Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statements by uninvolved editors at WP:RfAr[edit]

Statement by SirFozzie[edit]

I do not endorse this, while this is somewhat related to one of the key disputes of The Troubles (exactly what the Ireland article should point to, the island, the Republic of Ireland, so on and so forth). There was a Requested Move discussion that is the root of this. You notice that there is no diffs of user conduct in the request for Arbitration, only a demand that ArbCom provide an answer to what the Ireland article should point to. I would recommend that instead of yet again fighting over these issues in Arbitration and attempting to bring it here to win a content dispute by brute (ArbCom) force, that they go back and not come back until they get it right. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental statement

I see that Rockpocket has posted several diffs of user conduct by various folks that had the effect of inflaming discussion and making finding consensus much more difficult. I would support a limited case, aimed at (and only at) looking at the examples of user conduct that break Wikipedia policies, and then see what the people can do when the worst actors are removed. SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jza84[edit]

I too, like Snowded, endorse the the comments by Evertype. We need a solution, or rather a formal decision, on how to take this forwards. My findings are:

  1. The endless debate about titles and names is damaging Wikipedia, by way of fostering ill feeling between users and stifling progress with article-content.
  2. A decision on this may need to come from the very top, or as near as possible, as it needs to be binding, respected and sustained for combatting the long-term problems I've pointed out in point number 1.
  3. Again, it's imperative that a formal decision be binding this time round. Regardless of personal, cultural perspective, the debates need to be closed, so we can get on improving Wikipedia. The decision should not be challenged unless something major changes the dynamics of the debate.

I'm not listed as in involved party, but I have dipped my toes in Irish/British geography issues from time-to-time. Again, my main concern is that the debates need to be closed for the good of Wikipedia now. We need a strong, tough decision to be made and respected. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tariqabjotu[edit]

I don't know why I'm named as an "involved" party, especially as number two, just below the person who opened this request, and just above everyone else, who is rightfully named in alphabetical order. I closed a move request. Half of the people -- not unexpectedly -- didn't like that. After barraging my page with comments, they went to ANI and eventually got the move reversed. Okay... I'm not complaining. I have no problem with getting a move overturned that other uninvolved (let me repeat, uninvolved) people generally think was wrong. I believe the current result is more precarious than the one I (unsuccessfully) implemented, but I am not bothered at all by the reversal. So... 'involved' is not appropriate here at all; I have no opinion on the positions in this debate. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Tariq is removed from the list of parties. Daniel (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved Rockpocket[edit]

I don't think ArbCom can, or should, decide which article resides at which title. I do think ArbCom could, perhaps, put some enforceable remedies in place to assist those willing to discuss, negotiate and compromise in good faith, and deter those ideologues, banned editors and agitators who see this as another battleground in the ongoing British/Irish Troubles.

  • Like with the events leading to the Troubles ArbCom, the specific problems are a deeply ingrained lack of good faith, an alarming propensity for exchanges to dissolve into insults and incivility, and an underlying politicization of almost all content discussion, which regularly bubbles upwards and over.
  • Like with the events leading to the Troubles ArbCom, there is almost no allowable neutral ground. The few admins that attempt to assist are almost immediately tarred as pro- or anti- British/Irish, and then feathered with accusations of "being involved."
  • Like with the events leading to the Troubles ArbCom, there is a slight underlying smell of socks, which leads to an atmosphere of suspicion (particularly around IPs, which may or may not be merited).

I therefore urge ArbCom to consider hearing this with a view towards issuing a remedy, like the one resulting from the Troubles ArbCom, than will help foster an environment where this can be resolved by good faith editors. Rockpocket 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer a further statement in response to a few Arbs declining, having noted there has been no behavioural problems offered for their consideration. I am loathe to focus on any particular individual, but here a few representative examples of how discussions tend to dissolve into nasty disputes. The point is not to criticize the individuals, per se, since there are plenty more examples from others. I simply point out those that I have recently noticed. The goal is to paint a general picture, and justify why some sort of help is needed to curb the lack of good faith, politicizing, the sockpuppeteering (and the resultant culture of deep suspicion), the incivility and personal attacks. All of which are getting in the way of resolving this content issue:

Statement by Srnec[edit]

Can't we just limit how quickly a new move request may be filed after a previous one was closed, then allow the issue of naming to be revisited as often as some parties like through the normal route (WP:RM)? Discussion about a move that requires the moving of other pages should be centralised at the appropriate article (Talk:Ireland in this case). Starting from the status quo ante recently reinstated by Deacon, we can allow a move request—one move request—to be filed any time now, but impose a limit on how much time must elapse before the issue can be revisited once the latest request has been closed. I think it is perfectly appropriate that the issue be constantly revisited, semper reformanda. It just needs to be allowed to lie fallow for a time, and discussion must be centralised at Talk:Ireland whenever that article is implicated in the move request. This solution is purely procedural. A minimum wait time between moves would only have to be chosen: 3, 6, 12 months, or more. Srnec (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eluchil404[edit]

I'm honestly not sure what ArbCom is being asked to arbutrate here. The the article naming scheme here is contentious is not in doubt but not concrete issues of edit-warring or incivility have been cited. Even if an Arb backed "final decision process" was started, I don't see how it could be truly final given the constant turnover of editors who will naturally wonder why whichever scheme we pick deviates from what they consider natural and correct, and the simple fact that consensus can change. ArbCom and the community simple lack the power the bind future communities from making different decisions, though they can counsel against it for reasons of stability. I urge rejection on the gorunds that no usefull remedies can be adopted. If there were a content or naming dispute court of last resort this could be sent there but ArbCom is not the place for it. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Narson[edit]

I'm not mentioned as a party here but have been involved in the past loosely and over the past few days. I do think an arbcom looking at the issues, and not at the editors, would be an excellent thing. Though I am not sure if that is within the remit of ArbCom, to focus just on the content/issues at hand. I was hoping a fresh RM could just be run rather than this going but people do seem to be at what you might call 'fever pitch' and this is a better option than letting people go crazy and get themselves blocked. Certainly the idea of a limit as to the time between move requests on these pages would be appreciaed, just to stop it flipping back and forth or in the constant grind it is in now. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum Silktork below has convinced my niggling doubts over this to get together and so I am afraid I must agree, while having an authoritative 'mother' to slap people is useful, perhaps this is an inappropiate time for it. Thugh, I am sure it /could/ be done as a ArbCom about user conduct, I'd hope that people wouldn't file it because the last thing needed right now is ban sticks causing the various editor groups to get all jittery. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JodyB[edit]

I ask the arbitrators to note that there has been no dispute resolution apart from the talk page. The involvement of editors outside the current troubled group should be attempted first before Arbcom becomes involved. There is no reason to leap-frog the well established principle of attempting dispute resolution fully before coming here. JodyB talk 11:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle[edit]

I would hope that the ArbCom accepts this case; if nothing else, there may have been improper use of admin rights (protection and moving protected pages). Stifle (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the view that admin tools may have been misused. --Una Smith (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this view also. --HighKing (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the view that any admin took any action not aimed at resolving a mess not of their making. Scolaire (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Kosebamse[edit]

Another classic example of User:Moreschi/The Plague. Seeing that conflicts of this type have afflicted Wikipedia since its inception, it might be time to reconsider policies. Wikipedia:Don't even think about getting passionate over nationalist topics or you'll get blocked without further discussion, perhaps? Kosebamse (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this proposal. Srnec (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PalestineRemembered[edit]

Dear ArbCom - please treat this in a regular fashion as a conduct issue. Find some way to score and rank and test editors on their fitness to contribute to and take this decision themselves. Make sure that the yard-sticks used concern scholarship more than civility (which is too often a cover for gaming). Think product more than process and thereby lay the ground for better articles everywhere. A solution along these lines will save you hours of ongoing and escalating aggravation at other ethnic-based topic disputes. PRtalk 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from uninvolved David Gerard[edit]

