Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:17, 9 November 2008

Groundrules

• Please assume good faith, focus on content, not contributors, and observe Wikiquette.

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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

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 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 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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages.--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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 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)

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 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Terms of editing

Participants agree to the following terms of editing:

• I agree that, until further notice, I will not edit articles that the other participants have edited prior to 5 November.
• I further agree to discuss any issues or concerns I have with other participants here.

If all 4 editors taking part in this mediation agree I will agree. BigDunc 16:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. David Underdown (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thunderer (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I Agree: --Domer48_'fenian' 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc has broken the terms of the agreement here.

not edit articles that the other participants have edited prior to 5 November.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I had edited the article on several occasions prior to 5th November.Thunderer (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I only revert one edit here on the article per "Don't let superfluous or badly written material stand in order to avoid slighting its original author. Though your intentions may be good, doing so shirks your duty to the reader." Why revert it back for the second time here breeching the AE imposed 1RR sanction?. Now look at what I reverted? I replaced referenced text, which was free from spelling mistakes, and it was replaced again with unreferenced text complete with mistakes. That is called a blind revet, why would you do that? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because we all agreed not to edit articles the others had edited before 5th Nov.Thunderer (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly if you are all are courting a topic ban from these articles, you're headed the right direction. BigDunc, Domer even a glance at the history of the page shows that Thunderer has edited the article before, in fact, his edits are the majority of those on the first page - there is no reason that you should have edited that page. Thunderer, even if they are violating this agreement, that's not acceptable as the only reason for reverting their changes. Shell 23:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell I don't believe I would be subject to a topic ban in view of the agreement above. I have stuck to it faithfully. As you noted, the RUC article was already in my area of interest; that being unit histories, particularly Irish military and police forces.Thunderer (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, but it was not Dunc who broke the terms of the agreement, but you here today? If you decided that you did not think this affected you, what are the rest of us to think? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer, I don't see off hand where another participant had edit that article prior to Nov 5th. Do you have a diff handy for that? Shell 23:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Shell. I don't see any editing on the North Irish Horse by any other participants here. Perhaps you can enlighten us on what you contributed to the article Domer?Thunderer (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell as you can quite clearly see, I edited the article, and who was the first editor in behind me? But if you want a diff here thats for the 6 Nov. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No Domer, we can't see anything contributed to that article by you.Thunderer (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this might help here, and on the diff above this one, Thunderer you are well aware of WP:IMOS and you reverted anyway. Yet another policy which dose not affect you? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise Domer, but those diffs are for the RUC article which I have contributed to before 5th Nov. what I'm really after is a diff which shows your contributions to the North Irish Horse article before 5th November?Thunderer (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you never edited it before the 5 Nov, I edited on the 6 Nov here and who was the first one in after me? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing here Domer is that there was actually no change of content on your diff.Thunderer (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer, I think you may have misunderstood the agreement above, in order to avoid shutting out too many articles, the agreement was not to edit any articles that someone else had edited before November 5th. Shell

Thunderer, I would also like to point out that in the case of the North Irish Horse article, while you did not technically violate the agreement, you certainly violated the spirit. You did not have any edits to the article prior to it being edited by another participant. The spirit of this agreement is to stop further flare ups until all of you are able to work together harmoniously. Shell 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Again, this blame game is completely unhelpful to the situation. None of you behaved optimally in this situation, but Domer and BigDunc, your edits to Royal_Ulster_Constabulary were completely out of bounds. Whether or not your intentions were good, editing that article, outside the agreement might lead others to believe you were following someone's edits or deliberately being provocative. Remember, its important to discuss things here and maintain the agreements on behavior that have been set out. Lets pull back, stop pointing fingers at each other and take a bit more care not to have this situation occur again. Shell 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the proposed terms are unworkable if editors are going to make drastic changes to articles and say "you're not allowed to edit that, you've not edited it before." For example, if I go off an edit an article none have edited, any of the editors can come along and revert me, and because its before the 5 Nov its ok? Now I went on to this article here as part of a number of WP:IMOS edits, which my contrabutions show, so thats what brought me there. Why Thunderer were you the very next editor in there?

