate. I notified the Ireland, Northern Ireland, and UK noticeboards. And I notified, as a formality, those editors who were listed in the ArbCom case, without regard to who they were. (I even informed myself.) If there is another, subsequent, list of relevent people please point me to it. Thanks, BigDunc. I trust that this will help us to get to a resolution. -- Evertype·✆ 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Evertype you say the text was agreed, however in that discussion above you say "I shall be bold and make it so then." --Domer48'fenian' 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem had just said that he wanted this to go out in a week and end on 1 July. I don't believe I have acted improperly. I do believe that a poll is now there which allows you, if you wish, to express your preferences. -- Evertype·✆ 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the list, and you notified some editors who are not on the list, and failed to notify some of the editors who were, why is that? --Domer48'fenian' 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of that list. It was not listed in the area on this page above which I used to send out the notices. There is nothing sinister going on. Please do not ask questions aggressively. -- Evertype·✆ 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've not asked questions "aggressively" you said the text was agreed and I pointed out that you were just being Bold. The list you used was from the ArbCom case, and not from Ireland Collaboration, some of those involved have never even commented here, did you not find that even a little strange? --Domer48'fenian' 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Your tag line "Why is that?" seems needlessly harsh and critical. Your use of the word "failed" seems to suggest that I have done something wrong. -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Evertype having been informed by Canterbury Tail above that "you cannot impose sanctions on other editors based on your say, and you have no authority to decide upon a blocking term for an offense based on your say so" you are still posting the notice on Editors talk pages? --Domer48'fenian' 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have ALREADY SAID that I would not be making any decisions or determinations about who gets blocked or for how long. I do not have the power to do that. I never said I did. It will be up to the moderators of this project to determine whether there have been breaches of the rules. The RULES are laid out clearly. No sock puppets, no meat puppets, no ballot stuffing. I am QUITE SURE that Masem will not look favourably on such behaviour. If the rules are breached, they will be able to make whatever sanction is permitted them. -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have posted them too but I take no heed of the warnings as blanket blocks are up to admins. BigDuncTalk 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please exercise your intelligence. I cannot block. I can however state the rules for the ballot which have been discussed for the main ballot as well. It will be up for the project admins to decide if the rules have been breached. But the rule are no canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry. Do you agree with these rules? If so, why are you complaining? If you are planning to breach the rules, don't complain if an Admin sanctions you. Clear? -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


