Case Opened on 03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 17:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Evertype (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Ddstretch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Waggers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Djegan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Guliolopez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HighKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Matt Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Scolaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Una Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
UKPhoenix79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Evertype

This dispute has been a festering boil on the neck of the Wikipedia for four years now. A hornet's nest of passive-aggressivity, good faith, bad faith, veiled hatred, not-so-veiled hatred, honest attempts at compromise, wilful stonewalling, filibustering, backing and forthing, to-ing and fro-ing, and endless bickering. The frustration level of everyone involved is high, so high that a number of editors—good editors—have threatened to withdraw from editing these articles, and some have retired already. Over the past few weeks, the word "arbitration" has come up again and again. I have made so bold as to file this request for arbitration. I trust that it is in order.

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. Many but not all editors believe that this name should be preferred for the State.
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. It is certainly the best-known name of the country world-wide. Many but not all editors have consistently opposed the name Republic of Ireland for this article. It appears to me that most of the more vociferous editors who favour the retention of Republic of Ireland for the name of this article reside in Northern Ireland. (That may not be an accurate assessment on my part. In any case this name has been controversial for a long time, with repeated requests to move from that name to other names.)
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.

A number of proposed re-arrangements have been made. One which was implemented a few days ago (though reversed today) was this:

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 satisfy either those who want the name to be Ireland or those who want it to be Republic of Ireland.
Ireland - arguably the only sensible name since it is clear that the word "Ireland" is deeply ambiguous.

Attempts at discussion and consensus lead inevitably to a lack of consensus. Whenever consensus rears its head, others come in saying there is no consensus. My own proposal for compromise was based on negotiation strategy: agree to what you can, even if it's not your preference. Compromise!

The above was 497 words; we are asked to write 500. For the love of Ireland, so that we can work to improve the articles instead of arguing about their names, I ask the Arbitration Committee to agree to hear this case and give us a solution. I have listed below a good selection of those who have been on both sides of the debate. Thank you for your consideration.

In response to the statement by SirFozzie

I do not believe that this is a content issue. It is true that the content of the articles may be affected by the outcome, but it is the fact that the titles of the articles are disputed (and have been for at least four years) that is the problem. Because of that dispute, it is unclear what content should go into which article. Once this issue is settled, the editors will edit accordingly. Asking us to go off and try to agree for another four years is no good for the Wikipedia. Some of us have tried very hard to compromise. Little compromise has been on offer from those who oppose us. The Ireland pages get huge numbers of hits each day from people all over the world. The dispute damages the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the statement by Tariqabjotu

You were second in the list in error. I put the admins before the users, and ordered them alphabetically. But I forgot to order the admins alphabetically. You are now third. -- Evertype·✆ 01:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the statement by JodyB

This isn't a dispute about a misbehaving admin or user. It is community-wide. I named 2 admins and 11 users as "involved"; I could have named a score or more of other involved people. The other forms of dispute resolution cannot, I think apply to this morass. Yes, every attempt has been made to deal with the problems via the task force, and then via Requests to Move. Note please what Waggers says below: just as we had achieved some consensus, a concerted effort to overturn that was made by those who prefer the status quo: mostly by simply gainsaying with unsupported Oppose votes. It seems clear that the community cannot solve this problem on its own. We need clear-headed guidance. I am heartened by the statements of Kirill and Newyorkbrad and FloNight below. That—and nothing else—has given me hope that there could be a resolution to this endless debate. -- Evertype·✆ 12:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the statement by Scolaire

I've just had a user leave a message on my Talk page. He wants to "win" this battle. So do folks on "the other" side, it seems to me. Basically the question is wholly rooted in the ambiguousness of the name Ireland. There are essentially two camps, as far as I can see.

A. There are those who want Ireland to be the article about the state; these typically object to Republic of Ireland being the name of the article about the state. Ireland (state) is a way of responding to both of these.
B. There are those who want Ireland to be the article about the island and nation; these leads to an "overuse" of Republic of Ireland (Republic of Ireland Act notwithstanding) which is tendentious in that many people object (and are not likely to stop objecting) to this overusage. Ireland (island) is a way of responding to both of these.
If the two responses above are given then the next response would be to use Ireland for the disambiguation page. Compare Georgia, Georgia (country) and Georgia (US state) (no analogy is perfect). I cite again the very sensible words of Una Smith: "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.)