Shell what about your comments "Again, this blame game is completely unhelpful to the situation." It dose seem to me that blame is only going one way? Now if you would like me to support that with diff's, I will. Your constant blaming is not helpful in my opinion? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues for discussion

1. How editors of the UDR page relate to one another.
2. Guidelines for the content of the article
3. Goals for article class

Issue #1 - How editors relate to one another

Sunray said: "... 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...

I have read WP:Civ and am familiar with its content. To be honest though I don't really care how Domer or BigDunc talk to me - it doesn't bother me. It is more important for them to be aware of how others perceive them as a result, especially editors who may be deterred from joining in. I don't wish to be involved in muckraking. My intentions here are to establish, through mediation, what is and isn't acceptable as content on a military unit article. Were that established then civility would come naturally. There does need to be a firm set of disambiguous protocols in my opinion however, because without them there will be disagreement. Thunderer (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

T: You may not care how Donner and BigDunc relate to you, but they have both indicated that they care about how editors of the article relate to one another. Moreover, several uninvolved editors and admins have indicated behavioural problems, (referring to revert wars, etc.) to the extent that there have been restrictions placed on reverts (1RR, 0RR) and numerous blocks placed on individual editors. None of these restrictions has apparently worked and the article is currently under protection. So, I am suggesting that this be our first issue for discussion. I encourage each of you to contribute actively. If you make a statement about something that has happened in editing the article, please provide evidence, and, preferably, diffs. Let's start with a general question: How do you want to relate to one another when editing this article? Sunray (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My personal view on this is that the other two have been found to be promulgating edit wars etc and have been taken to task for it. I have had to accept sanctions as well to allow admins to be even handed. There is no doubt in my mind that my means of dealing with their tactics have caused this but at the same time have prevented the article becoming an advert for Irish Republicanism as it was before. It's a battle of wills but the core matter remains the same - what content is acceptable. If it's found that the type of content I've been describing isn't really suitable for a military article then the problem goes away because the other two won't be interested any further and the article will be edited by people who have a better understanding of the military. I hope to hone my skills when taking their advice. One of the major issues of Irish Republican POV pushing is that if either of them says A, I believe the real truth is B. Thunderer (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Each of you has declared that the fault lies with the other guy. I've asked the others to consider what their responsibility is in all this. Now I will ask you: What is your responsibility for the edit wars? If you have difficulty answering this, and want some suggestions from me, I would be willing to share my perceptions with you. Sunray (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You have asked a number of times now that editors should support their views with diff’s. I have not seen one diff provided by Thunderer thus far. I have however seen a lot of accusations, now this is a case of concern for me. How can I respond to unsupported claims and suggestions? If we are to reach a positive outcome, could we or should we insist on diff’s to support our comments on each other. Now I have provided supporting diff’s on Thunderer’s actions and conduct which I would like them to address. How am I to address my editing faults and flaws without examples which I can work from and use? Thunderer should provide examples of my editing which they find problematic and explain to me why find them so, and I will honestly try to address them. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have made it clear that from here on diffs are to be provided, so leave that to me to look after. You ask: "How am I to address my editing faults and flaws without examples which I can work from and use?" I've suggested you examine your own actions. However, I am willing to provide you with some examples if you wish. Let me know which way you would like to go with that. Sunray (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You have said you want this to be frank, which is the only way to do it, up front and out straight. If it will help all of us here they should be placed here for everyone to see. Maybe in my editing faults and flaws others my see some of the same things in themselves and we all learn from it, don’t you agree? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. I like that you are willing to put yourself out front like that. You didn't say whether you would provide examples or whether you want me to do that. Which do you prefer? Sunray (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ideally I’d like Thunderer to provide some of my edits they find problematic, and I’m hardly the best judge of my own faults. So if you want, if you provide some of my edits you consider problematic I suppose it will be a start. I’m really interested in ones considered disruptive, but also cases of incivility and POV? These are the ones that are open to interpretation and could be less easy to recognise in oneself, whereas edit warring is very straight forward. I hope that makes sense? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. I've asked T. to do some work of his own and will leave him to that for now. I will try to get this discussion rolling with some examples, but will be away for a few hours. Given the time difference, you won't see anything before Wednesday a.m. Sunray (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make it very clear once again that I'm not bothered about incivility. Not in the past, not now and not in the future. My only issue is the inclusion of material on a military article which is a series of accusations against the regiment concerned. Accusations which come from Irish Republican sources - only. Award winning or not, it doesn't change anything, the inclusion of this type of material only makes the article a critique of the regiment. That the relevant controversy has been noted no-one can deny. There is no need to explore it in the type of detail with the number of examples which have been included in the past and which would be included again (although not by Domer at this point) if this matter is not agreed upon. On the matter of incivility though (as a bit of an afterthought), well intentioned private e-mails to both Domer and BigDunc remain unanswered. I have never failed to reply to any e-mail received from them. Thunderer (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've never emailed you. Now you have accused me of disruption and incivility so often, I consider it to be a major concern, please address this and provide examples, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 23:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you have. I have kept the e-mails. I'm here to resolve issues not rake over those of the past. I've made that perfectly clear and I do so now again. I have one concern and one concern only. The type of material which is to be included in this article. That's what has caused any incivility or disruption. Now's your chance to see if my opinions are correct or not. Thunderer (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

