Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-10 British monarchy

Who are the involved parties?

 * User:G2bambino (myself)
 * User:TharkunColl (opposing editor)
 * User:Lonewolf BC (opposing editor)

What's going on?
Editors dispute existence of a personal union between the United Kingdom and the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms.

Extensive discussion at talk has reached a very weak "consensus" on how to edit the content in question; three of six submitted supports (one being mine) included caveats that the proposed edit be futher enhanced (see: Talk:British monarchy). Two editors have since altered the article's text to conform to their personal opinions, using the "consensus" (of which two of the six supports were their own) as grounds for excluding what the other three supports suggested. Furthermore, the editors ignore reliable sources, and one in particular is expanding the supposed "consensus" to include unilateral edits beyond the scope of the survey, including potentially significantly altering the content of other articles.

All three editors have been warned about edit-warring (though some prefer to delete these warnings from their Talk pages): Lonewolf BC, TharkunColl, G2bambino.

What would you like to change about that?
The dispute should be resolved via a compromise. Thus far, capitulations were made on one side of the debate, however, none have come from the other; cooperation and willingness to be flexible is distinctly lacking. Thus, a mediator should attempt to bring the non-cooperative parties into a proper discourse, rather than see them continue an exercise in bullying.

Mediator notes
Accept me as mediator? Is it alright with everyone if I, GrooveDog (talk · contribs), take this case?
 * I accept. Thanks for offering your assistance. --G2bambino 01:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not accept the need for any sort of mediation, as a workable consensus has already been reached - one that G2bambino dislikes, hence his request. The basic problem is this: G2bambino, based on his own original research has reached a POV that insists that the phrase "British monarch" must be replaced with "the person who is the British monarch", whereas in any normal usage of the English language the two phrases are identical in meaning. The latter, however, is a stylistic monstrosity that makes the articles in question look ridiculous and pedantic. He has inserted this or similar phrases into a large number of articles dealing with the British monarchy, such as Monarchy in Canada, British monarchy itself, Commonwealth Realm, and many, many others. He engages in constant edit wars to keep his POV in place, and browbeats all opposition by means of interminably tedious arguments on talk pages. In short, he treats all articles relating to the British monarchy as if he owns them. TharkunColl 11:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (It seems the above actually verifies the need for mediation.) --G2bambino 15:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The continual insertion of POV without consensus is actually called vandalism. I don't believe that vandalised pages generally require mediation. TharkunColl 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi TharkunColl, are you indicating the next stage should be arbitration? Addhoc 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt that G2bambino would accept any decision that disagreed with his POV, so I see no use in mediation, arbitration, or whatever. I don't know what the answer is - how are persistent vandals and POV pushers usually dealt with? TharkunColl 18:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Usually they are banned by the Arbitration Committee (or ArbCom for short).--Addhoc 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If mediation fails, then I suppose ARBCOM is the next step; though, we should try mediation first. Other editors are now engaged at Talk:British monarchy. --G2bambino 18:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, if you can't get agreement to mediate or mediation doesn't suceed you should take the case to ArbCom. Addhoc 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't guess this is going anywhere but here's my take on it, anyhow: I don't mind if you want to try to mediate it but, as I'm sure you've surmised, things are quite different from Gbambino's description of them. This is not just a two-against-one dispute with Thark and myself opposing Gbambino.  There were actually very extensive discussions which (so far as I can see) reached a consensus that satisfied everyone but Gbambino.  He would not respect it, and was insisting on an edit that was roundly opposed -- not just by me and Thark, although only we two actually reverted  on the article-page, with others writing against it on the talk-page.  You must read the talk-page to get a full picture of what was going on.  However, the dispute really was not about whether to use "personal union".  That had been an aspect of it, at one stage, and there may yet be some disagreement about whether an how to use that term in the article, but that had much faded into the background, if not away altogether, and presenting it as the current bone of contention, as Gbambino did, was (forgive me) either dishonest or deluded. So, if you feel like familiarising yourself with the true situation (i.e plowing through the talk-page, mainly) and acting as an impartial referee there, be my guest.  But this isn't settleable by having the three named editors go aside and have a chat. -- Lonewolf BC 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * (Commenting, recognizing that I am not one of the listed parties; I am involved in the discussion, however.) I would just like to point out that the reason stated in the "What's going on?" paragraph for this mediation request is no longer relevant since G2bambino has already removed his objection in this talk page edit (bold emphasis mine):
 * I have capitulated to many of the demands made here (ie. dropping reference to a personal union, the association between the British Monarch and his/her British ministers, etc.