That is a bit rich Evertype. Where is my notification? Behaving like untrained poll-cats, are we? Also you voted first just to get your bias in the lede. Sheese!!! Tfz 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What is "a bit rich"? Are you on one of the lists that I informed? I informed one list which you were not on. THen another list was pointed out to me and both BigDunc and I send out messages. Were you on that list? If you are and did not receive a notice, it was an oversight. -- Evertype·✆ 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have checked. Your name does not appear on either of those lists. That is why you were not informed. My vote being on the top means nothing. Should I have anticipated your scorn and waited? Who the hell cares? People vote what they want. My bias? To hell with my bias. I voted first. If you had done the work to put this together, you might have voted first. By the way it is spelt "Sheesh" not "Sheese". I can't believe the bad faith. I really can't. "Untrained poll-cats"? That is uncivil. Perhaps Masem will take notice. Perhaps you will apologize for your incivility. -- Evertype·✆ 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, your "lede" bit is really out of line. I went to some effort to randomize the order of the items in the list, for FAIRNESS, and also described the process I used to come to that. Whence your hostility? -- Evertype·✆ 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, since your name isn't on any of the lists, I'm not going to send you a notice, because if I did, I would have to trawl through this entire project looking for people who did not get the notice. Not my responsibility. And this one isn't even the real poll. -- Evertype·✆ 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Evertype you said I asked questions "aggressively" which I did not, and now you are being uncivil. The wording was not agreed above like you said, you were being BOLD. The was no agreement on the comments under each option either, which are to say the least misleading. Spotting these things did not exercise my intelligence, but putting forward a flawed and misleading poll is raises questions about yours. --Domer48'fenian' 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem said he wanted a week-long poll on this, and Masem said he wanted it to end on 1 July. The only way to do that was to post it today. I had edited it. Was someone else supposed to do it? -- Evertype·✆ 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What is it you want, Domer? Do not have this poll which is only a minor preliminary poll in advance of the community wide poll? Is that why you are grousing? -- Evertype·✆ 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That does not answer my questions! --Domer48'fenian' 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What questions? -- Evertype·✆ 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I only suggested this poll to help set up the options for the others. There was some agreement for it, but I wasn't expecting it to be started as fast as it was. Furthermore, it was only meant to be limited to this project - this is not the community poll that has been talked about for the STV. And definitely with something like this, one can't stipulate penalities or the like for socking or such (I think I'll need to check what the STV poll has listed there, as any usual violations of socking or the like should be dealt with by normal means and not specially called out). While I appreciate Evertype's boldness to move it forward, I think there just needed to be a bit more discussion about it to make sure that's the way to resolve what "(xxx)" choices were to appear on the main STV poll. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem, you said you wanted a 7-day poll that ended 1 July. I posted this at 1900, since there were only 5 hours left to let that time schedule happen. It is now 22:45, so there is 1:15 left in order to give you your 7-day window and end on 1 July. I know this is not the community poll, but it did not seem to me that is should only be limited to the few people who visit this page. Do what you want with it. I guess your choices are to cancel it or it let it run. If you cancel it, we're just going to have to run it again anyway. The VOTING looks to be within expected parameters. You are going to have to make the executive decision here. But I suspect that cancelling it and re-enstating it with a few insubstantial modifications won't help this project all that much. -- Evertype·✆ 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
We have 19 ballots cast between 18:01 and 21:29, including many active members of this project. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggested (not said) that we end it by the 1st to give us a few days to keep to the week-pushed-forward schedule (eg starting STV polling on the 5th). As the vote wasn't meant to be a community-wide aspect at this point - only a means to limit what choices were to go on the STV poll since all choices would be impractical - it wasn't a demand to start the poll right away as I think we were still trying to make sure it made sense. I don't recommend stopping it - it's in progress, but the way you approached it boldly is probably a bit heavy (given the response from others); again, it was meant to be informal and thus issuing warnings about banning and the like was probably out of place. I strongly recommended that, presuming nothing changes the July 5th proposed starting date for the poll that either we decide who will announce it across the approved areas (listed above) (it doesn't have to be me that posts it, but let's make sure everyone agrees abou this). and what that announcement will contain. I appreciate the move to try to keep this effort going to find a resolution but let's not messy it up by jumping too fast. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The distinction between "suggested" and "said" is a bit beyond subtle, and I think can only be differentiated by means of mind-reading. Having said that... the section on sanctions and all I took directly from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I didn't make it up on my own (though I dialled down "ban for a year" to "ban for a month" which I saw was confirmed an option (somewhere on this page). If the section on sanctions is really all that objectionable, it had better be addressed with regard to Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could I ask a question about this? Am I correct in my interpretation that all these are proposed titles for the article about the state (i.e. the one currently at Republic of Ireland). I have heard it suggested that Ireland (country) or Ireland (nation) could be used as the title on an article for the entire Island (the one currently at Ireland). Before I express my preference, I just want to make sure I know what articles these titles are being proposed for. Thanks. Rockpocket 00:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This was only supposed to be for what the "(xxxx)" in "Ireland (xxxx)" would be should that be the option of where to move the 26 county country to. This has no impact on the other possible naming schemes (including if the option to have one article about all things Ireland (island and country)). --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thats great. Thanks. Rockpocket 00:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a new Moderator here

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Masen, have you given some extra rights to Everytype, because he seems out of controal!! Tfz 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have claimed no "extra rights". Nor have I done anything to harm you, or this project, or the Wikipedia. I have set out rules for this poll which are not unreasonable, and which are on the list for the main poll. I didn't invent them. I don't have the power to enforce them either. But I am within my rights to announce them. If you violate the rules, and an admin sanctions you, you can appeal. Easier to avoid violating them, though. -- Evertype·✆ 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm considering spoiling my vote, or not voting at all. Btw pollcat(pun) was collective, I said "we". Tfz 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Do what you want. I don't know what would satisfy you. It's a few hours into the poll and plenty of people seem happy to vote in it.

