Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment

Archives

Opening statements Terms of editing

Groundrules

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

Guidelines for interaction

This will be a work in progress.

1. Avoid needling, pressing a point, or nitpicking.
2. Don't react. If someone says something that bothers you, resist the temptation to respond in anger.
3. Ask open questions (what..? how..?)
4. Stick to the facts. If called for, make observations based on fact, and in neutral language.
5. Use I-messages rather than you-messages. Here's a brief primer on I-messages [1]
6. Remain civil at all times.

Suggested additions or changes are welcome. Sunray (talk) 19:02, 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)

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)

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^Talk 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 ^babelfish 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 ^babelfish 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 ^babelfish

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 ^babelfish 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 ^babelfish 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone Shell. I know we have an agreement and was trying to stick to the letter of it which is why I reverted D and BD at RUC. I did not provocatively edit the NiH article. I can't see any contributions made to it by BD or D and certainly nothing before 5th Nov on either of them. To be honest the areas of interest are markedly different here so even if BD and D started editing new articles today I doubt they would be of anything more than passing interest to me unless they were military or police articles. I would certainly believe it provocative of me were I to enter their areas of interest at this juncture. I hope everyone can stop to think about this and try and act in a considerate manner towards each other from this point onwards - that is my intention in any case. Shalom.Thunderer (talk) 00:18, 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 "not" 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)

Domer, I'll try and explain properly. I had no intentions of breaching our agreement. Firstly I didn't notice that you had made the Londonderry to Derry change when I started today. Secondly the change was made after 5th November and our agreement is specific on that. Thirdly, even if I had noticed this before you didn't actually make any contributions to the article whereas it is firmly in my declared area of interest and I have been making historical contributions to it today from the regimental history. That's really the long and short of it - there was certainly no provocation or harm intended. I hope you can move on from this and get down to proper discussion on the mediation following this. I will stick to the letter of the agreement and do nothing provocative.Thunderer (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell's advice should be taken to heart. One gets the distinct impression that you lot just want to game and fight. Would you be able to now switch to something more productive? Domer, I spent some time earlier today responding to a question posed by you in the "Comment" section which you originated. Would you please respond to that? Thunderer, I am about to ask you another question in the "Content guidelines" section. I have also put some issues for discussion in the section on Dave's examples. Let's try to stop this continual bickering. Govern yourselves as best you can on the editing guidelines and PLEASE resist the temptation to game each other and the mediators. It gives us the impression that gaming is the only reason you are here — and I'm sure that cannot be true. ;-) Sunray (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to game Sunray. I took action to correct a breach of the agreement above is all. I have made no breaches myself or done anything which could be misconstrued as provocative or gaming. I'm sorry if it appears otherwise.Thunderer (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you say that you are not here to game. However, I am defining what you lot have been doing as playing a game. Sorry, I read Eric Berne's Games People Play during my formative years and it influenced me terminally. Berne originated the term transactional analysis. You would be surprised to know what that reveals about your interactions. But we won't go there. Let's focus on working together productively. There is a fair amount of time and effort invested in this and the community is watching. Sunray (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There has perhaps been a misunderstanding and my swift and radical action may not have suited everyone. I can understand Domer's worry that my editing the North Irish Horse article could be misconstrued as a breach of the agreement but it is plain that Domer has not actually contibuted there and his very minor change was made on 6th Nov. The article is clearly in my area of interest, it has been neglected for some time and I felt that it was prudent to spend some time on it as I see it as non-controversial. Likewise I have been contributing to the RUC and RIC articles for some time due to the acquisition of books on the subject. Both could do with some tarting up. I started on them then felt that the editing could be misconstrued as provocative which is why I moved onto the NiH which I have real life links to and a great interest in.Thunderer (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Can I ask BigDunc not to edit the Royal Ulster Constabulary article any further please. It would be nice to move on from this.Thunderer (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No as long as you are blindly reverting without even looking at the reversion you are doing it contains spelling mistakes look at it BigDunc^Talk 14:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We've all agreed not to edit BD. We can sort all that out after we've completed this mediation. It's been there for months so it's not going to do it any harm to sit there for another few days. Let's get stuck into this rather than squabbling.Thunderer (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, I don't understand why you were editing this article, Having done so clearly violates our agreed on Terms of editing. Thunderer, you also violated the agreement by stepping in. Let's make this the last time this happens. No further discussion needed. Sunray (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed edits that violate the Guidelines for interaction Sunray (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The North Irish Horse article which formed part of this discussion was raised from "stub class" to "B Class" after two days of hard typing.Thunderer (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And as expected the first action by editors in this mediation is to step in and tag the article as unreliable and needing more sources. Rather provocative don't you think to follow another editor around like that?Thunderer (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that having been offered advice here by a mediator, Thunderer chose to ignore it. Having noticed only one source being used I indicated this by placing a tag for this exact purpose, and explained this in my edit summary here. I felt the responce and removal here to be total wrong, as it completly lacks the assumption of goog faith on my behalf. It is my opinion, based as it is on the UDR article, that the standard being appllied is a cause of concern. The UDR article recived a "B Class" despite the breeches of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and a clear case of WP:OWN. I consider the edit I made was in good faith, and the reaction was not called for. This goes against all we are trying to achive here in my opinion and is regretful. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

