Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Opening statements

• Would each participant please describe briefly (preferably in no more than 200 words) what you consider to be the main issues and what you hope to gain from mediation? Sunray (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening statement from Thunderer

Certainly. In my opinion the article became consumed by opinions which suggested that the Ulster Defence Regiment was a totally discredited force. Initially to counter this I included material from the opposite POV (as well as building up information and pictures on the force itself, how it operated, who was in it, etc etc). This proved counter-productive as other editors introduced more and more detrimental information which required countering to keep the article as neutral as possible. Eventually I suggested removing all of this as cruft and sticking to the facts, noting the controversial aspects but not supporting them with any fierce weight of opinion from any faction or section of the NI community. In doing so I was succesful in having the article raised to B Class but also created a situation whereby BigDunc and Domer48 tried to re-introduce more POV opinion about how the regiment was biased which led to edit-warring as I tried to persuade them not to. My own opinion remains that, given the controversial nature of the subject matter, we should strive to educate the reader on the salient points of Protestant -v- Catholic etc but not let it become the major focus of the article as other articles on the wiki deal with this in detail. I was also heavily criticised for following advice from Milhist to cut the size of the article by creating sub-pages. Thunderer (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying questions

Thank you Thunderer. I will comment on what you have said after BigDunc has made his opening statement. I was wondering what you hoped to get out of mediation. Sunray (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to be able to raise this article to A Class on Milhist. I would also like to see it being treated less as a battleground for opinions of factions in the Northern Ireland Troubles. As it stands I believe it is the only such reference piece with this type of detail on the UDR anywhere in the world. If it is allowed to drift from neutral reportage then it becomes flawed and unreliable in my opinion.Thunderer (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How is this mediation likely to contribute to these goals? Sunray (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it should serve to educate both parties on what is and what isn't acceptable in the article. My view is that military articles on the wiki aren't a platform for airing grievances or opinions on ethnic conflicts. Yes, if the unit involved was controversial it should be noted; it has been well noted how both sides of the politico-religious divide viewed this regiment. My belief is that inclusion of opinions by writers who want to put forward laudable or detrimental views on the regiment only focuses the readers' mind on the problems of Northern Ireland rather than on the history and workings of this unit which takes away its value as a source of reference.Thunderer (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You said that you had been successful in getting the article raised to B-Class. I can find no record of that and there is no banner on the article. It looks to be an unclassified article. Have I got this wrong? Sunray (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the banner is hidden. If you click "show" it is the top one.Thunderer (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that now. I had also not seen it on the MilHist B-Class articles page. However, I've found it now. I note that other projects have not yet rated it B-Class. What are your reasons for not going for GA or FA status? Sunray (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm still relatively new I am taking it a stage at a time. If and when I manage to upgrade it to A Class then I will take further advice from the guys at Milhist on what needs to be done to proceed further.Thunderer (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the other projects noted, while expressing an interest in the article, may not be as avid as us military buffs at trying to raise the article higher. I made a request to the people at the Northern Ireland Project secondly but got no reply so abandoned any hope of getting it raised there or at the Irish Project.Thunderer (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a thought: If you read the policies you will note that they are not only focused on content, but also behaviour. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project. Above you said: "... when I manage to upgrade it to A Class..." This seems to be part of the problem. You are trying to work at this alone. GA and FA articles are cross-project and emphasize collaboration. So it might be a better collective goal to shoot for one of those. However, if you stick to your goal of getting an A-Class article, you will need to collaborate in any case. I think that this should be cleared with the other participants in this mediation. I would like to make the establishment of a goal for upgrading the article one of the goals of this mediation. What are your thoughts on this? Sunray (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've misled you by my comments and I apologise for that. I am not the only editor working on the article. There are a few others as well as some people off Wikipedia. It just seems that I was the only one initially who was prepared to track down and obtain the few books available on this regiment and spend the time building up the article with what I thought was salient content. To that end perhaps people see me as the prime mover as I've done most of the work over the last few months and I'm also the editor who's engaged most in dialogue on the talk page as well as the one who's been involved in the edit wars over content. I've requested assistance on a number of occasions and received it mostly from people at Milhist. I accept (sometimes reluctantly) that my prose and content isn't always the best, which is why I need positive assistance.Thunderer (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I'm relieved to hear that you don't see yourself as the only one working on this goal. Would you include any editor who expresses a sincere desire to work on the article and is willing to abide by WP policies? Also, do you think that discussion of goals for the article should be a part of this mediation? Sunray (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to speak for anyone else. I do think that a discussion of goals is of the utmost import, to enhance the wiki and show it as a reliable source of reference. Thunderer (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial response to Thunderer