Evertype you have put forward wording that was not agreed too, and said it was. You attached comments to the poll options which were not agreed to and are totally misleading and based on nothing more than WP:OR. --Domer48'fenian' 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Have I? I see a number of people happy to vote on it. "Totally misleading" is hyperbole. The comments were reviewed by several people and no one raised any objections. I pointed out explicitly that I attempted to make some neutral links to related topics in case people wanted to know what the terms meant. There's nothing WP:OR about that. It's just some wikilinks. COMPLAIN TO ARBCOM IF YOU WANT. I am satisfied that I, who initated the Request for Arbitration, have made a postiive contribution here. -- Evertype·✆ 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"The comments were reviewed by several people" Where? --Domer48'fenian' 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

See above. What is your problem? Vote. Don't vote. Do what you want. So far, people are happy to vote. -- Evertype·✆ 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry can't see it, could I have a diff please? --Domer48'fenian' 22:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Still can't see it, could I have a diff please? Thanks,--Domer48'fenian' 12:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
[8][9][10][11][12]

Now the diff's DrKiernan show what exactly?

On the section for polling options there are a number of comments posted under each option such as:

Were was this agreed too? They are very misleading and none of them are supported by sources. Please provide the diff's thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just provided them. They clearly show editors saying "yes, that's fine" or equivalent to the proposed poll including the text. DrKiernan (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No DrKiernan you did not provided them, but that was no reason for you to be uncivil. I asked a very reasonable question. --Domer48'fenian' 13:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here they are again, Domer!

[13][14][15][16][17]

