Proposed final decision

Proposal by User:Messedrocker[edit]

Proposed remedy

Manual of Style Jury

1) To resolve future issues pertaining to the Manual of Style, the Arbitration Committee shall establish a Manual of Style Jury with the sole duty of interpreting the Manual of Style. This group would consist of at least five people who know and understand the Manual of Style inside and out. In order for them to be able to decide on an issue, they must be presented a case so perplexing that the general community trying to resolve it has resulted in copious chaos and confusion. The Manual of Style Jury would deliberate on issues with a close reading of the intention of the Manual, along with studying current practices and input from the community at large. The goal would be an effective solution backed up with justification based on the aforementioned evidence. To emphasize, this jury is not to legislate but to interpret and help out when the community is at a stalemate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not convinced that this is, at its core, a MoS issue (in the sense that things like dash formatting or the like are); article naming conventions sit in a gray area between content and style. What may be useful for one aspect may be less so for another; I'm not really comfortable with effectively handing over control of article names to a small group. Kirill ^(prof) 01:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The community is already at a stalemate. In my Evidence I give four Scenarios. Of these, I believe only one is neutral enough to provide a solution. I was not hoping for a subsequent Jury to try to lead the community to consensus. The community is unable to achieve consensus. I was hoping for an analysis of the Scenarios and a recommendation from the Arbitration committee as to which names should be used, and to let that go for a year, so we can concentrate on article content rather than article naming. Please consider this. One editor has already resigned from the Wikipedia and another I know is considering withdrawing from all Ireland-related editing.' -- Evertype·✆ 10:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: it is a question of conflicting POV, not of style. Scolaire (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --harej 00:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 11:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Fundamentaly against the spirit of Wikipedia. Interpretation of policy is not separate from writing it, both are community responsibilities. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely supplementary, and is irrelevant in disputes where a consensus arises. The Jury was designed in mind that it would be a last resort and nothing more. --harej 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novel solution to problems with the manual of style, but not one that takes us down the right path. Adding bureaucracy and hierarchy to Wikipedia's structure is something we should all be loathe to do. Instead we should concentrate on identifying problems with the Wiki Way of developing the MoS, suggest ways we could streamline and improve the process (by which the MoS is developed), and work from there. ::Of course, theoretically, that's all well and good; in practice, it's going to be very difficult to do. It is often too easy to drift towards implementing closed groups to do the community's job for it; ultimately, though, any attempt by the ArbCom to do that is going to a) be poorly received by the community; b) hence unlikely to do a great job; and c) going to set a bad example in future cases. ::AGK 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness no. ArbCom has made enough mistakes in trying to make and interpret policies in the past. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Narson[edit]

Proposed principles

WP:COMMONNAME

1) Wikipedia principles favour the use of a common name except where such usage would create further ambiguity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. waggers (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: consensus is a more important principle than COMMONNAME. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The € • ^T/_C 07:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sectarianism

2) Wikipedia is not a place for sectarian fighting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, per WP:NPOV among others. Not that I think it's especially been happening in this case, but the principle is sound. waggers (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment already covered as per existing civility policies. And labelling it as "sectarian fighting" isn't accurate... --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo both Waggers and HighKing -- Evertype·✆ 10:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per MickMacNee below. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. In the absence of any finding of fact that this has specifically been happening (see article on sectarianism), rather than simple arguing from personal POV's, I think this is just turning up the angst. MickMacNee (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with MickMacNee. This is more heat instead of light. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, unless the article is about sectarian fighting. The € • ^T/_C 07:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Governments

1) What the British and Irish governments have said or not said over the last 50 years is only relevent in so far as the effect they have had on the common name in English. They are not arbiters in this dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is one common argument to support using "Republic of Ireland", but I've yet to see any attempt to quantify "Common name in English". The official position does carry weight. Pretty much without exception, the organizations of the international community use Ireland. Yet to use a generalization, British influenced editors (that is, editors largely accessible by British media in some way) tend to use Republic of Ireland - after all, RoI is the correct name in the U.K. What has happened in the past is that Common Name boils down to weight of numbers - and there are a lot more British editors here than Irish editors. --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is correct to say that the governments are not arbiters in this dispute, though I don't see how that's relevant. The dispute revolves around what the Irish Constitution names the State ("Ireland") and how the Irish and British governments describe the state ("Republic of Ireland"). In particular the "RoI" name is found by many people to be contentious. The proposal to use Ireland (state) addresses this. -- Evertype·✆ 10:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might be relevant if they said as a matter of policy that one particular name "may not" or "shall not" be used. Otherwise it is of no relevance whatever. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment: How precisely any government refers to any state, even its own, is irrelevant. Those are details that should be expressed in the articles themselves. Were there to be specific terminology disallowed by any government in reference to any state, even its own, the point would still be irrelevant. The fact is that the English language provides two common terms for the country's name. Therefore, dab is necessary. The € • ^T/_C 07:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity

2) Ireland is an inherently ambiguous term applying mainly to two entities (Ireland the sovereign entity and Ireland the island)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. waggers (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't believe that this is "content ruling" as Stifle says below. If the term were not ambiguous (or rather, polyvalent), we would not be here. -- Evertype·✆ 10:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Any ambiguity is not inherent and can be resolved with a little will. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. per my evidence contrabution. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Content ruling, outside ArbCom's jurisdiction. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The fact that there are two common terms for the country's name in English defines the ambiguous nature of the issue. This can only be solved by the formation of a second English language. The € • ^T/_C 07:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland

3) Republic of Ireland is a name used in Engish to refer to the state.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. It's a name, among several. It's not the most commonly used name, even in the UK. waggers (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject Probably much more accurate to say that RoI is a common term in the UK (after all, it is the correct term in the UK). It is also a name - again only in the UK. Everywhere else, the common name is Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as this looks like an argument to keep the article where it is for a year (see above). It is a name, but not the most common one. The most common name is Ireland. Stifle's suggestion that Éire is the most common name in the UK seems out-of-date to me. Lots of terms are heard in the UK, including Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Southern Ireland, and (formerly) Eire (rarely the correctly-accented Éire). -- Evertype·✆ 10:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Republic of Ireland was a name used by the British Government. Éire in English is Ireland. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'd agree. As per Waggers, however, it is not the most common name, neither here (in Ireland), nor the UK, nor anywhere else. In the UK, the most common name is Éire, and everywhere else it's Ireland. However, this is a content ruling, and outside ArbCom's jurisdiction. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Éire is the most common name in the UK. It's probably, I'd guess, a close race between "Republic of" and "Southern" with Éire a good way behind, though this isn't really verifiable. The state as opposed to the island is rarely referred to in the Anglosphere outside of these islands (as the distinction isn't important), but I'd guess it's the same race, as Ireland (in the US at least) will almost always refer to the whole island unless otherwise stated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Republic of Ireland is only a term used to describe the government of Ireland as a political entity on the geologic formation known as the island of Ireland. It is a common reference in some parts of the world to this entity, but it is not a common name. The € • ^T/_C 07:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a name used bu not the most common name.--Patton 123 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

4) When disambiguating between two main rivals for a page title, a hatnote is more efficient than a disambiguation page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. If there are two main rivals then there is no primary topic. If there is no primary topic then the article title in question should be a disambiguation page. waggers (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A hatnote implies one topic has primacy and in this case this forms part of the dispute. --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Waggers and High King. Ireland should be the disambiguation page (because there is no primary topic), Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) the other topics and articles. -- Evertype·✆ 10:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Two seperate articles, per my evidence. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Stifle, content again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Content ruling, outside ArbCom's jurisdiction. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with HighKing. The € • ^T/_C 07:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

5) The naming conventions have grey areas that exist where the common name issue comes into conflict with the 'that does not conflict' portion of its text. The article exists within that grey area (If it were called Ireland (Modern State) for example, only the sovereign entity could be called that. But is that that conflicting with straight up Ireland?)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment This point is unclear. --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Intelligence in editing the content of articles will always be needed, and there is a certain amount of unavoidable overlap because the island is an island occupied by two states, one of whose name is the same as the name of the island. -- Evertype·✆ 10:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again content, again outwith arbcom's remit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Content ruling, outside ArbCom's jurisdiction. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gray areas in naming conventions can be solved with more precise naming of the 'gray' terms; in this case Ireland(state) and Ireland(island) seem to solve this particular unclear naming convention. The € • ^T/_C 07:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country