B-class requires only that "major points are cited", so the fact that there are some citation needed tags remaining is not surprising. Work would need to be done on a variety of aspects of the NIH article to move it on to GA status. If Thunderer was in breach of the spirit of the agreement, I'd tend to think you were too-slapping on a tag like that does seem to me to go against the other provisions about not needling each other. I suppose I'm actually now potentially in breach having actually done something constructive, and found a source to enable one of those tags to be removed. David Underdown (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I feel you are in breech David of our agreed terms, and not because you found a source. I don't think you have assumed good faith on my part. Is posting a tag which reads "This article needs additional citations for verification" not constructive? Now if Thunderer considers my edit needling, I would have to ask why? David if you read my Edit Summary "Relies almost completely on one book, needs additional citations for verification" at no time do I mention citation needed tags. I did not and was not "slapping" on a tag as you suggest, I simply "place" at tag and explained why. None of this however excuses the responce, and yet you neglect to mention it? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I obviously failed to make my point clearly, and I should have addressed Thunderer's subsequent behaviour as well, true, which was equally unhelpful. No doubt you meant well, but this is part of the issue, we all need to think beyond our immediate reactions, was the tag justified, quite possibly, was it, given your previous interactions actually likely to improve matters, no I don't think it was. Just because you could tag it didn't mean you had to. I mentioned the fact tags, because you appeared to have made a comparison with the UDR article needing better verification. Again you are asking questions of others, rather than more closely examining what you actually did. In principle, tags should always be justified on the talk page, not just with an edit summary. I see constructive as actively trying to find additional references, generic placing of tags, with no other action on the article is viewed by many, not just me, as not actually being particularly constructive in the long-run, and in these particular circumstances, with these particular editors involved had predictable consequences. You've pointed Thunderer to other statements by the mediators, and that's essentially what I was trying to do with you. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. David Underdown (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are ten different sources used. As well as pipelinks to other web pages. I'm fully aware the article needs more references but as it stands it's good enough for B Class and I don't feel that it needed a tag for the whole article. Milhist were kind enough to tag what they wanted to see reffed and that really was good enough for me to further the project. I felt that D tagging the entire article was wikistalking and I don't think we need to create feelings like that amongst ourselves as the moment. I do appreciate you going in DAvid and providing another source and sorting out West's order of decorations - how I missed that I'll never know. Thunderer (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer48 your edited to the North Irish Horse article here. was I see this as a clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Terms of Editing. The terms are in place to prevent just this sort of bickering. Moreover, since placement of the tag wasappears to be provocative, it's removal by Thunderer was justified. I'm not sure why David got involved, but I can see that he did what he did in good faith. I will speak to him separately about it. Domer, what can you now do to reaffirm your commitment to this mediation? Sunray (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It is my firmly held view that I did not breech the terms. It is also my opinion that the placing of the tag was not provocative, but was interpreted that way, in itself an assumption of bad faith. Its removal was justified as my rational was correct, its removal and edit summary was provocative an uncivil.

Sunray's comments in blue.

You are technically correct that you did not violate the Terms of Editing. HOWEVER, those terms are in place to stop edit conflicts between participants in this mediation. Why would you edit an article that Thunderer was working on? How could your edit today be within the spirit of the Terms of Editing?

I'm correct, and not technically correct, I did not violate the Terms of Editing. I know why the terms are in place, and again I did not edit an article that Thunderer was working, I made a minor edit to the article on 6 November which was prior to Thunderer's first edit. I accept your apologies, and I'm willing to move on from it. I've given my views on the Terms of Editing above and no one has responded. I can not accept that I'm being uncivil, and no Diff has being offered to support this. All I'm being given is an opinion, and as such it is reasonable to disagree. As to dealing with Thunderer's actions, is all well and good, I'm concerned that it was my edit alone which was raised here, and again this is not the first time. Would it be possible to please remember to use the "I" messages, having followed the advice given, all responces given to me have been "you" this and "you" that. While I to am frustrated, I have not allowed it to affect my objectivity, and I remain positive and commited to the process of mediation. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer: Perhaps I wasn't clear about violating the spirit of the Terms. As Shell said, above: "The spirit of this agreement is to stop further flare ups until all of you are able to work together harmoniously." The letter of the agreement is that participants agree not to not edit articles that the other participants have edited prior to 5 November." We have already established that Thunderer violated the letter of the agreement. We have also established that North Irish Horse was not an article that you regularly edit. You had one minor edit prior to 5 Nov. Shell said that while T. violated the letter of the Terms, he did not violate their spirit (since one minor edit does not really qualify as "an article edited by other participants"). You on the other hand, placed a "refimprove" tag on the article after T. had extensively edited it and had announced that it had been rated B-Class. I am saying that, IMO, this violates the spirit of the agreement. I'm not repeating this to quibble. I want it to be clear. If you still disagree with me, then I am willing to continue discussing it, because I think it is important. But I would (of course) prefer that you accept what I am saying and move on.