Outrage

Latest comment: 14 years ago50 comments8 people in discussion
  • I find these two notices by Everytype particularly outrageous [18], [19]. What has the United Kingdom to do with the renaming of RoI article above and beyond any other state? Imagine it was the other way around, that the UK was being renamed at Wikipedia. Would Ireland editors get some extra territorial privilege and sway over the outcome? No, and I wouldn't expect it either. This is a violation of the Ireland's sovereignty from the United Kingdom. Tfz 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Evertype's actions were entirely proper. Trying to derail the poll train at this point is not going to work. If one is ill, it is better to swallow a unpalatable pill than to spit it out. DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan did you even read Masen's response above, Evertype's actions were entirely improper? Railroading this process through at this point is going to work, because both Admin's and Editors refuse to swallow a unpalatable pill, that they are going against every policy of the project so why not just say that, spit it out so editors like me who do still have confidence in the project are not seen to be wasting their time. Tell editors like me that trying to derail the poll train at this point is not going to work, because wiki policies are out of the question when there is a POV to push and the numbers to back it up. Explain how when both Admin's and Editors set out to derail the alternative process to polling I put forward, not one of you, including Masen said a word. --Domer48'fenian' 08:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The only person who derailed your alternative processes was you, with your usurpation of moderator privileges on your proposal pages and imposition of selective censorship. As a direct result, people voted with their feet and stayed away. Now, do you or do you not accept the Arbcom decision that this whole could be achieved through consensus or majority decision? Do you or do you not accept that 75% of editors are now in favour of a final STV poll? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I unsuccessfully tried to put a minimum of 150 main article edits for the last six months, before users be allowed to vote, that would have taken a very sizable chunk out of the 75%. Content editors should have more sway, than the other accounts, imo. Tfz 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
First off, my alternative process has not been derailed despite the attempts of both Editors and Admin’s and the blind indifference of the one moderator. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [20] [21] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the Proposal page to again to insert them. That they tried to suggest that they were not aware the page had been protected is laughable when they went on to say "even if [they] had known it was protected [they] would have still made the edit." To then say that "once the page is unprotected [they'll] be withdrawing both [their] !vote and [their] comments" " and that they would encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, saying that “lack of engagement will doom it much quicker and with much less drama than any official sanction” and so scupper my attempt to move things forward show how hollow their arguments are and disruptive there actions were.
Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in the inane comments: [22], [23], [24], and on the proposal page, [25], [26] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page. Now in case you forgot, what about your attempts to disrupt the proposal:Bastun edit warring to make a point when the question I asked was clear an unambiguous. [27], [28] and had to use incivility to make a point. Comments which were removed from the proposal page, and added and commented upon on the talk page. [29] [30] [31] [32]. None of which addressed why they opposed the proposal and ignored the guidelines. Comments removed from the talk page, [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Notice how no mention was made on two of the comments which are from editors who agree with me. Now we know the moderator did not miss all of this going on, but did manage to miss the whole discussion were I did tell editors about my proposal. Now despite all of this my proposal is still there.--Domer48'fenian' 12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Domer, you simply don't get it. You are 6 months too late to the party. Many many people have already been down the arbcom advised route, and with all good intentions first attempted a solution without polling, using discussion based methods and policy based argument to solve this dispute, every single approach has either crashed and burned, died a death due to apathy, or been derailed by the same repetitive bullcrap going unmoderated, because the moderators and some of the more vocal participants did not simply understand that moderators were there to control behaviour, and not rule on content, or make the decisions for the community (and that ridiculous notion has been a common derailing mechanism). So we are moving to the endgame, where most people now simply accept that without something so concrete as a poll, whose results will be, per the arbcomm case, binding for two years, this dispute will never end. Me myself, after putting forward proposals for a properly timetable and moderated discussion based system for producing a solution after the arbcom decision, I simply gave up on this particular IECOLL page when it became clear the definition of 'moderator' was not understood by either the moderators or the regular combatants, there was no agreed or even understood structure or timetable, and we were just in for more of the same, albeit just harder to follow with numerous sub-pages and triangles and all that jazz, while others I am sure at the end of the arbcom case decided to merely ignore any discussion phase, content to wait for the inevitable poll. But since Masem has come on board, it seems to me that most people who participated in IECOLL and still believed a discussion solution was still possible, having seen his outside assessment of how its going, are now content with the analysis and suggestion put forward by him, which is unfortunately, a poll. Redking's infinite reposting, 'I didn't hear that' and 'this is all a ruse' shenanigans, and Tfz's repeated withdrawals and his latest statement of outrage and call for Ireland to withdraw its Wikipedia ambassador, are but mere sideshows, the poll train is indeed leaving the station, arguably with their help in pushing it by contributing to the kilobytes of irrelevanvce to the discussion venue. Get on it or don't, it's your choice. I am personally not interested in any discussion venue you intend to self moderate. Setting up a process only you intend to moderate is only going to turn everybody off, because, certainly in my case, you have made it impossible for me to point out on that page that you are selectively quoting my solution (last I looked, my comment had disappeared but your explanation remained), and I am sure for example a general comment on it from me that you have not correctly described the 'China' solution in the way its been described here, would not last very long without being moved/refactored. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Diff's please for the "solution without polling, using discussion based methods and policy based argument to solve this dispute"? You mention "every single approach has either crashed and burned, died a death due to apathy" I'm not asking for every single one, just the ones based on policy based argument? By the way, if the process I suggest is accepted, I'll not be the one to moderate it, and your inane comments will still be removed. Misrepresenting an editors comments is considered a personal attack, and a bit like your comments here. P.S agree with you on the moderator and the bullcrap going unmoderated. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"Misrepresenting an editors comments is considered a personal attack". That's good to know, because you are misrepresenting me on your proposal page. "Inane comments" also sounds like a sleight. As for diffs, you can go fish, I don't need to provide supporting diffs for everything I say on a talk page, this is not ANI. But by all means, if any body bar yourself disagrees with my recollection, they should let themselves be heard. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Like everyone else around here, ask for a supporting diff and all you get more inane comments. --Domer48'fenian' 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Any time you ask for anything and anyone offers it to you, you respond with yet another passive-aggressive request. Or at least you sure seem to. Enjoying all of this, are you? Feel as though this is a productive use of everyone's time? My stars but I would rather be editing Rivers in Ireland or Gaelic script or something real. -- Evertype·✆ 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for the supporting diff on which Ireland it is you want a diff on to show it's ambiguous... But really, what Mick said. The only person stopping your proposal from being discussed was you - you drove editors from the page. Repeating yourself ad nauseum, your constant demands, and accusations of snide remarks and inanity while doing exactly the same yourself - well, it's doing a better job than I ever could of making sure your proposal isn't adopted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, proving my point, ask a reasonable question, and all you get is inane comments! Bastun I've illustrated your disruptive editing above, so you are still unable to answer a very, very simple question, "Provide a Diff for the discussion were consensus was reached that "Ireland" is ambiguous. Both MASEM & myself can't find it." If you are unable to do that, provide a source that says "Ireland" is ambiguous? --Domer48'fenian' 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, this is the type of insistence that is derailing the process. Common sense: we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland" is an ambiguious term, but the fact that we are here at this project means it is. In fact, that's a Finding of Fact by ArbCom, so trying to retread over that is ignoring the ArbCom case completely - we need to move well past that point, even if you feel it is not justified.
I know you're arguing that we need to build consensus on solutions that meet policy, but I've read everything and every solution proposed is built that way - the problem is that we have conflicting sources and states of mind, so normal resolve of those has not occurred. After 6 months of the same wheeling-discussion in trying to come to a single solution that has lead nowhere tells me its time to abandon hope of a consensus and seek another mechanic that the parties are agreeable to to resolve this, in which case seems to be polling. Your solution is part of that poll so it is not being ignored, just the push to drive consensus on it. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Bastun is do you really know what you are 'talking' about, or are you just pretending? Tfz
Masem since you have ignored my post above, and the disruptive editing of this process, suggesting that my insistence is derailing the process is a bit rich! Now first of, Finding of Fact, is a section head title nothing more. Under the title "Locus and state of dispute" ArbCom outline the nature of the dispute and nothing more. You have ignored the ArbCom case completely and the Principles they set out. You have allowed incivility and disruption illustrated above. You can not provide one diff to support your contension that fact and policy based discussions have been attempted. To come along here now and suggest that my insistence on editors providing diff's that support there actions and comments is derailing the process is a joke. Were was it agreed to start this poll, were was the wording of the notice agree, were was it agreed to post it over the whole community, were was it agreed to add the misleading comments under each option, were was the options agreed to. Now were are the other Mods? You say "We are never going to find a source that says "Ireland" is an ambiguious term" well why are we having this poll and discussion. Now you show me were you have suggested an alternative to polling, or show me were a policy based discussion was tried and failed. --Domer48'fenian' 19:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(Place holder for Masem's reply)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Ireland as "The name of a classical scholarship at Oxford University founded in 1825 by John Ireland, D.D. (1761-1842), of Oriel College, Dean of Westminster." Here are various citations, NONE of which mean EITHER the island or the Irish state. Note that one citation is by Oscar Wilde. 1861 J. A. SYMONDS Let. 13 Mar. (1967) I. 282 We hope to secure the Ireland too this Term. If we do not, we shall be in a poor way. 1877 O. WILDE Let. Mar. (1962) 32, I have been in for ‘the Ireland’ and of course lost it: on six weeks' reading I could not expect to get a prize for which men work two and three years. 1951 M. KENNEDY Lucy Carmichael II. 80 He really is clever; he got the Ireland or the Hertford, I forget which, at Oxford. 1953 E. BARKER Age & Youth II. iii. 317 A year later, when I tried my luck for the Ireland, the king of classical scholar~ships, I had less confidence. 1972 Oxf. Univ. Cal. 1972-73 216 Dean Ireland's Scholarship... Value: £120. Awarded annually in Michaelmas Term after an examination... The examination is the same as that for the Craven Scholarships and the person elected to the Ireland Scholarship is, if not already a Craven Scholar, elected to the first Craven Scholarship. I hereby declare that on foot of this precise definition, the word "Ireland" to be polyvalent, that is, to be ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Fruitcake! Tfz 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That was uncivil. It was an ad-hominem attack. But what is your point? That the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous? It sure seems polyvalent to me. It means an island, a state, and, evidently, is the name of a scholarship. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you picked me up wrongly, I was referring to the convoluted explanation offered. One of my cohorts is an Ireland, and I don't think he competes for the name. You forgot to include him. It made me laugh. Tfz 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were enjoying your outrage. -- Evertype·✆ 20:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Gladly I don't get sad, even when outrageous things happen. It's just a hobby with me, but I do like a certain "professionalism" to be employed. Discussion, citations, and elimination are the better resources to be used in a case like this. Polling is only a measure of the most popular pov, that's all it is. There are essays on NPOV here, and they are here primarily to help with discussion and resolution, not polls. Tfz 20:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Evertype on the section for polling options there are a number of comments posted under each option such as:

  • A: Ireland (country)
  • B: Ireland (sovereign country)
  • C: Ireland (Republic of)
  • D: Ireland (sovereign state)
  • E: Ireland (nation)
  • F: Ireland (state)
  • G: Ireland (republic)

Were was this agreed too? They are very misleading [citation needed] and none of them are supported by sources. Please provide the diff's thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The diffs were given to you above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you provide a diff supporting the assertion these are "very misleading" thanks. Alternatively a diff for consensus that they are very misleading will do thanks. Rockpocket 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well yet another inane responce Evertype, so I put the poll and the comments together to make it a bit handy for you. Now DrKiernan above gave these diff's [39][40][41][42][43] none of which address the question. So were was this agreed to? Rock, I'll do one better, I'll place citation tags on the comments and you can provide the references. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. All the comments are based on WP:OR. --Domer48'fenian' 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My point, Domer, is that you are quick to demand citations for every single talk-page assertion you disagree with, and then claim the statement to be invalid when none are provided. However, you make plenty of unsupported assertions yourself (such as those statements "are very misleading"). You can't have it both ways. If you think every single statement on a talk page requires a citation, then stop making unsupported claims yourself. Its smacks of hypocrisy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Rockpocket 23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The diffs were given to him above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The diffs were given to her above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The diffs were given to me above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The diffs were given to us above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The diffs were given to them above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That should cover it. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
An absurd responce to a reasonable question. --Domer48'fenian' 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You have been given the diffs. You have also repasted your question over and over again, pasting in the text over and over again. "Response" is spelled with two s's. Your question has been answered. -- Evertype·✆ 23:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You like most editors here have perfectly illustrated how disruptive editing has been allowed to continue on this whole talk page. How reasonable questions are stonewalled, undermining both the project and the editors to drive home a POV laden process. You have more than played your part in exposing this, and for that you should be thanked. --Domer48'fenian' 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to believe that Wikipedia is an anarchy, no law nor order, with "laws made on the hoof". I too am still waiting for the citation that Ireland is ambiguous. It seems to be the case with a bunch of editors, that if thy can claim that often enough like a mantra, or affirmation, that it may become true in the minds of other editors. Wikipedia is nose-diving fast and is looking very shabby and amateurish, imo. Mob rule rules the day. Masen will have to get a grip on a certain editor who is making up consensus, as he sees fit. Now we see maneuverings to the effect that if the "right" choice is chosen in the poll, then only that will be offered in the main poll. But if the "wrong" one is chosen, then the first three will be presented again in the main poll. What a mess! Tfz 00:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Jesus, Tfz. We have had this discussion over and over and over. What exactly are you asking for? You want a source that states, parrot like, "Ireland is ambiguous"? You are probably not going to get one, but does that mean it is not ambiguous? Of course not. You and Domer appear to misunderstand what we mean by verifiability.
"Ambiguity" is only a word that describes the property of something being interpreted in more than one way. So what we are really stating is that the name "Ireland" can be used to represent different things and therefore can be interpreted in more than one way. Now, to most of us on this page, the ambiguity is so self evident that requesting a source for it appears to be purposefully pedantic. But it really isn't difficult to provide one: See the opening lines in A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1 for a perfectly coherent description of the ambiguity of the term "Ireland".
So, if its the term "ambiguity" that is bothering you, lets forget it and instead ask, are you satisfied with the verification of the fact that "Ireland" can be used to refer to different things? If so, than you are - by the very meaning of the term - acknowledging its ambiguity. Even if you cannot accept this, then that leaves you in a minority of two, because it is perfectly understandable to everyone else who has commented here. Rockpocket 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me quote just a few sections from that entire paper which reinforce that ambiguity (that "Ireland" can be verifiably used to refer to different things)
  • Ireland is the name of an island in the North Atlantic. Ireland is also the name of a state, comprising roughly three‐quarters of that island.
This explicitly states that Ireland can refer to different things, which is the meaning of the word "ambiguous". This is the opening sentence of the entire paper and really couldn't make the ambiguity of the term any more distinct.
  • In 1953 the Government Information Bureau issued a directive ...[that] whenever the name of the state was mentioned in an English language document, Ireland should be used. If it was necessary to make it clear that the reference was to the area of the twenty‐six counties, for example, in statistical returns, then either “Ireland (exclusive of the Six Counties)” or “Ireland,” with the word followed by an explanatory asterisk or footnote should be used.
This section demonstrates that the ambiguity of the term "Ireland" was recognized by Government itself. Note also how the Bureau, while understandably insisting "Ireland" be used as the name for the state, was quite happy to use a descriptive bracket to distinguish the state from the entire island. This is exactly what is being proposed to deal with the ambiguity here!
  • The use of Ireland to refer to the state is not universal... Sinn Féin refers to the “26 County State” and the “Six County State,” reserving “Ireland” for the entire island.
Again, an explicit statement that Ireland can refer to different things, which is the meaning of the word "ambiguous". Moreover, in this case it isn't the nasty imperial Brits that is making the distinction, it is Sinn Féin.