T: Are you purposely missing my point on this? What I am saying is: you need to be bothered about civility. Your own incivility (like that of the others) is a major issue here. Unless you are prepared to deal with that it will be difficult to go anywhere with this mediation. When we have dealt with the behavioural issues we can move on to content questions. Do you read me? Sunray (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, you've mistaken my intent because of my poor choice of words. I am not bothered about incivility towards me. If someone is incivil towards me then I have the choice of dealing with it in a number of ways as suggested in the five pillars but I can also choose to respond in kind if the incivility continues over a long period of time. I am not of infinite patience. Like most people however I prefer not to see incivility. It doesn't cost anything to be pleasant and that's how I would prefer it to be. Does that come across better? Thunderer (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Whew! You had me worried there. Thanks for the clarification. Sunray (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would never intentionally upset anyone. I am not a belligerent man. Not here and not in the real world either. When I do appear to be so it would be in response to severe provocation. You can see my approach thus far and I'm sure you've found nothing, either here or in my talk page posts, which would indicate that I create situations. I react to them - occasionally. Thunderer (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray please, for weeks I was subjected to accusations, and it has continued here. Were is the supporting diff's? Incivility is a major issue here, and it must be addressed. I would also like Thunderer to place any and all emails that they say I sent them posted up here. I have said quite clearly that I have never emailed them, and they have said that I have? There is now a situation were I could be accused of dishonesty. In this same discussion, Thunderer has said that I have not responded to their emails? In the intrest of fairness, all accusations should be supported or withdrawn. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How can I post an e-mail here - it contains personal information. Perhaps Sunray would view anything like this privately?Thunderer (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never, ever sent you an email. So you can post the content of it here and forward an origional copy to Sunray. This type conduct has to stop now if we are ever to progress. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have at least one e-mail from you in my inbox. I mean, think about it - what benefit would there be to me to make such an allegation? It's not a crime to send someone an e-mail, although I feel rather annoyed that you don't return e-mails I send to you in good faith. I keep copies of those too btw. Thunderer (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How about sending me the e-mail and if I think it is relevant I will bring it here? Otherwise, I will respond to T and D48 privately. I agree that civility is important. I would like to refer to examples here and then set up a process so that it can be practiced by participants. I will present some examples here, shortly. Sunray (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc doesn't appear to think it's that important - not when he's decided today to visit other articles I've edited to tamper with them too - as well as leaving sarcastic comments at the UDR talk page. Rather provocative I feel.Thunderer (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think edit is the word you are looking for not tamper they are not your articles. BigDunc 18:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You will also notice another revert of my edits when I removed Weasel words as per The Thunderer. BigDunc 18:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, the relevance of the email is that I state quite categorically I have never sent them an email. They are adamant that I have, so we can not be both right. Now if we are to have open, frank and honest discussion this type of issue should be a cause of concern. Thunderer has yet to provide any diff’s which would illustrate disruptive editing and incivility on my part. It is my opinion that this matter can quite easily be resolved by Thunderer copy and pasting the email on this page, giving as I do my full permission. If I’m not appearing reasonable please let me know, its simply me attempting to fully engage in the mediation process and accusations as I have demonstrated play a major part. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that Domer and BigDunc are trying to be VERY provocative at the moment. I'm rather disappointed. I felt this mediation process was supposed to assist us settling our differences, not to be used as an opportunity to create more issues or make snide remarks at each other. As for the e-mail Domer - Sunray has it now. He can verify if you sent it to me or not. Thunderer (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It also appears you have reverted 3 times now on an article. BigDunc 19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are again making accusations, please show me with supporting diff's how I'm being provocative? I have not made any snide remarks please stop. Sunray can forward me the email. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless this two-pronged thrust at me stops, planned or not, I will withdraw from this mediation. A babe-in-arms would draw inferences from what's hapening now.Thunderer (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is this type of conduct we are trying to address here Thunderer. Please withdraw the accusations, there is no need for it. I want to work with you, and this is not helping. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is you’re your constant reversions here and here that we are trying to sort. It does not state anywhere that awards received in Korea were for distinguished service but yet you still remove the citation tag twice. BigDunc 20:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm out of here until this is resolved.Thunderer (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty good example of what has been going on, I'm going to make some observations about what I am seeing. I will do that tomorrow. In the meantime, let's take a break for now. Sunray (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray could you forward the email please, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. You are both right in a sense. An e-mail went from Domer's e-mail account to T. There was no body text. Sunray (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A clarifying e-mail from Domer48 shows that the e-mail was not from him. It has "domer" in part of the name, but I am satisfied that it is not Domer48. I think we've spent more than enough time on this now. Sunray (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said it's not my email, or email account. A blank email? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediators comments