If I understand you well, you have been trying to balance the article and find that the article has become burdened with too much information. You mention the edit waring that has ensued. You state that, in your view, the article should not be overloaded with details of the conflicting positions between catholic and protestant. You think that the article should be shorter. You would like to see it rated as A-Class. Your goals for the mediation include making the article more educative and a valuable reference.

How will could this mediation advance towards these goals? Assuming the other participants share these goals, what would you and and they have to do to move in that direction? Sunray (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I want the article to be shorter. I followed advice in moving some sections to sub pages because the article was becoming too big as a single page. You're correct in your other appraisals.

This mediation would help the other editors in understanding that an article such as this, although related to the Irish Troubles, isn't about them and should be kept free of Irish political argument, spin or propaganda. That it shouldn't contain information which is designed to slant the readers' views on the regiment but only facts on the history, structure and function, whilst noting the sectarian and political viewpoints with pipelinks to take the reader to those points if they wish to understand more about the ethnic conflict the regiment was involved in.Thunderer (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening statement from BigDunc

I am very busy at the moment so this is just a short comment. My main concern is the portrayal of the UDR threw rose colored spectacles that is currently happening and also to stop the ownership issues that the Thunderer has with the article. I will give a more detailed statement at a later date. BigDunc^Talk

BigDunc: I need your opening statement in order so that we can decide whether to proceed with this case. I note that you have continued to be active on the discussion page of the UDR article. It seems to me to be important to be having this discussion via mediation instead, if that is the way we decide to go. So I would like to get your input to that as soon as possible. How long will that take? Sunray (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well as I stated above the main issue I have with this article is the ownership that Thunderer has over it. His constant accusations of POV pushing not AGF on my edits if you look he has reverted nearly every single edit I have made to the article. He reverted the term anti-terrorist which I removed (as it was OR and the ref used did not support the claim) knowing he was reverting to a version that was clearly wrong. The use of questionable sources Gamble being a prime example. His additon of Gamble into the main body of the article an ex fellow member who offered editors free books through Thunderer, his revert on me today when I removed the online link to Gamble's book which is non notable and I got a second opinion on that at WP:RSN which backed up that it was non notable. My wish from mediation is to at least have one edit I make not reverted because the Thunderer doesn't like it. If my edits are against policy or incorrect then well and good but I have backed up my edits which are all inline with policy. BigDunc^Talk 20:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do see some issues that are mediatable and note that you both seem willing to give it a go. I will comment further when I get Domer48's opening statement. Sunray (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying questions

You mention POV pushing. Is it fair to say that this is a problem on both sides? Likewise for reverts? Sunray (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No I wouldn't say that every edit I make is in line with policy and I don't push a POV. BigDunc^Talk 12:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial response to BigDunc

You are concerned about POV pushing and reverts. You would like edits to be in accordance with policy. If I've got that right that these are your main concerns, what are your thoughts on how to get there? Sunray (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In the section above, you say you don't push a POV. That's good. However, surely we all do have a POV. One of the possible goals of mediation might be to see our own POV more clearly and see that the other guy may be enmeshed in a POV just like us. Would you be able to comment on that in answer to my question about how we get there? Sunray (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your asking, if do I have a POV of course, do I push my POV no, I have never added anything to the article that reflects my opinion of the UDR. BigDunc^Talk 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You sound like Mr. Clean and you may well be. What I am trying to get at is why are you here? Surely you are not blameless in all this. I've seen some of the reverts quite recently and I note you were definitely involved. I am asking you to look at your own actions and then to consider what we can do in mediation to deal with things. Sunray (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends what I am being blamed on, I have reverted sometimes when I was annoyed when really I should have stopped as it always led to another revert by the Thunderer. So I would say my main problem is not waiting sometimes before reverting, which in my opinion was not very often. BigDunc^Talk 23:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion of issues raised

Dunc, there are a number of issues you have raised that we might add to our agenda. Some of them link to issues raised by David (consensus and NPOV), but here are the ones you have raised:

• reverts - this seems to be a key concern and connects to David's point about consensus.
• sources - What are the groundrules (Gamble example)
• POV - also mentioned by David and Thunderer.