6) The terms Country, State, Nation, Nation State, Sovereign Nation and Sovereign state are often used synonymously within the English language and wikipedia has no officially defined preference, though country is the implied norm in the naming conventions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment The formulation Ireland (state) is unambiguous while Ireland (country) could be seen as ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 10:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: "country" is not synonymous with "nation" or "state", which are not synonymous with each other. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra vires. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Content ruling, outside ArbCom's jurisdiction. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. I was always taught that a country was a geographic term, a state was a political entity and a nation was a group of people linked through sociocultural ties. Just because not everybody knows the difference doesn't mean there isn't one. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partially disagree: These terms have separate definitions. Synonymous usage does not imply correctness, but this practice does occur. Were Ireland (country) used, it could mean any location, anywhere, whose landscape resembles that of the island of Ireland and not the political entity occupying 5/6 of the island of Ireland. The € • ^T/_C 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

country is the implied norm in the naming conventions ... country is the implied norm for what? A nation, a sovereign state, what? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground

7) Irish-British articles are considered by some to be a 'Battleground' and as such an atmosphere of incivility can develop. This serves only to polarise groups and as such is detrimental.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Sad but true. waggers (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - some might say that progress is being made, but numerous good editors give up. Strict enforcement of existing policies such as civility, etc, would go a long way towards a solution. --HighKing (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the dispute here is not Irish-British in nature. Both Irish and British are for change, and both Irish and British are for the status quo. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this remark. It'd be an error, as Scolaire notes, to suppose that this is a political dispute. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Indeed. 800 years of bloody oppression and all. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree partially. Any incivility is detrimental, but that is not confined to this issue. There has to be at least one Irish-British/British-Irish article that is not considered by anyone as 'Battleground'. The € • ^T/_C 08:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Page Moves

1) A page move request will be opened to suggest moving the page to Ireland (State). After this request has run for 2 weeks, the arbcom committee will ajudge consensus and move or not move the page accordingly. After this time the page will be move locked for 3 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose: any page move must have at least a chance of consensus before being opened. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose Arbitrary time period. Any administrator should be able to judge whether a move request has been made prematurely and has no chance of succeeding. (Although my proposal of mentorship would make this decision quicker and more likely to happen). MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content decision: this proposal is suggesting the Arbitration Committee pronounce what an article's content should be. Cf. my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop#Content rulings. AGK 17:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ireland (state) was the last proposed disambig, as for ajudging consensus, that is not the arbcom defining content, but on consensus. If any one admin ajudged consensus, you can bet they would be hounded for it by some. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside ArbCom's jurisdiction. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oppose a move lock per MickMacNee; Support page move to Ireland (state) - (note the small 's'). The € • ^T/_C 08:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes

2) Editors are reminded to treat each others as individual editors and not assume stereotypes. Many editors on the subject have proven they can edit perfectly well with those they disagree with once pidgeon holing ceases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment Needs to be modified to reference standard behavioural policies. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really needed, I think. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The € • ^T/_C 08:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Page Moves

1) For controversial articles subject to heavy move requests, such as Republic of Ireland, an uninvolved administrator can place that article under measures that will limit page move requests to one every 3 months via page move lock

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose Per remedy MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per MickMacNee. The € • ^T/_C 08:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Moves (2)

2) As the Republic of Ireland is subjected to heavy page move requests in the past, page move requests on that page shall only be permitted every 3 months, to allow consensus a time to change or develop. This will be achieved with page move locks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose Per remedy MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per MickMacNee. The € • ^T/_C 08:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

3) Use of the term 'Unionist' or 'Nationalist' on the Irish/British articles is inflammatory and uncivil. Editors are reminded to be civil to each other at all times. Any editor blocked for incivility 3 times by an uninvolved administrator for comments on the Irish/British articles shall be topic banned from those articles for 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Question: is it necessarily uncivil? Is it uncivil to use the term 'black' when discussing Barack Obama or 'Jew' when discussing Sigmund Freud? Some editors are avowedly unionist or Irish nationalist or British nationalist. To characterise their stance as a unionist or nationalist 'POV' may be inaccurate and even unhelpful, but why uncivil? Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the first sentence here is a proposed statement of fact; the second is a proposed remedy. Only the last is a proposed enforcement. Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Per Scolaire. The € • ^T/_C 08:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:MickMacNee[edit]

Proposed principles

Status of administrators

1) Being an administrator is no big thing. Admins and users are volunteers, nobody is compelled to do anything on Wikipedia if they don't want to.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure what the first part has to do with the second, unless this is intended as a counter to the idea that admins have particular responsibilities. The question is a bit more complicated in any case; while no editor is compelled to do anything permitted by policy, some editors are expected to do those things (editors who have chosen to take up a position of responsibility more so than those who have not), and all editors are compelled to not do anything prohibited. Kirill ^(prof) 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to say admin corps inaction is not a wiki crime per se. You can't single any admin out as not having done something if they weren't specifically requested to do it, say by making a request at a noticeboard. Yet you can't single out and compel a particular admin to say close a move request or review civilty in a discussion if they don't want to, just because they personally have accepted the responsibility of being an admin. It's linked to the next principle. MickMacNee (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The wording may require preening but I do support the sentiment expressed here. AGK 17:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin inaction is not a good thing

2) Accepting finding 1, the inaction of administrators in the face of evidence of incivility, assumptions of bad faith and tendentious editing is not conducive the to the formation of workable solutions to disputes, no matter how complex, entrenched or long running they may have become. Even a simple piece of guideance now and then is better than doing nothing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is not a useful principle as there's no precedent to sanction admins or anyone else for failure or refusal to act on anything. — CharlotteWebb 18:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Findings 1 and 2 have merit, but can be solved per MickMacNee's proposal of having an admin task force of hitherto uninvolved parties to provide counsel. The € • ^T/_C 08:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Admin involvement in this dispute

1) Based on my evidence, and other anecdotal evidence, I propose that the admin corps generally has not intervened enough in this dispute either on the IDTF pages or the Ireland/ROI talk pages to prevent bad behaviour.

To a lesser extent, admins have generally not given advice in the instances where disputes over Wikipiedia procedure have hampered valid discussion of policy or valid attempts to gain consensus.

To a lesser extent, while some admin actions have been made in good faith, such as the recent move and reversal, they have not been handled in a manner that is conducive to particularly solving the dispute, and have merely fueled the fire. Improper user responses to bold admin decisions by users also go unchecked by other admins.

This dispute has reached the stage where the passive model of adminship on Wikipedia, combined with the principle of the legitimacy of bold unilateral actions, is actively hampering resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree: Based on my evidence, where admins have got involved, they have ridden their own hobby-horse of "disambiguation" and failed to engage with editors on the central issues of article names and the use of pipes. Scolaire (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And I believe that Scolaire's belittling of the "hobby horse of 'disambiguation'" is an example of the kind of non-constructive rhetoric we have seen from many of those who want to be on a "winning" side. Is "Ireland" ambiguous? I think it is. Is there a "primary" meaning? No, because different people think of different things as primary. So I think that admins focussing on disambiguation were focussing on the right thing. -- Evertype·✆ 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Article mentorship

1) Although wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, in response to my findings of fact, I propose that the arbitration commitee empowers the admin community to set up a volunteer active committee of admin mentors for this dispute. These mentors will:

be expected to be knowledgable of the main issues/discussion venues/users involved in the dispute

be expected to be the first port of call for any user or admin involved in the dispute who believes he has evidence that certain behaviour is hampering the discussion, and be expected to take remedial action where the complaint is legitimate

be the first port of call for any admin intending to use their tools in the dispute, in order to gain wider admin support before any proposed controverisial act such as the closure of a move request or article protections

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 04:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate this please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Conduct and decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 04:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate this please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 04:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate this please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Content disputes

4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 04:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Standard ruling with no problems, but I would advise seizing this opportunity to rewrite some "standard" Committee rulings to be more user-friendly and plain. I intent to propose one or more alternatives on this basis at a later date. AGK 17:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As promised: #Content disputes (AGK). AGK 01:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose and role of the Arbitration Committee

5) The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose.