This swung by wikien-l before it came here. It looked to a lot of people there somewhat closer to an ethnic POV-pushing issue, rather than a plain content issue per se. For what that's worth. The person who brought it to foundation-l and then came to wikien-l for (quite civil and flame-free, I must note) discussion considers that ethnic POV-pushing is going on in this case. Beyond that, the basic advice was "think of the readers, not the involved editors" for the content issue, and he claimed that that ideal wasn't happening for whatever reason - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hemlock Martinis[edit]

I urge the arbitrators not to reject this as a content issue. While the underlying issue is one of content, the main issue here is the manner by which the content was changed. I'm hesitant to call this an ethnic POV-pushing case, but I do feel the manner in which the articles were renamed was counter to the wiki process by isolating it from a general discussion area and into an insular forum in which a hivemind became apparent. I concur with Jza84's statement in that country names are essential to the stability of the encyclopedia since changing them can have widespread ramifications for the community and the encyclopedia. As such, it should be done carefully, with much forethought and plenty of public discourse and preparation. Not doing so disrupts the encyclopedia. ArbCom needs to approach it from that angle, and disassociate itself from the content issues themselves. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plea by User:DrKiernan[edit]

I would plea with Bainer and Forrester, or the new arbitrators, to accept this case. I almost brought one here myself. The constant rehashing of the same old arguments, and the constant re-nominations for page moves, is disruptive, or at least, a wasteful time-sink that will achieve nothing. There is no hope at all that this dispute can be resolved by the normal methods of discussing page names.

Though there are concerns about the way the last set of moves were performed (by a rough count I count 50% more opposes than supports at the discussions on the article talk pages and yet the pages were still moved), I would recommend a ruling from ArbCom along the following lines:

  1. No actions during the Ireland-related moves debates will be considered infractions of policy or bad behaviour.
  2. Discussion of page moves of Ireland-related articles is banned for a period of three months/six months/one year* (not longer than one year, certainly).
  3. Decision to be implemented by blanking of any discussion of Ireland-related page moves by any editor/administrator/uninvolved administrator*.

(*delete as appropriate)

Statement by User:Domer48[edit]

I would have to agree with most of the editors above in the hope that arbitrators accept this case. I will add my rational later today, thanks --Domer48'fenian' 10:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SilkTork[edit]

Some of this matter came to MedCab - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-11 British Isles Terminology task force - though nothing came of that as the two players in that case couldn't agree to work together. Content disputes are often difficult, but in the process of dispute and discussion the community finds from within a workable solution. Solutions imposed by an external body are inappropriate, which is why ArbCom is discouraged from dealing with content disputes. Calls for a solution simply to end the personal pain of those involved in the dispute are not what Wikipedia is about. The way that this request has been formulated does not lend itself to acceptance by ArbCom as it is worded simply as a content dispute that the parties wish someone else "in authority" to end. That's a damn slippery slope if ArbCom accepts this. I would urge ArbCom to reject this request as it stands and ask Evertype or some other concerned party to redraft it so that it is clear the request is to examine misconduct of named individuals, and that diffs are given as evidence of that misconduct and of attempts through proper dispute resolution channels to resolve and remedy that misconduct. SilkTork *YES! 23:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the case you mention one of the parties was very happy to accept mediation, but the initiating party then rejected the very thing he had requested (sorry that one was personal). The issue here is not content per se, but process. That is to say the editors in question have been engaged for some time, with new ones joining, often from entrenched positions. What is really needed is not resolution of the content issue, but engagement by outside parties in managing a process, based on evidence to reach a resolution. The spill over into many articles of this long standing issue should argue for a some intervention. Its noticeable that those opposed to Arbcom involvement are those firmly in favour of the status quo. Also that some of the admins who pick up on the pieces of the content debate on a day to day basis have supported Arncom engagement. I think that says it all. This comment was made by Snowded.
The community manages the process. There is no Wikipedia hierarchy with regard to making decisions on process. ArbCom are not a higher level of Wikipedia users who can make decisions on process - ArbCom are a set of experienced users we appoint to settle interpersonal disputes that have failed previous mediation attempts. The case as presented here is showing difficulties in establishing content, and has not yet been through an appropriate mediation process, so as it stands is not an appropriate ArbCom case. A quick angry reaction to one user's edit is not a solid basis for bringing a case to ArbCom. If people are concerned about the actions of User:Deacon of Pndapetzim then a first step would be a WP:RfC rather than a full ArbCom case. SilkTork *YES! 12:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom has already had to get involved in other Irish articles SilkTort and attempts to get a mediator involved to referee and objectify discussions have failed. Given that I think asking for a little help on process is reasonable. --Snowded TALK 12:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gaillimh[edit]

This has to be settled properly. If you type in "Ireland" on the Googles, the Wikipedia entries for Ireland and Republic of Ireland are the first two results. We definitely need to get the naming conventions back to how they are recognised worldwide. When people think of Ireland, they don't think of the landmass, they think of the country. It's not a political issue; it's simple naming conventions. All of this "Northern" political chatter is going to be moot in the next decade or so anyways given the current voting trends in the North (i.e. a referendum will successfully be put forth in the North to unify with the Southern twenty-six counties). gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"When people think of Ireland, they don't think of the landmass, they think of the country." And do you have any evidence that this 'country' is the Republic of Ireland? Here in Canada, nobody would argue that Belfast is not in Ireland. The distinction between the two 'states' is usually unimportant to us, and, I suspect, the rest of the world. (I admit at the outset that I could be wrong about, seeing as I have not interviewed a majority of Canadians about this, but I'm reasonably confident.) Srnec (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Discussion is ongoing on the task force talk page. There is now a proposal being debated which, while not guaranteed of a consensus, has the active or provisional support of a considerable number of people from both sides of the debate - the first time this has happened. Again, it may not settle all the issues, but if implemented it may considerably reduce the perceived need for outside intervention. Scolaire (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to suggest that what Scolaire says here seems to me to be a bit disingenuous. In fact I would have (and did) say that we had the same considerable consensus before Tariqabjotu made the previous change, though of course when that change was made there was hue and cry about that admin's actions. In terms of the specific proposal Scolaire is talking about, it is not a complete proposal, and while it solves one major problem (the "Republic of Ireland" problem) it does not by any means solve the other (the "what does 'Ireland' mean?" problem). Accordingly, I am not withdrawing my request for arbitration, though I recognize a growing consensus about one issue may assist during the arbitration process. -- Evertype·✆ 19:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is truth in both of these statements, however we may have a chance of success although some of the more recent comments indicate a return of intransigence by some (on both sides). I think its important that this request stays open. Previous attempts at consensus have failed, if this one does then an intervention is called for. Any support or advice on the current discussions by experienced, non-involved editors on the page in question, user pages or by email would also be appreciated. --Snowded TALK 20:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved J.delanoy[edit]

Over the past few months, while on patrolling for vandalism with Huggle, I have on many occasions seen various new users and IPs unilaterally change scores of instances of "Ireland" (referring to the sovereign country, not the island) to Republic of Ireland. Each time I see this, I am unsure whether to revert or not. My uncertainty seems to be echoed by many, many other users who patrol recent changes, since it is usually quite some time before anyone takes any action. A few weeks ago, I decided to take a look at some of the discussion surrounding this. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the necessary mental abilities to effectively engage in a dispute of this magnitude. I would like to encourage the Committee to accept this case. I would also appreciate the Committee including in their decision a note specifying how the geographical island and the sovereign country, respectively, should be referred to in articles which are tangentially related to the subject. If nothing else, this would allow vandal fighters to know for sure whether or not to take action in the situation outlined above. J.delanoygabsadds 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Statements on project page[edit]