Would you agree that these should all be added to our "Issues for discussion." Anything else? Sunray (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah add them. BigDunc^Talk 13:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening statement from Domer48

I started editing the article on 8 September, and began to see every edit I made removed. This was for the best part done without discussion, and consisted of edit summaries which I deemed to be personal attacks for the most part. The talk page when it was used, was again a platform to attack me. This eventually ended up on WP:AE were sanctions were put in place including a 1RR restriction. However from AE to the page protection I again experienced the exact same editing pattern with the reverts from sanctions and continued incivility on both edit summaries and talk page. I think Thunder has a bad case of WP:OWN and views our policies as if they don’t apply to him. I simply wish to edit the article under the same norms which apply on every other article on Wikipedia.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Domer48. Sunray (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying questions

Regarding personal attacks, have you also engaged in them? Sunray (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be hard pressed to find one, a check of the talk page history should confirm this. I probably have, Thunder may be able to come up with a diff? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. Thunderer, would you be able to comment on this? Sunray (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well yes he has engaged in personal attacks but I give as good as I get so I'm not taking the man to task over that. I'm more concerned about the paramount issue which is: is it correct to let a military article be consumed by comments which may or not be politically motivated (not by the editor but by his sources) and why the editor feels he needs to load the article with this type of sentiment. Thunderer (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide some diffs that support your statement that Domer48 has made personal attacks?

Domer, would you comment on Thunderer's statement about your addition of sources? Sunray (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be able, but not willing. The past is the past. This mediation to me is about the future. Suffice to say I have no axe to grind over anything we may have said to each other.Thunderer (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

About not providing diffs: It will be important to the success of this mediation to provide diffs for all statements about the actions of another editor. Moreover, it will likely be necessary to deal with the past in order to bring an element of accountability into the mix. We are accountable for our actions. Developing an action plan for this mediation would depend on this. More generally, I think that we have to have a very open and frank discussion about behaviour. How we behave towards one another is fundamental to WP's success. Have you read WP:CIV? Please read (or re-read) it now. Sunray (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of incivility / personal attacks, I would like to see the diff's. I have supported my views and I consider it important that if an accusation is made it should be backed up or withdrawn. I have also noticed that the accusation of POV editing by me is being modified to "not by the editor but by his sources" which is a welcome change. As illustrated with the diff's I provided, this was not always the case.

If information which is relevant to the subject is critical of the subject, it can not and should not be arbitrarily removed because an editor doses not like it, or because in their opinion the author has a POV. I have used respected and award winning authors and journalists who have specialised in this subject and all of them have been removed. The edit summary diff’s I have provided support my view, as dose the diff’s of the information which has been removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. Now, I've asked you a question in the section below. Would you be able to provide an answer? Sunray (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial response to Domer48