Scolaire's remark that opinions are split 50/50 is probably correct, depending on who stacks the deck when. (Heh.) Seriously, however, the reason I have asked for Arbitration is that mediation does not provide an end. The views about what "Ireland" means are irreconcilable and will remain so for people on both sides of the ideological divide. A compromise where Ireland is the disambiguation page which satisfies neither group A nor group B, and which disappoints both equally (with pages re-named and locked?), is to my mind the only way forward. And the only way to get that is to have a decision by Arbitration. (A different result could arise from the Arbitration process. I for my part am prepared to accept whatever the decision and result is. I understand that this is a Request for Arbitration.) -- Evertype·✆ 19:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the resignation statement by Matt Lewis

This user has resigned from the WIkipedia because of this issue, and with respect to Scolaire, I must say that the loss of this editor is an example of how this dispute damages the Wikipedia—that is not something I am dispassionate about. He was an active and astute editor, in fairness, respected by many on both "sides" of this issue. He lives in Britain, not in Ireland. He worked very hard to try to help the community come to consensus, but the recent moves by Tariqabjotu and Deacon_of_Pndapetzim caused him to choose to resign from activity on the Wikipedia. See Matt's retirement statement. I contend that the resignation of a talented editor on grounds of this dispute harms the Wikipedia—because the loss of a talented editor for these grounds is outrageously insane—and that, again, this particular problem requires Arbitration. -- Evertype·✆ 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowded

I fully endorse the comments by Evertype. There is no way that any agreement will be reached by the editors involved. Old disputes within Ireland are being fought out on these pages, often after they have been resolved in real life. Several of the editors involved are under editing restrictions on other articles connected with Ireland. If this is not subject to some objective arbitration then it will keep coming back again, and again and again. --Snowded TALK 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Waggers

Firstly, an apology in advance - I have just become a father again and so am somewhat busy off-wiki, so I apologise if my responses are slow and for my lack of knowledge of events over the last few days of this ongoing mess. Evertype's summary is a fair and balanced one and I join Snowded in fully endorsing it. I feel I should add a few words about the task force and my own involvement in this sorry tale.

I've been aware, but not involved in, this ongoing situation for quite some time. When User:Matt Lewis set up a task force for interested editors to discuss the usage of the term "Ireland", both within article texts and of course in article titles, I saw this as a very positive step - a central point of discussion, where previously it had taken place on a variety of pages across several namespaces, and a blank sheet of paper with which to start. I had no preferences regarding the article names, but simply decided to keep an eye on procedings - partly out of interest and partly as an admin duty.

The post by User:Ddstretch was one that made perfect sense, as it basically called all editors to follow existing guidelines unless there was a really good reason to ignore all rules. Although much discussion took place after his post, no such reason was forthcoming. The task force then conducted a series of polls, with the outcome in each case reaching broad agreement with DDstretch's original proposal - that Ireland should be a disambiguation page. This broad agreement encompassed editors who had previously and consistently been on oppoisite sides of arguments around the infamous Troubles case, the British Isles naming dispute, etc., so this was enormously encouraging - especially since the initiation of the task force, and notification of these latest discussions and polls, had been clearly signalled on the relevant article talk pages.

I then initiated polls on the article talk pages themselves, to rubber-stamp the agreement that had been accomplished. What happened next is there for all to see - I am utterly baffled that editors who proclaim to feel so strongly about these issues failed to get involved in the task force discussions and to shape the debate until the very last hurdle - the amount of time and effort their behaviour has wasted is immense, and there's still no apparent reason why WP:D should not be implemented in this case other than shear weight of votes (we're a meritocracy not a democracy so that's not a reason as far as I'm concerned). I therefore commend Evertype for making this request as this issue really does need a once-and-for-all ruling that's made to stick and puts and end to the enormous quantities of wasted effort that could be put to better use, and only a body like ArbCom have the authority to do that. waggers (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mooretwin

Personally, I think the Task Force is the place to resolve this. I think that compromise is possible and that compromise involves any change in the name of the Republic of Ireland article being accompanied by an agreed policy that recognises that Republic of Ireland is a perfectly legitimate and sensible term to use in the text of the many articles where there is a risk of ambiguity. Regarding the Ireland article, I agree with Deacon of Pndapetzim that Ireland should be treated like Korea, China, etc., since the primary meaning of Ireland is for the island and historical social/political entity and not the current state which occupies only part of Ireland. I've no objection to radical changes to the text of that article.

