Archives

Nov 08 - Jan 09 Feb 09 Mar 09

Should we rely on a bot for archiving this page? See details at Wikipedia_talk:SLR/H#Bot.2C_again. — Sebastian 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? (It's easy for you to say, as long as you don't have to do it!) — Sebastian 07:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we're just following the no rebuttal plan here. Someone proposes a good idea, and all it takes to oppose it is the little word "no". This is not what I had in mind when I signed up as a moderator. — Sebastian 18:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine by me. Ben MacDui 15:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

^[relevant?]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements
• WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements process

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hold on!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Gnevin (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The right result is preferable to the timed result. I havent a clue what is going on here. At the moment we are taking statements with a view to agreeing on a procedure. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Kittybrewster, this is not a viable alternative. "The right result" seems a highly subjective criterium to me. Or do you have a definition for "the right result" that is likely to garner general support? — Sebastian 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Oppose for now. I would have no problem with a deadline of 31 March (assuming that it was properly notified, as Sebastian has promised above), but only if it was clear what happens next. I may have missed something, but I have seen no description of what the next step(s) involve, and it's important to clarify that so the editors know what needs to be done at this stgae to ensure that the maters which concern them are addressed at later stages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, I'm not clear about that, either. I will bring it up at WT:IECOLL/P and will get back to you. — Sebastian 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: There are no plans for further steps. I am very sorry about that. — Sebastian 18:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Redking7 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. 31 March 2009 - This is the date after which no further statements may be made; and
2. 1 May 2009 - This is the backstop date for this process. If a consensus has not emerged before this date, the three project moderators will close the discussion on this date.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PhilKnight - Are these the three moderators?

1. SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) (Moderator)
2. PhilKnight (talk · contribs) (Moderator)
3. Edokter (talk · contribs) (Moderator)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration another ruse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Normal   0         false   false   false                                 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

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