(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
# Towards the conclusion of the polls, my own involvement in and awareness of this matter was suspended due to off-wiki events. When I semi-returned (I'm still not up to speed yet) I found that the polls had been closed, a new poll opened at [[Talk:Republic of Ireland]], an admin had moved the pages according to the (meritocratic, the Wikipedia way!) task force consensus, another admin had reverted the moves based on the (democratic, ie. not the Wikipedia way!) article talk page polls, Matt Lewis had resigned from Wikipedia and a request for arbitration had been made. |
# Towards the conclusion of the polls, my own involvement in and awareness of this matter was suspended due to off-wiki events. When I semi-returned (I'm still not up to speed yet) I found that the polls had been closed, a new poll opened at [[Talk:Republic of Ireland]], an admin had moved the pages according to the (meritocratic, the Wikipedia way!) task force consensus, another admin had reverted the moves based on the (democratic, ie. not the Wikipedia way!) article talk page polls, Matt Lewis had resigned from Wikipedia and a request for arbitration had been made. |
||
==Evidence presented by |
==Evidence presented by [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]]== |
||
===[[User:Mooretwin]] edit wars on numerous articles=== |
|||
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person'' |
|||
User Mooretwin has edit-warred on numerous articles, aggressively undoing the edits of other authors. Recent examples are: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Sands&diff=prev&oldid=256678269], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1981_Irish_hunger_strike&diff=prev&oldid=256678053], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Category_Status&diff=prev&oldid=256677818], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_category_status&diff=prev&oldid=256677582], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1981_Irish_hunger_strike&diff=prev&oldid=256675540]. |
|||
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|||
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring. |
|||
===[[User:Mooretwin]] has been sanctioned in the past for edit-warring=== |
|||
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|||
Mooretwin has been blocked five times for editwarring. One was later overturned, as it was discovered that he had been editwarring against a banned user, but of the other four blocks, the three earlier ones were 3RR violations, the most recent one was for violating [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles|The general 1RR sanctions]] on numerous Troubles related articles (including after being specifically warned by several people about these sanctions. |
|||
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. |
|||
===[[User:Mooretwin]] has a history of uncivil comments=== |
|||
In addition to the aggressive behavior shown above, he has a habit of inflaming dispute with uncivil comments: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Category_Status&diff=prev&oldid=256677818 '''"Stop your nonsense. This has been put to bed. Go to Talk on 1981 hunger strike"'''] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_category_status&diff=prev&oldid=256677582 '''"Stop your nonsense - go to Talk on 1981 hnger strike, or you'll be reported"'''] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mooretwin&diff=prev&oldid=256679980 '''Go ahead and tell the teacher.'''] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mooretwin&diff=prev&oldid=256680746 '''Do us all a favour and block the Domer48/Big Dunc tell-tale tag-team, too. They are consistently disruptive editors. Just ask The Thunderer, who appears to have been bullied off WP'''] |
|||
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
Revision as of 00:09, 10 December 2008
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Evertype
The word "Ireland" is ambiguous
This dispute is terminological. There are three article topics on question. There is no consensus to retain the "status quo" (if there were, we would not be here). I'll describe the status quo here, then describe several scenarios to illustrate the problem. (I'm giving a link to the Request for Arbitration discussion in case I or others need to cite from it.)
Status quo:
- Ireland - an article chiefly about the island and the nation of people who live on it, but to which has accreted much information duplicating material in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland articles.
- Republic of Ireland - an article about the State which occupies 83% of the island. Republic of Ireland is an official "description" of the State, but the State's name as defined in its Constitution is Ireland, which is certainly the best-known name of the country world-wide.
- Ireland (disambiguation) - a dab page containing references to (to use the current nomenclature) Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, a number of historical political formations, and the usual other dabs.
Not everyone wants change, but those who do may favour Scenario A or Scenario B.
Scenario A (To be superficial about it, this scenario tends to be favoured by people south of the border, Republicans or not)
- Ireland - an article about the State which occupies 83% of the island.
- Ireland (island) - an article chiefly about the island and the nation of people who live on it
- Ireland (disambiguation) - a dab page containing references to (to use the current nomenclature) Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, a number of historical political formations, and the usual other dabs.
Scenario B (To be superficial about it, this scenario tends to be favoured by people north of the border, Unionists or Loyalists or not)
- Ireland - an article chiefly about the island and the nation of people who live on it
- Ireland (state) - an article about the State which occupies 83% of the island.