I get that you would like an environment in which editing is civil and in accordance with WP policy and guidelines. How do you think that mediation could assist in achieving your goal of peaceful editing of the article? Sunray (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If we all have to abide by the same norms as every other editor on the project on issues such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV there would not be such problems. That any and every edit critical of the UDR has to be removed is not accatable. The diff's I have provided would support all my contensions, on what can only be called POV editing coupled with incivility. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are, indeed, important policies. You seem to be saying that it is all the other guy's fault. Are you blameless? Surely if you and Dunc were both blameless, you could simply have had Thunder blocked or otherwise dealt with. It seems to me that it takes more than one to make an edit war. What is your responsibility in all this? Sunray (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t for one minute suggest that I’m blameless, I have edit warred, however if you look at the diff’s I provided you will notice I was trying to replace information which had been arbitrarily removed. I’m not saying it was all the other guys fault, but unless some diff’s are provided to say otherwise that is the conclusion you would naturally draw from it. I agree, Administrative intervention at an early stage would have helped. It is also my opinion that this was not a content dispute, despite the constant removals, but one of policy breeches. The consistent removal of relevant topic related material, based on nothing other than one editors opinions was a policy violation. Based on the diff’s I have provided, it would appear to be a breech of WP:NPOV, when you see only negative material removed. In addition, when information which was against WP:SYN and WP:OR was removed, it was quickly reinstated. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we are all good at pointing out the transgressions of someone else, but it is much harder to look at ourselves, no? Nevertheless, the chances of success in this mediation would be dramatically improved if participants are willing to take responsibility for their own actions. What then is your responsibility? Sunray (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That I don't have to be right, righ now, rather than revert seek an outside opinion such as WP:3. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable approach. i think that we might want to consider it further when we get around to an action plan. Sunray (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening statement from David Underdown

I'm a recent comer to the UDR article, following a request from Thunderer for input from MILHIST. To some extent my main input there has already been in a kind of mediation capacity, and my main hope by getting involved in this process is to try and help move things along, and conitune what I've already been doing on the talkpage. As I perceive it, the main problems are a lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS, talkpage discussions are begun, but when these don't progress as quickly as some would like, they give into the temptation to start editing the article page before a way forward has been agreed, which tends to raise tensions. Not all the editors have wide editing experience outside this article, so understanding of other key policies such WP:RS and WP:OR is lacking in some quarters, and because of the differing views of the editors, this has also contributed to the tensions, with some responses being a alittle WP:BITEy perhaps. As I've previously stated on teh article talk page, there needs to be a concerted effort, from everyone involved, to wind down on the adversarial language that has cropped up (not necessarily intentionally) on the talk page, and try to offer alternatives, rather than just focussing on what you want to be in or out of the article. David Underdown (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You are adding to the picture that has been developing in the section below. You comments may be clear to the participants themselves, but I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say "lack of understanding of consensus," 'start editing the article," "not all... have wide editing experience," "responses being a little WP:BITEy," and so on. For now, I will ask the others to comment on whether this is a fair summary of what has been happening. Sunray (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree with what David says.Thunderer (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm like you Sunray could we have a few examples of what you mean David. BigDunc^Talk 16:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a couple of examples would help to illustrate the issues. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

David's examples

(outdent) Examples as requested:

First of all examine the talk page thread Proposal, History section. The initial proposal is made by Domer on 2008-10-12 10:53, Dunc concurs with the proposal 20 minutes later. 13 minutes after that Thunderer objects. There's a little more desultory discussion over the next few days, but no real progress. Frankly on a page of this nature, I'd expect far longer discussion before adding any such text, particularly after such an objection. There's no attempt at coming up with a compromise version. Domer then inserts the proposed, text, unchanged on 2008-10-14 07:42. This was just before I first came to the article. Once I did come to it I commented that I could see merit in the inclusion, but this was intended to get discussion moving and try to reach a compromise text. Dunc interprets this as a 3-1 vote for the inclusion of the text as a originally proposed, but as I state soon after consensus is more complicated than simple majority voting, there has to be some sort of buy-in from all contributors, agreeing to live with the proposal, even if it's not absolutely what they originially wanted.

Next, Removal of Ronnie Gamble information. In this edit on 2008-10-14 Dunc removes a chunk of info on a member of the regiment who has wrtten a book about the history of the unit he served with. Thunderer opens a talk page thread, requesting that Dunc reverts the change. When he doesn't get an immediate response, he restores much of the information. Dunc then complains about the partial reversion, I comment that's there's probably some merit in including it. There's some fairly inconsequential further posting in this talkpage thread, but nothing approaching consensus on whether the info should stay or go. Suddenly some days later, with no further attempt at discussion, Dunc removes the information again on 2008-11-03, sparking the edit war which led to the latest protection of the article.