[I am responding to each of your points here and now, as you have frequently said that you did not receive a response to things you have said]. No it is not the first time that I have dealt with your actions first and not someone else's (although, in this case, I did come back to both Thunderer and David to make a comment on their actions). There is a reason why I have done that more than once with you.

You go on to say: "Would it be possible to please remember to use the "I" messages, having followed the advice given, all responses given to me have been 'you' this and 'you' that." I assume you are addressing this to me. I'm far from perfect on I-messages. But, hey, it is not taught at school and we learn, in the playground and on the street, to interact in less considerate ways. But I think you may be confusing the use of the word "you" with a you-message. If I am giving you feedback, I have to use the word "you." From the primer referred to above:

Here is an example of the difference between a “you” message and an “I” message:

“You” message: “You selfish jerk! You think the TV belongs to you. Well, it’s my turn now.”

“I” message: “I feel annoyed when you switch the channel without asking. I want to be able to watch my show all the way through.”

My final comment on all this is to say that your style makes it difficult to always provide diffs. I've provided diffs to you, but you reject what I am saying as "opinion." This doesn't make me want to continue giving examples. Nevertheless, I've gotten to know something about your strengths and weaknesses, and if you want more feedback, just ask — if you're not prepared to receive it, there will be little point in continuing, though. Sunray (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I have raised the issue of mediators pointing the finger and attributing blame already in this discussion, and it appears to be happening again. Like David Sunray, why neglect to mention Thunderers incivility. Sunray even if Thunderers actions were correct, it dose not justify their comments. David initially assumed bad faith, however David was gracious enough to say in their next post that “No doubt I meant well” and “quite possibly the tag was justified.”

I fully intend to deal with Thunderer's actions. Whether or not the tag was justified is not at issue, as far as I am concerned.

It is also disappointing that the advice of Shell here was completely disregarded, having pointed out that while Thunderer did not technically violate the agreement, by editing the article they certainly violated the spirit. That Thunderer then continued to edit the article, regardless is a concern to me.

Part of the intent of the agreement is to allow participants to continue editing Irish articles as long as such editing does not bring them into conflict with another participant. Do we need to be considering a change to the Terms?

Considering Thunderer had never edited the article until I went onto it, my edit was not “a clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Terms of Editing,” which is supported by both the article page history and this very discussion. Personally I find Sunrays last comment in the above post particularly perplexing when my constructive, positive and active participation in this mediation is being called into question.

Again, you are technically correct. You made a minor edit to the article on 6 November which was prior to Thunderer's first edit. My apologies.

Having refrained from using the word “you” I now find it being directed at me? Not one editor in this discussion has been able to provide me with one diff of incivility by me on either the UDR article the subject of this mediation or on this discussion. All that has been put forward is the suggestion that because I ask a question, or ask for a comment to be clarified I’m being uncivil? While I’m having to deal with incivility and my good faith questioned I finding the tone being displayed very objectionable. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I responded to the request you made for examples of your incivility here. I also asked for a reply from you and have received none until now.

I don't think that this mediation is working. I'm frustrated that you don't see when you act in an uncivil manner and don't respond to my examples. I am concerned that the spirit of the Terms we have agreed to is continually tested or violated. Would you be able to suggest ways that we might turn this around? Sunray (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray I have no problems with David Underwood editing any military article I work on. He's a good solid Milhist editor and has been providing me with much needed assistance as I try to master the art of creating good unit histories in the style the wiki needs. I am slightly perplexed at Domer's intervention but it's not the end of the world. I can certainly forgive and forget in the expectation of this mediation producing a better relationship between all of us. Thunderer (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

David has signed on as a participant in this mediation. Thus, he needs to abide by the Terms of Editing. BTW, quite apart from the issue of who should, or should not, be editing the N. Irish Horse article, Thunderer, I am concerned about the edit summary you made when you reverted Domer. You said: "rubbish - it's been brought up to B Class and work is still being done on it as per req by milhist - go pull the legs off spiders or something." What are going to do to curb such statements. Sunray (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been told to stop pointing the finger yet not a word is said to Thunderer when he ridicules and threatens me, and points the finger, yet Domer is told it is not civil to ask a question. David seems only to have eyes for what Domer and Myself have done and seems to miss anything by Thunderer. Only diffs in his opening statement are about myself and Domer. He too broke the agreement he edited an article that was supposed to be out of bounds. Thunderer reverts to versions of articles with spelling mistakes against the duties of editors to correct mistakes. And then continues to edit an article that he was told was in breach of the spirit of the agreement still nothing said. This doesn't seem like a level playing field to me. Also if David is allowed to edit articles you have edited the so are Domer and myself. BigDunc^Talk 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I had edited anything which was out of bounds. Would you be kind enough to refresh me please?Thunderer (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

