Welcome to my discussion page. -- Waggers. Click here to leave me a new message Please note that personal attacks or inflammatory messages will be removed. Please try to keep discussions on topic. Please sign your comments with four tildes (like this: ~~~~) If you're replying to an existing message, please indent your message using colons. (If your message is over several paragraphs, please indent and sign them all. That way other users [including me] can respond to your individual points) By the way, you can email me if you want but I check this talk page more frequently than that email account.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I'd just do it immediately. The quicker we can throw the debate open, the more quickly the now actual disruption that Mooretwin is causing by his highly inaccurate allegations of "stealth", etc, can be stopped and seen for what it is by more people.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right; I've done it. waggers (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

e/c!! Don't you think it could still be a bit early, though? A worry could be beligerant voting at the RM - we can't guarantee on all the support it has had. And the 3 people I mentioned above still haven't turned up - despite the constant trickle still turning in. When they feel they are in the majority they are a different kind of force entirely, I promise you! Remember how they fought the taskforce around the AfD (if you saw it)? And it's worth remembering my too-brash 'opening proposal' too - I'm sure some people voted against it simply because I had the cheek to do it so quickly. The same thing could happen here, and the silence from a number of people worries me.

Any luck with the admin, waggers?--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - see for yourself. I think a lot of admins see the word "Ireland" and run a mile, given the problems we've had with Ireland related issues over recent years. Still, we do seem to have a fair bit of momentum without further intervention being necessary, so let's see how we do. waggers (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nervous with this back on the Irish main pages - I hope you've done the right thing here. I'll support it, but if it doesn't pass it could be a big blow, undermining the taskforce and giving a huge amount of support to the status quo. My fingers are seriously crossed!--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, if any move is to be made, the RM discussion has to happen on the main talk pages. And, if the proposed moves don't get sufficient support, they just don't happen and we stay stuck in the current, stupid, stalemate situation, and we'll just have to live with it (despite it being a clear breach of Wikipedia policy). waggers (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see how it goes, and I must stop letting Moortwin wind me up! Given the multiple attempts at this I think if it doesn't work we have to move it into arbitration, otherwise its going to happen again and again and the filibuster will work. I also think you can count the votes on the task force page by the way. --Snowded TALK 13:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope so, but then I thought every "agree" vote here would translate to an agree vote here, since the latter was just a subset of the former, but apparently I was wrong. People's voting patterns on this issue seem to change with the wind. waggers (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of editors having voted once thing they don't need to vote again, or are getting sick of the number of votes, arguments etc. I think you can count any vote (either way) if it is not explicitly changed - assembling that and getting an arbcom member or simlar to confirm might be a way forward - if its necessary. Thanks for displaying courage on this one by they way, without that it would have just drifted on. Its not easy to take the brickbats on Irish pages.

(outdent)I am fast losing patience with the attacks that attempt to disparage people who have other viewpoints from Mooretwin, and the, frankly, clearly bogus "scare tactics" that are used to say what ridiculous titles articles would have if the disambiguation page move went ahead. As has been commented, it seems such a big matter that almost any type of tactics is considered usable in order to scupper this move. I have absolutely no problem if it fails as a result of honest and fair disagreements, but some of the reasons offered to oppose the move are ludicrous. I think that not only should arbitration be considered if the situation persists for longer, but a case could be made to expand the editing restrictions of "The Troubles" to include all Ireland and British Isles related areas. I think this would not be a good thing, but it may be the best of a bad bunch if this continues.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya did the right thing in opening up RM discussions at Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation), Waggers. No matter what the outcome, it won't be the end of the world. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GoodDay, I think so too - it really is no big deal. Personally I came into this with pretty much no opinion at all other than that I wanted to see an end to the bickering. DDStretch's arguments were the only ones that were thought through and based on WP policy. DDStretch - I haven't looked at the polls etc. since this afternoon but I'll take a look shortly. If Mooretwin gets blatantly disruptive he'll be warned and, if necessary, blocked. waggers (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds very good, but you sould respect that many good people have been burnt by this matter over the years - change is a VERY hard thing to achieve here. It could be said the 'cabal' against change is as much as 15 people - and so far it has a 100% unbeaten record in all its fights. Your RM currently has more opposes than supports, and I worry that it being in the two places could somehow work against it. If this fails and things manage to pick up again, it will be down to work from a few other people than just you and DDStretch, I have to say too!

Regarding Mooretwin, it's hard to see how he can be dealt with for stonewalling when so many people stand beside him - he just happens to be more vocal on occasions. It's almost like some of them take it in turns, who knows. Guiliolopez looks like an opening - but people simply need to try harder with each other. There is only so much I can do myself as I made too many enemies fighting the thing past the AfD. I also worry that the last few days do look a bit like steamrolling. I understand the frustrations, but a new and genuinely neutral admin might think - "hang on" - is there really yet a full consensus here? Some of the serial opposers are simply no hopers I would agree, but we need to find out what gives with the ones who have an idea about what they would accept.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If these RMs fail, we'll have to accept the status-quo, Waggers. Also, we'll all have to remember to be patient with those who oppose the RMs & not bite them. Rough treatment can stir oppositon quickly. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. Whatever happens, there's no point getting worked up about it - there are far more important things in life. waggers (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But again, that is very easy to say. Of course there are more important things in life, but don't forget how words like that can sound sometimes. It's a question of degree, and some people are clearly more passionately into this than you, perhaps sensibly, happen to be (though I do value your presence). Some people have invested an awful lot of time on this, over a long period too - nobody likes to see that kind of investment undervalued, or gambled with too cheaply. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Investment" sounds like you expect a "return". Much as I'd like the change to be made, we're going to have to accept the fact that we may be fighting a losing battle. If this is a lost cause (and I really hope it isn't), there will have to come a time when we cut our losses. waggers (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me the issue here is that RoI throws sand in the face of WP:COMMONNAME and is WP:BIASED; no cabal of 15 people can hold out against policy and common usage forever. I for one won't rest until this is made consistent with the rules of Wikipedia. Every vote is getting closer. "Ireland" must eventually become a dab, or Wiki has failed to support its own policy. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at this?