The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. In cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision on the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some initial thoughts; this could certainly stand being rewritten. Kirill ^(prof) 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when done as an last resort. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support Sadly, this appears to be where we are with this dispute. There have been many many good faith efforts by many editors to solve this dispute, but it appears to have divided the community and entrenched opinion. Perhaps this is a natural and necessary evolution of the WP process whereby senior editors create a team with binding powers, much like ArbCom, to rule on content related disputes. --HighKing (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: in particular, "impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision" sounds far better than "impose a content decision". However, I continue to be optimistic that a consensus will be found before such drastic measures become necessary. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus and state of dispute

1) The present dispute revolves around the names to be used for several articles related to Ireland, and has been ongoing since at least February 2007 with no apparent resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As context. Kirill ^(prof) 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Measures for consensus (I)

1) The community is asked to develop a framework for reaching a binding decision on the issue of article names related to Ireland, akin to that developed for U.S. state routes, within 90 days from the conclusion of this case. The framework must, at a minimum, cover the following areas:

(a) How the names of the articles in question will be decided (e.g. through one or more general polls, by a selected group, or via some other method)

(b) How binding the decision will be (i.e. how soon it may be revisited, and in what forum)

Once the Committee is satisfied that the community has agreed upon a suitable framework, it shall authorize any necessary enforcement measures by motion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Brainstorming. It would be possible to use the state routes method (or the earlier Gdansk/Danzig method) directly, but I'd prefer to leave the specifics up to the community rather than arbitrarily choosing something ourselves. Kirill ^(prof) 01:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. I'm not familiar with the state routes case, but any remedy involving brainstorming would have my support. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any arbitration committee involvement with content, except insofar as it relates to core policies, WP:BLP, m:Foundation issues or similar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support as a less preferred alternative to my own proposal. This is very much on the right track (though I think it's of little use without Measures for consensus (II)). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has already been extensively discussed for the last five years. This just results in more useless talk that will lead nowhere. DrKiernan (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thinking behind my proposal #Advisers appointed (AGK). Appointing some level-headed and experienced editors to incisively but gently guide the discussions is a step towards resolving this, whilst avoiding both having the Committee make the Community's mind up for it (a content ruling and too strong a remedy) and having the Committee recommend theoretical strategies for handling the dispute (a remedy that is weak and has little weight, and doesn't have a desirable likelihood of succeeding). AGK 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Measures for consensus (II)

2) Should the community fail to develop a consensus-building framework within the time limit stipulated in the above remedy, the Committee shall impose a binding decision by holding a poll open to all Wikipedians in good standing. The decision shall not be subject to appeal for a period of no less than one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More brainstorming. Hopefully the community would be able to come up with something, but just in case we need a fallback method, we can go with a simple poll as in Gdansk/Danzig. It may be useful to have the precise details of the poll included here as well. Kirill ^(prof) 01:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. If all else fails, it's probably the fairest. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat myself. I oppose any arbitration committee involvement with content, except insofar as it relates to core policies, WP:BLP, m:Foundation issues or similar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support in principle, but definitely needs fleshing out to be useful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Sarcasticidealist[edit]

Proposed principles

Room for disagreement

1) Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not provide a single objectively correct answer to all possible content questions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Beautifully put. I think this has been missed by many people, including admins. Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs rewording to indicate that the policies and guidelines do and should apply to the vast majority of cases, and that exceptions should be few and far between, with very good reasons given for invoking WP:IAR and with a clear consensus for the proposed alternative course of action. waggers (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I believe this is an important starting point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus breaks down

2) Wikipedia's particular brand of consensus does not always provide the means to resolve all content disputes. This is especially true in cases in which there are many participants with strongly held views, and where there is no single objectively correct answer.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Disagree: it sometimes feels that way, yet consensus can still break out just when you're about to give up hope. I've seen it before and I believe we will see it here - see my evidence. Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Let's come right out and say it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting not so bad

3) While voting may indeed be evil, sometimes it's the least evil available option.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree: ever more frequent polling in lieu of discussion is what has brought us here. Sometimes the best time to vote is after you've reached agreement. Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Multiple legitimate viewpoints

1) It is not possible to definitely say, on the basis of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which configuration of article titles is the correct one in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Though I think it may be worth adding "alone" after "policies and guidelines". One could argue that the consensus of the community, on top of our policies and guidelines, could establish the correct configuration. But your wider point is an important one, which advocates from both sides who insist that their opinion is the only one consistent with policy, would do well to consider. Rockpocket 02:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I think it's pretty clear. waggers (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Application of my first proposed principle to this case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of dispute resolution

2) Wikipedia's consensus-based content dispute resolution processes have not resolved, and show no signs of resolving, the dispute over the location of the various Ireland-articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree: there was a sign of resolution even a few days ago - see my evidence. Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Application of my second proposed principle to this case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Content dispute to be resolved by vote

1) A single centralized vote on the question of which article will be located at Ireland will begin immediately following the closure of this case and will run for one week. This vote will have the following characteristics:

Suffrage in the vote will be determined on the same basis as for the 2008 Arbitration Committee elections.
The three options up for vote will be a disambiguation page, a page about the island of Ireland, and a page about the state of Ireland.
Editors will be able to vote for a first and second choice, with results to be determined using the instant-runoff voting method.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As I've mentioned above, I'd prefer to let a precise methodology be developed by the community rather than imposing something. This may be a workable approach for a fallback method, though. Kirill ^(prof) 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose British editors tend to have a different point of view than Irish editors over these articles. In this case, voting really amounts to rubber-stamping a British viewpoint as they seriously outnumber Irish editors (in fact, can anyone think of an Irish admin?), and this has been part of the problem. --HighKing (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things: first, content disputes on Wikipedia are going to be resolved by mob rule one way or another, the only question is how much clarity you want surrounding the process. Second, I don't think it's fair to assume that Irish editors will automatically lose this; in the recent naming dispute at Flag of Ireland, for example, the mob went the Irish way. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's been the problem from the start - editors assuming mob rule, therefore no need to compromise. It's this attitude that has lead us here. Hopefully it'll end here. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per my comments on proposed findings of fact (voting not so bad). Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An incredibly bad idea. Whatever happened to discussion as the preferred means of settling disputes? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Akin to a dog returning to eat its vomit, and then vomit it up again, and then eat it again, and then vomit it up again, and.... waggers (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't imagine this will be popular, but it has the advantage of resolving the dispute. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opppose Plenty of editors support alternative solutions to just state/island/dab page. This vote artificially limits the debate. And it appears to be worded as a 'final solution' designed to shut down debate forever, based on a set of editors who happened to be around at the time, providing an extreme incentive for severe gaming/canvassing to be the ultimate winner. As such, it is not likely to be resistant to later such accusations either, justified or not. Also, it just sets a really bad precedent for a whole bunch of other supposedly 'intractable disputes'. MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed poll is only to determine which article will be located at Ireland. Are there options other than those three that are under consideration? I haven't seen any. Besides that, what would the really bad precedent be? Setting up a framework for settling disputes? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They appear from time to time, but have been drowned out by the more popular but ultimately irreconcileable approach that there are only 3 (competing) solutions, as decribed by this poll. (One is on the evidence page actually, from UKPhoenix79). A modification to your idea is if there were a proper pre-poll debate designed to shortlist other viable solutions, explained in enough detail, to then be proposed as options at the final poll. I could just about support that. (People say, support/oppose in these polls, but then have wildly different ideas what that then means for content - the recent dab page solution only saw the content of the 'island' page being discussed after it had been decided that there would be an Ireland (island) page and the moves were done. People need to know exaclty what they are supporting. The really bad precedent would be that content disputes can ultimately be solved by enforced voting, in my view increasing the likelihood that the two sides will not compromise in the hope of eventually forcing an arbcom initiated vote, which they might 'win'. MickMacNee (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: If this were a simple case of 'let's vote on it', I think this issue would have been solved long ago. I find also that results of these types of votes are open to interpretation from any side. The € • ^T/_C 08:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results binding for six months