The remaining talkpage threads from Refs down are alrgely more fo the same, and include my attempts to get all editors to use less confrontational language. David Underdown (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dave for the above observations. Since there is just the two, one on Dunc the other on my self, I would like to address my comments on mine first. You mention “desultory discussion” could you possibly give some examples? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks too for your observations David but as I stated I removed a non notable member from the article which has no encyclopedic value. It was added by The Thunderer and it is about an ex member that Thunderer is in contact with. He says he doesn't know Gamble and I take his word for that. Also I fail to see any observations on The Thunderer are you looking for diffs or are you going to concentrate on observing what Domer and myself do? BigDunc^Talk 11:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All I mean is that there is nothing really addressed to the substance of the issue at hand, and there's no real attempt to thrash out a consensus version. I'd expect to see proposals and counter-proposals (obviously to a large extent this applies to Thunderer as well), there's no constructive engagement between the two contributors. It all boils down to, "this needs to go in", "oh no it doesn't", "oh yes it does". But then you go ahead and put the disputed text in the article anyway. David Underdown (talk)

• Further issues/examples: I realise looking back that whilst I mentioned WP:RS, and its counterpart WP:OR, I forgot to address the issues of WP:NPOV. Thunderer in particular appears to me to have interpreted this policy as saying that no points of view should be evident in the article. In fact the second sentence of the policy states, "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." To me this implies that for the purposes of writing an article, the Republican/Nationalist/Catholic view is as valid to be included in the article as the views of the British and Northern Irish governments and those of the British military and press. Yes we have to avoid undue weight being given to any particular viewpoint, but however distasteful or incorrect we may personally find some views, that distaste is not in itself a reason to exclude the view. (see e.g. Fresh start). David Underdown (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming back into the discussion at this point because this is the most sensible thing which has been said thus far and I wish to address it. Yes I agree that the article should represent ALL views however the amount of weight that is put on certain views gives concern as per WP:UNDUE. In a military article such as this one where there has been a controversial use of the unit concerned it is absolutely correct to note that intercommunal strife was the prevailing factor, what that polarisation of the community meant to the regiment and how the various factions involved viewed the regiment and for what reasons. It isn't appropriate to load the article disporportionately with further statements (verifable or not) which turn the article into an in depth study of why Roman Catholics had no confidence in any of the state security forces. If we allow undue weight on one aspect of the political viewpoint we then have to digress into other viewpoints which then turn the article into a series of opinions on why Protestants supported and Catholics didn't support the raising and deployment of this regiment. You also then have to explain to the reader how and why political entities used "spin" to exaggerate or invent allegations in support of or decrying the regiment. As things stand my viewpoint is that there is enough background on this for it to have legs - it doesn't need more. This is my objection and has been all along.Thunderer (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So do you agree with the proposals not to edit any article that myself or Domer have edited, the way myself and Domer have agreed not to edit any article you have? BigDunc^Talk 12:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I was only editing in response to the fact that you two were still doing it. I suggested two days ago here that we stop editing. I take it you now agree with the views expressed over battle honours at 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars?Thunderer (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not true since your opening statement you have made 11 edits to the USC article before Domer even made 1 edit. So it is an untruth to say you only edited because you two were still doing it. BigDunc^Talk 13:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My opening statement was on the 2/11. My request to stop editing was on the 5th. All I introduced to the article on 3rd and 4th were pictures. Are there any other accusations needing dealt with now or should we get on with mediation? May I suggest that we keep the dialogue as friendly as possible and try to avoid confrontation? Thunderer (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you forgetting your reverts? In breach of 1RR sanction imposed by AE. BigDunc^Talk 13:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediator's comment: A seemingly reasonable question by BigDunc; reasonable response by Thunderer. Then BD challenges T, with: "That is not true." A contradiction and a direct challenge. A neutral observer might conclude that BD was baiting T, but the latter doesn't react, at first. Sunray (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And are you forgetting that you tried to delete information and add citation tags to something which you didn't know enough about to realise that the article supported the text in any case - behaving like a spoiled schoolboy? Are you also forgetting that you've spent the last three days doing nothing but throwing accusations at me - both of you? Is that what medation means to you - have a good sound go at the other guy and intimidate him off the mediation, off the articles and off the wiki? If you want mediation then moderate your approach and mediate - rather than just chucking assertions and half truths about the place as you normally do. Can you not find any spiders to pull the legs off to keep you occupied while sensible people discuss what has REALLY been happening here?Thunderer (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediator's comment: While T. didn't react the first time BD challenged, now he does. He resorts to you-messages ("you tried to delete information..." "you didn't know enough... "). Then a personal attack: "... just chucking assertions and half truths... Can you not find any spiders..."