Are the 'Statements' on the project page and this talk page preserved as a record of the original request, or can they be completely rewritten at this stage? Many editors, including me, confined their statements to the question of whether the case should be taken, or whether it should be taken as a content or a conduct issue. I would like to re-write my statement as a proper statement of my case, but is this considered okay? Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, its going to be confusing otherwise. I have a statement in preparation on the issues which is very different form the request for Arbcom to take this on. --Snowded TALK 09:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and done it, since nobody told me not to. Scolaire (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the discussion referred to in Remedy 1 take place?[edit]

Part of the problem is that previous discussions took place in multiple locations, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes not, and they were not always well advertised. It would be helpful, I think, if Arbcom were to designate one place where Remedy 1 (and Remedy 2 if necessary) should be discussed - after proper advertising. Possible candidates (there may be more) are, in no particular order:

Thanks. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it needs to be set up and policed to ensure that it starts as Remedy 1 and stays on that. --Snowded TALK 10:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is supposed to happen now, or where. It did come as a surprise to me to find it closed on 4 January. -- Evertype·✆ 09:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new discussion page should be set up in Wikipedia space for this purpose, with a link at the top to this decision. Neutrally worded, non-argumentative notices of the discussion may be placed in the locations listed above and in any other appropriate locations. Please post a link here as well. If the page is not created within the next day or so, one of the arbitrators will set it up, but I think we had assumed that interested parties would get things going on their own. I hope that everyone can please keep the discussion focused, on-topic, and civil. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagined everybody was just waiting for Remedy 2 to kick in. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty funny. Tempting too. But Una started the discussion here. -- Evertype·✆ 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland article names: Request for Remedy 2[edit]

The case was closed on 2009-01-04. Attempts to achieve consensus regarding Remedy 1 began shortly thereafter. It is now 2009-01-18, and no consensus has been achieved. Will the ArbCom now proceed with Remedy 2, please? -- Evertype·✆ 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is discussing this issue and will communicate to you the outcome of the discussions very soon. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very soon is a week or more then? ;-) (Don't rush. Just counting.) -- Evertype·✆ 09:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin moderators[edit]

The admin assistance has started. So far we have two commitments: User:SebastianHelm and User:Edokter. We'll keep looking for a third helper. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rlevse, I've volunteered to be the 3rd moderator, which is acceptable to Sebastian and Edokter. PhilKnight (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Sebastian and I have resigned as moderators, which currently one leaves PhilKnight. — Edokter • Talk • 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight has also resigned. So there are no moderators and three are needed. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This whole process has been a complete joke. ARBCOM should have the guts to actually decide something for a change and not pass it back to the very editors who have failed to resolve the matter after years. Its understandable all 3 mods have resigned and the only people to blame are ARBCOM. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the only decision that would take any "guts" would be to remove British POV from polluting Ireland-related articles. As I don't have much faith in the ability of the majority British and American Admins on EN:Wiki to appreciate the nature and extent of the problems for WP:NPOV with the status quo I'm not in any hurry for a ruling here. Sarah777 (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland article names: Request for HELP from ArbCom[edit]

The Admin Moderators have BOTH resigned. Please appoint new ones. -- Evertype·✆ 07:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names[edit]

Statement by DrKiernan[edit]

The process to develop a procedure for deciding Ireland article names has stalled. All three moderators have resigned. However, options for the next phase of the process have been suggested.

I would summarise the comments of those editors participating in the current discussion of the options on the wikiproject talk page as:

Approve option 1 (or a version of it):

  1. BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 8 April 2009
  2. Fmph 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. DrKiernan 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. Kittybrewster 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. BritishWatcher 10:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. Rockpocket 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  7. Bastun 11:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  8. Evertype 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  9. ras52 11:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK with option 1:

  1. Jack forbes 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose option 1:

  1. Redking7 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. MusicInTheHouse 11:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerned with option 1:

  1. Mooretwin 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (because it tackles each problem in turn to try working towards a global solution rather than tackling everything at once)
  2. RashersTierney 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (because it might lead to option 4)

That's at least a two-thirds majority in favour of trying option 1.

I ask:

  1. that ArbCom amend remedy 2 with the addition of: If the panel should fail to develop a procedure, then ArbCom will impose one.; and
  2. that ArbCom impose option 1 of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Options for next phase as phase 2 of a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles, without prejudice to further phases of the mechanism or procedure that may arise in the future in the course of discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would add myself to 1 above and also comment that no mediation took place, poor participation is in part being due to people waiting for something to happen. BHG but a good set of statements in place, but this is not an issue for passive mediation. --Snowded (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • I'm sorry that the Committee's outline of how a solution to this dispute should be reached, without dictating a result, has apparently not succeeded or led the parties to an agreed resolution. Awaiting further statements before opining on how to proceed from here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are currently working to select new moderators for the project. Credit goes to FayssalF for ensuring that this was being addressed. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Sebastian, PhilKnight, and Edokter for volunteering for the difficult task and wish them well. Please bear with us for a few days while we sort things out. (This does not preclude evidence that another approach may be needed or suggestions for an alternate method of handling the situation.) --Vassyana (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Vassyana. I am concerned, however, that the number of participants in the process and the discussions seems to be declining and is less than in previous iterations that tried to find a resolution to this issue. Any solution to this will not work if there is insufficient participation in both the process and any final naming discussion or vote or other process. Hopefully establishing a new set of moderators will help. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names[edit]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by MickMacNee[edit]

  • A dispute is ongoing about the proper venue for conducting discussion of the issues raised in this case. In particular, admin SarekOfVulcan blocked Domer48 for actions on the Republic of Ireland article talk page and the article itself. Discussion is on their talk pages, and at ANI here (stale). Request the committee ammends the case to explicitly confine discussion of the issues pertinent to the case, to the nominated discussion venue, namely WP:IECOLL. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

Second this request. Part of Domer's argument for not being blocked was that ArbCom never said the individual article talkpages couldn't be used to discuss changing the name/focus of the individual articles. If the ArbCom could make it clear whether or not their intent was to move all discussion concerning page names/focuses into the location specified pursuant to remedy 2, that would be most useful. I think that confining discussion is the right thing to do, because we don't need half the articles working one way and half another.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Domer48: Changing an article whose history clearly indicates that it is about the Irish State so that it is instead about the term "Republic of Ireland" as it refers to that state is a move by almost anyone's definition here. It's most certainly not a "discussion about content". Does the ArbCom need to explicitly spell out something this obvious?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BigDunc[edit]

This shows that Sarek was telling factual inaccuracies, this is what Domer had asked to be shown and Sarek claimed was already in place when he blocked Domer. Sarek also claimed on ANI that it was in place it appears he/she was mistaken. BigDuncTalk 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record I oppose this what we need is a kick start to get it up and running again. And maybe the Domer debacle has done that. BigDuncTalk 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the poll started by Deacon we deal with Facts not force of numbers. BigDuncTalk 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rockpocket[edit]

I also urge ArbCom to be be explicit in their instructions for how this dispute should (and should not) be resolved. Sadly there are efforts to subvert the current process by forum shopping, with the apparent aim if creating a false consensus. That has been supported by claims that ArbCom did not explicitly put in place a structure for resolution and that ArbCom did not explicitly prohibit discussions from individual article talk pages. These claims are technically accurate, but clearly not in the spirit of the remedies ArbCom did pass. This could be resolved with a simple amendment stating the discussion should take place at a single centralized forum. Rockpocket 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim[edit]

This dispute is still running because the method ArbCom set up for resolving this was ineffective and collapsed, and contrary to the emerging norm of ArbCom practice in such areas, the hot-heads of the dispute didn't get topic banned and are continuing to ensure everything's as tendentious, partisan and heated as ever. No consensus will be built here by discussion. I pointed this out before, now I have been proven correct. What has to be done now is the process I recommended two months ago, per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Moderator_action_..._next_step and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Building on what we have done so far and getting to a conclusion, a process that got the support of the most respectable editors participating. A decisive result would be produced, and though its results wouldn't please everyone, it would have a legitimacy lacking now. I propose the poll be moderated by Coren, who I propose because I think he is the arbitrator best cut out to deal with it and the likely nonsense. An arb is a preferential appointment because his authority is most likely to be respected, so I think one should be the nominal head even if he has deputies doing most of the actual work. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal page