As for whether arbitration will help, I simply don't know. If editors are willing to make what I think is the obvious compromise noted above, there should be no need. Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposed solution (though not with the comments on Deacon of Pndapetzim who made a very partisan intervention or that the primary meaning is the island). Mooretwin has a very promising compromise proposal which I support. Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighKing

Evertype sums up well but I'd like to add that a lot of the confusion and controversy also stems from the fact that the term "Republic of Ireland" is the legal and proper term for the state of Ireland within the UK. But only within the UK - it is British law. Everywhere else on the planet uses the correct name - Ireland. Plus all the major institutions from EU, NATO, World Bank, Olympic Committee, etc, uses the correct name - Ireland. Mooretwins comments above are flat wrong - this is not the "English Wikipedia", it is the "English-language Wikipedia". This Arbcom case is very necessary. Notwithstanding Rockpocket's comments above, it's also a fact that many admins are involved and are not neutral. The reversals in particular have been performed by an involved admin editor, Deacon of Pndapetzim who opposed changes in the past[1]. Arbcom must take this case, and settle this issue once and for all. Over 4 years of edit warring - every other route has been tried. I do not recommend a ruling like "The Troubles" since this dispute mainly centres around creating a binding resolution on terminology, not POV or content factuality. --HighKing (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental statement: Not sure how these things work, hopefully I can add a comment? I see some editors looking to revert to what they call "status quo" and RM requests. I note the use of the term "status quo". It's important that Arbs reading this should be aware that the "status quo" has not got a consensus, and that's the reason we're here in the first place. There are a number of tactics that the "status quo" brigade use to ensure that no suggested change will take place. What is very clear is that there is a consensus to change, but no way to enact a change, therefore the controverisal "status quo" remains... --HighKing (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ddstretch

I became unwillingly involved in this via other disputes dealt with previously by Arbcom—in particular, the use of "British Isles" disputes. This dispute was drawn to my attention, and, reading it, I appreciated why many administrators had not opted to be involved. However, I considered it useful to try to suggest relying solely on a particular strict interpretation of wikipedia's policies about disambiguation to resolve the matter as a compromise, as this would allow editors to avoid the unhelpful nature of the exchanges when accusations about motives, political agenda, and so on, tended to, or completely swamped the discussion. Waggers then took my "Statement and (semi-)formal proposal by DDstretch" found here and made an initial formal proposal.

I have kept out of much of the discussion except (as far as I recall) to counter erroneous interpretations of solutions that have been previously adopted on wikipedia and faulty assumptions about wikilinking following the disambiguation solution I suggested.

My view is that any closure of the various polls was bound to be controversial, because the drama accompanying many entrenched positions seems to have become the major driving factor behind the matter, leaving the core wikipedia principles rather in the background (this is despite people calling upon them to justify one or other of their preferred solutions). I have stayed out of the discussions about the validity or otherwise of the page moves and their reversal, as the accusations of bias and being involved I thought might follow would only tend to further inflame this desperately poor situation. I agree with previous comments that any administrator who gets involved and who has not already been accused, quickly becomes seen as biased, partial, pursuing their own agenda (even when that agenda is said to be "hidden" and not known even by that administrator). In fact, the whole area is mired in behaviour that runs counter to WP:NPA in spirit if not in fact. The disruption brought about by this dispute cannot easily be contained, and it infects or potentially will infect other areas.

