Talk:Australian Government/Archive 6

Queen of Australia v British Monarch
As Skyring points out, section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) says: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty&#8217;s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." However, this merely highlights that the Commonwealth Constitution was enacted by the British Parliament, and was intended to make the Federation of Australia binding on the British monarchs. In the Commonwealth Constitution, there is only reference made to "the Queen".

In the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 (Cth), the Commonwealth Parliament declared that the monarch in relation to Australia is to be referred to as "Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories": cf. s 2. As far as I have been taught, "the Queen" in Australia is a distinct legal entity from "the Queen" in the United Kingdom. The succession rules to the Crown are the same as they are in the United Kingdom, being set out by the Act of Settlement 1701 (UK) s 1, and received at the time of European settlement. However, due to the Australia Acts 1986 (UK & Cth) s1, any changes by the UK Parliament to the law of succession to the throne will not take effect in Australia. Thus, it is legally possible to have different monarchs in Australia and the United Kingdom. In this respect, the current Australian monarch might currently be the same as the United Kingdom monarch, but they should (and are) treated as distinct entities.

I refer you to: P Hanks, P Keyzer & J Clarke Australian Constitutional Law: materials and commentary 7th edn (Sydney: Butterworths, 2004) pp. 464-465.

Thus, please stop changing "Queen of Australia" to "British Monarch". - Mark 02:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is basic stuff, but irrelevant. The Queen is styled the Queen of Australia, by Act of Parliament. Agreed. However, no Act may over-ride the Constitution, and the context within the article is that the Queen is a part of Parliament, as mentioned in Section 1 of the Constitution. 1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth." I am not aware of any other Act or Regulation that makes the rather odd claim that the Queen is a part of Parliament.


 * I take your point that the Covering Clauses, which describe all provisions referring to the Queen (Victoria) of the Constitution as extending to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom are no longer able to be modified by the British Parliament, but neither have they been modified by the Commonwealth. Furthermore, within the Constitution itself, the note to the Schedule directly refers to the usage of Queen Victoria by saying that the name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time. Only we the people may amend those particular words, and we have not done so.


 * It is quite clear that within the normal governmental processes of the Commonwealth, the Queen, in that delightful description "Our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth II", is the Queen of Australia. Nobody disputes this. However, I say that in this precise meaning within the Constitution of the Queen as being a constituent part of the Parliament, and specifically stated as such in the article, the Queen is the Queen of the United Kingdom, because neither the Covering Clauses nor the Constitution itself has been amended to say otherwise.


 * I am not trying to make this a big deal. Quite frankly, I am picking at trivial details here. It is another one of those arcane and obsolete details of the Constitution that has never been amended because nobody thinks it necessary and it's such a bloody pain to change the thing anyway. Nevertheless, I pick at trivia because that is what I like doing, may God have mercy on my soul, and it amuses me to see people getting all hot and bothered and twisted up in knots when they can't provide a good clear verifiable source to throw in my nit-picking face.


 * Having said all of the above, I think it has been made amply clear that Wikipedia does not exist for me to amuse myself at the expense of self-important fools, and I shall not continue to do so, nor attempt to modify the article to reflect nit-picking accuracy, rather than "close enough is good enough." Pete 05:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on contents of Government of Australia
As previously advised (and not opposed by anyone), I am now proposing a formal vote on the following proposition:


 * '''That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:
 * '''1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy
 * '''2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia
 * '''3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.


 * '''That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
 * Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed.

User:Skyring, who has argued for a contrary position, was given an opportunity to present an alternative position but declined to do so.