- Ireland (disambiguation) - a dab page containing references to (to use the current nomenclature) Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, a number of historical political formations, and the usual other dabs.
I'm going to save this page now and shortly will be back with Scenario C. -- Evertype·✆ 10:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Scenario C (The move to these three articles was implemented on 2008-11-30 [1][2][3] by Tariqabjotu; see his comment on the move. The move of these three articles was reverted on 2008-12-02 [4][5][6] by Deacon of Pndapetzim)
- Ireland - arguably the only sensible name for the disambiguation page since it is clear that the word "Ireland" is deeply ambiguous.
- Ireland (island) - this move could encourage a simplifying of the article to more generic, geographical, and geological elements; compare the article on the island Great Britain with the article on the State United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
- Ireland (state) - a name which doesn't entirely satisfy either those who want the name to be Ireland or those who want it to be Republic of Ireland, but seems to me to be the only workable compromise. It should be noted that there is currently discussion about moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) anyway, with growing consensus on how to use Ireland or Republic of Ireland or the Republic within articles as appropriate for language. This growing consensus is excellent, but it does not address the problem we have with Ireland being the name of the island article rather than a dab page—because that article does accrete material proper to the other article.
That's my summary of the scenarios. My preference is for Scenario C because Ireland is irretrievably ambiguous and Scenario C seems to me to be the most neutral of any of the proposals. If Ireland points to on article or the other, we will always have people insisting that "No, the most popular use of the word is Y, not X!"`—we have "enjoyed" that dispute for four years. I have cited Una Smith before and will do so here: "An ambiguous title such as Ireland should be a disambiguation page, because it is Ireland that will accumulate incoming links needing disambiguation and the task of disambiguating them is made vastly more difficult if Ireland also has 'correct' incoming links that refer to one topic by that name." (See this and this.) If we were to make Ireland the dab page, serious work would have to be done to make sure that articles linked to either the Ireland (island) or Ireland (state) articles. Once that were done, however, it would be possible for editors to look at what links to the dab page and pipe them properly. There is precedent: compare Georgia, Georgia (country) and Georgia (US state) (though no analogy is perfect).-- Evertype·✆ 11:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem here affects sister Wikis
We recently had a bot make the following changes to the [ Ireland] article:
- (diff) (hist) . . mb Ireland; 10:39:27 . . (-90) . . JAnDbot (Talk | contribs) (robot Removing: bn:আয়ারল্যান্ড, es:Isla de Irlanda, sv:Irlands geografi)
That deleted "Island of Ireland" from the Spanish Wikipedia, "Ireland's Geography" from the Swedish Wikipedia. The page in Bengali which was unlinked is called Ireland and is a disambiguation page linking to Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland. Since the English Wikipedia has a lot of influence, the dispute hereis actually affecting the Wikipedia as a whole. -- Evertype·✆ 12:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Evidence presented by HighKing
Current title of Republic of Ireland is contentious and political
A large part of the arguments for and against using "Republic of Ireland" centre around the difference between a "name" and a "description". Internationally, the "name" of the state is accepted as "Ireland" and it is the name of the state in the English language under the [[ Irish constitution. In 1948, Ireland declared itself a Republic and broke away from the British Commonwealth. This Act is known as the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and states It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland. The controversy arises from the fact that the British government passed the Ireland Act 1949 which states The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section is hereafter in this Act referred to, and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passing of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland. Under UK law (and still in force today) the name is "Republic of Ireland" and this has been a diplomatic bone of contention between the UK and Ireland since then. T*85 posted a good summary here of an article by Professor Mary E. Daly. Continuing to use the term "Republic of Ireland" in Wikipedia is confusing and inaccurate. Using the term as an article title, or on maps showing the state, or depending on context, even within articles themselves, incorrectly propagates the idea that "Republic of Ireland" is some sort of alternative official name. This | confusion is largely a result of British organizations using their legally correct term for the state, but it is no excuse for the international community or Wikipedia.