2) Once the vote is concluded, all moves involving the page Ireland are prohibited for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Six months is too short a time period. I prefer the longer period of 2 years once a binding decision is reached by the Community. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Six months is somewhat arbitrary, but seems long enough to allow editors on the losing side to cool down, figure out what actually matters in life, quit Wikipedia in a huff, etc. If it proves too short, there'd be nothing stopping Arb Comm from extending it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Definitely arbitrary. MickMacNee (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Mick's comment above. I'm not sure imposing a somewhat arbitrary metric restriction—or at least one that is not selected because it is particularly helpful or has any clear advantage over other time periods—is a route we wish to pursue in formulating this decision. Then again, six months could work.… I'm in two minds about this issue at the moment. AGK 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support, but suggest making this indefinite [or at least a year] with the proviso that change can be sought through methods overseen by Arbcom in the manner of other appeals and case reviews. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by AGK[edit]

Proposed principles (AGK)

Content disputes (AGK)

1) The role of the Arbitration Committee is not to rule on the content of Wikipedia articles. The content of encyclopedia entries is to be decided through consensus-building discussion between editors (utilising dispute resolution where such discussion is fruitless or fails to yield general agreement).

Where discussion is being actively hampered by other factors—such as the conduct and behaviour of Wikipedia editors—the Arbitration Committee can assist through the neutralising of such factors (for example, banning disruptive editors from contributing to a given topic area or article page) where the community has had no success in attempting to do so. It will not, however, adjudicate what is the "correct" content when a consensus on that is difficult to establish.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a variant to the standard wording. "It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors" (the standard wording) has been used in a number of decisions previously; adjusting the wording to be more simple and to offer some practical advice on what should be used in place of the ArbCom may be of assistance. AGK 17:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact (AGK)

Ireland disambiguation task force (AGK)

1) (A) The Ireland disambiguation task force was an informal project established to build consensus—through inter-editor discussion—on how the terms Republic of Ireland, Ireland, et al. should be used amongst Wikipedia's articles. The usages of these names has been an issue of some confusion—in part due to the different usages of each by the Republic of Ireland government and the British government.

(B) This task force is but one medium of resolving this content dispute, but it would seem to be one with a solid chance of having some success. It would be helpful in the future for all editors involved in the Ireland naming dispute to centralise their consensus-building discussion on the pages associated with that task force.

(C) At the time this task force was established, notices were distributed—inviting involved editors to move their discussions to that task force and keep them centralised there—on a number of talk pages which were covered by the scope of the Ireland naming dispute. This was a sensible action which (1) showed courtesy for the editors involved in the dispute; and (2) encouraged the (necessary) centralising of discussion pertaining to this dispute on the task force pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment It's more correct to say in (A) above that it is due to the different usages of each by the British government and every other government and international organization on the planet. It's just that only the Irish are trying to correct the usage on WP, seeing as how there's a vested interest in the topic... --HighKing (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, I'm afraid: (A) the task force was originally established by one side of the debate - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force - and (C) notices only went out when the TF - and its first poll - were already well under way. This led to its being boycotted or ignored by many of the opposing side. Having said that, I agree with (B) Scolaire (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with A and C, not with B - the task force was always intended to be a centralised, single-point-of-contact, not one medium among many. waggers (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. This finding should be a solid springboard to having this dispute resolved. (I'm unsure if this, as something of a recommendation, should either be proposed as a remedy, or one or more of the parts split into remedies. Input on this point solicited.) AGK 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IDTF creator retired, several proposals fractured, the page suffered from frequent stagnation, derailment when active, and a low uptake despite advertisement. If a task force type venue is to be proposed, IDTF needs to be marked historical and archived, and a new one formed, directly linked to from the top of the two Ireland articles talk pages (or even article pages if needed). On further advertising, post it on VP/CD if necessary, but spamming various projects and forums did not give the IDTF any extra participants that I could see, and did not give it any particular legitimacy in the end, as the resulting reversed moves and Rfc showed. Per my own experience, I get the impression people just avoided it as just more endless or indeciferable drama, lacking any kind of proper framing for allowing a debate to occur. In the end it merely was just a venue for straw polling on a single issue, which can be done on talk pages just as easily and with more uptake. MickMacNee (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A classic case of "Well, if I don't participate, I can always cry foul! afterwards". And the IDTF does not need to be archived and something new created - what's wrong with the existing one? It doesn't require Matt to keep it moving. --HighKing (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mick. Hmm, yes, sorry, I missed out a remedy critical to the decision I'm starting to sculpt. I've proposed a draft below, at #IDTF restarted (AGK). Oh, and thanks for your (very useful) input, Mick. AGK 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies (AGK)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

IDTF restarted (AGK)

1) The Ireland disambiguation task force is restarted.

[Nb. from proposing editor: Wording to be extended. —AGK 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: it hasn't stopped. I would say rather, "further discussion on IDTF is urged." Scolaire (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My evaluation of the activity levels on the IDTF was that it was, whilst not completely inactive, not active enough to facilitate a meaningful process of consensus-building. I therefore proposed, through this remedy, to restart the entire thing "from scratch." The advisers—proposed below—would subsequently ensure that this 'second chance' is used wisely and productively. AGK 18:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had this case not gone from proposed to active, discussion would have gone on and might be bearing fruit now. There was a meaningful process going on just at the moment that this went live. I intend to try to kick-start it again very soon. Scolaire (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The weight of a Committee remedy strongly advising the restarting of the IDTF would hopefully have the effect of: (1) raising outside attention on the IDTF, and hence attracting neutral third opinions; (2) increasing attention devoted to the restart of the IDTF—a productive aspect, I would hope. A Committee ruling such as this one would make your attempts to kick-start the IDTF much easier. AGK 01:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to be sure we mean the same thing by "restart". I was talking about restarting an ongoing but flagging discussion on a proposal that actually had a fair degree of consensus. I have now done that. If by "restart" you meant archive the whole thing and start from scratch, that would be a tragedy. Scolaire (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for arbcom-endorsed task forces. People can discuss things anywhere, anytime. If there's what seems like an idea worth looking into, stick up an RfC notice, spam the village pump and Wikiprojects and get uninvolved editors to comment on it. Don't rush to vote on every proposal. Who knows, that idea that looks so unpromising now might have the germ of the solution in it, if we just give it time to be worked out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed.

Will rewrite with more details and better wording. This is just to put a mechanism in place for hosting discussion pertaining to the Irish naming dispute. Thoughts on whether recycling the IDTF is a good move or starting a new project—to make use of a "fresh slate"—would be preferable.

AGK 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advisers appointed (AGK)

2) Wikipedia consensus is built through discussion between all editors in a dispute; however, in disagreements that have been long-running and are partiuclarly convoluted, experienced and impartial voices of reason are often a useful asset to the building of a consensus. The Committee therefore appoints three advisers—Example (talk · contribs), Example2 (talk · contribs), and Example user (talk · contribs)—to aid the efforts of the Ireland disambiguation task force. The role of these advisers is to:

Summarise constructive points made in discussions (especially those which are lengthy or high-traffic);
Summarise any consensus reached in a particular discussion (preferably noting explicitly what the consensus is);
Periodically summarise developments in the discussions on the taskforce page; and
Present their reading of the consensus of the community—as expressed in the course of the taskforce page discussions—at the completion of the task force's consensus-building stage.

Purpose of advisers.

These advisers are given no formal authority to make content decisions, but rather are appointed to guide and aid consensus-building on this dispute.

Appointment and management of advisers.

