Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 1

Welcome
This is first draft. Please edit as you see fitGnevin (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good idea. --Helenalex (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

CFD discussions
There are a couple current CFD discussions that people from WikiProject Ireland Collaboration might be interested in. Please see these 2 discussions linked below. One is above the other on the same page. The discussions concern how to categorize religious and nationalist terrorism.
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 4
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 4 --Timeshifter (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up Gnevin (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming question (obsolete message)
I have been made aware of the Ireland naming question discussed at Talk:Ireland. Pardon my ignorance; but this project seems like the perfect place to solve such questions, and I'm wondering if there is any reason why I don't see anything about that here. If there is interest, I could help with my experience from WP:SLR, which was the inspiration for your inspiration WP:IPCOLL. (Please feel free to send me e-mail.) &mdash; Sebastian 05:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Membership
I would like to become a member. Most WikiProjects have a list where people simply add themselves. This WikiProject doesn't - was this a conscious decision or did you just not get around to it? Since you also have certain conditions for members, how do you handle the situation when an editor does not agree with the conditions? (At WP:SLR, we have a membership application process, where every member has a veto right. I am very happy that it never happened that an application got vetoed for partisan reasons. All people who applied got eventually accepted; in some cases after agreeing to certain neutral conditions, such as writing edit summaries. We could not agree on excluding members, and it never became necessary. But if you ever want to implement it, now would be the best time to think about it.) &mdash; Sebastian 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have concerns about the condition "not involved in Irish POV disputes". In both WP:IPCOLL and WP:SLR we explicitly want people who are involved in such disputes. These people are the people who care, and a project like this is exactly the place to mitigate any problems arising from that. (IPCOLL has moderators, who e.g. delete incivilty. At SLR, we allow deletion of any off-topic contributions, which is a wording I prefer because I don't have to accuse someone of incivilty.) For the same reason, I don't think that the condition "always [...] writing with a neutral point of view" is helpful. As WP:NPOV says: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." &mdash; Sebastian 07:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At WP:SLR, I would usually give such issues two days before reaching a conclusion. But in this case, I would like to be faster: A substantial number of editors have shown their agreement with solving the Ireland naming question here, and I would not want this question to block the momentum. I therefore will be WP:BOLD and do the changes for now. We can always change them back later. I made both founders of this project aware of this discussion. &mdash; Sebastian 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As you've experience of other style projects such as this I think you should feel free to make whatever chances you think we need to progress this idea. We can always discuss any ideas that we disagree with if need be Gnevin (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vote of confidence! This allows us to focus on the more urgent issue of the naming question for now. Once that is done, it would be a great time for project members to reconsider all of these admittedly somewhat hurried decisions. &mdash; Sebastian 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Shortcut
Are there any suggestions for a shortcut for this project? Since we're modelled on IPCOLL, how about WP:IRLCOLL - or WP:ÉColl? (The good thing is, this won't turn into yet another naming discussion. We can easily have both side by side.) &mdash; Sebastian 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just about to ask this, I like IECOLL like the TLD, but as you say we can have several Gnevin (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Should I step down?
In below, I appealed to all to respect edits of moderators. This elicited only one, disrespectful, reply. Statistically, this is a disapproval rate of 100%. If that were indeed representative for how people feel about me, then the proper thing for me to do would be to step down. I am therefore asking for your opinion. (It's really just an opinion in this case; don't worry about the Graham's pyramid for a moment. If you prefer, you can also send me mail.)

Please do not feel you have to say something nice just because I have been appointed by ArbCom. Instead, please imagine ArbCom had just said: "Here's a guy we trust. Make the best use of him." Would you trust me, and follow the path that I believe leads us out of this? &mdash; Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be taking an active role in a fair way to try and resolve the problem, i dont think you should step down. I hope we havnt scared u off too quick :). BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. We need your help. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not scared. The reason why I wrote this is: I can not change you. If there is no real will to try something new in this community, then my time here is wasted. There are so many other important issues in this world; why should I spend my free time on this one? Just a minute ago I heard an interview with Siddharth Kara of Free the Slaves, who said when asked what kept him motivated "I draw on the strength the victims show ...". That struck a chord with me. &mdash; Sebastian 18:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sebastian, when I saw your name on the list of the Ireland Collaboration Project, I did not assume you to be an impartial mediator appointed by ArbCom to resolve disputes. You should make that clear at the top of this page. I still hope I can add something to the dispute as most of it overlooks or twists the binding laws which set out this very dispute (which I have mentioned below and would happily discuss as they may appear complicated when disputes go on). ~ R . T . G  22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a very good point! I haven't seen any public action by ArbCom on this. All I went by is mails from ArbCom members. Therefore, I will wait and only act as a normal member here until we get official word by ArbCom. &mdash; Sebastian 22:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There definitely was an arbcom page, Sebastian, but I cannot recall the address and I am sure they closed it without resolving, probably pending your work here? ~ R . T . G  13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names ~ R . T . G  13:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)