Keep it civil please guys, including the edit summaries. This appears to be a classic example ofthe types of issues which are causing problems in the first place. Can we all try to leave the schoolyard behind? David Underdown (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean guys? The only one being uncivil as usual is Thunderer calling an editor the village idiot is in breach of WP:CIVIL any more comments like that and you could be reported and blocked.BigDunc^Talk 14:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediator's comment: BD reacts in kind with a threat: "...you could be reported and blocked." Sunray (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what you can do with your blocking threats don't you? Or would you like me to send you a picture?Thunderer (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I take that as a threat. What are you going to send me? Is this bullying and threats going to be unchecked? BigDunc^Talk 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, stop it. You won't hear it from Dunc, but please listen to me. This is not acceptable behaviour. Dunc, please resist the temptation to respond in anyway. David Underdown (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

David, I appreciate your input as always. I've said my piece so I'll let it go now. It is this type of persistent beligerence which annoys me so from time to time I believe in providing a retort to avoid appearing like a doormat. I'll let the rest pass now I've shown my teeth.Thunderer (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediator's comment: David warns (appropriately) that T's behaviour is unacceptable but doesn't address the provocation by BD. T says he put in a retort to "avoid appearing like a doormat." This is a good point to pick up on and David begins to address it with his comments below. The exchange is entirely consistent with dozens of other exchanges I've read on the UDR talk page and other pages. One participant needles, or nit picks some point, the other reacts. It is a recipe for disaster. Does one have to act like a doormat? That is certainly not what Shell and I are suggesting. We are suggesting that participants a) don't needle one another or nit pick, b) don't react, c) don't use you-messages, and, d) remain civil at all times. I think that these could be the basis of some behavioural guidelines for how participants deal with one another. I will pick up on this later in a new section below. Sunray (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All the "you did this", "but you did it first", "but he" gets pretty wearing too - I was trying to amke sure that response was not in kind. I think we need to draw a line, look at the trens of past behaviour - but not excavate each and every instance adn try to pin "blame". We've all let our frustration show, including me, both toward you and Thunderer. We all have to try hard to rein that in and ensure we're are contributing positively and constructively, regardless of what has gone before. Whilst this process is ongoing, perhaps leave it up to the mediators to decide if any other measures are required, and entirely stick to this venue for interaction? David Underdown (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David. I see that the boys have been busy while those of us on the other side of the world slept. I think you are correct in your view of this as an example of previous patterns of interaction. Without much more effort it is going to be difficult to stop. However, perhaps we can use this display to illustrate needed changes. For starters, I would like to clarify that each of the participants to commit to the terms of editing we have discussed. I will present the terms below. Please sign your agreement. Sunray (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What provocation? I have received a threat from an editor who knows my real life name that they are going to send me something. Now is that issue going to be dealt with? If not what is the point in this whole process. BigDunc^Talk 18:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest your re-read your messages and what I have said about them. You contradicted T and continued to press your point. I am saying that this is provocative and an example of behaviour that causes problems. Perhaps you don't notice it yourself, but it is very evident to others. As to a threat. I see none. Would you be willing to address your own behaviour and not that of others? Sunray (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been absolutely no suggestion that I would reveal BigDunc's real life name - any more than I would suggest he would reveal mine (which he knows). The normal phrase would be "would you like me to draw you a picture" (with reference to another's failure to understand a point). As drawing a picture isn't possible on Wikipedia I suggested I would "send him a picture". It wasn't a threat, it wasn't a promise, it wasn't even a statement of intent - it was sarcasm. I hope that clarifies matters on that issue?Thunderer (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've become a little touchy, but I am afraid there is a danger of things escalating here. However, I assume that T's intentions are to explain his actions only. I am going to ask Dunc to use the Guidelines for interaction (see below) if he responds further. Sunray (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to explain to BD that he appears to have misinterpreted my post. I would NOT divulge anything personal about anyone and hope that the feeling is mutual. 90% of the problem of this system of posting messages "board" style is that when one is typing one is thinking and not always checking how the post reads back before clicking the button. In a live discussion most of these problems wouldn't arise because one could backpedal quickly - harder to do that here.Thunderer (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that is now abundantly clear. Sunray (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on David's opening statement