I'm going to pull some of your statements out of the above text to illustrate something I see going on:

• " leaving sarcastic comments at the UDR talk page. Rather provocative I feel." (T)
• "They are not your articles." (BD)
• "You are again making accusations..." (D48)
• "... this type of conduct..." (D48')
• "It is you’re your constant reversions..." (BD)

These are all you-messages. By this I mean they are all statements that make judgments about the other guy. I suggest that you stop making such statements. One way of getting out of the blaming mode is to stick to observations (facts) and I-messages — "I think..." or "I feel..." So from this, we get rule number one: If you use the word "you," make sure that you are making an observation (a neutral, observable fact). However, it is a good idea to not stick facts in someone else's face, like this: "Yes you have. I have kept the e-mails..."

Bottom line is that there has to be some respect in order to collaborate. The need for collaboration in editing WP is paramount. This brings us to rule number two: If you cannot stand what the other guy is doing either: a) report it, if it is an infraction of policy, or b) edit elsewhere. The latter is highly recommended, because it lessens the ownership problem, and thus, conflict.

Now if you guys go off like this again, you can expect either Shell or I to step in. You can avoid that by practicing discussing things in a civil manner. If you are willing to work on that, we can move on. Let us know if you are ready. Sunray (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer has now left mediation but he still continues to revert on the Ulster Special Constabulary article. BigDunc 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Sunray I’m more than willing, and have offered my full commitment to this process in the hope that I can resume editing in a much better atmosphere. You yourself have said we need to deal with the behavioural issues before we can move on, and it was for this reason that I raised it above. In my opinion, there was not need for this type of edit summary here, and while lacking the assumption of good faith it was less than civil. The removal of the information I added, would I suggest run contrary to any sense of WP:NPOV. To compound this again in my opinion was the talk page post here, and describing my suggestions as coming from “those who want to push POV, Irish Republican style.” What can we do to address this? What could I have done better in this situation? That this occurs while mediation is ongoing, is a cause of concern to me. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't asked for examples of the other quy's behaviour, only examples of things you were doing. The above is such and example. It is simply making judgments about someone else (i.e., blaming). If you want to talk about what someone else is doing, I have suggested a way of doing that (I-messages). Sunray (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What could I have done better in this situation? Did I not say in my post above "In my opinion" "I’m more than willing" "I suggest" "again in my opinion" "What can we do" and like my question, I raise again here "What could I have done better in this situation?" It is obvious I can't see what I'm doing wrong, when I admit it by asking the question? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Sunray may have misunderstood your post; it took me a second to realize that you were pointing out a diff of your own edit summary where you were less than civil. As far as your questions: First, even when we feel provoked, its still our responsibility to remain civil. Second, its very important that everyone avoid labeling others by using terms like "POV pusher", "nationalist" or even "fringe science supporter" - these terms serve only to provoke other editors. And finally, the most difficult skill for Misplaced Pages editors to unlearn is reverting - even though you can do it, you shouldn't. If you feel something added does not adhere to NPOV, try editing it to bring it more in line; if its badly worded, make some changes; if it gives too much weight, trim it down. By editing instead of reverting you are offering other solutions and working productively to improve the article. Shell 18:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell I was pointing out an edit summary posted by Thunderer here. Also Thunderer's talk page post here. Now my most recent edit was again reverted here, despite the fact I pointed out it was done in accordance with WP:IMOS. I also posted a template here having raised the issue on the talk page,here, here, here and here only to have it again removed here without discussion or rational? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not hearing Sunray or myself then. Drop the accusations - full stop. Might I boldly suggest that it would be prudent for everyone to stop editing the article and use this talk page instead while this mediation is on-going? Clearly there are a number of disputed items that need to be worked out and by edit warring and discussing them elsewhere, the mediation isn't being given a fair shake. Shell 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify Shell are you asking myself Domer and Thunderer not to edit the USC article as the UDR one is currently PP. BigDunc 18:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* No, I'm not - that's my fault for looking at the substance of the edits instead of the article title. Domer - lets stick to one problem article at a time please. Shell 18:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And is there no problem with the substance of the edits. It looks as if Thunderer can revert as many times as he wishes without a word being said. he has know left the mediation and is just reverting at will anything he doesn't like without any rational or edit summary. BigDunc 18:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have requested that Thunderer stop editing Irish-related articles. I will now make that request of you two as well. Would you please stop editing articles on Irish subjects? Sunray (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I edit literally hundreds of articles on Irish subjects, and it is only on two I’m having a problem. I’m prohibited from editing the UDR Article, until I have successfully completed the mediation process in the opinion of three referees. What I’m being asked is not to edit the articles Thunderer edits, would that be right? Would it be also correct to say that Thunderer has indicated here that they will not engage in mediation until this has been agreed? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to wait and see if Thunderer responds to Sunray's latest note before trying to guess his intentions. In fact, what we've been saying here is that its best if you don't try to guess other editor's intentions at all. Shell 21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. I've followed up on Domer's suggestion question about modifying the agreement on not editing articles that the other participants also edit by leaving a note to that effect for Thunderer. The suggestion is, then, that the participants agree to the following: to cease editing Irish articles that the other participants also edit. I would like to hear from BigDunc on this as well. Sunray (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)