Should an adviser step down from his or her role, the Committee will appoint a replacement as promptly as possible; similarly, should an editor have a complaint over an adviser, this complaint should be brought to the Committee's attention on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, at which point Committee views will be solicited as to whether that adviser continues to be fit for his or her role.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support appointment of advisors on these terms if there is no resolution of the dispute during this arbitration. Scolaire (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt, but probably won't help much either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Thinking aloud here, as a possible remedial strategy the Arbitration Committee can adopt to assist in the resolution of this dispute. The specifics will probably need to be preened if this was adopted. AGK 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came close to proposing something similar as a responsibility of my mentor committee, but rejected it as being inherently elitist and subjective. In principle, anybody can summarise a discussion at any point. At best, this could be changed merely to say, for the good of the encyclopoedia, arbcom requests members of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee monitor future discussions in this area (hint hint). At the end of the day, if this summarisation is not being done as part of an official admin action where the summary is in support of an action such as closing a request, is there any point to it being done by appointees? Apart from being nice to have of course. MickMacNee (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the Mediation Committee ever assenting to taking on such a role. (A number of novel proposals have came before us before; the response both on the mailing list and on the official MedCom response has been to say "this isn't our job.")

The informal nature of this arrangement would, I hope, strike us as non-eletist as possible. It's become clear that we need some sort of leadership in the Irish naming dispute. This remedy aims to do that in as delicate and as unobtrusive a manner as possible: the Committee is gently easing up this content dispute to be as smooth as possible without actually storming in and saying "here's what to do." I think it would work quite well if we had some competent advisers with time on their hands.

AGK 22:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming dispute conduct probation (AGK)

3) The challenge of building a consensus in the Ireland naming dispute is a considerable one—as exemplified by the lack of success by the Wikipedia community to build a consensus after some four years of exhaustive discussion. The Committee therefore passes a blanket conduct restriction on all editors participating in discussions pertaining to the Ireland content naming dispute (especially those that take place on pages of the Naming Taskforce). Any editor may be banned from any or all page(s) on which discussion on the Ireland naming content dispute is transpiring by an uninvolved administrator should they continue to, after the serving on their User_talk page of a formal notice linking to this decision and explicitly to this remedy, disrupt the consensus-building discussion taking place therein through their actions (including, but not limited to, the content of their comments, their edit summaries, or their behaviour on the discussion).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support taking out disruptive editors in the interest of consensus-building, with a mechanism for lifting unwarranted sanctions as discussed below. Scolaire (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem here relates to disruptive editors, why is the evidence page so short on evidence of disruption? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed.

Things are difficult enough without disruptive conduct. The Committee ought to make sure that the folks in this dispute are hampered by as little avoidable and unacceptable influences as possible. "Contribute to the discussions in this dispute constructively or not at all" is the mantra here.

The title and the text of this remedy may need to be tightened up.

AGK 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even people's perspective of who is an uninvolved admin is open to dispute by certain parties. And it relies on there being any uninvolved admins around watching to enforce the probation (see my evidence of lack of admin oversight). I prefer my proposal whereby any admin, involved or not, can request specific mentors knowledgable of the dispute act in these cases. Unilateral admin action in the dispute is usually disputed by someone as POV pushing/cabalism/censorship except in the most obvious cases, or if done by a truly uninvolved admin, they are at the least accused of being rash and/or ignorant of the underlying issues of the dispute. Could possibly support if mandatory review was required (i.e. definite pre/post consensus at AE). Or am I being thick and this is already the way it happens for admins wanting to enact probation remedies? MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions can usually be enacted further to an uninvolved administrator happening upon poor conduct or further to a complaint at arbitration enforcement. Either way, prior discussion and consensus is rarely required; indeed, it rarely is required for any administrator action. Requiring approval from several administrators usually results in bureaucracy and red tape; in place of that, a mechanism for scrutinizing sanctions that editors have complained about is usually placed instead.

Would you, therefore, settle for a mechanism for lifting unwarranted sanctions, rather than a requirement for sanctions to be pre-approved before being placed by an uninvolved sysop? Such is the way we usually operate on en:wiki. AGK 18:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Scolaire[edit]

Proposed principles (Scolaire)

Consensus is attainable

1) The fact that four (or six) years have passed without a consensus being reached does not mean that no consensus is possible. See Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 13, in particular the rationale for the final move: "as per general consensus."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I hadn't considered this, but yes, that certainly is true. That a dispute is somewhat Gordian in nature does not necessitate it being irresolvable. AGK 18:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutes inhibit consensus

2) Statements of absolutes, such as "This cannot go on. Wikipedia is at breaking point", "We have to change now" and "Only my proposal is a compromise", only serve to raise the temperature and reduce the chances of consensus. Repeating the same statements endlessly is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fine, yep. This could be merged into the above proposed principle [1), #Consensus is attainable], though. AGK 18:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact (Scolaire)

Disambiguation is not the primary issue

1) The primary issue over the years has been the name of the article on the Irish state, with editors on one side wanting it moved to "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" and those on the other side wanting it to remain at "Republic of Ireland". The issue of "disambiguation" has only been raised in the last few weeks and has only served to muddy the waters.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by proposer: Please read my refactored Statement on the project main page for the context of this proposed finding of fact. Scolaire (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is at odds with your statement of Absolutes inhibit consensus above. The views of most editors appear entrenched - call it absolutes if you will. One small piece of progress made recently was consensus and recognition that an neither the state nor the island should demand primacy for the article title "Ireland".—Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 December 2008

At odds? What way? This is a statement of fact. Views may be entrenched but what are they entrenched about? And I don't call it "absolutes", why should I? Scolaire (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All of this discussion has led to a realization by many (if not indeed most) editors that the central problem here is the deep ambiguity of the word Ireland. Focus on disambiguation has been completely proper because that is the central problem. Scoláire can only respond to this by explaining why Ireland is not ambiguous. If he does so, I predict that he will try to "prove" that it overwhelmingly means the island. He's entitled to that view, but he can never "prove" it as it is unprovable. Ireland is ambiguous, and no amount of hat-noting will solve this problem. -- Evertype·✆ 18:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of ambiguity does not automatically lead to a disambiguation type solution, especially when it lies on the flawed idea that Ireland has but two meanings, and that 'compromise' means inconvenience the reader and piss all editors off equally. An article at Ireland that properly describes the ambiguity does neither of these things. It will be a sad day for the pedia if the only thing that comes out of this arbitration is an enforced three option poll, i.e state/island/2 option dab page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - different editors apparently have different priorities. For me the main issue here is the ambiguity of the term "Ireland" and that neither the island nor the state should be located at Ireland. waggers (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The primary issue" here means the thing that has been primarily disputed among editors over the last four years plus, not what "I" have made "my" priority. Scolaire (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose: The primary issue is that the term Ireland is ambiguous in nature with two primary definitions. Priorities of editors are irrelevant. The € • ^T/_C 16:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same users voted for "Ireland" and "Ireland (state)"

2) Contrary to repeated assertions, the dispute was not between those who wanted the state article at "Ireland" and those who wanted the island article at "Ireland". Per my evidence, the same users voted alternately to move the state article to "Ireland", and to move it to "Ireland (state)" with or without moving the island article. Only one editor, User:Evertype, changed sides in the course of nearly two years of debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I have stated in an Evidence note, I have changed "sides". I am not a nationalist. Nor a unionist. I have moved from a position which I thought was "right" to a position supporting the status quo as stable to a position advocating what I consider to be a neutral compromise, with Ireland being the disambiguation page rather than trying to decide which article was "primary". -- Evertype·✆ 20:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure what point you're making. It could equally be said that the same users remained entrenched to keep the article at "Republic of Ireland" and have never offered a compromise. Some editors claim that they are compromising by agreeing to move the article on the state to "Ireland (state)". It concerns me that you appear to be making a one-sided finding about editors that disagree with your position, while not recognizing the editors from both sides are engaged in very similar behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not meant as a commentary on which side was entrenched. They both were. The point is that what they were entrenched about was not "which article should be at Ireland" but "what the state article should be called". The secondary point is that the oft-cited "shift in consensus" never happened before Mooretwin's proposal. The same people on both sides stuck to their guns throughout. Scolaire (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I asked if people could support Ireland at dab, Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) as a way forward. Can you support this? If not, why not? Be specific. -- Evertype·✆ 18:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

