Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep. This is an active project page. Concerns about the project's intentions and the behavior of participants should be taken to an RFC or other appropriate venue. --RL0919 (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

British Isles Terminology task force
The self-appointed taskforce is extremely reluctant to notify on the talk pages of the articles it is considering. It also fails to involve related relevant Wikiprojects in its deliberations. When asked to be better at notification there is a tendency to claim that notification is not necessary.

I believe that this undermines the collegiate ideal of Wikipedia, and leads to poor quality debate. It is likely also to lead to claims of "ownership" being made against the taskforce.

Attempts have been made to ask the taskforce to be more collegiate (see talk page and subpage on Specific Examples), but these have been unsuccessful.

I therefore nominate the taskforce for deletion. Should it shew itself capable and willing to be more open and collegiate in its operations I would be willing to withdraw the nomination. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I want part of my life back. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Templating has moved forward in leaps and bounds since DuncanHill last raised the issue, and out of all the current discussions a minority didn't have the template. 2. Additionally, there are now a clear set of instructions for editors, including templating, so the issue isn't with BISE but with the editors themselves. At the moment, as this is new, I don't think they did anything wrong on purpose, everyones still figuring them out. 3. Editors do discuss templating, TFOWR's talk page has been full of template discussions recently. Until recently, there was a short discussion on the actual specific examples page, where a discussion was held.
 * Keep
 * Point is, the taskforce is moving forward on all the issues mentioned above. No reason to delete. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on that, that new big warning template (which is shown twice) telling people to follow the instructions and threatening to close sections that have not followed them will have an impact. Whilst i agree that talkpages should be templated, personally i do not see the need to template wikiprojects unlesss we are seeking specific information that a wider group of experts would know about. Changing something to British Isles hardly needs an advert placed in the evening newspaper to ensure everyones been informed. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Reserve judgement - It has its uses. I would like to see refs to show where it hasn't involved the projects. can I pose a question? If the project considers an article and then decides NFA is required, should it still notify the article talk and its associated projects? I would have thought not. But maybe it should. I'm sure process can be improved. I have suggested in the past that it might be preferable to keep all these discussions on the article talk pages, and that transclusion might be a useful tech device to facilitate this. If possible I'd favour such a route. Not sure if it is tho. Not sure i agree with the contentions of the original nom either. Fmph (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What I think would be best would be notification on the article talk page as soon as the article is being discussed elsewhere. This would help involve editors with experience and expertise relating to the article. It could also help involve editors who already know of other Wikiproject guidelines which could help resolve any problem. Transclusion, with the debate bneing held on the article talk page would also achieve this aim. It is quite possible that the Taskforce could decide NFA, when a broader consultation could throw up problems the Taskforce had missed - so it works both ways. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The task force outlived it's usefulness years ago. It hasn't a hope of ever completing it's stated aim, of producing a WP:Guideline on usage of the terminology, because the tiny tiny amount of people getting involved regularly simply don't understand NPOV, (and worse, will never ever seemingly do anything about that, such as seek external, neutral, validation of their off the wall and clearly POV driven interpretations of it). In it's current defacto role, as a sort of clearing house for edit by edit systematic change around the use of the terminology based on those same flawed views, it is about as far from the legitimate purpose of a task force as you could imagine, and is simply now providing an extremely thin veneer of legitimacy on what is and always was just an example of a POV push on a grand, if long term, scale, based on the fact the arguments presented are completely uninformed and not in any way backed by neutral community consensus at all, ever (look at the participation and comments in the average debate, it would take a neutral observer half an hour to be able to define the separate camps and their positions - not a sure sign of neutral discussion at all tbh), and despite the use of pretty templates, nobody neutral will ever get involved to change that because of the blatant GAMEing and TEing that is completely ignored in these so called discussions (although the people involved and their child minders like to claim everything is hunky dory because people are eagerly watching out for the low hanging fruit of inCVILITY and sources are referred to now and again, and that's a sure sign something is not a POV push right?) and to an outsider it has all the look of just another tedious British/Irish battleground which most normal editors steer well clear of, and which is an environment which admins are supposed to prevent forming, not tacitly endorse. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh! if there's a way to invite 'everybody' into these BI discussions, I'm all for it. The more the better. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Not more drama on this topic *sigh*. I don't see any alternative suggestions - delete the page and what happens to the discussions?  And this request is a tad churlish - even though DuncanHill is not a noticeable participant, he demanded that article Talk pages be notified, as well as WikiProject pages.  We agreed - thought it was a good idea.  An edit notice was placed at the BISE page informing everyone of the process including marking the Talk pages.  A template was created specifically for those purposes and to the best of my knowledge, the Task Force has used those templates on all recent articles.  So I fail to see what his gripe is.  Let's not forget that the BISE page came about as a result of disruptive behaviour by all concerned, splashed all over article Talk pages - the BISE page was suggested as a means to centralize discussions and develop guidelines.  It is by far the lesser of two evils.  --HighKing (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, . I told Jamesinderbyshire to hold off templating the talkpage/WikiProjects while I clarified which template to use - or . For the curious, the template was changed recently to facilitate the use of a "discussion concluded" template:. I'm holding back on everything now, to see how the MfD goes. TFOWR 17:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - a reflection of nationalism that demeans the wikipedia (and the world). The task force creates more problems that is could possibly solve. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There is a misunderstanding here. Removing the BISE activities will not remove the nationalist POV-warring. It will simply destabilise things again and it will strongly resurface on ANI and a host of other unfortunate venues. On the specific point put forward at the top of this discussion (lack of notification) there is some over-reaction here - the mechanism to notify local pages does now exist - I was struggling to use it a little and now understand it on the whole. There are bound to be some delays between first raising an issue on the BISE page and then notifying the local talk page because in some cases it is simply not worth the effort. This is true for example in cases where a consensus has already been reached about the subject matter, such as articles about fauna, stubs on insect life, etc. DuncanHill who raised this delete has simply been a bit too impatient. None of us have unlimited time at our disposal and I was struggling to do it the right way. Don't ditch a working system that avoids a tremendous amount of heat and battling elsewhere. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On what planet would it be unfortunate that nationalistic warring would be highlighted at places like ANI? POV pushers hate it when their activities reach ANI, for pretty obvious reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that what happens at ANI then in your experience Mick that those pushing the delete BI POV get banned? I think not. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience the reaction at ANI is like everywhere else - oh god, a British/Irish issue - set *ignore* mode. Nobody has ever been banned or otherwise restricted in such sections, apart from as said, the low hanging fruit. Claiming that this means anything except that the TE and GAMEing is out of control, is unwise at best, naive at worst. Go and have a look at the recently closed Climate Change case and see if all those topic banned had had significant restrictions placed on them by ANI before it evenutally reached that stage. All that was occuring in that was just like here, the setting up of a rather ineffective and gemetastic special probation system. Didn't help at all. And if you recall, there was signficiant community support recently for a topic ban of HighKing when another gamey report boomeranged on him nastily, but somehow that got derailed and I forget/can't be bothered to check why that didn't get enacted. Had it been done, then this TF would already be inactive and marked as historical. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, block participants if necessary The stated goal of this "task force" is POV pushing. Gigs (talk)
 * Where do you read that "stated goal" please? Here are the shared principles - which parts are POV pushing? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * MickMacNee said it better in his main rationale than I could. This is a kangaroo court set up to enforce a certain POV in article contents. Gigs (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's set up to try to achieve consensus in a fraught topic. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While it's not even clear what the status of those principles are (the progeny of that section is, like all others in the TF, a complete incomprehensible mess), but the following ones:
 * "The guideline must...address usage for Ireland specifically"
 * "'British Isles'...should only be used in connection with geographical features."
 * "'Britain'...should only be used in connection with geographical features."
