Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-20 Royal Marines mass reversion

Mediation Case: 2006-08-20 Royal Marines mass reversion
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Tashtastic 14:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Tashtastic 14:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ... At article called Royal Marines


 * Who's involved?
 * ... User User:ALR


 * What's going on?
 * ... ALR has suddenly made a mass change to the organisation section. It has been changed drastically so the information is incomplete, inconsistent and mixed up. Has also commited page blanking by deleting the entire section on attached army units and not replacing it with any mention of the units, even though they are a part of 3 Commando Brigade.

I have tried discussing it with them and listing my concerns on the article's discussion page, but they remain unwilling to make any improvements or even continue to discuss it.

The mass changes include point of view structuring and changing organisation tasks to tasks not supported by, and in contradiction to, verifiable sources.

This is a direct attack on the reliability, thoroughness and quality of the article.

[Discussion] on the talk page.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ... Would like my concerns listed on the discussion page addressed and the organisation improved to a clear and complete quality, without 3 Commando Brigade units and non-brigade units mixed together, as they currently are. Tashtastic 14:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * ... Via my tak page

Comment by ALR

 * This is the second MedCab case which User:Tashtastic has raised against me, the previous one being here, mediated by User:Torinir with the associated discussion here.ALR 15:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
I'll take this case and contact the involved parties to determine whether the dispute is ongoing. Addhoc 10:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the case. The dispute still requires mediation as ALR has shown they are unwilling to address my points or even continue discussing. Tashtastic 11:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy to wait and see what transpires, but I have already responded to all of Tashtastics issues on the talk page. Not convinced that this will achieve anything useful.ALR 14:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, I've included a suggested compromise below for discussion. Addhoc 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that now nearly 30 hours after being asked to articulate his or her concerns, Tashtastic still hasn't actually done so I'd suggest that coming up with a proposed wording is somewhat premature. On the article talk page there were a number more issues, I'd suggest it would be useful to actually identify what the various issues are before trying to address any of them.  It's particularly disappointing that s/he has chosen not to respond, despite having been online several hours after being asked to comment.
 * I think we need to be clear whether Tashtastic is looking for a mediator, or someone to help present the various arguments in a more coherent form; an advocate. Once that is clear then we'll be able to make some progress.ALR 16:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise
In this suggested compromise version, the new material is shown in red.

The Brigade also holds Operational Control of attached Royal Artillery and Royal Engineer assets:
 * 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, based at Royal Citadel, Plymouth
 * 59 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers, based at Chivenor
 * 131 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers (Volunteers)

Personnel in these units have completed the All Arms Commando Course conducted at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines at Lympstone, which entitles them to wear the Green beret and the "commando dagger" on their uniform.

Addhoc 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea. With a slight adjustment, it's a good compromise.
 * However, it's rather long-winded and would be much clearer if simplified to something like "The Brigade also has attached army units from the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers"; follwed by links to the units' articles.
 * The last sentence could be simplified to something like "These units are components of the brigade and their personnel have completed the All Arms Commando Course conducted at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines at Lympstone, which entitles them to wear the Green beret and the "commando dagger" on their uniform."
 * This would be much clearer as it is simpler and shows the fact that the attached army units are also components of 3 Commando Brigade. Tashtastic 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My position should have been fairly clear from my previous comments on the article talk page, and I'm concerned that it has not been taken into account in this proposal. The article is about the Royal Marines, ie that element of the Royal Navy trained in the light infantry role which form the core of the UK Commando forces.  The article is not about 3 Commando Brigade, which has it's own article.
 * Notwithstanding that I'd be content with with your first sentence, but with obfuscated links. There is the caveat that the RE link goes to  24 Commando Regiment Royal Engineers which will stand up in January around the two existing Squadrons.  I can collate that article.  It would then become The Brigade also holds Operational Control of, Commando trained, attached  Royal Artillery and  Royal Engineer assets.
 * That minimises the noise in the article.
 * ALR 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your comments, although I'm not sure that obfuscated links are compatible with policy. I think we should outline Tashtastic's version on the talk page to get more comments.Addhoc 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly I'm not happy with Tashs' version because it's not relevant to the RM article.ALR 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have posted his version on the talk page to obtain feedback from other users. Clearly, for this version to be incorporated into the article, it would require support from other Wikipedians. Addhoc 23:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure where to add my name (not been invovled in one of these before), but I've added a comment on the article talk page regarding this. Basically it just seems to be putting an unecessary level of detail in the article.  It is only Tashtastic who seems to have an issue with the cahgnes, all the other comments on the article talk broadly support ALR's edits.  David Underdown 09:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Addhoc 10:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds clear and simple, ALR. A Royal Engineers link to an article on the new 24 commando regiment would be usefull. However, I am confused at the contradictory nature of your argument. You say it's not about 3 Commando Brigade, yet you are willing to accept the Brigade's structure being included in the article; yet leave it in-complete by not putting the full name of the police troop (Royal Marines Police Troop) or making clear the army units are attached to to the brigade and are officially components of it.

These need only be minor adjustments that make the article much clearer and simpler. Tashtastic 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)