 * Additionally, and more significantly, now that the article is unprotected, all three parties have made edits to it and the phrase "personal union" still remains, so I think we can assume that none of the parties have an issue with it. Accordingly, I would argue that mediation on this point does not actually appear to be required. (Mediation on a separate point - the one TharkunColl notes above - may be required, but that's not relevant to this particular mediation request.) -- Hux 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Commenting (as above, I'm not a "recognised party", but I've been involved with the issue substantially at Monarchy in Canada). I doubt very much that the "fundamental issue" here is resolved - TharkunColl has abandoned the "not a personal union" argument at Monarchy in Canada since I dug up a couple of quality references for the issue - but has moved on to some other (equally spurious) complaint.  Given his (her?) history there, I believe it's the "same issue" that's always been present - and that forcing the issue to shift slightly won't resolve the fundamental problems.  Wily D  18:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it might still be a matter of Thark's objection to "personal union." As I stated at Talk:British monarchy (I believe), one paragraph in British monarchy recognizes a "personal union" between the UK and the other Realms, while another says there is not a "personal union" relationship. TharkunColl has indeed, as Hex points out, left the former alone while insisting the latter remain contradictory.  Perhaps his issue is that he just doesn't understand what a "personal union" means. --G2bambino 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * G2bambino said: "one paragraph in British monarchy recognizes a "personal union" between the UK and the other Realms, while another says there is not a "personal union" relationship." Having just scanned through the article I believe you're actually mistaken on this: there is no such contradiction (at least none that I can find). And as I implied above, TharkunColl has made recent edits to the article and has not changed any reference to "personal union", so it's probable that this is no longer an issue for him/her, which obviates the need for this mediation request.
 * TharkunColl: if I'm right about this could you make it clearly known, so as to avoid any misinterpretation? -- Hux 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I am mistaken at all; one paragraph says the British Monarch is head of state for a number of other countries, the other says all the countries are in a personal union. That is a contradiction, and one which TharkunColl adamantly wishes to maintain - even expand beyond the British Monarchy article itself. --G2bambino 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, what? Firstly, I was referring specifically to this comment: "one paragraph in British monarchy recognizes a "personal union" between the UK and the other Realms, while another says there is not a "personal union" relationship." My point was that, as far as I can see, there is no paragraph in that article that says there is not a personal union between the countries mentioned, thus there is no such contradiction.
 * Secondly, it is not contradictory to say that the British monarch is head of state for a number of other countries and then to subsequently state that all the countries are in a personal union. In fact, it's impossible for a personal union to exist without someone being a monarch of more than one country! -- Hux 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying the British Monarch is head of state in other countries says there is no personal union relationship; I didn't mean the sentence literally says "there is not a personal union relationshp."
 * It is certainly contradictory to say that the British Monarch is head of state for a number of other countries and follow that those countries are in a personal union. The issue isn't with one person being multiple monarchs, it's with people insisting that one monarch is multiple monarchs.  The British Monarch is no more than such within the United Kingdom; beyond that country's borders said monarch has no role in any foreign government. --G2bambino 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * G2bambino said: "It is certainly contradictory to say that the British Monarch is head of state for a number of other countries and follow that those countries are in a personal union." No it isn't. It would be if you said that the British monarchy also reigns over other countries, because that assertion refers to an institution of Britain - the monarchy - exercising power outside the UK. Conversely, stating that the British monarch is also the monarch of other countries carries no such institutional implication, because "British monarch" simply refers to the person, not to the institution. The phrase, "The British monarch reigns over sixteen Commonwealth Realms" is exactly synonymous with the phrase, "Queen Elizabeth II reigns over sixteen Commonwealth Realms." Further, if you change it to "the Australian monarch", "the Canadian monarch", "the Jamaican monarch", etc. etc., it's still exactly synonymous, because all those terms refer to a single person: Queen Elizabeth II.
 * G2bambino: "The issue isn't with one person being multiple monarchs, it's with people insisting that one monarch is multiple monarchs." No, the issue is that you are the only person in the entire discussion who appears not to understand that there is a distinction between "monarch" (person) and "monarchy" (institution), and that "British monarch", "the person who is the British monarch" and "Queen Elizabeth II" are all synonymous and distinct from "the British monarchy". It's as simple as that. -- Hux 12:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Queen is represented by governors general in those other countries. The basic point here, as I said above, is that to say that the Queen of the UK is also Queen of Australia, Canada, etc. is obviously not wrong. She is indeed Queen of those places. And is so because of the legacy of the British Empire. It is mere pedantry to try and claim otherwise. TharkunColl 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Governors general are irrelevant. The Queen of the UK is not also Queen of any other country; she is only Queen of the UK.  Elizabeth II, however, is queen of sixteen different countries; hence, those countries are in a personal union; hence, the person who is Queen of the UK is also Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, Queen of Tuvalu, etc., etc., etc. That you continue to twist the facts to fit into your outdated, Britanniphilic, fetishised view of the world shows clearly that at least mediation is necessary - if only to bring some end to your disruptive rampages across numerous articles.  