...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 babelfish 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC) BigDunc^Talk 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow. I haven't edited any article which violates the agreement, or the spirit of it. Would you be kind enough to let me know if I'm labouring under a misapprehension here - have I indeed strayed onto another editor's patch inadvertantly, could you tell me which article it was please? Thunderer (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, each participant is responsible for his own actions. The mediator's are dealing with violations of policies or agreements. How could you participate in this mediation in a more positive way. You folks have an opportunity to get feedback and assistance from the mediators, but you seem unwilling or unable to benefit from this. Sunray (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You tell me how I can contribute in a more positive way. Because I am at a loss as to know what to do here. What do you want from me? I am curious too, you say you are dealing with Thunderers actions. Will this be done here? BigDunc^Talk 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We need some positive input from participants now. This is your mediation. What can you do to get something out of it? What can we do to get beyond having these discussions about whether, and how, participants are violating the terms and continuing their conflict on this page?

Deal with violations or at least be seen to be. BigDunc^Talk 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary of concerns in implementing Terms of Editing

Despite that fact that all participants agreed to the Terms, we have had daily conflicts on articles relating to Northern Ireland. Some questions arise:

1. Do we need to tighten up the wording of the terms? If so, how? If not, what can be done to prevent these outbursts?
2. How could participants work together more positively on this page ?
3. Would a small project be a good way of beginning to work together?
4. If so what are some suggestions?

One thing we could try is to work through something like Domer's example in response to Dave (see "Edit break" section, above). Let us know if you would like to deal with this, or if you have some other ideas. Sunray (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no further ideas. I have done nothing on the other participants. I have edited an article in good faith and raised it to B Class. Domer did not edit the article per se he made a change from Londonderry to Derry which I didn't notice when I started work on the stub article. The change was innacurate in my opinion in any case because of the time frame in the article. That particular row didn't really start until the Unionists had lost power in Derry, sometime in the 80's I think? I've not been editing any articles which might annoy the other participants and just ask for the same respect in return.Thunderer (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer could you please read WP:IMOS, it has nothing to do with when Unionists had lost power in Derry. Sunray I've raised the issue (see "Edit break" section, above) below, and imput is welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read the piece and it is by no means a complete guideline or gospel on the naming convention. I have no objections to either term but insist upon using Derry from the mid eighties onwards which brings me into conflict with those who disagree with that. Prior to 1984 and certainly in the 1900-1950 period the name wasn't really an issue so I try not to make it one.Thunderer (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer the WP:IMOS is quite clear, Derry = City, and Londonderry = County. So while insisting to be wrong is all well and good, doing it on articles is disruptive. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't Domer. It says that was "adopted as a compromise by many users". It also says "The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate." It is not a rule or policy. My view is that prior to Derry City Council voting to rename the city as Derry it should be known and referred to as Londonderry except where a source is being quoted. In working practice it is inevitable that army regiments will use the term Londonderry as they are official state forces, so we mustn't try to change that. Were I working on a Nationalist oriented article however I would use the name Derry for both city and county. That's my compromise. Thunderer (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Thunderer "My view is." Consensus can change and can change through consensus. The consensus now is that Derry = City, and Londonderry = County. The reason for this is "To avoid constant renaming of articles (and more), keep a neutral point of view, promote consistency in the encyclopedia, and avoid Stroke City-style terms perplexing to those unfamiliar with the dispute..." This has beed [discussed] and even has its own article Derry/Londonderry name dispute. "The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate." Place a proposel on the WP:IMOS talk page and have it discussed there. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues for discussion

1. How editors of the UDR page relate to one another
   1. Groundrules for interaction
   2. Reverts
   3. Consensus
2. How content of the article is determined
   1. Article outline - Are the current contents sufficient or should there be changes?
   2. Subarcticles - Determination of sections needing summary style and the a plan for the development of subarticles.
   3. Sources - What are the groundrules? (Gamble example)
   4. NPOV - How to determine the best balance of views and ensure that there is not undue weight given (e.g., History section)
3. Action plan
   1. Establishing collaborative editing of article
   2. 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^Talk 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^Talk 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^Talk 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^Talk 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:

• "[You have been] 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^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 ^babelfish 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 ^babelfish 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^Talk 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 ^babelfish 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^Talk 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 ^babelfish 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)