So, given this, are you "still waiting for the citation that Ireland is ambiguous"? Rockpocket 01:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Rockpocket, quote -You want a source that states, parrot like, "Ireland is ambiguous"? You are probably not going to get one,, that probably irons that one out. Some people want to make it ambiguous for various reasons. What I object to most is, editors who claim to be in the "know", continually repeating ad infinitum that it is ambiguous, when clearly it is not to many people. Entirely subjective, and unnecessary. Tfz 10:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Demonstrate for us, please, that the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous. This is not subjective. Ireland is the name of an island. Ireland is the name of a state which occupies much but not all of the island named Ireland. Ireland is a family name. Ireland is the name of an academic scholarship. Ireland is the name of a town in Indianna. Ireland is the name of a town in West Virginia. There are six of statements here. Each of them is verifiable. They do not any of them mean the same thing. A family name is not an island. A town in West Virginia is not a member state of the European Union. This isn't original research, either. So, please, demonstrate for us how the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 11:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You make my point quite well, Tfz. The intended meaning of "Ireland" can be entirely subjective (which is, of course, a characteristic of its ambiguity). Whats important is that we can verify that it is subjective, as demonstrated by the sources you asked for. Rockpocket 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd rather leave some of this stuff to the philosophers, my training is economics. Speaking here in relativities and not in absolutes. Ireland is no more ambiguous than Wales (disambiguation), or England (disambiguation), etc etc. Ireland a sovereign country covers 85% of an island called Ireland. There is only one country in the world called Ireland, and there is only one island in the world called Ireland. When talking about countries there is no disambiguation, and when talking about islands there is no disambiguation, when talking about people, there could be hoards of Irelands, or Englands, or Wales. Cannot remember Jimbo Wales being disambiguated with the ancient country of Wales. Most educated people have no problems understanding these things, and even young children too, I can vouch for that. Tfz 21:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You know, I agree with your logic here, and you have also hit upon the key issue in a very succinct way: Ireland a sovereign country covers 85% of an island called Ireland. There is only one country in the world called Ireland, and there is only one island in the world called Ireland. When talking about countries there is no disambiguation, and when talking about islands there is no disambiguation The "problem" (for want of a better term) is this: at Wikipedia generally write articles about islands and the countries on them independently of each other. In doing so, we need to disambiguate for technical reasons (while most educated people may have no problems understanding these things, our database cannot). The alternative is that we don't distinguish between the island and the state in an article title, the result being that we have a single article for two overlapping entities (island and state). Now those are both viable options, and one is no more inherently "correct" than the other. I, personally, favor two articles because its consistent with how we deal with other countries that are on islands (see Hispaniola and Haiti, for example). If that is your preference, then disambiguation is a technical necessity. I appreciate this isn't a perfect solution. If you prefer the second option (i.e. Domer's merge proposal), then the disambiguation is not required. This is also not a perfect solution. Unfortunately deciding between these comes down to balancing Wikipedia's guidelines and policies against each other. There is no right or wrong answer, only interpretations. Unless you are seriously trying to argue that island = state, then demanding references is pointless, it will not resolve this dilemma. All we can do is explain and justify our personal preference and then respect that others may have a differing interpretation. I hope you are able to do that, and I urge you to put forward your preference so that it can be included in the community poll. Rockpocket 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a viable alternate view, which many people hold. That the country of Ireland covers the whole of Ireland, and the country and the island are synonymous with eachother. That's probably the truest logic of all, in that Ireland became divided, and some day unite again, it must. Travelling around Ireland this is not difficult to understand, finding that almost all folk, both North and South, see that as the future. Not today, but that that eventuality will come about. Tfz 01:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That is certainly a viable view with regards to the "country" of Ireland (though not currently a verifiable one with regards to the modern sovereign state, at least according to its own Constitution). I don't have an issue with that as a proposal to be put to the community, but we would probably need some definition of what the "country" includes in this sense and also what we would do about the state, which would still need an article and hence a title). What I'm trying to do, though, is get away from the wiki-lawyering of the last few weeks (whether Ireland is "ambiguous" or not) and promote that idea that our moderator has been trying to explain. This is really about different interpretations of how we organize our encyclopaedia. That all of the options on the table are viable, and that none are inherently more or less viable than any other. That demanding sources for every statement of preference is pointless at this point. We tried to resolve this by discussion and compromise, but were unable to form a consensus, so now we are left with an STV. The beauty of of STV is that it will likely provide us with the compromise option. And, in a case where there are no right or wrongs, that is probably the best outcome we can hope for. I hope you will join me in engaging in this process fully, and robustly argue your preferred solution, while also respecting that others have an equally viable alternative that they might prefer. Rockpocket 01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rock still trying to peddle your WP:SYN. Lets see what you left out: The British government would not use the term “Ireland” in any official document, according to Daly, until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which included an undertaking by the Irish government to delete Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Britain’s refusal to use the constitutional title of the Irish state, and its efforts to persuade other nations to adopt a similar practice, can be interpreted, Daly says, as an effort to exercise a residual authority over independent Ireland. Britain appeared to have gone to significant lengths, she says, to stop international organizations from using the name Ireland to designate the twenty six county state, and that this was often in response to pressure from the Northern Ireland government. [1] Now I don't need to interpret what Daly says, but you do.