Disambiguation, but not as an alternative name
There are many instances where a description is useful. For example, if there are two John Smith's, we would often use a description to tell them apart so that we don't confuse John Smith the dentist with John Smith the gynacologist. But since "Republic of Ireland" is also a legal name in the UK, it is too confusing and controversial to also use this term as a disambiguator. We all know and accept that there are instances where Ireland the state needs to be disambiguated from Ireland the island or from Northern Ireland, but many arguments have been put forth for using one over the other. In some circumstances it is appropriate to use the description, but unfortunately the description is abused on Wikipedia and takes the place of the name. For example, the article about the state is located at Republic of Ireland, a map at Ireland shows the name of the state as "Republic of Ireland", and other articles about functions of government are located at RoI titles e.g. Civil service of the Republic of Ireland. Why must RoI be used as disambiguation at all times and in such a way that it is also being used not as a disambiguator, but as a name? --HighKing (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Waggers
Fundamental principles
Just to explain where I'm coming from...
- Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is a meritocracy not a democracy. That means we decide things based on consensus: a result of a discussion with the decision based on the best argument(s), NOT on shear weight of votes.
- WP:IAR starts with an "if" and that's a big if. IAR is not a licence to ignore policy on a whim- there has to be a good, common sense reason to ignore a Wikipedia project-wide policy.
- If the decision to ignore a policy is contentious or disputed by a significant number of editors, the policy should probably be adhered to. (I don't think that one's written in policy anywhere but I'd be surprised if there's widespread disagreement to it!)
- WP:NAME is a an official English Wikipedia policy, not a guideline/suggestion/random idea. In particular, "Do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings." is Wikipedia policy.
The names of the articles have always been within the remit of the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force (IDTF)
Despite claims to the contrary, part of the task force's remit has always been to look at the names of the three disputed articles - this is clear from the creation of the task force page through to the current version.
Ample notice of the task force and move discussions was given on the relevant article talk pages
- BEFORE the polls that opened on 25th November: [7] [8] [9] [10] (there are more diffs but I'm sure those are sufficient to illustrate the point)
Events in a nutshell
- Most attempts to centralise discussion or notify the wider community of what the task force was doing were treated with an assumption of bad faith [11].
- The task force achieved consensus several times over on a way forward, but at least one editor insisted that consensus within the task force did not constitute a "proper" Wikipedia consensus[12] (regardless of the notifications I've mentioned above and the fact that WP:RM allows the discussion to take place at a centralised point for multiple page moves).
- Assistance from uninvolved administrators was requested but no volunteers were forthcoming.
- To appease those editors who thought the task force discussion could not constitute a "proper" consensus, further polls were initiated on the article talk pages (Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) at this stage, as these two had the greatest consensus on the task force; the Republic of Ireland move had consensus, but to a lesser extent), but progress was blocked, apparently by some kind of voting bloc, as it was mainly by plain voting (without any new reasoning being put forward) - in violation of WP:NOT as described above.
- The vast majority of those allegedly with "strong" feelings who were opposed to the moves in the 25th November polls did not take part in the task force. The point being, if they really felt that strongly, why weren't they involved in the formulation of consensus when, as demonstrated above, there had been plenty of warning that this was coming? The actions and words were simply not tying up, and from the point of view of those who had worked hard to get a consensus on these issues this seemed very much like a WP:POINTy, disruptive pattern of editing from quite a number of editors.
- Towards the conclusion of the polls, my own involvement in and awareness of this matter was suspended due to off-wiki events. When I semi-returned (I'm still not up to speed yet) I found that the polls had been closed, a new poll opened at Talk:Republic of Ireland, an admin had moved the pages according to the (meritocratic, the Wikipedia way!) task force consensus, another admin had reverted the moves based on the (democratic, ie. not the Wikipedia way!) article talk page polls, Matt Lewis had resigned from Wikipedia and a request for arbitration had been made.
Evidence presented by SirFozzie
User:Mooretwin edit wars on numerous articles
User Mooretwin has edit-warred on numerous articles, aggressively undoing the edits of other authors. Recent examples are: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].
User:Mooretwin has been sanctioned in the past for edit-warring
Mooretwin has been blocked five times for editwarring. One was later overturned, as it was discovered that he had been editwarring against a banned user, but of the other four blocks, the three earlier ones were 3RR violations, the most recent one was for violating The general 1RR sanctions on numerous Troubles related articles (including after being specifically warned by several people about these sanctions.
User:Mooretwin has a history of uncivil comments
In addition to the aggressive behavior shown above, he has a habit of inflaming dispute with uncivil comments:
"Stop your nonsense. This has been put to bed. Go to Talk on 1981 hunger strike"
"Stop your nonsense - go to Talk on 1981 hnger strike, or you'll be reported"
Go ahead and tell the teacher.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.