 * My position was stated previously - namely that normal Wikipedia processes are simple, adequate, and easily understood by all. You archived it, Adam. Thanks a lot. Pete 05:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Voting to determine the consensus is a normal Wikipedia process in cases where other methods have not worked. Sorry if it isn't as much fun as arguing endlessly. -Willmcw 05:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * It takes two to make an argument. Adam, for example, advised everyone to ignore and revert me without comment, but if you check, his participation is frequent and voluminous. Presumably he enjoys the process. Pete 05:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There five pages of archives on this matter, indicating a discussion which is many times longer than the article. If your proposal is in there somewhere, please find it and copy it here. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I did. You just responded to it. I stated it last night as part of the discussion and Adam shunted it into those five pages of archives. Be fair, please. I have amended the voting headings to reflect this, seeing as how Adam's proposal is aimed squarely at me. Pete 05:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see any proposal about your preferred wording to describe the head of state roles of the Queen and the Governor General. Sorry for being so stupid. Please copy that proposal here again. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:22, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * My position on that is that as an editor my personal opinion doesn't matter. I have stated this numerous times. Pete 06:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

He made no proposal. Adam 05:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Be fair, please. I stated my position - namely that there should be no change to existing Wikipedia policies - and you ignored it despite posting several times including in this very call for votes that I have a contrary position. I think that having the voting heading to reflect both my position and the reality of a vote to disagree with your proposal is fair and reasonable. Pete 06:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I am posting a notice advising of this vote at Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Village pump. I propose that the vote remain open for 48 hours from now (2.30pm AEST 25 May), and that ten votes be required to produce a valid outcome, but I am open to other suggestions on this. Adam 04:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Seeing as though the vote is not contrary to "existing Wikipedia procedures", I cannot see the reason for the revised vote titles. I support Adam's proposal, and will vote in favour, but I would first like to see the vote titles reflect what the vote is actually for. --Cyberjunkie 09:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you Adam.--Cyberjunkie 09:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've re-worded it. Pete 09:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And so the agent provocateur reveals himself&#8230; Pray, why must you continue your diversionary and disruptive ways? All have recognised you for what you are, and yet you continue. As the saying goes, &#8216;put up, or shut up&#8217;.--Cyberjunkie 09:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is pathetic. Not an ounce of fair play. What a shambles. Pete 11:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Like it or lump it, it's the system we have; and, there will be other opportunities to change it. Until then, we should at least agree on the facts of the matter, while agreeing to disagree on our respective feelings on the matter. Peter Ellis 06:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mind a fair vote. This is anything but fair in the way it is being carried out. Pete 10:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote
Votes for proposal forwarded by Adam Carr (see above):
 * 1) Proteus (Talk) 07:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Cyberjunkie 09:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) AYArktos 10:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Takver 14:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Peter Ellis 06:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]]  (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Willmcw 23:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Votes against stated proposal:
 * 1) I find Skyring's arguments unconvincing, but conduct should go through dispute resolution, not ad-hoc rulings. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Except, this is a matter of content. El_C 13:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea of the factual contents of an article being subjected to terms like this is almost Orwellian. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed the pertinent material? El_C 22:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) As this is up in front of the ArbCom. Can the vote be delayed until they decide if they wish to hear it. It is pointless to do this and have an ArbCom ruling on the same issue. Xtra 09:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that if four arbitrators read through one or two sections from the talk page and one or two edit diffs offered by each of the two parties, then, all four voted that the proposal seemed reasonable; and following that the needed support votes being attained &mdash; then the Committee can make it policy-as-in-remedy, instead of merely ritualegalistically going through all the RFAr motions. El_C 10:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with Xtra. Ambi and Fred Bauder have picked this up so far. Best to let the process run. If nixie thought it worth taking to ArbCom, I'll support that. --bainer (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) If the ArbCom takes up the issue, this vote can wait. If not, I will vote yes on the proposal (if that happens, count me in the Yes column - don't wait for me to edit the page personally).   I am uncomfortable with prescribing an editorial position by voting, but I see no feasible alternative.  Skyring seems sincere, but he is flat-out wrong.  --Robert Merkel 05:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Delayed votes
 * 1) It's time to move this to the next level, whatever that is. -Willmcw 10:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay? El_C 13:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what the ArbCom does, it is timely and necessary to move forward in settling this matter. We've spent 10 weeks arguing about this point after we'd already reached a consensus. If the ArbCom acts then this vote will be a part of the record. user:Skyring's conduct during this polling is indicative of his general editing behavior. -Willmcw 23:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Delayed vote for now. I am uncomfortable with the implication that truth can be determined by popular vote, rather than by evidence. I almost voted "yes" but need to think this through more carefully first. Tannin 13:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC) (Added comment: what Robert Merkel says above goes for me too. Tannin 10:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