Sunray, I think you will notice it was a question, not a suggestion I posed? Can we clarify first, by addressing the questions? As to the suggestion, I have no major problem; however I wish to proceed on the talk page to offer suggestions and proposals. Above, I agree completely, not to "try to guess other editor's intentions." --Domer48_'fenian' 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Which talk page? If you mean the UDR talk page, I think that is a good idea. I would suggest that we agree on basic principles here and then move to the talk page to resume working on the article. That is down the road, however. First we have to build the framework here. Sunray (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above I’m prohibited from editing the UDR Article, including it's talk page until I have successfully completed the mediation process in the opinion of three referees. I was referring to the Ulster Special Constabulary. I will agree not to edit the Article, untill it has been discussed on the talk page first. Is that an acceptable arrangement, while mediation is ongoing? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The proposal, (slightly modified), is that none of the participants to this mediation edit Irish articles (including talk pages) that the other participants also edit until we have some further agreement on this page. Sunray (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this right because the Thunderer has thrown his toys out of the pram and walked off I am prohibited from editing any article that he has edited. Not sure I agree to being held to ransom every time Thunderer is not happy with edits. Will this happen again if something happens that he doesn't like? But having said all that if it moves the process forward I will agree to not editing any article Thunderer has edited. BigDunc^Talk 09:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While I share the same concerns as Dunc, I too will agree to these article bans if it moves the process forward. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Some examples

David has given some examples, above. Would you be able to comment on them, bearing in mind what has been said in this section? (I.e., using observations and I-messages). Sunray (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You have taken 2 comments from me Sunray and when placed on there own they can be misread. They are not your articles was a reply to The Thunderer who said Are there any other articles of mine you want to go through which I feel displays his ownership over articles he has edited and the other comment It is you’re your constant reversions I feel displays a pattern of constant reversions of any edit I make no matter what this edit was. I feel that to remove a citation tag twice without at least putting in a source is disruptive. BigDunc^Talk 14:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave those examples to try to show you something. I wanted to illustrate a pattern in your interactions. You argue the point. But do you see the pattern of what you and the others are doing? Sunray (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I’m open to any advice to how we proceed from here? What is the next step in the process? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is now agreed that we are finished with the blaming, we can begin a discussion like normal people. I asked for some comments on David's observations. If you can do that without finger pointing, that would be good. Another thing I would like to do is begin setting out some guidelines for how you guys will edit articles in the future. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell may have some suggestions as well. Shell? Sunray (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the guidelines you've come up with are excellent. As simple as it may seem, interacting with others in an online forum requires special skills. When you lose the cues of body language and tone of voice, misunderstandings happen more frequently. Shell ^babelfish 00:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I was not sure were to post this so I put it here, please move it to the appropriate section if there is one? If I could make an observation on the current discussion, I’d say in my opinion its all over the place? We have a discussion here titled “How editors relate to one another,” which I understand to be about civility. We have another section here titled “Examples” which is a sub section of David’s Opening statement, and is about talk page discussions and reliable sources. We now have a new section here titled “Guidelines for content.”

My point is, we have three separate discussions all going on at the one time and nothing is being resolved. Civility as far as I can see has not been addressed at all. Sunray, you said you would put forward Diff’s by me, which in your opinion I was being uncivil. We were to discuss them, in an attempt to identify were I may be uncivil without realising it. Thunder was asked also to provide Diff’s of my incivility and support the opinions they have expressed and still have not done so. As far as I can see I have been the only one asked to “examine your own actions” “What is your responsibility for the edit wars?”

Sunray you said “When we have dealt with the behavioural issues we can move on to content questions.” It now looks like we are moving onto the content question regardless? In addition you pointed out “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.”

Civility is being addressed. We are not done with it. However, we can deal with it as we move to other things. It is something that we can practice. I've put up guidelines for interaction based on what was going on here. I invited comment on them. You are welcome to do so. That seems to conclude the behavioural piece. Unless others have more to deal with. Sunray (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer then left this discussion, and as far as I can see, had to be coxed back with us all agreeing to an article ban. When they returned there first comment was “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.” Now I find this as an editor actively engaging in the process very disrespectful. I responded to David’s observations by seeking to engage more on the subject with David, only to be ignored.

You did ask a question. Just because David has not yet responded to you does not necessarily mean you are being ignored. Observation: you did not respond, other than to ask a question. I notice that you often do that. Civility, it a nutshell has three aspects, the first two are:

• Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
• Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others.

You asked for examples of your own incivility. Here are two: 1) You do not participate in the sense of offering your own insights or observations. Rather you ask others for their input or examples. This becomes uncivil when you press your point relentlessly. You have done this several times on this page. 2) You are quick to criticise rather than respond to what others say. Again, there are several examples on this page, and I have given you specific cases of "you-messages." That is my feedback for now, I hope it is useful to you. I am happy to give you further feedback when I spot things that I think it would be useful to address. I will do that equally with others (as I already have). Sunray (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: Sunray could you please provide examples (diff's) which illustrate the points you are making, because I can't see the types of conduct you describe? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 09:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Domer, here are two diffs:

• The first is a response to David here.
• Here's another one, in response to me, here

I am saying that your responses frequently do not add anything from you; they are rather asking for more information. Now don't get me wrong, asking for information is good, and necessary, sometimes. But all the time? Never giving anything of yourself to the discussion? That is a problem. It becomes incivil if it is a behaviour that is repeated (as you have done frequently on this page). "Participate in a respectful way... Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." By not responding to what I said (and asking a question instead), you are not showing any respect for me. I don't know yet whether you are ignoring what I have said, but if you never reply other than to ask for more information, you are actually avoiding responding to what I have said. Have I answered your question? If I have, how do you respond? What are you thinking or feeling?