Some involvement by a greater authority here is urgently needed I suggest, if only to de-personalize the attacks that seem to be directed at anyone who tries to suggest resolutions of any kind. Arbcom may think the job is very difficult, perhaps even too difficult, and individual members may be loathe to agree to get involved, but I suggest that part of their job on Arbcom is to take on difficult disputes, such as this, and that trying to provide a more senior context of authority within which new approaches, or old approaches with more authority, can be explored would seem to be exactly what the bulk of wikpedia editors would expect them to be doing. DDStretch (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Statement

I would just like to add an endorsement of Rockpocket's additional notice concerning examples of the style of interchanges: the examples are just a sample, and I was contemplating doing something similar. I still could—different examples would be able to be used if I did. DDStretch (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Djegan

I do not support the belief that an arbcom is neccessary.

The issue is controversial, but repeated polls have not resulted in a change and there is little an arbcom can accomplish apart from yet more forum shopping.

This is a content issue and therefore outside the limits of arbcom. Djegan (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Una Smith

At heart this is a content dispute but as often happens tangential issues of user conduct have emerged. I think no one is served by commingling these issues with the content dispute, and I have no interest in the user conduct issues, so I will speak only to the content dispute. I have a longstanding interest in disambiguation pages. I was asked by Matt Lewis to comment on the current requested move of Ireland and other pages. The history there is messy, to say the least. I am dismayed by the extent to which this content dispute spills over into Wikipedia article infrastructure. An example is the contentious (and unnecessary) use of a map on Ireland (disambiguation). The heart of the content dispute seems to be whether the political entity known as both Ireland and the Republic of Ireland can occupy the Wikipedia article title Ireland, or whether that article title should be occupied by the island known as Ireland, or by a disambiguation page. I think this dispute has gone on so long in part because it has been cast in terms of win/lose, rather than resolution, with "consensus" being defined as majority rule or a ruling by a higher power. I think it is a mistake to handle this content dispute via arbitration rather than mediation. --Una Smith (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scolaire

In my view the statement of this case by Evertype and others is wrong. The Ireland naming dispute has been presented as a dispute between, on the one hand, those who want the island article to be at Ireland, and on the other, those who want the state article to be at Ireland. In this scenario disambiguation is seen as the key issue. An analysis of page move discussions over the last two years, per my evidence, will show that, while one side did indeed want the island article to be at Ireland, the other side - while many of them would prefer to see the state article at Ireland - would be content to leave Ireland as it is as long as the article name "Republic of Ireland" was changed. In this actual situation, disambiguation of article names would be comfortably dealt with by Ireland (disambiguation), and in fact it is. A far more serious issue, and the reason there has been stalemate for so long, is that of disambiguation of the state or the island within other articles. This cannot be resolved by any page move or combination of page moves, since text in an article on the lines of "St. Patrick's Day is a public holiday in Ireland (state)" is obviously to be avoided. The article would have to be linked to by means of a pipe, and the central question of whether the pipe should say "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland" would remain unresolved. Repeated attempts to deal with the question by page moves have failed. Most recently, an RM was decisively defeated on the Ireland talk page, although, due to poor housekeeping on the part of the requestors, the pages were briefly, and controversially, moved. A proposal currently being debated on the Ireland disambiguation task force talk page has achieved, as one editor put it, "a surprising degree of consensus", by bypassing the 'article name disambiguation' issue and focussing instead on the issue of disambiguators within articles. I urge the arbitrators not to take the narrow view in this case. Scolaire (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental statement

Any suggestion that this is primarily an "ethnic" issue is well wide of the mark. The lobby for change is an unlikely coalition of "British POV", "Irish POV" and "Wikipedia policy POV" who want the same change but for radically different reasons; likewise the supporters of the status quo include an equal mix of "British", "Irish" and "NI unionist" POV who believe the current names are the best and most unambiguous. A tally of any of the RMs of the last few months (which incidentally all ended about 50:50) will show this to be so - see my evidence. Scolaire (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true; and the fact that request moves ended about 50:50 is as clear an indication of the need for a dab page as one can get. Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:angusmclellan

I have included myself as a party to the case. Pace Daniel, I do not see any link between this matter and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Mentorship, but if I'm wrong just let me know and I'll happily resign.

