Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Template:Music of Canada
Status	closed
Request date	02:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Requesting party	Ħ MIESIANIACAL
Parties involved	User:UrbanNerd, user:roux, User:Walter Görlitz, User:Miesianiacal, User:Moxy, User:Resolute, and others who've weighed into an RfC.
Mediator(s)	Lord Roem

Request details[edit]

Where is the dispute?[edit]

The dispute centres on Template:Music of Canada. Discussion has been taking place at Template talk:Music of Canada#Royal anthem and beyond on the same page.

Who is involved?[edit]

What is the dispute?[edit]

The main question is whether or not "God Save the Queen", as the royal anthem of Canada, should be included alongside "O Canada", the national anthem of Canada, in the navbox template. A tangential question is whether or not any anthem should be included in the navbox template.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?[edit]

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute[edit]

A consensus is required on inclusion or exclusion of any anthems in the template and, if consensus favours the former, whether or not the royal anthem should be listed. Within the debate around the latter question are discussions about the nature of the royal anthem's status (it is not the royal anthem by law (act of parliament or order-in-council) but is recognised and by convention used by the Canadian federal and provincial governments as the royal anthem; is it therefore officially the royal anthem or not?) and whether or not "legal status" is the benchmark requirement for inclusion of an anthem in the navbox.

These issues all appear to be black and white; i.e. there's little chance of a compromise solution. As such, the RfC asking if the royal anthem should be included or not has, after one month, resulted in a tie. The debate has reached a stalemate and is riddled with personal attacks and bad faith accusations; the suggestion of moving forward by exploring the option of removing both anthems is meeting opposition.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?[edit]

Help break the stalemate so a solution can be reached or provide guidance on the next steps after an RfC fails to resolve the disputed matter.
Help determine what was the last version of the template to have consensus (i.e. what was the status quo that should stand until a consensus for change is reached).
Keep the discussion focused and orderly.
Curb personal attacks and accusations of bad faith.

Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?

Mediator notes[edit]

Hello! I would like to offer myself as a mediator for this case. I have had experience with cases since last year (maybe 4-6 cases in total). If you are fine with me mediating, please sign below; if you have any questions, please feel free to leave a note here or on my talk page. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of Mediator

GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement to freeze editing of the page during mediation, as a measure of good faith

Moxy (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes[edit]

Since there is no qualification procedure to become a MedCab mediator and since any Wikipedia editor can volunteer in any mediation case to be a mediator, each participant in a dispute should carefully examine the background and experience of any editor who volunteers to mediate a case and should feel free to reject any mediator who they believe is not suitable. Rejection by one or more participants of a mediator or rejection of participation in the mediation for any other reason does not mean that the mediation cannot move forward with that mediator or with the remaining participants, but it may substantially lessen the possibility that consensus to settle the dispute will be achieved. (Mediation cannot, by policy, provide a binding result but can only help the parties reach consensus.)

Closed after inactivity. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Pre-Opening Statement Discussion

The only 'stalemate' is Miesianiacal's usual obdurate refusal to accept any opinions which aren't his own. This medcab will simply be an enormous waste of time. Be prepared for him to, tiresomely, re-litigate every single point already raised, obfuscate the issues, and simply refuse to answer questions in a reasonable fashion.

This is a massive waste of time, merely serving Miesianiacal's overweening monarchism and attempts to push a pro-monarchy POV into every single article he touches. Have fun; I for one will not be wasting my time with yet another enraging and bloody pointless Miesianiacal timesink. → ROUX ₪ 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ye a little faith. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed Roux gets away with continually spouting these vitriolic attacks at editors all over Wikipedia. WP:AGF & WP:NPA, anyone? Anyway, he's indicated he won't be back to disrupt the discussion again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truth hurts, eh? Aww, poor you. → ROUX ₪ 08:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Roux wont be back or us talking about his behaviour - we need to move forward in a mature and productive manner.Moxy (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For which you, naturally, are the exemplar. Please. → ROUX ₪ 08:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLS go away - you have no standing here in this community anymore.Moxy (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd actually be wrong there. But since I have never seen you be right--about anything--that is less than surprising. → ROUX ₪ 14:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content with GSTQ's inclusion or exclusion at the Template. Once we determine the inclusion criteria of the template, the dispute would likely be resolved. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask that discussion remained focus on the issues at hand. Once all parties have responded to the mediation request, we will begin. If anyone does not wish to take part, that is their right; however, an editor not taking part should remain away from this mediation unless they have an interest in working towards compromise and consensus.

We will begin this process soon. Lord Roem (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no great desire to participate in this mediation, but do not oppose it nor will I challenge whatever result it yields. I hold to my opinions on the talk page that neither song fits the scope of the template, that GSTQ is not remotely Canadian and that its inclusion is a pro-monarchist POV push. I also hold that this is a remarkably trivial issue that seems on the verge of turning into a time sink and can't bring myself to worry too much whether the links exist or not. So I'll bow out and let you get to business, Lord Roem. However, if anyone feels my input would be beneficial at some point, feel free to ping my on my talk page. Reso lute 14:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Resolute, please know you are always free to join the mediation if you change your mind. Lord Roem (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All parties are invited to make an opening statement on the talk page to this mediation case. Please follow the size guidelines, and please be sure to watchlist this page if you haven't already done so. Lord Roem (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]