With nationalist factors in play, it is not surprising that little shift in opinion has taken place on either side. Richard Aldington once said "I fear that nationalism is one of England's many spurious gifts to the world." AGK 18:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admins have ignored the primary issue(s)

3) Per my evidence, uninvolved admins have unreasonably insisted on applying WP:DISAM, and failed to address the primary issues of user objections to the current or proposed name for the "state" article, and the way that pipes should be used within articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I fear poorly handled move requests did transpire in the course of this dispute, but I am dubious as to how influential they were in preventing the resolution of this dispute. There seems to have been no solid consensus for any move whatsoever, and as the administrators in question had no involvement out with the proposed moves, I would suggest this proposal would probably not be a necessary part of the Committee's decision. AGK 18:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stating the following as fact, but it is quite possible that the intervention of DDStretch and Waggers gave the proponents of change a new "handle" to press their claim for change. I myself don't recall the word "disambiguation" being prominent in discussion before their intervention. Whether or not that is so, their argument favoured one side of the dispute, and the diffs in my evidence show that they allowed their aura of adminship give a spurious authority to their support of one side, without ever making any serious attempt to bring the two sides together. Scolaire (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The task force was not representative of opinion in general

4) Per my evidence, the perception of WP:IDTF as a neutral venue where editors from both sides thrashed out the issues is not quite accurate. For many on the status quo side, it was a forum for those on the change side to "push" their own point of view. Failure to participate meant that it did in fact become heavily weighted towards one side. This explains the shock that many people experienced when a proposal that had a large majority on the task force talk page was opposed by an even larger majority on the article talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While this may be the case, the membership of the task force was open for any interested editor to join. In addition, it's existence was widely publicised and its remit was clear. If editors chose not to get involved with the task force, that was their decision, but the task force was the central discussion point for the issue at stake, and consensus was attained there. waggers (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its remit was to deal with the issue in general, page moves were not even explicitly mentioned in the lead of the IDTF page. Which is why it was odd to see that it was being used to only build support for moving two main pages by polling away from their talk pages, or to endlessly re-debate old issues such as the text of the GFA. The presence of wide advertisement is irrelevant when there are long periods of inactivity, with no end point and no structure/timetable to the conclusions it was seeking to make. Newcomers couldn't even work out what the basic structure of the task force was, what was to be on the main page, and what was to be on the talk page? Why don't you review my evidence that shows very good reasons why people did not join the discussion, or chose to eventually leave it alone when they did, and quite rightly have reasons to feel that claiming the consensus reached by the small party that decided to remain, is not truly representative of community opinion. And if you look at some of the colourful rants made by Matt Lewis, the IDTF creator and biggest contributor, just before he retired, it is clear that he had a pre-determined outcome in mind when he started the task force, to change the status of the Ireland page, to stop in his opinion, Ireland having two 'country articles' on Wikipedia. So basically, if you were of the opinion that this situation didn't even exist, or that the problems that existed as laid out by the task force could be fixed without any page moves, what were you supposed to do? Under this glaring pre-supposition, the IDTF thus became a central discussion venue for those who passionately wanted something to change for whatever reason, and likewise only attracted those interested people who passionately wanted nothing to change. That alone means that it was not representative of the wider community, who are always going to be more passive than the extremes. MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Concur. While done in good faith, isolating such an important discussion to some distant corner of the projectspace was an error. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evertype's "compromise" was never a compromise

5) Per 1) and 2) above, Evertype's Compromise proposal was not a compromise in any sense. It meant that those who wanted the "state" article at "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" were winners, and those who who objected to "Ireland (state)" and/or "Ireland (island)" were losers. Evertype's continued insistence that it was (see my evidence) is unreasonable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose I really do not understand how Scolaire can come to this conclusion. The primary plank of my proposal (and I am not the first person to have made it) is that "Ireland" is ambiguous and it is impossible to determine whether the island or the state can be "primary". If that is taken on board, Ireland becomes the dab page and therefore unavailable for use for either the island or the state. If that is the case, Ireland (island) certainly seems to be able to indicate the island without ambiguity. Apart from that, we have Republic of Ireland for the state (which is deeply contentious) and that leaves Ireland (state). For my part, I recommend this as the most neutral and accurate nomenclatural structure for this set of articles. This is no "crusade" on my part, and I think that Scolaire's saying so lacks civility as well as accuracy. -- Evertype·✆ 20:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Again, you are presenting an unfair one-sided picture of your opinion in a way that suggests that all the fault or blame lies with editors that do not share your viewpoint. --HighKing (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not faulting "editors that do not share my viewpoint." I have a specific complaint against one editor - I believe he misrepresented the nature of a poll. All the editors who voted in the poll did so in good faith, and did no more than I would have expected them to do - hold to their previous positions. I am fine with that. Scolaire (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that me, Scoláire? Because if it is not, you suggest so in a section about me. And if it is, I've no idea what you are on about. -- Evertype·✆ 18:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the section heading, Evertype. In my view, you misrepresented the poll as a "compromise", when in fact it was the position of one side in the dispute, which that side had been pursuing for donkey's years. I have stated my view once, and I am not going to waste any more time arguing about it. Let the arbitrator's think for themselves. Scolaire (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that taking "Ireland as dab page" to be the starting point of any compromise that is likely to end up acceptable to both sides. It is not my belief that either side had already achieved consensus on that. Both were trying to argue whether Ireland should be the island or the state. And as long as people stick with that (as I gather you are, unless you are willing to have Ireland as the dab page) there's not going to be a lasting compromise of any kind. I did not "misrepresent" my position. It is quite rational. I think you have misapprehended it. -- Evertype·✆ 20:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. This is political posturing and is completely inappropriate in an arbitration case. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "political" or "posturing". This statement has nothing to do with the content of the proposal. I think it is poor behaviour to present something that is clearly divisive (as evidenced by the voting on it) as a compromise. If arbitration is not for discussing editors' behaviour, what is it for? Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin's proposal has a chance of consensus

6) Per my evidence, the current proposal at IDTF, proposed by Mooretwin on 5 December, has got a more positive reaction from both sides of the debate that any proposal before this, and there was active discussion and a fair measure of agreement on the equally important issue of piping at the time that this case was formally opened. Editors should be encouraged to continue discussion on workable proposals with a view to finding a consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I support the move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) with a limited use as appropriate of "Republic" or "Irish Republic" or "the Republic" or "Republic of Ireland" within articles (where it prevents ambiguity only), but this does not solve the central problem here, which is that Ireland should be a disambiguation page because if it is not then duplication of state material will accrete to the Ireland article, as it already has. It also leaves on "Ireland" as "primary" and that will always be contentious. Mooretwin's proposal is not comprehensive. It is a good start, but the rest of the problem must be addressed. -- Evertype·✆ 20:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is the issue of "state material" on the Ireland page the "central problem"? For a problem you've described as going on for 4 years, you certainly haven't spent much time addressing this 'central' issue. In fact, did you even ever mention it before late November 2008? November 28, 2008 seems the first time you mentioned it at the Ireland talk page, which--if it is indeed such a central and serious problem--one would think would be the natural place for such discussions to have occurred. Nuclare (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It certainly seems true that Mooretwin's enjoyed the support of a number of parties to the dispute. A finding such as this one would require especially careful wording to avoid being interpreted as an ArbComm approval of a given proposal (which would in turn be a form of "content decision"). AGK 19:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies (Scolaire)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The parties are urged to continue discussion on the Task force

1) All involved and interested parties are urged to continue discussion on the Ireland disambiguation task force and/or on its talk page, either on the current proposal or, if it has failed, on any new proposal. Only one proposal should be debated at any one time. Discussion should remain on-topic, and in particular should not hark back to any previous proposal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discussion to be monitored if necessary

2) The Committee may decide that monitoring or facilitating of discussion on the task force and/or its talk page by mediators, mentors or advisers is necessary in the interest of sustaining progress towards agreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Keep it as open as possible. Scolaire (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Consensus necessary for action