The closer indicated here that he was unwilling to remedy himself the very large number of broken links his moves had created. "You can't be asking me to fix the thousands of links ...". But I was. And anyone closing a CfD or IfD or AfD would be expected to tidy the links up, either on their own or by getting a bot to do it. Pointing all of the tens of thousands of links from a top-500-viewed page to a disambiguation page is a mistake. Mistakes happen. Refusing to do anything when told what's wrong and how to fix it is something else.

The arbitration committee doesn't do content disputes. An poorly executed move for which there was no consensus save one of the proposals of a self-appointed committee is not egregious, and neither is reversing it, so there's no admin conduct to consider either. RfC? Mediation? No sign of those. And what Flo's diffs show I have no idea. Rockpocket's are, on the whole, much more interesting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guliolopez

I have recently taken the decision to scale back my involvement in the English language Wikipedia project substantially, so my comments here should be taken in that context. Namely, given that I may not be around to see any Arbcom result through, I am happy to see them ignored or given reduced consideration or whatever.

That said, given that I was asked for a statement, I'm going to make one. A few in fact:

RE: ARBCOM

Arbcom as a means to resolve content issue. - Personally I'm not sure Arbcom is the way to go here. Firstly because there seems to have been some progress on "the Ireland naming/DAB taskforce" of late. Without formal oversight. And secondly because I remain reticent about the ability of any uninvolved party (admin or otherwise) to oversee a solution that will represent a reasonable compromise. The issues involved have grown so many legs over the years that it would be very difficult for an "independent adjudicator" to consider them all without undue simplification. And possibly arrive at a solution that involves actually cutting the baby in half. (Rather than using the threat of same to find compromise).
Politics in Arbcom. - As this Arbcom gets up a head of steam, it could easily be bogged down by claims of political bias by the various "camps". ("Only British people call it Republic of Ireland", "Calling the state 'Ireland' is an affront to people from Northern Ireland", etc). I would respectfully remind any admin who is overseeing this "taskforce" to either ignore this, or ensure it is not given undue focus. Primarily because, with total respect and understanding of "official names", one of the main considerations in the remit should be clarity for the reader. Namely, that when he/she reads "Ireland", that there is sufficient context (either in how it is used, how it is linked, or whatever) for the user to understand the term. Without recourse to a complex look-up table. (Hence, as noted, the importance I would place on ensuring that the result of any arbcom is, not just derived consensus on file names, but guidelines on when to use "[[Ireland]]", when to use "[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]", when to use "[[Ireland|island of Ireland]]", when to use "[[Republic of Ireland]]", etc. Irrespective of what the filenames ultimately end up as.

RE: THE ISSUE

NAMES/DAB - Without rehashing the arguments and positions anew, I am an advocate for what has been called the "status quo". Namely, an article called "Ireland" covering the island, its shared history, culture, etc. An article at "Republic of Ireland" covering the modern Irish soverign state. And "Ireland (disambiguation)" covering any DAB issues across the term that cannot be addressed in hatnotes/text. I believe this to be the best compromise to the "Ireland has multiple meanings" problem.
PRIMARY MEANING - With an absolute understanding and appreciation for Evertype's argument that "Ireland has multiple meanings, therefore Ireland should be a DAB page", I do not fully agree. Yes, Ireland has multiple meanings. But all of these derive from the primary meaning. Specifically, "Ireland" as the superset term which applies to the island of Ireland, its shared history, culture, etc. As such, I think that the article at "Ireland" should cover this. And address any DAB issues in the hatnote and intro. As is "status quo". (Changing to a DAB page is certainly an option, but such a DAB page would have to cover some of these inheritance/history concepts anyway. And may not be a true/clean DAB page as a result)
COMMONNAME - Again, with an absolute understanding of the argument that "Ireland is the official name of the state, therefore the article about the state should reflect this", I also don't fully agree. My reading of the commonname guidelines (use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things) suggests that the "Republic of Ireland" is possibly better than any "Ireland (state)" construct. Absolutely it is true that "Ireland" is possibly "the most common name" (and most official name) for the state. However, this conflicts with its use to describe the broader island/etc. The term "Republic of Ireland" however is "the most common name that does not conflict with others". (IE: It has common usage within and without the state, has official sanction within/without the state, and is required in DAB circumstances anyway.) The alternative "Ireland OPENBRACKET state CLOSEBRACKET" is a less desriable alternative in my view, as it doesn't lend itself to immediate understanding, it is difficult/impossible to include without piping anyway, and does not - in its verbatim state - represent a commonname. ("Ireland" is common. "Ireland OPENBRACKET state CLOSEBRACKET" couldn't be less so). That said, I would concede "Ireland (state)" as a file name, but ONLY if there is an agreement on where/when to use. And only if it doesn't lead to awful/ugly/confusing labels for sub-sets like "Category:Schools in Ireland (state)" or similar.