Note: You might want to read the link and the short paper on I-messages in the "guidelines for interaction," below, before you answer. But don't hold back: if it makes you angry (sad, upset...) go ahead and say so. Sunray (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My view at the minute is one of disorganisation with no structure in place at all. The fist thing to be decided in any discussion is a few simple ground rules. The talk page guidelines could provide a working model. In my opinion, the discussion on civility spiralled out of control over the email that never was, and David’s likewise as a result of Thunderers negativity in there opening comment, mentioned above.

So could someone please bring back some structure to this mediation, because I think it is really lacking at the minute.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I welcome your thoughts on how to better structure things. The need for structure varies from person to person. I have provided a basic structure. Others are free to step up and add to that. One thing though. As you pointed out, we have had three separate discussions: David's examples, the behavioural guidelines and the content issues. My observation is that we could do some more work on David's examples. On the behavioural guidelines, as I said, we've now got some guidelines for interaction so we are largely complete on that topic, other than practicing them, which has to be on-going. Because of the progress in those two areas, we have begun a discussion on content. Nevertheless, if you, or other participants have anything to offer on any of these subjects at any time please feel free to do so. Sunray (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer, sorry, so far as I can see I did attempt to answer your question, but I probably should have indented one more level, and signed taht bit separately, as I then muddied the water by adding further examples below that. If you look back up the page it shoudl now be clearer taht just before my second example (bulleted), I did add material attempting to answer your question. I've now added a further level of indent, and signed (but not date-stamped it). Personally, I tend to follow boards like this by doing a diff between the last time I checked it, and the most recent edit, as this makes it harder to miss new material, particualrly when several areas of the page are being editted at once. David Underdown (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

David, if you look at the tread, my comment was lost in all the nonsence which followed it. This is the second time a tread has lost all direction, the first being on civility. I was not pointing to any editor in particular, but the discussion in general. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion has gone off the rails more than once. In each case, someone (a mediator, David) stepped in to bring a halt to the non-productive discussion. You are reminding participants that there were issues left unanswered. That is, I think, a valuable contribution on your part. You seem to have a good sense of process: making sure that things are dealt with, questions answered, etc. That will be invaluable to this mediation as we progress (recognizing the caveats, above, that you also need to respond with your own views at times, as well). Sunray (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good observation Domer and I think its something that Sunray and I have been trying to point out. Its very difficult to work out a compromise on article details if people's words get lost in a sea of complaints and invective. The best way I've found to stop those ocean's from building is to refuse to respond to them, at all - there's no need to even point out you aren't going to respond to them (this just invites more complaints). Restate your points if you need to, or pick up on anything the other editors have said that have bearing on the discussion and pretend the rest didn't happen. In many cases, other editors (especially those new to Wikipedia or that particular article) will take the cue from you and keep on task. I also really appreciate your effort to use "I" statements to express your concerns here. Shell ^babelfish 19:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #2 - Guidelines for content

Moving along. Let's take a look at content issues now. I would like to have an open discussion on agenda under this heading. I see the need for an article outline. Several other content issues have surfaced above. Let's set an agenda of things we want to discuss. Sunray (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Note: This has been done, (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment#Issues for discussion|Issues for discussion]], above).

Manual of Style for Military Articles

I'd like Domer and BigDunc to become familiar with this please.

Unit or formation

The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:

1. The formal name of the unit, its abbreviation, and its nickname(s).
2. What is the unit's country or allegiance?
3. What service (Air Force, Army, or Navy) was the unit part of?
4. When was it formed?
5. If the unit no longer exists, when was it disbanded or deactivated?
6. In what notable battles, operations, or wars did the unit participate?

The article can be structured along these lines:

1. The unit's history. Why was it formed? Who formed it? Where and how has the unit served in peacetime and war? Who has commanded it?
2. If the unit still exists, where is it now? What higher-level formation is the unit assigned to, if any? What is its current role?
3. The unit's traditions. What mascots does it have? What anniversaries does it celebrate?
4. What gallantry awards (such as the Medal of Honor, Param Vir Chakra, or Victoria Cross) have been awarded to members of the unit? What unit awards (such as battle honours or presidential citations) has the unit received? Thunderer (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also WP:PERFECT is very valid here particularly with regards to neutrality Thunderer (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Article outline