I've opened a proposal page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Community poll. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

Personally, I'd like to see all the Arbitrators get together & decide via simple majority vote on a ruling for these articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighKing[edit]

The current process does not take into consideration the lack of incentive by some editors to allow a process (that will result in changes they don't agree with) to proceed. So they simply delay the process, slow it down, stick heels in, and are happy with a stagnant process. And you'd be surprised at how few editors it takes to achieve this. The current process and method requires a number of changes. Another point is that in general, weight of numbers also appears to sway arguments much more than the quality of the arguments and discussions, so having a senior arbitrator (or more than one) involved in order to actually make decisions and give directions is required. This should be (mutually, whatever) agreed up front, that the decisions of the arbitrator (committee, whatever) is respected, done in good faith, neutral, and most importantly accepted and final. I would add that we have also seen a recent flare-up in a very similar and possibly closely related "British Isles" edit-warring, disagreements and discussions. While a decision here does not effect a decision on "British Isles" as they can be decided seperately, I believe the community only has bandwidth to manage one dispute of this nature. I would suggest that ArbCom rules that all "British Isles" related article changes and renaming is banned until after the current process is decided, but with an undertaking that the issues outlined within the WP:BISLES taskforce will be worked on immediately after this one (I'm sure the lessons learned here will be valuable and speed up the WP:BISLES process). --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mooretwin[edit]

It becomes clearer with every dispute, every edit war, that the only solution to this is a comprehensive one, covering not merely the names of the articles, but a protocol for names within the texts of other articles, and for descriptive-names of articles (e.g. Politics of the Republic of Ireland, or Culture of Ireland).

There's been a compromise proposal on the table since December of last year, which was sadly ignored by Arbcom who put in place the recently-closed futile "statementing" process instead. It needs a bit more work to pin down detail (which is essential in order to avoid edit wars on the hundreds of articles across Wikipedia which refer to Ireland or the Republic), but the essence is there. Mooretwin (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sarah777[edit]

Utterly and totally oppose this. I oppose any attempt to stifle discussion of what is, put simply, the imposition of British POV in opposition to WP:NPOV . "Forum shopping"? There are so many articles where the network of British-Wiki political imposition impinges on Ireland-related articles that this proposal is an abusers charter. We will have biased (or uninformed) Admins blocking and banning right, left and centre. The SarekOfVulcan block has surely illustrated the dangers? The refusal of the Wiki Admin Community to recognise (or maybe to acknowledge) that what we have here is the imposition of Nationalist POV by simple numerical supremacy is the elephant in the room. What is proposed is yet another stratagem to silence Irish editors who refuse to accept the imposition of British pov under the guise of "consensus". Look no further than the calls (above) for votes to enforce majotitarianism rather than WP:NPOV. Which is a very different concept. As Mooretwin (who is generally on the opposite political pole to me on British/Irish issues) points out, there are compromises acceptable to reasonable editors on both sides, but Wiki appears unable to contemplate any change in the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowded[edit]

Oppose it is however essential that someone takes a grip on the process, finding a solution to this has been stalled by a mediation process that never started and mediators who resigned. --Snowded TALK 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ClemMcGann[edit]

I concur with Sarah's statement, above. There are editors who wish to impose, what is, an imperialist agenda. Yet they seem oblivious to their errors. Their numbers give them confidence. This is a matter of regret. To compound the injury, it now appears that freely discussing these mistakes is some form of a thought-crime which can have an editor silenced. I tend not to get involved in these arguments. They are so wasteful. But, I feel that I must protest the actions of Sarek. With regret ClemMcGann (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Proposal Page.

I see that the Deacon has since opened a poll. Why? We know that there are more British editors. It would seem that mob rule will prevail. ClemMcGann (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bastun[edit]

Concur with Deacon of Pndapetzim above. The process outlined in the original Arbcom Remedy 1 and Remedy 2 has, unfortunately, failed to get anywhere. Some progress was made, but we've been stymied by a lack of leadership from the moderators and, frankly, an unwillingness to give an inch from both sides, to the extent that factual statements (with a link to the relevant legislation), such as "The description of the state is defined in law as "the Republic of Ireland", by Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which says in full: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."" are opposed by some users.

I believe it is now up to Arbcom to take control and either impose a solution, or at least for a subcommittee of Arbcom members to take over the reigns at WP:IECOLL.

I would also like to point out that Sarah777 does not speak for or represent all (or many) Irish editors or Irish people generally, and some of her comments above seem to fly in the face of an already-imposed Arbcom remedy. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (currently uninvolved editor) Scolaire[edit]

First, an observation: looking at this discussion for the first time in six months I am astonished to discover that it has not moved on as much as an inch in that time! The identical arguments are still being recycled on a daily, sometimes an hourly, basis. How many cycles is that since August last year? Each side continues to believe that it has the overwhelming community support as against a handful of wreckers on the other side. What I see, as a (now) outsider, is overwhelming community boredom with the whole issue, and a handful of emotional editors intent on continuing their trench warfare, almost for its own sake. I wouldn't mind so much if it was even a good old-fashioned British/Irish, North/South or Nationalist/Unionist ding-dong, but it's not - it's a totally home-made war between two rainbow coalitions that doesn't reflect any equivalent debate in the real world!

Second, a question: as I understand it, the proposal here is for discussion of the issues to be confined to IECOLL, but Deacon of Pndapetzim has responded by opening a new community poll page; what has the one to do with the other? Does the creation of yet another new page not encourage decentralisation rather than the reverse?

Based on the above, and on the assumption that the question on the table is still about confining the cyclical homemade civil war to the designated area, I support the request. Scolaire (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (original Arbitration requester) Evertype[edit]

Support if and only if ArbCom takes this seriously and actually does something. And that includes having a poll that actually gives all of the options, and allowing people to rank their preferences. This is not unlike the Proportional Representation we enjoy. There may be more than one option that I can support, and of several options I may prefer one configuration over another. I have seen arbitrator Masem propose a poll with only two options. I oppose this. Just above we see Deacon offering a new page; I requested that he add another option there but my proposal was dismissed because it "makes no sense" by which Deacon means he didn't agree with it. And we see just above Mooretwin pointing to his "compromise proposal"; note that I opposed that except as part of a more comprehensive solution. Such a solution cannot be devised by a simple majority binary poll. We need to recognize that a complex topic needs a complex poll. Like Scoláire above I am disillusioned by this process. So while appreciative of Sarah777's and Snowded's comments above, I think support is the appropriate suggestion. BY THE WAY I would like the Arbitrators to specifically address my request for a complex poll which offers a range of solutions and permits ranked preferences. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (naming project moderator) Masem[edit]

I would have to agree that attempts to purposely move the discussion from the naming project talk pages or its subpages to any other pages, is trying to undermine the process. It's one thing for a new editor to come in asking about the name (at which point a causal pointed to the naming project can be provided), but to try to change the naming issues at the article level and bypass the project does seem to be against the spirit of which the original ArbCom goals of the project were set up for. There are a lot of potentially disruptive personalities involved here, and that attempts to subvert the process by any means should not be considered kindly by ArbCom, the moderators, or the project. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domer48[edit]

Oppose: The suggestion by MickMacNee who opened this discussion was to amend the case to explicitly confine discussion of the “issues pertinent to the case,” to the nominated discussion venue, namely WP:IECOLL. However the motion as it is presented is to confine this to “Discussions relating to the “naming of Ireland” articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.” This creates ambiguity, because Editors and Admin’s could interpret this motion to mean all subjects including article “content” being excluded from the Article talk page. This is evidenced already by one Admin removing all talk page discussions [1], [2], and suggesting they were already acting under an ArbCom directive, [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], a view endorsed by another Admin despite the fact that the discussions related to Article content and not the naming issue. Therefore, should this motion be passed all discussions including content issue as mentioned above would be prohibited. I don't think this is ArbCom's intension or wish. --Domer48'fenian' 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes[edit]