Anyway, as stated, that is a (very condensed) summary of the points I've been making for the last few years. I've probably forgotten something. But, given that I am about to cull my watchlist back to only a handful of articles (and pursue my semi-retirement) I'm not really sure it matters anyway :) Guliolopez (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sarah777

Ireland is the WP:COMMONNAME, the common name, the legal name, the internationally recognised name - of the sovereign country called Ireland. The insistence on using a description, "Republic of Ireland", as the title is politically motivated and has nothing to do with the norms and standards of the Wiki project - despite what Gulio says this POV is manifest from any examination of the statements and rationale of most of the supporters of the current situation. The article misnomer manages to survive because a combination of Irish Nationalists (who maintain the whole Island should be a single polity) and British Unionists (who feel that the name is a 'claim' on all of the island) have a (slim) majority amongst the ranks of Wiki editors who are interested in the issue. In effect, it allows editors with a political axe to grind to foist a "description" on the article about the country commonly known as Ireland, on the basis of pure political POV.

Having said that I still thought that (as per Gulio above) we were reaching a possible compromise outside Arbcom. Since it appears that Arbcom will accept this case I feel obliged to participate here and certainly don't agree with the "blocking" editors that Arbcom has no place in this. It is obviously much more than a mere "content dispute". Key Wiki policies and practices are being ignored based on a mere headcount of editors.

Ireland is obviously also the name of the island; so while it is clear that the primary use of 'Ireland' globally is to refer to the state/country it is also widely used to refer to the geographical island - thus I support a disambiguation page by way of compromise; though my preference would be that the primary page would be the country.

Regarding "fixing links" - that argument is a "self-fulfilling prophecy"; the same group of editors have blocked progress for five years and now claim the accumulated debris from that blockage justifies permanent blockage. Such considerations should have no place in this debate as they copper fasten POV. Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Purple Arrow

After much thought on this, Ireland the state, which covers 85% of [[Ireland (island)]], should be treated like any other state on Wikipedia, and get its proper title. The present situation is being used by some editors to cause disruption on Wikipedia. They insist that the name of the state is 'Republic of Ireland', and use every turn of phrase to bolster their claim, even when it's pointed out to them that they are clearly wrong. Any editor who tries to balance the over-use of ROI on Wikipedia is very quickly reverted, and even sometimes called a pov-pusher. What good editor wants to be called a pov-pusher? None, I may add. And Ireland is WP:COMMONNAME for the state, as per constitution, UN, EU, CIA facebook, and per 'millions' more citeable sources.

My preferences;

'Island' moved to [[Ireland (island)]]
[[Republic of Ireland]] becomes [[Ireland]]
Ireland can be treated as one nation until 1922 when [[Northern Ireland]] rejects the consensus on the island. After 1922, Northern Ireland only then comes into existence.
My solution is the only workable solution, and anything in between will only lead to further problems in the near future, I fear. I cannot stress how important this issue is for ArbCom and Wikipedia. Get it wrong and suffer years of disruption. Get it right and Wikipedia will soar in the estimation of many. PurpleA (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:UKPhoenix79

I originally brought this to the evidence page but I think that page is supposed to be where you give evidence on people doing wrong things. Sorry if I was confused. I have stayed out of this debate, but I wish to make a suggestion. China currently leads to a very good page that is essentially an expanded disambiguation page. We do not link to the WP:COMMONNAME for the country, that honour goes to the Peoples Republic of China. So I suggest :

Ireland - a dab page containing references like China
Ireland (Island) - an article about the island as a whole.
Republic of Ireland - Used to distinguish the sovereign state like currently done with China.