To be honest I consider the outline of the article to be almost complete apart from making minor additions and perhaps another few photographs. I have asked for advice from Milhist on this. At least one political point I have inserted is slightly incorrect and I'd also like to see if we can thin out the allegations of propaganda about the regiment from Republican sources by making a blanket statement which indicates to the reader how and why opposite factions would feel a need to use it as a political tool. Any progress should be made under the supervision of an experienced Milhist editor such as David Underwood in my opinion, in order to raise the standard of the article.Thunderer (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That depends what you mean by "almost complete." I see some problem areas which may even contribute to some of the conflicts between participants. I will elaborate on that further in time. I agree that input from Milhist is important, but if it is to ever be a featured article (and I would suggest that as the ultimate goal), we will need to take wider view. But let's get other agenda items up before we go into that. Sunray (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd take your advice on the problem areas. One of the major issues is that sections have been rewritten time and time again and that has affected the structure and flow of the article. Thunderer (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion there are a number of aspects which the article needs to address if it is to be a good and reliable reference piece. I'll give my suggestions and see if anyone else can add to the list:

• Formation - why was it formed and how was it formed?
• Citizen army - why was this unusual?
• Weaponry & equipment - what did they use, why and how?
• Structure - from command level down to section level, departments, admin - including rank structure and establishment.
• Duties - what did they do and why?
• Women - why did they use women, how did they incorporate them, what did they use them for?
• Effectiveness - how successful were they in the implementation of their duties?
• Training - how were they trained, who trained them, where did they train?
• Incidents - what were they involved in. Did they engage in firefights? Were they any good at it?
• Amalgamation - why were they amalgamated? How were they amalgamated?
• Distinctions - what distinctions did they achieve as units and individual distinctions - and why?
• Post amalgamation - is there an OCA, the unique Aftercare service?
• Political overview - what views did various political parties have on the regiment and why?
• Public image - what views did the public have on them and why?
• Service image - how did the rest of the armed forces and police regard them and why?

Thunderer (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You have put some thought into this and it looks good to me. I would like to read what the others think of it. I Do you mean these as additional sections? If so, will they re-organize or replace the material that is there now. Or is this a new structure for the article? Sunray (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any fixed views on how the sections should be organised. I'd very much like David's input on that. I do think some rewriting is necessary. My own prose tends to be repetitive and sometimes includes the wrong adjectives for this style of reportage. What I would like to see is a cohesive article which flows fluidly from section to section and is interesting to a reader and also plain enough for those who have English as a second language. Thunderer (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that this is a new structure for the whole article, right? Sunray (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No - just suggestions for some of the information which should be included in my opinion to provide the necessary encyclopedic references for someone who wishes to use the article as an accurate and fullsome reference piece.Thunderer (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the article will be three miles long!. Would you be able to take a look to see how this information would be combined with existing sections. Sunray (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The information is already there. I believe it's now a question of refining it and following the guidance of Milhist to ensure it fits with their appraisal of what an A Class (or above) article should be. That could mean removing exisiting sections and creating sub-pages, as has already been done with some lists. Thunderer (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you please answer my question? I asked if what you outlined above would be the new article outline. Despite your responses, I still don't know whether that is your intent. I have some input on the article outline that I want to share with you. Sunray (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your question - in detail. I'm not making any changes to the article outline without guidance from an experienced Milhist editor. I'd be very interested in your input though.Thunderer (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Yes you actually did answer. Sorry. I am proposing that we start working on a draft outline. David is an experienced Milhist editor. You are an article editor with experience in this subject and I have edited a few military articles in my time. We can do a draft outline and then flash it up on the page; ask for input from others (Milhist is not the only project interested) and you've got me interested now. I've worked on plenty of GAs and FAs. So how about you show us how your points above would be integrated into the existing article outline? I'm sure other participants will join in once we get going. Sunray (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe everything I have listed above is already contained within the article with the possible exception of the views of other service and police personnel. The two major areas of concern for me are:

1. My own poor reporting skills mean the article doesn't read as well as it could and I've maybe put too much weight on one subject and not enough on another. I have the reference books however to provide more material to correct that if more experienced editors can guide me.
2. The question of image is the contentious one. D & BD can correct my assumption if it's wrong but I believe, particularly with regard to D that they believe there isn't enough material in the article which shows how the minority community of Northern Ireland viewed the regiment. My personal view is that much of that opinion is warped due to prolonged and constant propaganda by minority political parties, particularly Sinn Fein whose agenda was to discredit Crown Forces where possible leading to any relevant truths being exaggerated, other allegations maliciously invented with the ultimate aim to have the regiment deemed politically unsuited to the campaign, disbanded and the Crown Forces put under pressure by the loss of 9,000 experienced anti-terrorist troops. That this took place is relevant, it's part of the history, but I haven't been able to suggest a way in which it can be presented fairly and honestly.