3) No action is to be taken arising out of discussion on the task force or its talk page until there is a clear consensus for taking that action. In this context "consensus" means as close to unanimity as it is possible to get, allowing that there will always be some dissentors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Minimise the possibility of a two-thirds or other such majority on the task force being overturned on article talk pages. Scolaire (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus" means as close to unanimity as it is possible to get needs more work - how close to unanimity is it possible to get? The dissenters will always argue that it's not close enough in order to prolong the argument more. And is "consensus" just on the task force sufficient, or must it also be repeated on the actual article talk pages? We did have consensus for the moves on the task force talk page, but not on the article talk pages, and the status quo has prevailed. Was that the right or wrong decision, according to this proposal? waggers (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for that page move! It was as clear as day that no single editor had changed their position. Consensus only happens when people who disagreed before begin to agree. When nearly everybody agrees on a proposal, and only one or two editors are determined to 'go down with the ship', that will be as close to unanimity as it is possible to get (and that is the situation with the current proposal BTW). When there is that sort of consensus on the task force, there will be a far better chance of a consensus on the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Discussion of any action to be monitored if necessary

4) Page moves or other actions arising out of agreement on the task force are to be monitored if necessary to avoid disruption. In particular:

The nomination will be detailed and clear, and state that the proposal has been agreed at the task force.
Comments or arguments that are personal, uncivil or off-topic may be deleted.
The rationale "per nom" will explicitly be allowed.
Votes with no rationale, or with a rationale deemed to be inappropriate (such as "This has been done to death already") may be struck.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Failure requires starting again

5) In the event that a page move or other action arising out of discussion fails, discussion will begin again on the task force, taking into account the reasons given for opposing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Further discussion is banned for a specified period

6) Following the successful implementation of an agreed solution, discussion of any further page moves is banned for a period of three, six or twelve months as follows:

On a page which has been moved, the period commences when the requested move is closed.
On a page which has not been moved, the period commences when this arbitration is closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Newyorkbrad[edit]

Proposed principles

Article naming conventions

1) Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a longstanding Wikipedia:policy, provides:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. There is also relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conflict, but it may be less useful because some of the relevant discussion may have been written with this specific dispute in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. Scolaire (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. waggers (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We know perfectly well that printed works use Ireland in an ambiguous way. The Royal Irish Academy's mammoth New History of Ireland is not a history of the variously named state presently living at Republic of Ireland. For nearly all of the first six chronological volumes there is no such thing by any stretch of the imagination, and for the first two there's no all-Ireland state whatsoever. For the seventh and last, the table of contents is here. The volume title, Ireland, 1921-1984, refers to all-of-Ireland, but chapter 14 is entitled "Ireland 1972-84", referring to the modern state. The same vagueness is seen in the original early 70s Gill History of Ireland, and in the more recent New Gill History of Ireland. The ambiguity seems not to have kept Theo Moody or Frank Byrne or Margaret MacCurtain or James Lydon or any of the other editors awake at night. And if the naming used caused howls of anguish in the press, I couldn't find them, and I did look. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Although this has already been discussed and it appears that it has already been agreed that "Ireland" is ambiguous with respect to the state and the island, and that "Republic of Ireland" is not the common name of the state. --HighKing (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Interestingly, I often find that this method of determination contradicts the principle of recognizability. E.g. the best verifiable and reliable sources will call the Pictish king who died in 858 Cináed mac Ailpín but the most replicated forms of the name in English is something like "Kenneth MacAlpin" or another such monstrosity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That cuts both ways. The article on the saint named in the best verifiable and reliable sources as Laurence O'Toole is titled Lorcán Ua Tuathail. Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if "the best verifiable and reliable sources" exclude the sort of things we'd expect an editor to use to write a featured-quality article on the man and his times, the likes of the Oxford DNB, Duffy's Medieval Ireland: An Encyclopedia, The New Cambridge Medieval History, the RIA history, assorted volumes of Medieval Dublin, and so on. In those he's Lorcán (or Lorcan) Ua Tuathail. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The name Ireland is not ambiguous in the least. Probably in the next generation, Ireland will be "unified" once again. Presently, to me, the primary-name 'Ireland' belongs to what is in fact 85% of the island. Wikipedia ought reinstate the primary usage to the nation state, and the island comes a mere second in the claim of the 'title'. Most references to Ireland, are to the state, and Wikipedia is presently muddying the waters, as to what is, and as to what isn't, Ireland. PurpleA (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute concerns the appropriate titles for the articles concerning the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland; the ambiguity that exists because the designation "Ireland" is used in English to refer to both of these distinct geographical areas; and disagreements concerning recent pagemoves relating to these articles. Aspects of the dispute include disagreements regarding whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves, and the extent to which the current articles titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree, although the secondary issue of how these entities are referred to within other articles is equally important but much overlooked - see my Statement. It will cause as much or more trouble if it's not dealt with at the same time as the article titles. Scolaire (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. waggers (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the only solution on offer is moving things around, then yes, the issue to determine is whether "the country of Ireland" (born 1921; ambiguous ever since) and "the island of Ireland" (born 440 mya; unambiguous until 1921), should have priority. Of course, as Mick says below, there are other routes which might be considered. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to most, Oppose with some I agree with everything except the comment about neutral point of view. For me, I oppose using the term "Republic of Ireland" because it is incorrect and wrong outside of the UK. It is a factual error to name the state in this way (outside of the UK where it is legally correct). This is not anything to do with NPOV (is it?). I would change the wording to state The locus of the dispute concerns the appropriate titles for the articles concerning the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland because the designation "Ireland" is used in English to refer to both a geographical area and a geopolitical area. The dispute centers around the fact that the community cannot agree that either article has primacy, and doesn't agree on using "Republic of Ireland" as the name for the article concerned with the state. --HighKing (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, but there may be some danger in focusing the text solely on "distinct geographical areas". The locus of the dispute is because the political designation of Ireland (the country) does not match the geographical designation of Ireland (the island). I know it sounds pedantic to make that distinction, but if there is one thing that activity in this subject has taught me, it is that requesting clarity now is a lot easier than dealing with lawyering in the future. Rockpocket 02:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you change the wording? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr. You're the lawyer, you tell me ;). My suggestion would be: The locus of the dispute concerns the appropriate titles for the articles concerning the sovereign state of Ireland and the island of Ireland; the ambiguity that exists because the designation "Ireland" is widely used in English to refer to the geographically overlapping, but politically distinct entities; and disagreements concerning recent pagemoves relating to these articles. Aspects of the dispute include disagreements regarding whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves, and the extent to which the current articles titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view. Rockpocket 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is loaded towards accepting the present idea that on Wikipedia, regarding the depiction of Ireland, there must be two articles, a country article and an island article. This precludes a solution of an Ireland article competently summarising both, but being a parent to other topic/use specific articles. MickMacNee (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that is one course of action, as a "solution" it doesn't escape the locus of the dispute as described. Even if a single Ireland article was to exist as a parent (despite it being entirely inconsistent with how we cover other, two-state islands) we we would still have the ambiguity problem naming the daughter articles and how to disambiguate between the two entities in links. Unless we are planning to consider both Irelands the same thing across all Wikipedia (and therefore endorse the United Ireland concept), we can't ignore the fact we need some way of disambiguating, wherever it may be. Rockpocket 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background facts

2) By way of background, the following facts are not reasonably subject to dispute:

(A) The designation "Ireland", referring to the island, refers to the entirety of the large island to the west of Great Britain, including both the country of Ireland as well as Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.

(B) The designation "Ireland", referring to the country, refers to the sovereign state comprising most of the island of Ireland but excluding the northeastern six counties comprising Northern Ireland.

(C) The designation "Republic of Ireland" is sometimes used to refer to the country of Ireland, and is particularly used in the United Kingdom. However, is not the most common name of the country of Ireland in English, and is not an official form of the name of the country as recognized by its government. See United Nations terminology bulletin which reports both the "short name" and the "formal name" of the country as "Ireland" (see, e.g. explanation of this publication); U.S. State Department listing of country names which states that Ireland has "no long-form name"; see also references at Republic of Ireland#Name.

