![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is first draft. Please edit as you see fit Gnevin ( talk) 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple current CFD discussions that people from Wikipedia: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.
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.) — Sebastian 05:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
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.) — 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." — Sebastian 07:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
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.) — Sebastian 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In #Discussion 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? — Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Renamed from "How to deal with hecklers?" because we want to focus on issues, not people. — 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? — Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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? — Sebastian 08:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
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.) — Sebastian 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I am deleting the section "Our first choice" that was here because I now realize that:
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. — Sebastian 06:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
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! — Sebastian 11:25, 28 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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is first draft. Please edit as you see fit Gnevin ( talk) 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple current CFD discussions that people from Wikipedia: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.
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.) — Sebastian 05:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
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.) — 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." — Sebastian 07:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
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.) — Sebastian 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In #Discussion 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? — Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Renamed from "How to deal with hecklers?" because we want to focus on issues, not people. — 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? — Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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? — Sebastian 08:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
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.) — Sebastian 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I am deleting the section "Our first choice" that was here because I now realize that:
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. — Sebastian 06:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
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! — Sebastian 11:25, 28 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)