It doesn't appear as though the named parties have been notified; doing that now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Guliolopez was notified on ga.wiki as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • Recuse - I did too much arbitration enforcement in this area last fall. Risker (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As this has been spawned from these edits by Domer48, my view is that those edits were contrary to the spirit of remedy 3 "No moves pending discussion". If there are further occurrences of disruption of the status quo prior to a binding resolution, the issue should be brought to the committee, in order that a topic ban to be considered.
    Also, a third moderator has not been appointed (see Wikipedia:AC/N#Ireland_collaboration). Anyone interested should contact the committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. It appears that project moderators were not notified of this request. I have left courtesy notices on their talk pages. I will wait on voting on the topic ban motion, or proposing any alternative motions, until they have a chance to comment. --Vassyana (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions[edit]

For this request, there are 14 active arbitrators, minus 1 who is recused, so 7 is a majority.

Forum for discussion[edit]

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Support
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ok. Least problematic way forward compared to other options. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recused
  1. Risker (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Motion enacted - Tiptoety talk 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation[edit]

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

Support
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. I need to think about whether the ban should be done by the moderator, or if the moderator should ask for a second opinion from someone else in order to keep themselves from getting too mixed up in the side issue of addressing user conduct problems. I'm leaning toward, allowing them to ban people but not having them do the enforcement. Instead any warning and blocks to enforce it would be best done by another admin. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer that someone engaged in the process decides who is disrupting the effort, and remove them early before there is any major user conduct issues. Blocks would be better done by uninvolved admins, but that is beyond the scope of this motion. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to consider the way that the ban will be enforced. At AE? By the mods? Since some the users involved in the issue have a long track record of reporting each other in various venues and then loads of users pile in to comment, I think we need to anticipate that that people will be reported as needing a ban and we need to have a plan in place to do it and enforce it. Otherwise, the ban discussion and enforcement will be a distraction rather than the hoped for remedy. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused
  1. Risker (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Motion enacted - Tiptoety talk 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names[edit]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Masem[edit]

As one of the current moderators on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to resolve the above, I have noticed behavior that I consider disruptive, and while per the second motion made here (sorry, I cannot find where these have been archived otherwise - the case wasn't amended to include them) gives me the ability to take action, I'd rather verify this first.

User Redking7 has been trying to start a discussion on Republic of Ireland (currently where information about the 26-county state is located), first started here, which expanded out to this much before text was removed. Ok, there's a bunch of crap happening here, but sticking to the point that ArbCom is involved, Redking's attempt to rename the ROI article at the time discussion was going on clearly (to me) is against the case's first motion from here (in that Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Now, I'm willing to give a benefit of a doubt to some degree: the above motion closed on June 12th, Redking7's suggestion opened on June 6th and it looks like it may have been spurred by that. However, Redking7 continues to argue over the details of this (see comments from this diff as well as discussion here.

I personally see this as rules-lawyering (the intent of what ArbCom wants seems perfectly clear), but rather than act first, ask questions later, I will assume good faith for now but seek ArbCom's clarification if discussion about the renaming of individual articles that are part of the Ireland naming issue can be discussed on those individual talk pages or should they be brought to the Ireland Collaboration project. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Redking7[edit]

BACKGROUND/FACTS: I have been told by other editors that “ArbCom” has made rules saying:

"Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."

On the basis of the above, a discussion I started on Talk: Republic of Ireland concerning the title name was archived. I disputed the interpretation put on the above stating that the discussion I had started:

  1. did not concern the naming of "Ireland articles" - it concerned the naming of one article, the "RoI article" - which discussion was raised in the appropriate place, the talk page of the RoI article; and
  2. the above discussion in no way "disrupted" any discussion taking place on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration;

and on that basis discussion should be allowed to continue.

Notwithstanding the explanations I gave, Masem insists I have broked ArbCom rules and said he/she was giving me his/her “only warning”.


MISINTERPRETATION OF RULES: I believe Masem has misinterpreted the ArbCom rules (and others have indicated some support for me on this). Notably, Does ArbCom wish WP:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to be used to censor article-specific discussion on article-specific talk pages? I would find that extraordinary because:

  1. it is a golden rule of Wikipedia that matters concerning an article (including its title) can (and should) be raised on the talk page of the article concerned - this is really important;
  2. WikiProject Ireland Collaboration relates to the naming of lots of articles - it is much easier to reach consensus on one article than it is on a whole range of articles - it would be bad for the community if progress on one article was linked to conensus being reached on a whole range of articles;
  3. there is no reason why WikiProject Ireland Collaboration cannot take place in tandem with article-specific discussions on their talk page - thats the best way to ensure progress is made and a "win win" is created for all of the community;
  4. on what basis can WikiProject Ireland Collaboration be used as a way of "censoring" discussions of article-specific title matters;
  5. many editors feel that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is now being used as a way to supress the discussions which have taken place on "Ireland" articles for a long time - and simply "park" the ouststanding issues on one page visited by fewer and fewer editors (as the Project's credibility has ebbed away over the months);
  6. similarly, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration has been in place for quite some months now (its first three Moderators resigned); it has made no demonstrable progress; and has not set a deadline for when it will conclude (i.e. it could continue to run and run with no decisions around article titles (i.e. imposition of the status quo));
  7. such "censorship" type-restrictions would be fundamentally undemocratic and ultimately don't pass the Wiki "smell test" or whats right and wrong. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some relevant recycling from a posting of mine on the Ireland Collaboration Talk Page: Is this process (the Collaboration Project) just a ruse to ruse to stop the "disruption" caused by the RoI/IRL dispute by pretending that a process is in place to resolve the conflicting viewpoints? I hope this is a genuine process that will lead to a prompt decision but it looks unlikely to me. In particular, the ground rules on the project page state "Decisions for the WikiProject will primarily be based on the consensus of members". Is some one seriously suggesting a consensus will emerge? If no consensus emerges, does that mean there will be no decision (or another decision to make no decision as before)? What reason is there to think a consensus will emerge when it has not done so before? Is there a timeframe for this process? How long will it run? What is the deadline? I think those running this process should answer these questions and set them out on the project page. Participants can then take a view on whether this is a credible process. After all, who runs a project without having a clear timeframe? It goes without saying, I hope the project is successful. It should have credibility. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Time, unfortunately, is proving my original scepticism right. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC). So too are your responses above - ignoring all my arguments about basic Wiki principles about "no censorship" and "basic fairness". Redking7 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • To put it simply, when I voted on the measure, I was of the mind that it required centralized discussion for those naming issues.

    Elaborating further, a significant part of the problem in the area is the reptition of the same arguments, discussions, debates, and conflicts across numerous articles over the same small set of naming considerations, often used in a divide and conquer fashion. As a practical matter, it's much easier for an editor to follow one set of discussions than to follow discussions spread out across dozens of articles. The conflict was broad and spread out across a large span of articles, with many secondary effects of the battleground atmosphere and animosity. Many issues that are primary to the conflict, such as proper naming and neutral point of view conventions, are considerations of policies and guidelines (ranging from matters of interpretation to possible rules alterations). Resolution of these issues requires broader discussion and consensus. There is a requirement for a centralized place of discussion. However, no one is being censored. Anyone may engage in discussion there and express their opinion in a constructive fashion. --Vassyana (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Vassyana. Having one location where the issues can be talked through is a large part of what needs to happen. Shifting the discussions to a more central location is appropriate for most of these naming discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redking7, the moderators are directing discussion about the naming of Wiki pages to a page devoted to that topic - that is not censorship. The naming discussion needs to be structured this way because having individual discussions on each and every page is disruptive when the page names are all interdependent. The only stable consensus will be one which agrees on a name for all of the pages at the same time. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't but emphasize on what John V. has said - the only way forward is coordinated centralized discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Ireland article names[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Initiated by Rannpháirtí anaithnid at 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Notice has been posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Membership as follows:

Statement by Rannpháirtí anaithnid[edit]

The above case proposed four remedies to the dispute over how to refer to the island of Ireland and the state of Ireland on Wikipedia. The first of these were:

The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement.