Requests for arbitration
I think that a more appropriate way to solve this given the ongoing nature of the dispute and the unwillness of Skyring to reach a resolution would be a request for arbitration. I have made a page to prepare the case and will move it to Requests for arbitration when the parties have agreed to arbitraion and made their respective cases.--nixie 05:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this will just lead to further weeks of pointless circular argument. But your'e welcome to try. Adam 05:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Interested editors please direct all comments to Requests for arbitration, I have requested arbitration to get this underway. --nixie 06:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Who are the members of the ArbCom? Are any of them Australian? Do any of them know anything about Australian history or politics? Are they really going to read through all the reams of circular argument that Skyring's trolling has forced upon us? I'm not opposed to arbitration in principle, but I want some assurances that the arbitrators have some knowledge of what they are arbitrating, and also that this will not just lead to further weeks of pointless argument over Skyring's crackpot theories, which (I point out) have found no support whatever among Australian Wikipedians. How much more cumbersome process do we have to go through to deal with one crank? Adam 10:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ambi is a member of the ArbCom, and has already offered an opinion at the RfA page - but has said she would stand down if any should challenge her involvement--Cyberjunkie 10:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Ambi and David Gerard are both Australian Arbitrators. I tried to make it abundantly clear that there is little to no support for Skyrings position, so hopefully it can be a painless process--nixie 11:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Even if the arbitrators are not Australian, it shouldn't matter, and it might actually be a plus because they'd be neutral. I'm not fully neutral because I'm an Australian ex-pat (no, I'm not an arbitrator), but now that this is going to arbitration, my opinion probably doesn't matter right now. --Deathphoenix 13:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any of Skyring's edits ever being supported by any other editor. Anyway, if you think the ArbCom can deal with this in a satisfactory way reasonably quickly, I have no objection. There is the advantage that their determination will be "official" and thus carry more weight than the results of a poll, given Skyring's expressed contempt for majority opinion, and indeed for anyone's opinion except his own. Adam 11:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you are correct, It doesn't seem that Skyring has the support of any editor. It looks like this arbitration case is going to be rejected, so I suggest creating an RfC on either a content dispute (this article, obviously) or on user behaviour. --Deathphoenix 13:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There was an RfC on the content in early March, IIRC, which is one reason why there are so many non-Australian editors involved in it. -Willmcw 22:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, back on March 9, 2005 user:Michael Snow made a similar proposal, which received a general consensus agreement. Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2. In perspective, this current vote is just formalising the consensus that has been in place for two and a half months. A consensus which one editor has relentlessly challenged. Enough already. -Willmcw 23:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Further rounds
Hmmm. How many times have I said that my opinion doesn't matter? When will it sink in that I mean what I say? And if you could just back up that "expressed contempt" with a verifiable quote...? No? I didn't think you could. Pete 11:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Verifiable source for what this time ? Which expressed tautology are you demanding be verified this time? El_C 12:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Our 'Alice in Wonderland' contibutor means that, as in Alice, things mean what he says they mean and the professional expertise of prime ministers, governors-general, attorneys-general, parliamentary committees, state documents, primary sources, legal judgments are all wrong because the truth was actually in a magazine article he read, and the comments of some minor lawyer he believes! So no evidence is good enough until some is produced to reflect his comically inept knowledge of costitutional law. lol On a more serious note his comment When will it sink in that I mean what I say?" seems to threaten that he will continue to try to force his opinion on the page until everyone agrees. His behaviour is rapidly hitting a level where it can be seen as little more than vandalism. As such it seems like only a matter of time until he is banned from wikipedia. A lot of users away from this page have hinted as much. Tannin pretty much spelt it out on Skyring's own talkpage, also raising the option that the 3R rule could be waived in this case here to allow as many reverts as necessary to remove his POV edits from the article. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ireland! A perfect example of a strawman argument. Adam talked above of my "expressed contempt for majority opinion, and indeed for anyone's opinion except his own". Neither of his claims are correct. Here are some quotes from me:

Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1
 * My opinion isn't important
 * As I never tire of pointing out, our opinions don't matter
 * My opinion doesn't matter".

Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_3
 * My opinion doesn't matter, Adam.
 * I am astonished that you consider my opinion important. It is more than I do.

Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_5
 * My position, and I reiterate it once again for your benefit, is that my personal opinion - whatever that might be - is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article.
 * My opinion doesn't matter in the slightest.
 * You accuse me of egotism, but again I say that my opinion doesn't matter.

I cannot help but wonder what passed through Adam's mind when he accused me of contempt for anyone's opinion but my own, when the precise reverse is forcefully repeated by me over a period of several months.

As for contempt of majority opinion, I challenged Adam to come up with a quote from me to that effect, and not surprisingly he came up empty, even though all of my statements are public and searchable. Here's the closest I could come to anything like that, when I said: I find it bizarre that Adam sees opinion as somehow over-riding fact, as if it were something that could be voted upon. Pete 01:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This "my opinion doesn't matter" pose of yours doesn't fool anyone - you have done nothing but force your dopey opinions on us for weeks. Adam 01:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Do tell? And what, precisely, might these "dopey opinions" consist of, Adam? Pete 04:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As for your contempt for everyone else's opinions, it was you who described your role here as "amusing yourself at the expense of self-important fools." Adam 01:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL! You can't even get that right. Pete 04:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, he got it right. So, more innuendo (amusement for you) now? Round and round, in circles we go. El_C 04:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Rather than degrading this project by engaging in further rounds of petty bitchery with Skyring (which is what he wants, since his sole interest here is to waste everyone's time with his idiocy), why don't we either (a) conduct a vote as I proposed or (b) ask the ArbCom to come to a decision quickly and enforce it? Adam 04:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I have forwarded the idea that the AC can issue your proposal as a temporary injunction in the interim. El_C 05:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Adam 05:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, Adam... If you don't want to amuse me, then take your own advice and ignore me. But you just can't help yourself by launching into another little insult session. The point you've missed is that this is all taking place on the talk page, and not as an edit war on the article page. If I was making edits to the article in contravention of editorial consensus, you might have a case.

And I can't help but notice that once again, when I ask you what you think these opinions that I supposedly keep trying to force down everyone's throat might consist of, you change the subject. Sorry to tiresomely point this out, but everyone here seems to be concerned with my opinion except me, yet nobody is able to say what it is, least of all you! Pete 05:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Arguing for the sake of arguing is the type of activity that can result in a write-up in what the Signpost calls "The Report On Lengthy Litigation". If user:Adam Carr hadn't proven his bona fides many times over then he'd be viewed the same. In this case, as in some past cases, that editor has been a bulwark against unconventional views and original research. On the other hand, another editor in this matter apparently has only worled on a very narrow range of articles. As I have asked many times, let me ask User:Skyring/Pete again: can we please have an alternate summary of the head-of-state roles of the Queen and the Governor General? Having two disticnt views allows the community of editors to "compare and contrast" the views and to form the consensus which will allow this article to settle. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * See the Parliamentary Library Research Note referred to on the first archived page for the two extreme positions, and Bryan Palmer's Australian Politics site for a discussion on the three views. Pete 10:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please summarize your view of what your sources suggest is the most accurate version of the situation. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)