 * are almost perfect examples of the sort of bald statement what would be laughed out of a proposed Guideline discussion if it were put to the wider community, as being prima facie NPOV violations. Still, we are dealing with a topic area where I have seen at least one editor claim that Guidelines don't have to follow NPOV. I had a chuckle to myself that day indeed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but those views you've just expressed are not "POV-pushing", eh Mick? Whereas the deletionists are, I take it, from your point of view, "POV-pushing"? Duncan, do you begin to see the scope of the problem you've woken up again? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, pointing positions that violate NPOV is not POV pushing. It is called defending NPOV. The two are not the same thing at all, and if you think they are, this TF is pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This page has radically reduced edit warring on multiple articles and now has community sanctions linked to it and supervising admins.  Removing it would return to an uncontrolled situation.  Accusations of marsupial courts do not bear examination as the decisions are not one sided, both removal and insertion of BI have been agreed.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatives are Keep or Delete and block a load of editors. Which one is the most constructive? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How many editors just got topic banned from Climate Change articles? Do you consider that number a "load", when the end result is the clearing of a topic of entrenched POV pushers? The number of most active people in this dispute is considerably less. Infact when you look at that list, it becomes pretty clear what shuffling this issue of into this page, rather than keeping it in the domain of ANI/AN3, has achieved. It's given HK and BW their own boxing ring, and TWOFR is the referee. Snowded is also clearly wholly involved, which should colour anybody's reading of his appraisals of the usefulness of that venue, and the merits of other people's uninvolved observations of it. The closer should definitely click that link before closing this Mfd. I've been called all sorts by this bunch of POV pushers in my time, so it genuinely surprises me to learn that I've stuck my oar in on that page just 32 times, and that doesn't even make the top 20 at that!. And 25 of those edits were to waste my time trying to tell HighKing that not knowing anything about football was not a good starting point for questioning the accuracy of a football article, as he engaged in yet another epic TE fest (kicked off after a suggestion by...Snowded), with the end result being unsurprisingly, that the relevant Wikiproject was fine with the article before, and clearly wanted nothing to do with the ensuing crapfest of a 'discussion' once it became clear how relevant their contributions were going to be compared to the usual suspects and the lack of control over TE and other issues, and much like everyone else who gets invited to comment, they infact had no idea why it was even an issue (which puts this supposed dispute in context, imagine nobody here having a clue why Israel/Kosovo/Macedonia was contentious), and weren't much convinced it was once they were 'educated' on it either, the chief educator usualy being...Snowded, who has some bee in his bonnet about a couple of Atlases (out of...a thousand maybe? giving due weight eh...a tricky concept) that have been altered. Oh, and the Irish govt. view, seeing as the task is to draw up a guideline for 'Irish' articles remember, as if that was remotely how you prepare a neutrality guideline. And even though the usual suspects of the TF expended terrabytes rehasing the same points they always do, using the same tactics they always do, it didn't achieve anything usefull at all, certainly no change in the article and no resolution of the specific issue, beyond the rather obvious conclusion that, oh yeah, a reference might be a good thing to have. I think a hundred and one disputes tick along nicely every day on Wikipedia working at that level of complexity, without needing a TF like this, and whch get a good deal more neutral input for it. The chances of that sort of debate for example ever leading to an effective guideline? Zero. So it's really time to get real, time to put this waste of space to bed, and put the rabbits smack bang infront of the headlights. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As edit-wars over 'British Isles' have been greatly reduced. Wowsers, I had forgotten all about this Taskforce page. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And have the underlying reasons for the edit wars actually gone away? No. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit-warring was my concern. That folks are still sparring on talkpages, isn't. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sparring is usually how you practice for a real fight.... MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If that should occur, so be it. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was initially extremely sceptical about the value of this, but have been won over by the hard work towards consensus building shown by most of the active participants (of course there are exceptions).  It seems to me that the specific points raised by DuncanHill have been answered by TFOWR.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you an example of such consensus building? I mean when talking about actual WP:CONSENSUS, where one side or the other has been truly one over by the other sides arguments, or has ever conceded that they were wrong in their interpretations of policy? Mostly, in the discussions that even reach a conclusion, which are rare, it just resembles trade-offs, or tactical manouvres. The best I've seen resembling agreement is like when HK 'accepts' a decision that goes against him, but in the process makes it clear that he still thinks he's right and is doing so under protest. He even called for a "recount" on one the other day, even though if you are trying to build a consensus, polling is not how you do it, certainly not in diametric situations. Wikipedia 101 that. Infact, that's the general theme all round really, not consensus, but begrudging defeats, on both sides. With HK's record, I can only think he is documenting all these outcomes somewere, to revisit them in a couple of years. That's not consensus building, not by a long chalk. The very fact that everybody here is saying keep! out of sheer fear of what might happen if there wasn't a playpen where we can lock these warriors away in, should show that this is not producing much consensus at all, just delaying the inevitable. This is very much still a battleground area, much like pre-arbitration Climate Change. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just take a look Mick. Given that your thankfully rare contributions to the page have been your own inimical style of polemic I think you a fine one to talk about battlegrounds. -- Snowded  TALK  21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you have an example, let's see it. One with an example of your sort of highly valued contribution would be apt, if that's possible. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mick, I'm not doing your work for you as there is no good will whatsoever in your posts on this matter. Just look at the combative responses you are making to every editor who says keep and the multiple accusations against individual editors.  That is exactly the sort of thing that happened on multiple articles before we had the task force in place. We don't want the sort of edit warring and incivility for which you are notorious  -- Snowded  TALK  06:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This reply is the personification of the task force right here. Can't answer a straight question, not least by referring to a policy or an actual diff, and only wants to flap his gums about civility irrelevances, to cover a complete failure to understand NPOV, or have a clue about what that task force is actually supposed to be for or what it's goal is actualy supposed to be. It is not a play pen to stop edit warring, that is a frankly ridiculous suggestion which shows absolutely no clue about normal Wikipedia processes and procedures. So I have a record of edit warring? What brilliant research. Not on British Isles I don't. Nor have I ever been blocked for not having a clue about the policy of NPOV. You want to look at the names at the top of the list linked above for instances of that. No one, not yourself, or anyone else who is squirreled away in that task force pretending that by being civil they have a clue and aren't POV pushers or POV pusher enablers, has ever backed up any of their ludicrous and incivil claims about what I have ever said about the NPOV policy, either in that venue or anywhere else. You make me really laugh going on about good will, when that is the actual reality of the situation, and this pointless reply makes it pretty clear just how believable your claims are, as to what I do, or what this task force prevents. MickMacNee (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Please keep. A lot of progress has been made over the last few weeks and what with all the SPA's and socks around this project it is essential. Deletion would mean chaos. Bjmullan (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An SPA is someone who devotes their entire Wikipedia time to a single issue right? Like, say, the person with the most edits to this project yes? I think everyone can agree that SPAs are extremely bad for the Project. Giving them their own pseudo project is not what most people would agree is progress though. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Participants are generally working well together, disruption by socks is more easily identified and edit warring minimised than if the single forum here was stopped. RashersTierney (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So, it's a sub-page of WP:3RR is it? That's not a task force. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, in fact it is actually quite a constructive enterprise; WP:BISE for example has uncovered a lot of articles where nomenclature is being used badly or innacurately in both "delete" and "add" British Isles cases. It's hardly the POV-pushing activity you seem to be claiming Mick. It has also been adminned pretty toughly and few tricks or dishonesties have been permitted. It's a damn site better than the alternative, which, as Black Kite points out above, consists of lots and lots of blocks, not all of them I suspect to your liking Mick. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends if you really think that the tiny discussions in there would ever stand up to scrutiny for judgements about whether "nomenclature is being used badly or innacurately". Take for example the recent assertion that using the phrase in a food context was an example of incorrect 'political terminology'. That's just out and out bollocks frankly. No if's or buts, just straight up intellectual garbage. I don't know what you class as tricks or dishonesty, but I'm certainly not referring to obvious stuff like socking, (which is not this task force's role to watch for and control as some suggest) which appears to be the only thing that is even on anyone's radar here in terms of dishonesty. That and the holy grail of civility - the concept that it doesn't matter if what you say is total bollocks, and not supported by any policy, your opinion is valid if you said it nicely and with a good heart! Eughhh. No, when I talk about tricks or dishonesty, I am of course referring to WP:GAME, to WP:TE, to WP:CPUSH, and to all the other higher level behavioural policy essays and guidelines that are seemingly invisible in that venue. As for BlackKite's solution, I could give a damn who get's blocked, forming alliances and relying on block voting to be heard is not my bag, not my bag at all. That is the true domain of the POV pusher. I am interested in one thing - do you know what you are talking about, and can you back it up with a policy? Yes? OK, if I disagree, please do me the courtesy of proving it in the time honoured fashion of external review.... And that's generally where the discussion goes very quiet. Not counting the predictable agreements and civility gumflapping from the vested participants of course, who have frankly spent so long backing one or other of these flawed ideas about NPOV as applied to this issue that it would be presumably be a great loss of face if they found out at this stage they have been wrong all along. Which I understand is very serious in their culture /Phoebe Buffay reference. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if I'm proven wrong. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Mick has convinced me thst it should stay. Fmph (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've described it as a dubious and illegitimate venue where a POV campaign is pursued out of the prying eyes of neutral people who know about NPOV and would be the people to go to if one wanted to justify any particular views about the NPOV policy that such people want to use in relation to it's application to this dispute. So, as a delete opinion, this was a good vote. MickMacNee (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a policy and behavioural debate.  Go to RFC.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not a chance in hell that the logic behind any decision made at BISE will ever reach the level of scrutiny of an RFC. The task force exists precisely to avoid such standard processes. MickMacNee (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The page nominated contains considerable reasonable debate, and has been barely edited in the last 12 months. This makes this nomination look odd.  I see nothing offensive written on the page.  At worst, it could be tagged as an archive of a closed project.  The huge number of words in this MfD are hard to fathom.  This feels like a venue that is suddenly host to a gathering of long standing combatants.  An RFC may distill better what the real problem is.  What I glean is that people interested in Ireland have a problem with it being described as part of the "British isles".  A very good topic for a pub argument.  Without having every delved into this conundrum, dare I remind people that we are supposed to use the language, terms, etc that the sources use?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The main activity is at WP:BISE and use of references is key to those detailed discussions. -- Snowded TALK  12:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The only remaining activity is concentrated at WP:BISE, which was supposed to be a workshop for developing a guideline for approval, reflecting the contents of the essay material that adorns the rest of the pages. However, as you can see from the comments in this Mfd, it's only function is now apparently to serve as a kind of holding playpen/childmining venue for the various POV pushers that want to push this issue as an agenda on the pedia, as the apparently only acceptable way that their edit warring can be 'controlled'. Quite why this is the way in which this ongoing dispute is being dealt with as a form of DR, when it looks nothing like what has been done for any other nationalistic dispute on the pedia, is completely beyond me. But if you take a look at the logic and arguments being played out on that BISE page, even in the arguments that laughingly 'refer to references' in it's unique and simplistic manner from an NPOV point of view, and then compare those to how NPOV is implemented elsewhere, then I think it's pretty clear that a few of the POV pushers it serves to contain, actually think the page serves their needs quite well, and they prefer it very much indeed to the alternative, and Rfc or even arbitration case on their ongoing TE/GAME/CPUSH conduct, which has been ongoing for years. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BISE is a co=ordination point for discussion and resolution of naming issues. Some of us hope that as a body of examples is created it will be easier to write guidelines.  In fact if you both to read the page you will see that at least one general guideline has been agreed and there are some other general principles emerging.  Your opinions as to the behaviour of editors on that  page and their use of references is your own.  If you want to take it to an RfC or Arbcom then like all editors you are free to do so, although of course your own behaviour would come into focus in those circumstances.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, do you mean it's a guideline, or a guideline? And yes, my opinion is my own, and it is correct as it happens, according to all standard policies and procedures regarding such disputes. If you've at any point shown otherwise in here, apart from through this sort of empty comment, then by all means, point it out. I may or may not bring it to Rfc, at which point, you will need to explain why you never did so, given the fact you hold a particularly easily identifiable POV on the content issue, and a particularly disproportionate contribution to the discussions. Does your personal opinion tell you whether that would or would not be an issue for a venue which you want to argue acts as a "coordination point for discussion and resolution of naming issues" in an NPOV dispute? And Duncan Hill has already pointed out some of the general principles it has been working from. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens Mick I treat each case on its merits and I've supported the use of BI as often as I have its removal. Over the last few months we've had a spate of proposals for inclusion mind you so that might have changed a bit; there have been very few proposals for its removal.  Some of us put the effort in on the task force, you simply appear from time to time, spew out some invective coupled with a few personal attacks then withdraw again just before you get a chance to add to your considerable block history for incivility.  Getting to guidelines is an objective and there have been a few attempts to draft some which have not yet reached consensus but we'll get there,  With one admin putting in the hours to manage each case and to deal with incivility,  the task force has made a lot of progress recently.  Getting rid of the sock puppets has also helped and having community sanctions imposed on disruptive editors has also helped.  Of course the more ourpourings we have from you and a few others the less time is available for productive work  -- Snowded  TALK  15:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just more of the same. Attack me with some baseless smears, keeping up the pretence that CIVIL allows people to talk nonsense and conduct POV changes on Wikipedia as long as it's done via polite discussion, and just generally purposely ignore what I actually said, which is if you read it, an actual example of incivility. It's easy to claim you treat each case on it's merits, and I never said you didn't. I never said you always take one side or the other, either. It's a little more complicated than such simplistic characterisations. What I actually said was, that how you decide what to do in these discussions is not based on any community backed interpretation of NPOV that I've ever seen, but is based on your own flawed understanding of NPOV, combined with your own POV on the actual dispute. (And you do have one, everybody does. The key thing about writing from the NPOV is making sure you are not acting on it. And self-examination or tiny non-neutral venues like that TF, is about the worst possible tool you could rely on for checking you aren't.) And you've never once done or said anything to disprove this except make this sort of post, or point to the existence of a non-guideline guideline, or point out what I've already said, that every draft guideline produced by this TF is a failure. Although you don't really get why, despite the million and one hints. And also, here we go again, being fed this total fantasy that the only issue holding up this dispute is socking, and that yet again, the instigation of systematic change is only coming from one side and not the other, as if the past in that regard was completely unrelated and unconnected. The reality could not be further from the truth. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and review I have raised issues with the process/practice of BISE before (for example, here, here and here). Since then the work of the task force has improved in quality - although it is still not without problems. In the past, these included a cabal-like self image and a failure to involve talk pages. The problem of editors still (often in good faith) pushing a preferred vocabulary around the terms that describe the region is still present - but that is a problem that the task force was established to resolve and as such predates the task force. In my view the task force could be improved by reducing its remit to solely erroneous or problematic use of terminology around the region. It should not involve itself in content issues (those discussion should be limited solely to talk pages). And should not be a venue to swap one set of terms for another where no problem exists with current text. An RFC may be worthwhile to get outside views. --RA (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A RfC would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're the only one who has tried to focus its activities on terminology problems RA - the main problem in reality is not that, but the undermining of constructive approaches systematically by a small group of editors (some with very frequent blocks in their recent histories) who seem determined to ignore process. It's a great shame that now we are finally getting on top of this, a proposal comes up to delete the task force. It needs to be given more time to work. It isn't a quick process. We are dealing after all with hugely embittered and fractious issues such as the relationship between Britain and Ireland, claims about British attitudes and imperialism, claims about Irish attitudes towards Britain, etc. In real life these have made political progress only slowly and with huge effort, restraint and leadership. It's not that dissimilar here. An RFC may or may not help, but we need to not make simplistic judgements about the success or failure of something that is very difficult. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, this is a common myth trotted out by some of those who want this venue to continue it's 'good work' - that all the disruption to the process and the pedia in this topic is only down to the crazies and the 'bad people'. It's utter nonsense - those are the low hanging fruit, easily dealt with, and back slapping each other for success in that regard is pointless, or worse, totally deceptive. The real disruption being caused by this project is by the people who have no clue about how to really write from the NPOV, but still want to use this sham of a task force to push through their systematic POV driven changes based on their flawed understanding of it. No amount of pretend compromise or pretense that this task force is somehow part of the real world policital process makes that legitimate in policy, ever. It is no surprise these people are completely unwilling to have their understanding of NPOV put to an RFc, or anything else that would put what is actually happening at this task force under proper scrutiny. MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pretending it's part of the real-world process, just contrasting the difficulties associated from that. Your perception Mick of the lack of ability to write in NPOV (as you put it) by key participants is not shared by me and I don't "take the side" of the editor or editors you are clearly talking about without naming them. My perception is of (with the exception of some fairly infantile behaviour by a few) some pretty experienced editors with different views and a strong understanding of both NPOV and policy trying to work out how to take forward their views without it dissolving in pointless combat. Inevitably these views are strongly held and so the "utter unwillingness" you refer to is simply a restatement of why we have BISE in the first place. Note that none of this relates to DuncanHill's original stated reason for this delete, which was put down to non-communication - I think we have covered that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And your evidence that their is a strong understanding of NPOV in play at that venue is what exactly? Is there a discussion that has occured on that point that has actually involved editors with proven experience in that field? Any certified medcab members for example? Any arbitrators? Anybody with FAs on topics in this dispute to their name? Or infact anyone with any peer-reviewed work under their belt at all, where understanding of NPOV would be key. Has any view of NPOV of this tiny and completely unrepresentative group ever been put out there in an Rfc? Has any guideline it has ever proposed got anywhere close to being approved? Have you got anything, any evidence at all to dispell the idea that the only thing this venue is, is a self-reinforcing venue of total and utter misunderstanding of NPOV? I think you confuse people arguing strongly to take 'their views' forward and ultimately settling for whatever garbage of a deal or compromise they can, or even as we see, accept decisions under protest, which is evidence of POV pushing, with what actually happens when people argue strongly for proper adherance to NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And your alternative is...? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at any other nationalistic dispute on the pedia and see how they were handled. Deal with the behavioural issues at ANI/AN3/Rfc(U)/Arbcom, and deal with the content issues at ArticleTalk/Noticeboards(NPOV,Cont,Geop)/Rfc(P)/VPP and CENT. This is all pretty standard Wikipedia stuff, all designed to bring the most numbers of people to disputes, to give neutral and cluefull, policy based input, and in that regard this venue, and the tiny level of participation in it, and the lack of any will of it's backers to back up any views put forth by it through proper community endorsement, has absoluteley no legitimacy whatsoever, and none of the people participating in it has any right to be telling anybody else in the community what is and is not the proper application of NPOV to this terminology, let alone to be turning up at articles on topics they know absolutely nothing about, to 'fix' them. Thanks to BISE, I've never seen so many editors on the one hand freely admit that they have no specific knowledge of a set topic, and then still think that can change the contents of the article based solely on their discussion between themselves. I have many examples where, from a topic accuracy standpoint, this taskforce has managed to turn accurate prose into utter garbage, and has not once felt an ounce of shame when it is pointed out and fixed, if it is ever fixed, because after all, who the hell is monitoring the day to day changes it brings about, apart from the people who think they know what they are talking about? The reference above by Snowded that it has actually produced a 'guideline' on the levels of current participation and clue, let alone demonstrable and palpable total non-neutral interest, is frankly hilarious. Will he ever take that to the VPP for neutral examination or endorsment? I doubt it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please present those "many examples". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One was changing an item in rail transport in GB in 1930 list or something. Another was something in British Royal Train. Another was regarding an early game of the England national football team. Then there was 'what is a foreigner' in English/Scottish football. And the farce over the PFA Player of the year award. Those are just the ones that I immediately remembered as being particularly stupid, and showing this task force's total willingness to fuck with content it knows nothing about, just to further a POV push, and basically assert that hundred of editors from far and wide in all sorts of topics basically are morons, and have no understanding of proper use of the English language, and this tiny group in this TF has somehow been given a mandate to go around making 'corrections' to their work. I'm sure there are many other examples, there has to be when there are discussions about conkers going on for ten pages, yet there hasn't been nearly as much discussion on whether the ideas that underpin this total daftness have any support, or whether this TF is a legitimate DR process, beyond the usual missives that it keeps certain editors from edit warring and keeps drama off ANI. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to stop an Arbcom happening anyway, so this doesn't advance this discussion. As for the wonderful outcomes of Arbcoms, I am sceptical - mostly they seem either to shut down debate totally, eg, freezing articles, block the most knowledgeable participants or simply push people into more formulaic and rehearsed approaches. I haven't frankly seen a content dispute as sustained and fraught as the one we are discussing here "resolved" this way on Wikipedia. I suspect though that this is widely known and the advocacy of Arbcom hides a desire to simply resume the fray. Blocks on a number of editors who are most obdurate to proper civil discussion would of course be welcome though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbcom will normally expect other avenues of dispute resolution to have been exhausted. An RfC would likely be a better first step. TFOWR 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop the complaining & have the Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c, to james) I suggest you do much more research on arbcom decisions. I think that where you see people being silenced, it is actually a case of POV pushers being shut down, having been shown to have incurable TE/GAME/CPOV issues. Your views on other remedies, like 'freezing' articles, seem similarly uninformed as to the what's, why's, and wherefore's of such remedies. Your reference to 'knowledgable people' is probably a reference to those people who think they are such experts on a topic that in a dispute or discussion they completely fail to understand that their expert opinion is not the NPOV, and similarly get slammed by arbcom when it comes down to it. Those 'formulaic approaches' you refer to are probably all the standard processes and procedures we have like Rfc that are supposed to be followed, because they are time-served and proven to work, instead of making up novel venues and procedures like this one. If you haven't seen any disputes resolved like this, you haven't looked. Although again you rather miss the point, it is not arbcom's role to sort the content dispute, but to eliminate the disruption and POV pushing problematic behaviour that is the reason why that part of the discussion cannot be resolved like any other dispute, with reference to cluefull, widely-participated, time-limited, discussion, to form a proper and justifiable consensus. (do you see any prospect of BISE ever resolving the content dispute to the satisfaction of the community by simply using this tf? be serious now) And arbcom is not the first step in that process anyway, but part of the point is that none of that side of the process has been followed at all, nor the other side either for the content aspect. But the beauty of arbcom is that, as the last resort in that line for dealing with disruption, none of their remedies are applied without cluefull appraisal of evidence. As such it is done by the people expected to see through the vacuous claims of people of one side or the other, and discern whether particular editors can prove site support for their or logic or view of policy, and not just point to the support of a couple of like-minded editors who all have the same flawed beliefs and understandings. I can't see a single current highly active member of this TF ever passing muster on that score, because it's very existence and current operation is a tacit endorsement of POV stances and POV pushing / TE / gamery. Editors like HK, who is after all pretty much the sole reason it was set up, would more than likely just retire than face that examination. You can see it in his reaction every time the prospect of true outside review comes up, such as describing this Mfd as 