 * Thank you for providing the diffs! &mdash; Sebastian 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with disruptions?
Renamed from "How to deal with hecklers?" because we want to focus on issues, not people. &mdash; Sebastian 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A recent incident made me aware that there is an inconsistency: While our project page says "Members commit, to the best of their ability, to always "comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, contributing to the goal of a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. (ArbCom quote)", but we are not clear how we deal with any violations - be they by a member or not.

Obviously this collaboration project should have no bias for or against any position regarding the Irland naming question. Every position needs to be respected and get a fair chance to get expressed with reasonable arguments. However, that does not mean that we need to tolerate disruptive editors.

What do members think should happen when someone acts disruptively in the future? Should he or she get banned from this page, or first receive a warning? &mdash; Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It would depend on the level of disruption, people should certainly be given a second or third chance especially in the early days of this process when people are still recovering from months of inaction on this issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right; it would be impatient to expect that the mindset arising from months of stalled discussion can change with the snap of a finger; immediate banning would be inappropriate. I realize I should have better asked about the incident that triggered this. In that incident, the moderator applied an action that was not allowed by WP:DISCUSSION. Of course, I am acting according to WP:IAR, as I understand it. But we need to decide if moderators are allowed actions here. I hope we can agree on this without having to resort to a catalogue of individual actions and the circumstances under which they would be appropriate. Let's just look at the last incident as a precedence: (1) Moderator deletes off-topic discussion, giving specific reason for why this is necessary at the time; (2) editor who is not a project member reverts. What should happen? Currently, any heckler can have the last word. If that is what members want, then I don't see much of a point in having moderators in the first place. &mdash; Sebastian 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with a 3 strikes policy for most hecklers expect for the What have the British/Irish ever done for us, All British/Irish are murders/terrorist and the Typical British imperialist/ parochial Irish  type of hecklers of which we have quite a few.Gnevin (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I realize I wrote the wrong headline - how do you think we should deal with the disruptions themselves? &mdash; Sebastian 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont have a problem with comments being striked out or removed by the moderators aslong as theres justification, a reason given in the edit summary and once agreement on such a policy is reached a note at the top of this page aswell as on the project page just reminding people that certain things may be removed. I dont think a warning should be given if its just one unhelpful but innocent comment, unlike the above examples which are clearly just for stiring up trouble and should lead to warning. 3 strikes and your out policy is the fairest as it gives people plenty of chances to change their actions. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I see it they're can be 4 type of incidents
 * A new section where no one has replied > Remove
 * A new section where the disruptive text has no useful text and people have replied > Remove
 * A new section where the disruptive text has useful text and people have replied > Reword removing disputed text and maybe template
 * A reply to a on going section > Remove and maybe template


 * The template would be like User:Gnevin/sandbox8 Gnevin (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks good! I'd only leave out the word "Disruptive", because it can be perceived as an accusation. Instead, let's just write "Off-topic". How about moving it to a subpage of WP:IECOLL? &mdash; Sebastian 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Created at OffTopic shortcut OT, which renders as Gnevin (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Now that there are several sections resolved, we should start thinking about archiving. Do we need to keep copies in a traditional archive, or does it suffice to just delete anything that's marked as resolved? The old version can always be seen in the history. Who wants to do the work? &mdash; Sebastian 08:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will archive this later, Archiving allow us to link to past discussion in a way that just removing doesn't Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Current situation and next steps
After reading the discussion at Talk:Ireland, I became aware that the community actually already developed a procedure, or at least the Ireland specific part of it. There are at least two undisputed proposals that build upon each other: BrownHairedGirl’s proposal “Possible directions from which to approach this issue” of 22:10, 12 January, provides a foundation, and the “Solution table for problem(s) Mk II”, worked out by several editors around 02:10, 13 January, provides the sequence of the decisions that need to be made. Not only was there “a reasonable degree of agreement” on this, there was even not a single objection. There was agreement that “there [are] two similar, yet focussed proposals, targetted […] exactly at what ArbCom asked to happen”. Therefore, we do not need the Back-up procedure for the Ireland specific part.