I'm going to try to make some edits to British Monarchy either later today or tomorrow. If you continue to revert them to push your unsubstantiated original research and POV then, if no mediator steps in at Talk:British monarchy, I suppose I'll have to take it to ArbCom, though I'd certainly rather not see it get to that point. --G2bambino 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * G2bambino said: "The Queen of the UK is not also Queen of any other country; she is only Queen of the UK. Elizabeth II, however, is queen of sixteen different countries" Since the Queen of the UK is Queen Elizabeth II and since Queen Elizabeth the II is the monarch of all sixteen Commonwealth Realms, it is accurate to say that the Queen of the UK is also the queen of the other Realms. A=B and B=C, therefore A=C; it's that simple and to argue otherwise is purely pedantic. -- Hux 11:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * G2bambino said (about TharkunColl): "you continue to twist the facts to fit into your outdated, Britanniphilic, fetishised view of the world". Firstly, he is not twisting the facts at all; it is you who is doing that, as already explained. Secondly, please cease these personal attacks. -- Hux 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My comments re. Thark are personal criticisms at worst; no more personal attacks than his continually calling me pedantic, or assuming bad faith on my part. Thus, there is nothing I need cease to do. Your other points were essentially repeated at Talk:British monarchy, so I've addressed them there. --G2bambino 15:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * G2bambino, by saying that the Queen of the UK is not Queen of any other country, has proved just how far his POV has become divorced from reality. Furthermore, he is still adding his POV to articles and indulging in edit wars.. See, for example, his edits to Coronation of the British monarch. I don't believe he will ever willingly cease from this activity, and his anti-British sentiments expressed above at least go some way towards explaining his motivation. TharkunColl 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I dare say that all along this may have been about you establishing a precedent from where you could "justifiably" edit other articles so as to make readers believe the other Realms of the Commonwealth are subservient to the UK; something you've attempted to do at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and failed. However, since the non-conclusive "consensus" at Talk:British monarchy, you've bulleted off to throw in your pro-Brittania POV here, here, here, here, here, here, etc., etc. One wonders, do you truly value accuracy, or are you simply unwilling to accept that you have to share your queen with others? --G2bambino 15:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It should probably be noted that most (if not all) of the things TharkunColl accuses Gbambino of are blatantly false. But if TharkunColl is unwilling to accept mediation, perhaps this isn't the right venue for this discussion? Wily D  00:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, what accusations are you referring to? I agree, however, that at this point and about this particular issue, mediation is not going to solve the problem. However, I still believe that clear consensus can be found on the talk page, so I don't think there is a need for arbitration just yet. -- Hux 12:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He engages in constant edit wars to keep his POV in place, and browbeats all opposition by means of interminably tedious arguments on talk pages for example is not true - and Gbambino is transparently a Monarchist, so his anti-British sentiments is also a false, ad hominem attack. Generally, GBambino is probably being pedantic (I'm not sure this is a vice) in order to make clear a point that's easily sourcable (and has been sourced repeatedly, despite TharkunColl's assertions otherwise).  He does not engage in any original research or POV pushing.  While it's unclear to me whether he has ownership issues or merely works very hard to keep articles neutral and factual is unclear, but that's possible.  Whether he'd drop issues where sources are cited the opposite way is unclear - I'm not aware that he's ever done this, although he's argued with TharkunColl when TharkunColl presented original conclusions - many (all?) of which were later shown to be false.  The personal union issue, of course, Gbambino's only fault was not sourcing it correctly.  The Commonwealth is a personal union, and it's not hard to dig up citations to that effect - that Gbambino didn't dig up the citation for something so obvious is a fault, but I can hardly fault him for not doing this for TharkunColl when TharkunColl would just move on to being disruptive over some other issue (he now disputes that Charles is the Prince of Wales, despite that having been sourced to the Government of Canada, for instance).  The short of it is - GBambino is a good editor, who may get carried away and might present slight ownership problems - although he has grudgingly accepted consensus in the past even when it was clearly counterproductive.  TharkunColl is a persistantly disruptive editor who engages in POV pushing and just general baiting.   In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I've been forced to block TharkunColl in the past for disruption, though I'm not sure that that's particularly relevant.  Wily D  13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
Is this case going to ArbCom then? I can't mediate without all parties accepting.GrooveDog (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, 2 of 3 of the involved parties have been block 24 hrs for edit warring. One of these 3 refuses to accept and the other one hasn't responded. So...in my opinion, this mediation request is as good as dead. Nat Tang ta 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been observing the constant squabbles, since the UK an fifteen others... vs the sixteen... dispute at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (which I was involved in, for a short time). If the editors (who are currently blocked), begin where they left of? then the ArbCom is the next (and final) step. Seeing these constant 'revert wars' by similar combatants, spreading to Elizabeth II related pages, is disheartening. GoodDay 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)