'drama, drama, drama', or each time he tries to file an ANI report, and it boomerangs spectacularly, becoming instead a discussion of his understanding of certain behavioural and content policies. At arbcom, if there are no diffs, or they do not show what they are claimed to show, then there is no remedy. So, in light of your final point, that somehow me talking about the long line of established procedures that this page is well and truly not a part of, which if still unresovled finally results in arbcom, is somehow just some big bluff, well, I would wholeheartadly welcome a case in this area, or the whole Irish issues shooting match, seeing as it involves a hell of a lot of the same people all the time, because despite many unsupported claims to the contrary, I've never said a single thing on the topic or the applicability of the NPOV policy to it, that is not 100% back-able by uninvolved people who know the policies, and know a POV push when they see one. This is especially true the further up the chain of knowledge and experience of NPOV you go, of which arbcom is the top, excepting of course Jimbo Wales who pretty much wrote it (although I think HK and Snowded dispute just what weight he carries in interpreting it, which should go some way to explaining what's occuring at this TF in regard to true NPOV adherance and the shyness of some to stand up to external scrutiny). And finally, yes, blocks for incivility would be more than welcome, but again, arbcom is a brilliant example of the proper application of CIVIL - which is not a charter to dish topic bans out to people who say things you don't want to hear, nor is it just about censoring people who offend you by being brusque, it is primarily about stopping the disruption, discreditation, and downright disrespect, that the gamers and TE'ers bring to attempted discussions of actual matters of policy, like 'how do we stick to NPOV in this dispute?'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So long, couldn't be bothered to read. Would it be possible for you to pre-synopsise your response Mick and then just post the synopsis? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Total waste of the time of absolutely everybody involved. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 20:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I really wish it didn't have to exist as at first glance it does reek of bureaucracy, but it has indeed prevented a lot of edit warring. Moreover, none of the reasons outlined at the top of this page stand up to scrutiny. "self appointed" - well yes, Wikipedia is a voluntary collaborative project, everyone on every task force or wikiproject is there as a volunteer and is therefore "self appointed" - those words are meaningless in this context. As for a failure to notify, yes that was a fault which has apparently now been rectified; reluctance to notify? if that were the case, the above fault wouldn't have been fixed so quickly and easily. My only criticism is a minor one: I believe discussion about specific articles should take place on the specific article talk pages, with the pointer being from the task force to the article talk page, not the other way around. But that's certainly no reason to delete. waggers (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This keeps cropping up. It really is something we should give some serious thought to. Fmph (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly something we can discuss again. The main difficulty is that some issues are very repetitive across a large number of near-identical (at least in format and content size) stub articles, so in reality it would be better to evolve guidelines for those - as has been said above, there has been solid progress in this direction. There is also an admin-enforced rule now that no add/delete of the phrase can be made to non-consensus articles without a local article announcement using the template we designed, or a ruling on it agreed. So it's getting there, but there is always room for improvement. It's not incidentally all that bureacratic - anyone can join in and the discussions are neatly templated so it is no harder to comment than it is at any other typical debate page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to that system would make the whole taskforce page completely pointless. the whole idea of that was so our endlessly boring discussions dont clutter up article talk pages. I dont mind the major pages like Ireland having the debate there, but we should certainly continue to hold the discussions about BIs inclusion on most pages which dont have active talk pages, over at BISE. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - local articles notified where needed and discussion held on BISE is best for obvious reasons. In the past we had numerous seperate little battles going on at local pages with local article editors generally perplexed as to what it was all about and full scope for "sneaking" changes in what is a very contentious area unobserved. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty convincing argument. So, I'm happy with the status quo. waggers (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I believe the technology exists for a single argument/discussion thread to appear in 2 (3?) places at once and for editors/contributors to effectively be 'unaware' whereabouts they are contributing from. Its not a case of either/or. We can have it in both places at once. This is achieved by actually 'physically' locating the discussion in a 3rd place - a subpage - and transcluding it into both places. I'm not sure how to actually achieve this. I'm no MediaWiki expert. But I do believe it is technologically possible. Similar constructs are used on many project pages. Fmph (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A process that is a complete waste of time for minor articles with talkpages that have not been active for years. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It appears that "lack of collegiality" is presented as a grounds for deletion at MfD. Alas, I can not find that as a grounds for deletion.  If it is desired to abolish the group, that is better done through an RfC than through deletion of the project pages and talk pages.  MfD is the wrong venue if that is the goal. Collect (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we mark this closed as Keep?. The Keep/Delete ratio was 13:4. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there's certainly no consensus for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.