Also the Republic of Ireland page was created with the name currently used and the first major edit was the same, So wouldn't that be covered by WP:MOS#National varieties of English? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RashersTierney

I have been invited to say my piece on this difficult matter and am happy to do so in the spirit of improving the encyclopaedia. A veritable Wikipedia sub-community has developed over the years attempting to address the vexatious issue of the name for this article. Out of that impasse, numerous other overspills have arisen making resolution of the initial naming question more, rather than less, difficult. I would like to say that I welcome the interest shown above in attempting to achieve closure on a matter that has consumed too much effort on the part of so many capable editors who have participated to date. Language is political, whether we care to acknowledge that fact or not, and names are particularly so. The present article name is unacceptable to many editors who have been unable/frustrated in changing the status quo. I have changed my preferred name for this article from 'Ireland' to 'Ireland (state)', in deference to the legitimate concerns of other editors. I have also enthusiastically supported many initiatives (compromises), to bring reasonable closure. I recognise the reluctance, on technicalities, for the involvement of Arbitration, but irrespective of outcome will accept any decision that redirects effort back to the content of this and associated articles. RashersTierney (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/2/2/0)

Recuse. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. We don't make content decisions. If there are behavioural issues preventing a consensus being reached, then those could potentially be addressed if evidence were presented about them. --bainer (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The special procedures that ultimately led to the development of a policy on naming highways articles were developed by members of the community, not the Committee. The Committee in Highways merely encouraged the community to formulate a policy. In the absence of any evidence of behavioural problems disrupting other efforts to develop a policy or reach a consensus (if there are any then someone please say so), there's no basis for us to get involved. --bainer (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. We can help create a stable editing environment here, if nothing else; I think it's certainly within our remit to move the process towards a binding resolution even if we do not make any direct content rulings (compare Highways 1 and the subsequent community decision, etc.). Kirill ^(prof) 00:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept substantially per Kirill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. If the current ways of settling the conflict have not worked, then we need to try something different. The workshop page may be very useful in this case to work out a useful resolution. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 15:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, per Bainer. There is no reason to bring this to a user conduct forum when consensus is more appropriate. James F. (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to prematurely single anyone out, but there might be some mild user issues that are interfering with reaching consensus. Even though we might not give strong sanctions, the chronic nature of the situation leads me to think we need to help. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. While we cannot rule on content directly, I think that we can help get decisions made and nailed down and minimize disruptive behavior. Wikipedia has a problem that too many things can never be changed from the status quo even if the status quo is purely arbitary and in fact makes fewer people happy than the alternatives. The arbcom can help change this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. We can cover content, but seek strenuously not to do so. That said, I don't think we actually need to go there anyhow. This case has a lot in common with other "naming disputes" we and the community have dealt with (WP:SRNC, Gdansk, etc). We're all here to help with a stable collaborative editing environment, and this dispute needs that help. As an early insight, this is my impression what will likely come of this case, so that if they don't want to wait a month or so, the users involved can get going early:
1. Disruptive, non-collaborative, or tendentious behavior (if present) will have to end. Endless dispute, and non-collaborative conduct, is inimical to wiki editing. Both sides will need to finally decide to listen to the calm voices in the debate and work together, and disruption (if present) won't be helpful. Uninvolved admins may be useful to help this along if there are conduct issues impeding progress.
2. A formal, and possibly multi-stage collaborative consensus-seeking exercise will probably be required, and may be the only way to resolve this. If it can be accomplished on other difficult entrenched and nationalistic naming disputes it can be done here, if there is the will. (For which, see #1).
3. The hope will be to move on and sort it out, finally (see #2) not to argue over the past. (If any users in particular are sources for heavy duty disruption, then action may be needed.) Those editors (if any) who cannot manage this, will probably return to this page, and more serious and direct remedies.
That's a fairly common result of past "naming disputes". Voting to accept, and advising the parties to start on reviewing past major consensus-seeking exercises on other topics now, and getting going on something similar, because that's likely where you'll end up in 1 - 2 months anyway and evidence of trying will stand well at Arbitration. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.