Now lets see what you said in your evidence for ArbCom, "According to many, many reliable sources, "Ireland" refers to two different geo-political entities." Well were are they? Now since then, you have not provided any other reference. Now you provide a diff for were there was a policy based discussion, "To assess the validity of arguments, moderators will use the pyramid to the right." Were was the discussion on the Naming conventions outlined by ArbCom. Were was the discussion on "whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves". Were is the discussion to determine "the extent to which the current article titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view". Were has the Mod prevented the POV pushing on this discssion per ArbCoc guidlines. Were has the Mod (there is only one on this project) addressed the editwarring, disruption and incivility, per ArbCom including your conduct. Now ratehr than offering us nothing more than your WP:SYN start to provide the diff's for the discussions I've outlined above. Now I've backed up everything I've said, going as far as providing an Article based on multiple sources, and what have you offered, nothing. --Domer48'fenian' 08:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are going to have to interpret what Daly says, because I have no idea what relevance that quote has to this discussion. As far as I can tell, it informs us that the British Government refused to use "Ireland" to refer to the state. So what? How does that show that the term is not ambiguous (which is what you seem to be arguing). Your second screed is even less relevant to this discussion. Your proposal is of interest to nobody but you, so how about your stop beating that particular dead horse. I'm beginning to wonder if you have a few stock phrases that you cut and paste in a random order in response to every comment, because you really are not making any sense to me. Rockpocket 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"Peddling his synthesis"? Bosh and tosh. Rockpocket merely shows us that he can use the English language like a person, not like a robit. But never mind that. What is it you think that "Ireland" means, Domer-lad, if it is unambiguous? What is your source that the word "Ireland" is unambiguous? To put it another way, What is your source that the word "Ireland" means only one thing? When you answer this perfectly reasonable question, please respond also to the definition I gave above, from the Oxford English Dictionary, defining "Ireland" as the name of an academic scholarship. Thanks very much. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here they are again, Domer!

[44][45][46][47][48]

You put out the poll over the head of Masem, and the agreement of an unrepresentative group of editors will not change that. You have failed to provide diff's were the poll options were agreed, were the comments under the options were agreed, with no agreement to put it to the whole community, including a warning on sanctions which could not be enforced. Now I've acted in a reasonable and calm manner, despite your POV pushing agenda. You reaction to my reasonable questions, including inane replys and now your bold texting and condensending attitude is the clear sign of an editor unable to support their conduct or opinions. --Domer48'fenian' 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit summary is call a personal attack and is the result of not having anythng else to offer reasonable discussion.
  1. ^ A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_11&oldid=1136414785"