What is missing in the Mk II procedure is independent of Ireland naming question proper: A determination of how the decisions themselves are to be made. (Consensus, some form of majority, or anything else.) &mdash; Sebastian 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As the second uninvolved administrator, let me say hi. I can already see that Sebastian has superiour experience in mediation then I do, and I admit to be slightly overwhelmed by his dedication and methodology. As for determinating the process; I first and formost prefer consensus over anything else. Since that has proven less successfull, the next logical step is mediation, and to a lesser extent, arbitration. I originally envisioned the Panel Of Three as a panel of mediators where arguments are exchanged in a structured discussion, and arbitrate when discussion is deadlocked. But that is my own simplified vision. I am still studying Talk:Ireland and other discussions scattered around to get up to speed. I hope to be able to provide some help here. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh no, my attempt to smuggle the snowball' through was foiled! :-(


 * Seriously, though: Welcome! I'm very happy that you arrived. After reading your statement and seeing the first "I made a mistake" userbox ever on your page, I feel much more at ease with the option of having the panel work out things. I'm really not here to get my way; I'm happy to learn from others.


 * Please don't be overwhelmed. I think I rushed things too much and will slow down from now on. I'm learning, too. While this is the third such project where I am involved in the start, it is obvious that every case is different, and there is no magic pill. This is the first time I'm in a collaboration project as a member of a panel with a mandate from ArbCom. Please don't ever hesitate to let me know when you have any concerns with what I'm doing.


 * Seeing that you prefer a different option, I am now sorry that I started with the "Options for decisionmaking" already before we even decided on the procedure; that makes it harder to go back to step 1. But I hope people will understand. I will clarify that in the next section (which I will rewrite and rename to . &mdash; Sebastian 03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Choice of procedures
I am deleting the section "Our first choice" that was here because I now realize that:
 * 1) it was too complicated - I want to adhere to KISS.
 * 2) Nobody replied to my rambling anyway.
 * 3) some of my assumptions changed (as discussed in my reply to DDStretch above).
 * 4) it was premature - Currently, we're not even sure that the moderator panel is complete, and it may be that other moderators feel it is the panel's task to make that choice.

This is a new situation for me, too: I have no experience matching different expectations in a panel of moderators who don't know each other yet, while a big group of other editors, whom I am also meeting for the first time, is anxious to get their problem resolved. I think it makes most sense to start with the panel, to make sure that we all agree on what ArbCom expects of us. I will start a discussion at the subpage /Panel for use by the panel. I am very sorry about this delay, and I ask everybody for your patience. &mdash; Sebastian 06:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good night
Just a little note that I have to go to bed now. I would love to stay, but it is 03:23 in the morning here, my thermostat has shut down hours ago, and it's cold as in an Irish castle now. See you tomorrow! &mdash; Sebastian 11:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Night Sebastian, sorry i wasnt trying to be disruptive or too negative before it was just a lack of faith that any consensus could be made as its been an ongoing dispute for so long. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, you don't mean to be disruptive. And I don't mean to be picking on you specifically.
 * It is just that we're all human. It is part of the way we are built, and hard to overcome. When we have been disappointed too often, we lose hope, and we tend to see things that confirm our impression. We even reconfirm it by treading in the same path over and over again. That's why I'm focusing on the pyramid and on staying on-topic; these are just good Ariadne threads that help us get out of this maze. There is an exit, believe me! I think the key to a solution involves everyone being open to a new way. Please give me a chance. &mdash; Sebastian 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, i really wasnt trying to spark another debate on which article title would be best so ive just striked my comment that was moved to the discussion section. This is meant to be just about the way forward to resolve the matter not the old issue of which is better or worse at the moment. I hope consensus will be reached but im sure your involvement and that of the other moderators who dont hold strong views on this matter will help bring it to an end soon. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I got punished for this: I'm now lying down with a cold. I only went to the computer quickly to let you know; but then of course I got hooked again. But I do not plan to be here very often in the next two days or so. &mdash; Sebastian 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ I've been away for a couple of days with little internet access. I sat down tonight to go through this and I am very unsure as to what is going on. There are clear and strong opinions on this issue and they reflect historical conflict to varying degrees. It seems to me that we need to focus on what are the key issues, assemble the evidence and assuming that we have the same issues as before gain some form of arbitration. I can already see a repetition of past discussions (ROI is an official description) and I have no intention of repeating yet again the rebuttal until a process is in place. At the moment this discussion seems all over the place. I am prepared to believe it may go somewhere but for the moment I can't see how. -- Snowded  TALK  21:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relax. 3 admins are being appointed by ArbCom. 2 have been chosen. Then a process will be decided upon. After that, who knows? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully relaxed, even when I wrote it!  I just want to see some progress ... -- Snowded   TALK  13:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)