That was discussion was opened at a designated centralised location. It was undertaken in good faith but failed to reach a decision. A back-up procedure was as follows (2nd remedy):

If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.

That back-up procedure was initiated. Over the subsequent months, consensus was unattainable among the participants of the process on the matter of the titles of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. In light of that, a consensus decision was reached to hold a community wide vote on that matter (inspired by the Gdańsk/Danzig vote). That vote took place. The outcome was to have the articles on the state at Republic of Ireland and the articles on the island at Ireland (with a disambiguation page at Ireland (disambiguation)). The result was confirmed by the moderating administrator.

Subsequent to that vote, the outstanding matters related to how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (e.g. in articles). Agreement was reach on those matters by consensus. The result of that consensus has been added to the Ireland manual of style.

The titles/locations of those articles has been stable since the vote took place (September). The style guidelines have also been stable since their addition (December) and have been upheld on article discussion pages independent of it.

The final remedy related to the binding nature of the process:

Once the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

Since the result of the vote became there was a substantial drop off in participation in the process and several editors formally withdrew from the process. Owing to this, some say that because of the process became derailed and thus is non-binding/non-completeable. Can we please have confirmation on the following:

  • Have all of the procedures outlined in the request for arbitration have been fulfilled?
  • Are the outcomes of the procedures now binding for the period outlined in Remedy 4?
  • Is the process arising from this request for arbitration now complete?

-- RA (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rockpocket[edit]

I'd simply like to affirm Rannpháirtí anaithnid's request, above. We are in a period of relative calm, which probably reflects a de facto appreciation that the community consensus has been established even if many are unwilling to acknowledge it. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for ArbCom to officially sign off on this process, if only to preempt the inevitable arguments - at some point in the future - about when this debate is permitted to be rehashed. Rockpocket 02:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for further clarification by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

Assuming that there is a moratorium on "page move discussions", as stated below by Coren, does that further imply that there's a two-year moratorium on arguing that the poll was invalid/rigged/not binding/etc., and are persistent attempts to claim the above blockable under this decision? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighKing[edit]

Apologies that this is a bit late posting here. I didn't realize that it was allowed. Hopefully the committee members that have already posted below will take the time to read this. Agree that we have a period of relative calm, but it is procedurally incorrect to state that the process can be signed off, and that all procedures have been followed. The key timeline points are:

  • Last 10 years - multiple edit warring and hundreds of pages of discussions and debates, mostly heated, around the name of the article dealing with the sovereign state named Ireland - i.e. the article Republic of Ireland.
  • August 2008 - first time a proposal involving multiple articles created and got people talking. Followed up with support from both sides after a compromise package initiated by Mooretwin.
  • On 4th Jan 2009, Arbcom issued a ruling. It simply states The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles.. (my emphasis) Note that Arbcom specifically linked to the article on the island, not the article dealing with the sovereign state. Note that Arbcom states "and related articles" indicating that a multi-article agreement is being sought.
  • A vote was proposed around Feb/March 2009 - note it was multiple articles, etc.
  • It was questioned and re-clarified in March 2009 that the process scope was multiple articles according to the wording of the Arbcom decision.
  • Lots of discussions, and variations on how to deal with this: March 2009 April 2009
  • In April, User:PhilKnight analyses and summarizes progress and states At first sight, we can deduce that the following options have too much opposition: Ireland as state and Ireland as island AND state (basically a merge). Further, the option Republic of Ireland is a tie and cannot be considered as having consensus.
  • Towards the end of June, Masem suggested a comprehensive multi-article solution. Due to opposition he states
Since I've got the major opinions of the parties involved, and the "oppose" positions are pretty clearly not a position that can be made compatible (two different directions in which to name the 26-county state), I will consider that any chance of consensus happening to be beyond measure. In otherwords, any attempt to achieve normal, discussion-driven consensus on this matter is not going to happen in the immediate future. This means that polling is our next best solution. Unless anyone has anything contrary to this to offer, I will propose a revised schedule for the STV in a day or so (it won't start Sunday) and we will go from there. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the introduction of the idea of polling.
  • Sometime after between this proposal and the poll opening in August, after more than 6 months of work and at a time when most editors were on holidays or away, the entire process turned into the same old single-issue that we'd played out 100's of times before. Many of us took the view that this poll was just one part of a bigger process. Many of us believed that the comprehensive agreement that had been nearly agreed many times over the preceeding months would now be agreed point-by-point. Unfortunately, the flaw was the "winners" of the first poll had no incentive to compromise (with the risk that a concession at this point might not result in a concenssion in their favour later on).
  • Even immediately after the poll opened, the question What happens in 2 years time was asked, and it was never seen as a locked-in result. In fact, at this stage, people were beginning to realize that voting on single-issue-at-a-time would not work, as there was no incentive
  • Just before the poll closed, it was acknowledged that many more steps were required in the process.
  • Immediate after the poll closed this was further demonstrated by Masem's comments announcing the vote result where he also acknowleged that the result of the vote may not be binding.

Today, 6 months after the process fell apart, we have a small number of editors trying to rewrite the history and context of this issue, and attempting to turn the original Arbcom process into validation of the time-worn majority imposed single-issue of the name of the article Republic of Ireland. This is wrong, and should be actively discouraged by Arbcom members as failing to develop comprehensive procedures to deal with the larger issue. A factual summary:

  • The Arbcom remedies specifically states The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. This has not been done. A procedure including the article Ireland has not been discussed, and only one related article - Republic of Ireland was included in a vote, settled by the same-old British majority that keeps the article at this title. Indeed the majority-vote situation is the reason why we ended up at Arbcom in the first place. After the vote, no procedures were agreed as the process broke down due to multiple disagreements related to the vote.

Finally, I understand and accept that this issue is old and that most people are fed up with it. But that is no excuse for threatening sanctions against editors for being "argumentative" for pointing out that the Arbcom request has not been fulfilled. The reason the process failed was because over a very short period of time, with input from only a small handful of editors, there was a movement away from a multi-article comprehensive package solution to a single-issue majority vote with no connection to the "bigger picture". So we've learned something. I don't believe there's anything to be gained by rewriting history and making out that this single-issue majority vote was what Arbcom charged the community with doing. I also believe that more can be learned and gained by understanding where the process went off the rails. Sheer mental exhaustion and perhaps more than a modicum of reflection have kept things quiet since September, and I question why some editors have now tried to impose the result of the poll as the Arbcom sanctioned result, complete with lock-in, when it is pretty clear that we're nowhere near reaching an agreement covering multiple articles as instructed by Arbcom. I believe that there's everything to be gained if Arbcom instruct the community to revisit this process sometime in the near future and to continue to work on creating a collaborative solution. --HighKing (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Arbcom Members who have voted

I'd like to ask the Arbcom members to discuss in a little more detail the motion The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction with specific emphasis on explaining which specific conditions were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction. Because I have followed the process closely, and I'm at a total loss how this decision has been reached. I've outlined above what the remedies were, and what has been achieved, and the gap between. Can someone please help me understand why the Committee believes that where we've ended up is satisfactory? All I can see is the Committee taking this opportunity to sweep the issue under the carpet with vague threats of silencing or sanctioning anyone who doesn't go along with it. --HighKing (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

Anyone care to respond please? Can someone from the Arbcom Committee discuss this please? The process and remedies have not been fulfilled, yet the Committee appear to have decided that an aborted partially fulfilled process where the result was skewed by a British majority POV on a single issue of naming a single article. There is no record of the Committee examining and agreeing that the process was fulfilled, and there is no record of the Committee matching the result against the remedies. Can the Committee examine each remedy, and comment on the fulfillment of each please? --HighKing (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Evertype[edit]

I am the one who started the arbitration process. It has failed. I quit the collaboration project because of the bad faith on the part of many participants, and in particular because of the lack of effective leadership in arbitration from Masem.