It's late and I don't know if I going potty but I put this to Jza84 (as he's more detatched) - what do you make of it? Obviously, I went to town on it, but I thought he was trying to mislead people. What do you think his point was? He inserted "Republic of Ireland" in each example, suggesting they are piped to Ireland, and therefore the state name was used correctly. I thought he was fooling the vote. Maybe I've lost track of the argument, I don't know - I 'll give it another look.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm - I changed my reply. I can see what he was trying to do now - ie be a smart ass! He is still completely wrong, of course, but people just aren't grasping the deal here (or in this guys case, he possibly just wants Ireland to cover the past, and ROI the present perhaps).

I added a bit more information in the intro - a lot of people seem to be voting 'oppose' simply because they genuinely want Ireland as the state article, and as it appears to already be so, they can't understand moving it! --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patients running dry, at the RM proposals

Hiya Waggers. Emotions are heating some, on the RM proposals. If these RMs fail, IMHO we should wait 1-year, until trying again. In the meantime, the Ireland Taskforce can continue to work things out. Our hopes for a consensus, isn't materializing. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it's fairly clear from some of the comments that there's a lot of using the project to get political points across, and WP:POINTing at that. It's sad, but hardly surprising. waggers (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though moving Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation), isn't gonna happen (any time soon). GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'est la vie. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. waggers (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one, close those RMs? Or is there a time limit on'em. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can just close them, by sticking archived discussion templates at the top and bottom. The discussions should be open for at least "a few days" - I would go for 5 as that's the standard for things like AfD, but I think they've been open longer than that already so are ripe for closure. Matt had hoped that an independent administrator would come along and close them up, perhaps drawing comments together into a neat summary, but nobody volunteered to help out (the AN thread I started was archived without a single reply) so I guess anybody can close the discussion at any time, unless the conclusion they draw is going to cause outrage.

The dab page seems to have definite consensus to move, but the Ireland page I would close as "no consensus", which of course bars the way for the dab page to move. Having said that, there is still no clear reason after all the discussion as to why Ireland should not be moved; this being a meritocracy and not a democracy, that matters more than the number of votes - but it would be a brave person indeed to close the discussion with that conclusion! waggers (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I ain't that brave. Quoting Mike Tyson: "I'm crazy, but I'm not crazy". GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waggers, what is the purpose at having two polls on the same move request running simultaneously - one at Talk:Ireland and the other at the far-less visited Talk:Ireland (disambiguation)? Given that the disambiguation page receives only about 5% of the traffic that the "main" Ireland page does, a second poll at that location seems unnecessary and any result would smacks of vote stacking compared to the wider view received at Talk:Ireland. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator has moved the 3 articles. I fainted, shortly after finding this out. With no consensus for such moves, we're likely headed to Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good call by the Admin - maybe that's why you nearly fainted - the novelty of it. Of course there was consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waggers, do you now see the fault at running simultaneous polls for the same move request? The pages affected are among the most visited articles on WP (467th and 1877th most visited) - this will have very serious consequences. How will you now address the issue? What questions do you think this raises with regards to your suitability for adminship? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on there. Waggers isn't in any trouble, nor is the Page moving Administrator. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sense an element of vote stacking through the running of three simultaneous polls, two of which were participated in almost exclusively by a selection of users that were ardently pushing the move. It was one of the polls that enjoyed the participation of only a narrow selection of the community that was used to justify the moves.

Since Waggers was an initial proposer of all three simultaneous polls, I would like to know what was the purpose of running simultaneous polls (as I asked last night), what affect he thinks that choice had on the outcome, and if he accepts now (as he did last night) that consensus was against the move? I want to know if he thinks his choice to run simultaneous polls was responsible for a faulty decision being made, that this decision had major consequences for two of the most visited articles on the encyclopedia, and if he thinks that any of this raises questions with regards to his suitability for adminship? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to fiddling the votes I'd reckon the biggest problem is IP-voting. Would anyone trust an IP to be an Admin?? So why trust them to vote? (They can't vote in RfAs but can vote on 467th most visited on Wiki!) Figure that. Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to be a little more clear, Sarah777. RfA are normally decided by actual votes. IP contributions are not counted in that vote, but can certainly participate in the process and may sway the deciding bureaucrat. "Polls", such as the one that recently took place on the Ireland page (and several other pages!!), are not votes - hence "!vote" (do I really need to explain this to you so often?). It is the value of your comments that counts, not the amount of comments you make.

Why can an IP not be trusted to be an admin? Because the IP belongs to the ISP, not the user.

For WP-wide problems, it's poor faith, poor understanding of policy, and a poor attitude that gets my gut. Each of which you have in spades. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a personal attack, then, much like the rest of your ranting here. WP:RM recommends that the move request poll happens on the talk page of the relevant article; therefore the proposed move from Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland was discussed on the Ireland (disambiguation) talk page and the move from Ireland to Ireland (island) was discussed on the Ireland talk page. This is standard procedure.

It's clear from your posts here that you don't understand the workings of the wiki, contrary to your suggestion above. It's also clear that you have no regard for arguably more important policies such as AGF and NPA. I suggest you take your foul slurs elsewhere, such behaviour is not welcome on this project. waggers (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed this Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute and named you as one of the involved parties. I would appreciate it if you could make a 500-word-or-less statement there. -- Evertype·✆ 19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]