(D) Discussion of article titles concerning these articles, as with many other matters concerning the history and culture of Ireland and Northern Ireland, is complicated by contentious political and sectarian disputes affecting them. Compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Possibly more to follow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the need for content rulings—even uncontroversial ones—here. Kirill 01:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there is no need to add these elements since it moves us toward making a content decision when we are not making a content decision in the remedies, only a process decision. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree, with one reservation noted below. On (D), although discussion is complicated by contentious political and sectarian disputes, in this case it is not divided on political or sectarian lines. See "supplemental statement" in my Statement. Scolaire (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Scolaire is also correct in that in this instance the division of opinion was not along political/sectarian lines. waggers (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ---HighKing (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Kirill said. On the details rather than the principle of the thing, I disagree with (B) and (D) and maybe (C). Re (B), I suggest reading Countries of the United Kingdom#UK terminology, or, always useful, try Google Books for scotland-is-a-country. Country is a word of quite uncertain meaning. Re, (D), there are multiple strands of opinion represented on either side of the dispute as already noted. I'm ambivalent about (C) as what the Irish government, or any government, thinks their country should be called is not decisive. Compare Myanmar and Taiwan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Those facts all seem to be well supported by the sources provided, and are generally accepted by the majority of parties involved. Rockpocket 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine except two problems. 1) "Country" is ambiguous, and is used for the island (the historic island nation) and republic (a contemporary sovereign state). I suggest "country" is changed to either "state" or "sovereign state" for clarity. 2) The claim it "is particularly used in the United Kingdom" is not verifiable and not particularly probable, and is thusly "reasonably subject to dispute". It has to be emphasized that the idea this term isn't used much in Ireland is quite simply nonsense (see Irish google results for its use, or the the geographical description linked on the mainpage of the "Government of the Irish state" for higher up). Republic of Ireland is probably more used by people living in the Republic of Ireland than in the UK, as the term is more necessary. Regarding the websites used in the FoF, government and official websites have to observe diplomatic niceties, such as the political one here (observe the current Macedonia naming dispute for a comparison which is just as extreme in the real world as the Irish one is on wikipedia), and such niceties are the product of similar politico-ideological pressures as wikipedia (it's not like Irish diplomats or mainstream politicians care). The lower profile pages of the state department website can easily be found using the term in more "careless" moments as can the Irish government (see above). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Deacon of Pndapetzim. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force#Republic of Ireland for the use of "Republic of Ireland" within the Republic by everybody from the head of government down. Scolaire (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I have to agree with the summation above by NewYorkBrad. It then follows that I disagree with the comments of Deacon of Pndapetzim, and disagree with the support by Scoláire. Deacon of Pndapetzim's references are what constitute "original research", and are contrary to Wikipedia policies. This interesting article appears on Wikipedia, and is worth the time to digest it. Deacon of Pndapetzim makes a reference to this[1] as "proof" that the term 'Republic of Ireland' is 'officially accepted', and is common in sovereign Ireland, although I know sometimes it is used for disambiguation purposes when Northern Ireland is part of the discourse. The terms, 'The South', 'The Free-State', The Twenty-Six Counties', are also sometimes used when talking about 'Ireland' vis-a-vis 'Northern Ireland'. The reference that Deacon of Pndapetzim points to is a commissioned essay where the Irish government had no input, and therefore it cannot change any of the wording, except with permission of the writer. This sort of commissioning is common world-wide, and contents will not always reflect the view of the website principles. Therefore, the comments of Deacon of Pndapetzim must be dismissed as original research, see OR. The Irish Government official stance on this issue is, "The name of the State is Éire in Irish language, and Ireland in English language." It perplexes me why some editors want to retain the status quo, when evidently (a) it is wrong (b) many editors are unhappy that it is wrong. PurpleA (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Arrow, you're misunderstanding. NYB wants assertions "not reasonably subject to dispute"; i.e. this is not about writing an article where one can try to game wikipedia policies to push a POV like that, but rather finding the bottom line core of indisputable facts. Regarding the "commissioned essay" you're commenting on, it's still one click from the front page and indicates the artificiality of the highly monitored main pages. See the Irish google link for more examples, e.g. this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That last link is further original research. Under similar research, the UK article might be called 'Britain', and the UK Government article might be called 'British Government', the USA article could probably be called America, and the BBC article could be called 'The Beeb'. My point is that Googling a "particular term" is a truly wasted exercise, and even worse, to use the findings of "proof". Could do similar for "little green men", or even the "Emerald Isle", it's somewhat akin to use Google to prove that the earth is flat. And indeed, I'm sure it could be proved using Google. Here is another page to examine [2] that "adds" to my point, but I don't believe that Google has much relevance. We're trying to move away from the 'edit-warring' that has gone on, I believe that the only way to stop that is to review the current situation, which is happening here. PurpleA (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man ... matters of OR aren't relevant. Please reread the proposal and the comments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Community asked to develop consensus mechanism

1) The community is urged to open a new discussion page for the purpose of seeking agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of such discussion shall be to seek 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 urged to approach this discussion with an open mind and without overemphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement. Any community-developed procedure for resolving the dispute should provide that once the consensus or majority view is determined and implemented, no further pagemoves relating to these articles should be made for a period of 2 years.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment I can't help but feel that there's an element of "been there, have the T-Shirt" on this proposal. Countless "new" discussions have been opened, spanning many many "years"! This is not a storm-in-a-teacup variety dispute that will blow over after civilized conversation, tea and biscuits, etc. But. Discussion is always good, and what's another couple of weeks if we can finally reach agreement. So I support the idea of opening a new discussion to reach agreement for a short fixed period of time, after which perhaps option 2 below kicks in if the discussion stalls. --HighKing (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Back-up procedure for determination of consensus

2) If the discussion convened in remedy 1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure for assessing the consensus or majority view concerning the Ireland-related naming disputes within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure for resolving these disputes. Any such procedure shall provide that once the consensus or majority view is determined and implemented, no further pagemoves relating to these articles shall be made for a period of 2 years.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support I'm happy to give this a try although I would mention the 14 days time limitation in the proposal is refers to, and I would be surprised if anyone can invent some new procedures that will resolve this dispute... --HighKing (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No pagemoves pending discussion

3) Until the procedures discussed in remedy 1 and, if necessary, remedy 2 are implemented, Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. This does not constitute an endorsement of the current names.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support --HighKing (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z[edit]

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Temporary injunction on page moves

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision

Proposal by User:Messedrocker[edit]

Proposed remedy

Manual of Style Jury

Proposals by User:Narson[edit]

Proposed principles

WP:COMMONNAME

Sectarianism

Proposed findings of fact

Governments

Ambiguity

Republic of Ireland

Disambiguation

Naming conventions

Country

Battleground

Proposed remedies

Page Moves

Stereotypes

Proposed enforcement

Page Moves

Page Moves (2)

Incivility

Proposals by User:MickMacNee[edit]

Proposed principles

Status of administrators

Admin inaction is not a good thing

Proposed findings of fact

Admin involvement in this dispute

Proposed remedies

Article mentorship

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

Conduct and decorum

Wikipedia editorial process

Content disputes

Purpose and role of the Arbitration Committee

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Locus and state of dispute

Template

Proposed remedies

Measures for consensus (I)

Measures for consensus (II)

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by User:Sarcasticidealist[edit]

Proposed principles

Room for disagreement

Consensus breaks down

Voting not so bad

Proposed findings of fact

Multiple legitimate viewpoints

Failure of dispute resolution

Proposed remedies

Content dispute to be resolved by vote

Results binding for six months

Proposals by AGK[edit]

Proposed principles (AGK)

Content disputes (AGK)

Proposed findings of fact (AGK)

Ireland disambiguation task force (AGK)

Proposed remedies (AGK)

IDTF restarted (AGK)

Advisers appointed (AGK)

Ireland naming dispute conduct probation (AGK)

Proposals by User:Scolaire[edit]