And I no longer edit Ireland-related articles. In fact, I edit the Wikipedia a lot less than I used to.

Well, done, Arbitration Committee, for doing nothing positive, or pro-active, or helpful. I hope you appoint better arbitrators in 2011. -- Evertype·✆ 15:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

I applaud Arbcom's 2-year freeze on the naming issue. The dispute was becoming a headache & needed a time-out. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • While I do not think this has been formalized by motion, the committee did examine the result of the procedure as outline and endorsed the conclusion of the panel as satisfactory. Specifically, the procedures have been fulfilled, they are binding per remedy 4, and the committee now considers the matter to be closed. In practice, this means that the two year moratorium on further page move discussions is in force until September 18 2011. — Coren (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've posted two motions to clarify the matter "officially". — Coren (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recusing due to administrative actions I have taken in this area, but I generally agree with Coren. SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused as I voted in the Ireland naming poll. Steve Smith (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try the method used for settling this sort of thing in WP:ARBMAC2 — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced the troubles with The Troubles, Ireland naming, etc have been solved. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Coren, everything seems to have been handled properly and the conditions fulfilled. If someone is still arguing or editing disruptively after having been informed of the decision then the community can deal with that disruption as they see fit. Shell babelfish 03:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motions[edit]

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.

(There being 16 arbitrators, four of whom are inactive and two others are recused, the majority is 6) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. In particular, further disruptive editing or argumentation is very much unwelcome and can be brought to Arbitration Enforcement or to other community venues. — Coren (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Coren Shell babelfish 08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Coren KnightLago (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Recuse. Steve Smith (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recused due to involvement in the area. SirFozzie (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

(There being 16 arbitrators, four of whom are inactive and one of whom is recused, the majority is 6) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Given the potential for acrimony and the hard-won current stability, I for one would view disruption in this area with a very poor light. It might be wisest to create a structure similar to that used to fixate the naming of the articles rather than dispute endlessly on talk pages if there remains serious concerns. — Coren (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Settling the large dispute wasn't license to continue the arguments in other places. Shell babelfish 08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KnightLago (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. See my post of a few minutes ago about the endless issues of Ireland related issues coming to arbcom. In this motion the emphasis is on "enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes". To quote Rodney King with a pertinent twist "Can the editors in the Ireland topics all get along?" — Rlevse • Talk • 03:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Recuse. Steve Smith (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recused due to prior involvement in the area. SirFozzie (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Ireland article names[edit]

Initiated by RA (talk) at 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Rannpháirtí anaithnid[edit]

This request for clarification relates to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. The case itself related to the titles of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. However it touched on the use of the words Ireland and Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. In concluding the case, ArbCom passed two motions. The first of these related to the titles of the Ireland articles. The second related to the use of the words Ireland and Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. Notice of the motions can be see here.

A thread has been opened at Talk:British Isles relating to the use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland in the lead to that article. During the course of the tread it was said that this matter was covered by an ArbCom motion and editors were told to follow that motion. The relevance of the ArbCom motion is disputed.

Can we clarify:

  • Is the second motion a part of the resolution to the Ireland articles names' case?
  • Is the second motion binding on editors?
  • Does the second motion recognise the Ireland-related MOS as reflecting consensus in resolving the matter?
  • Does the second motion enjoin editors not to re-hash the debate with respect to use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia (i.e. not only use with respect to the titles of Ireland and Republic of Ireland)?

Finally, though not brought up by any editor during the course of the tread: with respect to WP:CCC, does ArbCom have comment with regards to how WP:CCC would relate to the consensus at the Ireland-related MOS and use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland across the encyclopaedia?

--RA (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowden[edit]

  • There was (and is) no question that the official name of the state as established by all sources is Ireland
  • The disambiguation agreement means that the article is called Republic of Ireland to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland
  • The normal practice in the use of the name in articles is [Republic of Ireland|Ireland] unless there is a risk of confusion with the island, this conforms with the ruling above and consensus
  • The use of "Republic of Ireland" as the name of the state remains a political POV position adopted by some editors - in effect perpetuating the British Government's position prior to the Good Friday Agreement. While the British Government has now moved on and uses Ireland nor ROI (as do the EU and the UN), there is an extreme Unionist position which seeks to perpetuate the ROI name. (FAD I don't think RA is in this camp)
  • In the case of the BI article the disagreement is over wether there is a possible confusion of the use of the official name of the state in a paragraph which talks about the names of the states that occupy the geographical area.
  • RA has been arguing that the Arbcom ruling prevents anyone challenging the use of ROI if any editor thinks there is a risk of confusion. He has also accused editors who have taken the position that there is no confusion are breaking consensus or of rehashing the debate. This is a nonsense position and unnecessarily provocative. Bringing it here smacks of forum shopping. --Snowded TALK 10:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

With respect to the last point, I made this request for clarification after Snoweded questioned the applicability of the relevant motion (not for the first time): "This has nothing to do with the Arbcom resolution which is far narrower in its meaning that your attempted use. As long as people make that error I will correct it. I can see no consensus that I am failing to respect." (diff)

Also I am not interested in artificially maintaining "consensus" through any kind of gaming, hence my question about how WP:CCC relates to this motion. --RA (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighKing[edit]

According to what @RA is stating above, what is to stop any editor who wants to use "Republic of Ireland" to simply cry "I'm confused", and invoke the WP:IMOS? Or as in this case, to refuse to craft lede paragraphs in such a way as to very simply avoid confusion? And quiet frankly, I don't see where the IMOS is *not* being followed. The IMOS currently states:

  • In other places prefer use of [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use [[Republic of Ireland]] (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").
  • An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) where [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] should be preferred and the island should be referred to the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").

The first clause uses an example that most editors (me included) wouldn't object to. But it certainly doesn't cover the current case. The second clause clearly sets out that where the state forms a major component of the topic (which in the current case, it does), we should stick with using the formal title. This example is far closer to the usage within the lede of British Isles. We've discussed this and a consensus appears to have emerged on the article Talk page, and RA bringing this here looks a little sour grapish. --HighKing (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments by User:Carcharoth below (it's important to be precise in this debate/discussion)... You state:
  • part of the reason the unusual step was taken here of (after a set framework of discussion) locking down the article names I'd love to hear an explanation of what you mean by this. I've previously requested that Arbcom clarify what actually happened to result in a "lock down of article names", because that definitely isn't what the Arbcom-sanctioned process was intended to do. It was a much larger process to allow the larger Wikipedia community decide on all manner of things relating to the term "Republic of Ireland". Making statements like you have done just gets me fuming at how that process was organized and run, and how Arbcom came to their decision without any explanation or visibility into their reasoning for that final decision.
  • The lockdown didn't apply to the names used in article text - correct. Except, very explicitly, this is a part of what the *process* was designed to do. The Arbcom decision to merely lock down the article names until Sept 2011 totally ignored the months of discussions, which were a very important part of the process (which failed). The Arbcom decision was taken *outside* the scope of the process (which had many parts), and (as mentioned by BritishWatcher above) resolved absolutely nothing. As a ruling, it essentially picked and chose the parts of the process to pay attention to, and as such is based (hopefully unintentionally) on an overwhelming British POV-biased so-called consensus.
  • have no problem with periodic revisiting of old arguments, as long as progress elsewhere has been made in the interim period. Where is this stated in the ruling exactly? Or in the conditions of the process? Or is this just being retro-fitted on now?
Note. We've all abided by the Arbcom ruling. Nobody has reopened the debate. But the bad feeling runs *deeper* than prior to the process, and this nit-picking by RA is a recipe to re-open the entire debate. --HighKing (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BritishWatcher[edit]

The dispute over on British Isles at the moment about if Republic of Ireland can be used highlights that the resolution to the Ireland naming dispute has yet to be resolved fully. In the same paragraph the island of Ireland is mentioned, it is there for helpful to the readers for Republic of Ireland to be used in that introduction when talking about the state.