Edit break

David you mentioned “desultory discussion” could you possibly give some examples? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(copied from above) All I mean is that there is nothing really addressed to the substance of the issue at hand, and there's no real attempt to thrash out a consensus version. I'd expect to see proposals and counter-proposals (obviously to a large extent this applies to Thunderer as well), there's no constructive engagement between the two contributors. It all boils down to, "this needs to go in", "oh no it doesn't", "oh yes it does". But then you go ahead and put the disputed text in the article anyway. David Underdown (talk)

This may make more sense if you look back up the page. You initially asked this question, then Dunc came in with a bit more of a query, and I then wrote the above. David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

David I agree that there is no attempt to trash out a consensus agreement on the Proposal, History section. I do believe I tried, however others may have a different view. I placed my proposal on the talk page here, and presented my rational. It should be noted the number of references I used. Dunc agreed and provided a rational for this here. Thunderer disagrees here, suggesting it has not place in the article, and Catholic fears are well represented, and forget about Nationalists because they don't figure at that point in history?

Thunder then makes a familiar accusation, which lends nothing to the discussion. I then attempt to move the discussion forward here by asking, based on Thunderers response to cite some examples from the article were the fears of the Catholic community are addressed. What were the fears of the Nationalist community, and cite examples from the article? In my opinion the response was less than helpful here, having said the fears were well represented, to then be told they “are of no consequence,” and to be again told “that is already addressed there is no reason to introduce any fresh material to the article along those lines.” This is compounded by adding that “The UDR was a fresh start for the people of Northern Ireland and you must treat the article that way.” I again attempted to draw attention to the contradiction that the views were not represented here, and explained again my rational by pointing out that “I simply and briefly outline what some of those fears were, and agree that we can add more detail on the B Specials Article.”

Now that was at 12:09, 12 October, and for two days no response was given, Thunderer did however make 57 posts, including on both the UDR article and the talk page. At 07:42, on 14 October I introduced the proposed change. Thunderer was unable to provide any supporting Diff’s which

• “Could you please cite some examples from the article were the fears of the Catholic community are addressed?”
• “What were the fears of the Nationalist community, and cite examples from the article?”
• “What reasons did Catholics have for not joining the UDR?”
• “What were their fears, there is no mention at all in the article?”

My rational for introducing the proposed text here were “IMO it addresses the question posed above "what reasons did Catholics have for not joining the UDR?" It also sets out briefly, "What were their fears...?" Since no examples were cited, having asked for such, were this is addressed in the article, I have moved forward with my proposal.”

The change I made was quickly reverted here with the edit summary “removing irrelevant and non-neutral text” something not once raised on the talk page? On the talk page here despite none of the questions above being addressed I’m told “There is also enough material on this article now about Protestants and Catholics to inform the reader about the issue,” which I found confusing.

David you too could not “quite see the objection to the text” and agreed here “There needs to be sufficient background in this article to understand all the reasons behind the creation of the new regiment…”

The discussion from here on in revolved around Thunderer, David and Dunc, so it would not be my place to interpret there opinions. I would point out though, that though frustrated I at no time allowed it to show. David you must have been experiencing the same frustration when you posted here, and I could well understand it.

Now when I did rejoin the discussion here I did try to move the discussion forward, and did propose alternative views to be expressed. I did however raise the issue of factually correct information which is verifiable and reliably sourced to third party sources can be described as POV and removed.

To date the questions I raised above and which I tried to place in the article are still not there, and I can’t understand why? So what I want to know really, is what more could I have done. When an editor decides to disengage from a discussion, refuses to address the issues raised, then reverts changes made on the grounds of POV, despite the sources being award winning authors and journalists what are you supposed to do? How can consensus be arrived at under those circumstances? I hope that is a detailed enough responce and engagement in the discussion, and that I have expressed enough view? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This statement by Domer, sets out a concern that he believes was not dealt with in the article. It is about a segment of the history of the UDR and addresses a question about Nationalist support for the regiment. D. has presented it in neutral language, according to our guidelines. He says that the questions he raised were not adequately addressed. It seems to me that this should be included in the mediation and that we should address this when we look at the history section of the article. Do we have agreement to include this? As it is part of the history section, it would logically be one of the first content issues we address. Sunray (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said once I had come to the article, yes there was probably insufficient context on what Catholic fears were. However, Thunderer may not have previously specifically said he had "POV concerns", to me, the general tenor of his initial remarks certainly suggests that that was one of his concerns. In the context of the page history, simply moving ahead to insert the original material unchagned was always likely to be viewed as a provocation. Since it appeared ot you that Thunderer was ignoring the issues you had raised, perhpas specifically saying that you would view silence as a lack of response might have moved things on-the fact he hadn't to that point produced any diffs, even if he had been editing elsewhere on the article, does not necessarily mean that he was not considering his response. There's an old legal saw "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". As I attempted to make clear above, the "failure" of engagement is not solely yours, it takes two to tango, and Thunderer did not really engage either. David Underdown (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary of issues raised by David

As Domer has pointed out below, we side-stepped some of the issues raised by David because of the outburst of hostilities. Domer has returned to the issues in the edit break section. I also want to pick up on some of the themes raised by David. Two, in particular, I see as relating to harmonious editing:

Consensus

• "Frankly on a page of this nature, I'd expect far longer discussion before adding any such text, particularly after such an objection. There's no attempt at coming up with a compromise version...
• ... consensus is more complicated than simple majority voting, there has to be some sort of buy-in from all contributors, agreeing to live with the proposal, even if it's not absolutely what they originially wanted.
• It all boils down to, "this needs to go in", "oh no it doesn't", "oh yes it does". But then [one participant may] go ahead and put the disputed text in the article anyway.

NPOV

• "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
• the article should represent ALL views however the amount of weight that is put on certain views gives concern as per WP:UNDUE.

Do particpants agree that we need to discuss groundrules for consensus on the article talk page and for ensuring a neutral point of view in the article? Are there any issues that we should deal with? Sunray (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that discussion is needed, but suggest that practical examples should be used to identify problems. That is what I have attempted to do on the "Consensus building excerise" below. neutral point of view is a major issue and should be addressed. Our views on neutral point of view should become apparent while we discuss the use of sources again in the discussion below. I've listed a number of policies for discussion they include WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT all of which act together and not independantly of each other. Sunray would it help to provide a summary of the issues I raised, and combine both David's and mine? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Co-mediator

Shell Kinney has agreed to join us as co-mediator. I think that we have made good progress thus far and have told her so. Sunray (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I welcome any assistance in the matter. I agree with your approach thus far and intend to be of as much assistance as possible, no matter how long it takes.Thunderer (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I look forward to working with everyone here. Shell ^babelfish 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies Shell, hello and welcome, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

I feel this discussion is being too fragmented. There are too many threads that are not being dealt with properly. Nothing has been resolved, yet it seems one discussion has been dismissed as being finished then gone on to another. Why don't you take one thing at a time, and really take your time to solve it, then go on to another problem. If you rush through this it won't solve anything. Titch Tucker (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this procedure and am just taking my lead from others. Thunderer (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they are doing a fine job, but it seems to me they are jumping from one discussion to another far too quickly. Titch Tucker (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really at a loss how to advise you. Instinct tells me though the best policy would probably be to interact with the mediators privately and offer what assistance you can. Further dialogue of this nature on the talk page could undermine confidence in the process and possibly alienate the mediators? Thunderer (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly not my intention. I just think we have to get back to the basics. Look at how you all react to each other, agree that everyone always has to be civil. That should be the starting point, sort that out before going into detail on the article. One thing at a time. Titch Tucker (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However, the mediators have their reasons for approaching it the way they are. As we get more consensus between participants, the discussion will likely become more focussed. Sunray (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)