Republic of Ireland can be used when there is a need to avoid ambiguity, this is one of those clear cases where it is justified and a clarification about this subject would be helpful to prevent such a dispute causing problems in the future. We all accept the country is called Ireland, the trouble is just saying Ireland clearly causes confusion sometimes because there also happens to be an island called Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • My own view, as an arbitrator who was not on the committee at the time of that case, is that the answers to the questions you pose are yes, no, yes, and yes. Steve Smith (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, let me amend my answer to the fourth question: the motion enjoins editors not to rehash needlessly the debate over Ireland names. In no way does it impede the normal operation of WP:CCC, which is why I say, in response to the second question, that it is not effectively binding. Steve Smith (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial comment here is that while consensus can change, part of the reason the unusual step was taken here of (after a set framework of discussion) locking down the article names was to allow people to focus their energies elsewhere more productively. The lockdown didn't apply to the names used in article text (recognising that this requires more nuanced discussion), and I appreciate that some valid arguments are being made at Talk:British Isles, but I would hope that some people would step back and look at the larger picture there. Consider whether the discussions there are making good use of the time and resources of editors, and whether progress at other articles or in other areas of the same article is being impeded because people go round and round in circles over the same issues for years on end? I have no problem with periodic revisiting of old arguments, as long as progress elsewhere has been made in the interim period. Has this been the case? Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to HighKing, when using the phrase "lockdown", I was referring to this: Once the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years. Passed 7 to 0, 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC). This is what led to the motion in March 2010 (a bit further down that page) that locked the names in place until September 18, 2011. This was done after a lengthy process that involved much discussion and a poll (this is what I mean by after a set framework of discussion). You say the process failed, but what ArbCom was saying by the motion it passed in March 2010 is that in our opinion the process was a success (this may be the fundamental problem here, as if you disagree with that, there is not much left that you can do). It was the second motion that dealt with the issue of names in articles, and directed people to work with the then-existing consensus on the Ireland manual of style and to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes. The specific dispute here may or may not have some merit, but I looked at the entire talk page and I saw people arguing endlessly over the names (again). The final point, where I state that I hope progress has been made elsewhere, is a personal opinion. If I give examples it may help. If an editor makes no edits other than those to debates relating to Ireland naming disputes, that can lead to that editor losing perspective. If an article in Ireland topic area has little or no edits made to it or its talk page other than edits related to a naming dispute, that does not ultimately contribute to the aim of improving the article. If the various projects active in this area could summarise what they have achieved in the few months, and how much of those efforts have been stymied or forgotten as people are drawn back into naming debates, that could help. If people taking part in these naming debates have been productively working on other stuff in parallel, I will immediately apologise, but I do think a key aim when dealing with perennial debates is to not let them suck resources away from other work that needs doing. If, for example, some articles improved to good article or featured article status, that would be a measure of progress, even if the reviews failed because of naming disputes, it would put the naming dispute at the end of the list of things to be sorted on an article. Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names[edit]

Initiated by Fmph (talk) at 19:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Fmph[edit]

Can I direct ArbCom's attention to the first motion in this case. It states that "... no page moves shall be initiated for a period of 2 years" and that ruling is in force until September 18, 2011. Can ArbCom please clarify what they expect to happen on the 18th September?

There have been continued 'suggestions' over the last 23 months that the articles should be moved. So the issue has not gone away. I have made a suggestion (in response to a question as to whether the prohibition should be extended) as to what should happen. If ArbCom think its not a bad idea, perhaps they would like to endorse it, or something like it?

I will notify the project that I have opened this clarification.

I note that PhilKnight has suggested closing this. Can I ask that if you do, that ArbCom should make a formal statement of its views before closing if at all possible. Even if that is only of the "Get on with it yourselves" variety. Thanks Fmph (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by snowded[edit]

This was a deeply divisive and long running dispute and the closure last time was managed by some of the protagonists with consequent accusations of manipulation etc. I think there is a very strong case this time round for a strong mediation team of neutrals to structure the discussion. Possibly with a nominee of each side I'm sure we have some sleeper accounts in place ready for the debate and we had enough socks etc last time to be the subject of a whole dissertation. Best to manage it from the start than to be pulled in later --Snowded TALK 09:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • I think starting a thread on WT:IECOLL was a good move. I've watchlisted the page and will continue to monitor the discussion. Hopefully the discussion will result in a way forward. PhilKnight (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting further statements and comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also watching the IECOLL discussion. I cannot say I know much about the current situation so getting more input would be helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does look as though the current discussion is productive and that our involvement is not needed at this time. Mind you, I expect the committee would take a very dim view if editors take the expiration of the remedy as a permission for the level of hostility that led to it being imposed in the first place. Those who feel most strongly about the matter would do well to let the rest of the community handle the discussion. — Coren (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused due to my previous work in the related areas as an administrato.. but hope that they keep forward momentum going. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My sentiments mirror Coren's. Or, to paraphrase something said by many a parent, "don't make us come deal with this again, because I can almost guarantee you [the parties] won't like the results" Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure most of the relevant pages are move-protected, but just in case: the one thing you should not do is set about boldly moving pages as soon as the prohibition expires. Have the proper discussions, seek outside assistance to structure them if necessary, and hopefully achieve an end result that people are willing to accept. –xenotalk 23:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names[edit]

Initiated by DrKiernan (talk) at 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

  • N/A

Statement by DrKiernan[edit]

While remedy 4 is clearly expired, I am not clear whether the motion Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names that restricts move discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is still in effect. The motion does not appear to be time-bound. Would the Committee please clarify whether the motion is still in force? Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie[edit]

I'm obviously recused here (as an Arbitrator) due to my past involvement as an administrator, but wanted to make this statement. I agree with my colleagues that the motions ARE indefinite, but I have concerns that we are walling off the problem, rather than fixing the base issue behind it. If it was listed at Requested Page moves as well, at least we would get SOME new blood looking at the request, other then the "same old faces in the same old ways". However, I don't think willy-nilly pagemoves are a good idea, so agree to keep it restricted in this fashion, but I urge uninvolved Arb-watchers (is there a version of talk page watchers for ArbCases/Clarifications etcetera? :D) to keep an eye on the discussions, and contribute there if you can. SirFozzie (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • On a plain read, it does seem to have indefinite length. Would like to hear from those of my colleagues who were around back then to clarify the intent, though. –xenotalk 12:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Building off what SirFozzie has written above, I see no problem with having a pointer from the WP:RM page, and any other relevant pages, to any centralized discussion being held at WT:IECOLL. –xenotalk 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that project is as good a place for collaboration, and for new editors with strong feelings on the matter to be educated by their peers on the history and necessary associated decorum of such move requests, is there any proposal that it not remain in force? Jclemens (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those motions are indefinite because of the long history of problems with naming discussions occurring all over the place. An amendment would be needed to change or remove it, and I would oppose any changes for a few months. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, both motions remain in effect. While I would be open to reconsidering them in the future, someone would need to make a reasoned case for why centralizing discussions to a single venue is not a net benefit. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues' comments above. Unless anything further is being asked of us, I believe this request can be archived soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Binding" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Wikipedia:Binding has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 12 § Wikipedia:Binding until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names&oldid=1179796521"