As a British ex-serviceman and an Ulster Protestant it has to be recognised that my input on #2 could be influenced by my own background and subconcious prejudices so I'd prefer that the solution came from a neutral editor. I had guessed you were interested in Milhist so perhaps you are the man? If you could take opinions from all of us and formulate a section which either compliments or replaces existing sections on the subject? Can I be Sunray Minor - please, pretty please? ;) Thunderer (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. "Sunray minor." That would relate to a military interpretation of the name. I usually go for the ecological one, but must 'fess that I am aware of the military meaning. For those less aware of military call signs, "Sunray" is the name often assigned to the commander of a unit and "Sunray Minor" is the deputy. I hasten to add that in an egalitarian world, such as WP, it carries no weight whatsoever! Glad that someone on this page is able to joke, though. Sunray (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as I can be something which doesn't involve peeling spuds or polishing brass, swords, spurs or boots I'll be fine. I had enough of all that crap when I was in the regimental nick! ;)Thunderer (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Around here, a "promotion" nets you a mop and pail, so it is a little different Sunray (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now that we've established that I am the senior soldier around here - what are your suggestions regarding my suggestions? Thunderer (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I really don't understand why you made that list. Would you be able to explain that? With respect to your two points:

1. There are lots of folks with editing skills, so I wouldn't worry about that. The fastest way to upgrade an article is to get lots of people with different skills working from an Outline and "To do" list.
2. Interesting comments on the image of the regiment. There have been several comments from participants concerning WP:NPOV and you have talked about WP:UNDUE. With all that in mind, I wonder what participants think of adding a section on how the regiment was viewed by Unionists and Nationalists. In fact, that might be a great way to get into a more collaborative mode.

My own preliminary reaction to the article is that it needs some tightening up. Two things struck me right off the mark:

• The first sentence says that UDR "was a regiment." So I looked for information about it being disbanded, and was left up in the air. There was a proposal, but I could find no mention about the final disposition.
• There is are sections for "Male personnel" and "Female personnel." The section on women is appropriate as the Greenfinches were unique. However, the section of "Male personnel" is problematic. There are a few men mentioned, mostly from "E" Company. This begs the question of inclusion. If you cover one, you must cover all. With several companies and hundreds of men... you see the problem.

I haven't had time to read through the article completely, but it looks like there will be a need for some major editing and pruning. Sunray (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuation

1. I made the list so you and the others could see what I consider to be essential points to be carried in the article.
2. I would be delighted to see others working towards getting the article tightened up and going up the validity scale.
3. I've tried to have a section such as you've mentioned in the past to isolate all the political views together but thus far I haven't been able to convince others that these views should be restricted to one area and not pervade the article.
4. The UDR WAS a regiment that is correct. It was amalgamated with the Royal Irish Rangers in 1992 to form the Royal Irish Regiment - 3 battalions of General Service Infantry and 8 battalions of Home Service Infantry (Home Service being the name given to the UDR personnel whose contract only required them to serve in Northern Ireland). The regiment was never disbanded but the Home Service battalions were in 2007 when it was decided they were no longer needed. The rest of the RIR was reduced to one GS battalion and one Territorial battalion.
5. with the "male personnel section I am trying to illustrate the different types of men who joined, from professional soldiers to farmers. Unfortunately the information and photgraphs is scant at the moment as, by the very nature of the conflict, it was necessary to hide the faces of the men in most pictures. I hope more will be forthcoming.
6. I would be very interested in tightening up the article and pruning it, especially if we can convince the other major participants what exactly is needed - that includes me (I).Thunderer (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from the inside cover of Chris Ryder's UDR book:

But the UDR is also the army's most controversial regiment. Although at the outset one in five members was drawn from the Catholic community, terrorisation and murder of Catholic members by the IRA and frustration at the Regiment's lack of impartiality have turned it into an overwhelmingly Protestant force. Catholic confidence in the Regiment has been further undermined by repeated instances of UDR soldiers taking the law into their own hands and becoming involved in crime and Loyalist terrorism. Protestants, however, afraid that the British government might give in to IRA intimidation and abandon the Protestant community to an uncertain fate in a united Ireland, regard the UDR as their last line of defence. This book examines the history of the UDR, its role as a peace-keeping force in Northern Ireland and the unique courage of its members, who serve their community to fight terrorism despite the constant risks involved. It also discusses the events in which members have brought disgrace on the Regiment and concludes that given the controversy which surrounds it, the weight of public opinion against it and the aim for troops to be taken off the streets of Northern Ireland, the Ulster Defence Regiment should be disbanded and its duties taken over by an expanded Royal Ulster Constabulary.

This shows how controversial this regiment was and also shows that negative content has to be included in the main article. As it stands the article is in breach of NPOV due to the POV fork that was created when content was moved from the article, without discussion, and in doing so removed almost all negative information from the main article. BigDunc^Talk 20:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Ryder. The controversy isn't the regiment itself. It's the actual Irish situation which creates controversy and caused the USC to be disbanded and the UDR formed. It's a political and internal security situation. It is certainly to be noted that the regiment was raised in these controversial circumstances and that it's very existence was controversial but there was nothing actually controversial, although plenty unique, with the regiment itself and it should have a simple regimental history. If you want controversy, see the history of the Inns of Court Regiment - I mean the real history, not the wiki entry, because nobody has bothered to write that one up yet - maybe one for me in the future.Thunderer (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be prepared to change many of the quotes to "Instrument of Peace" by Chris Ryder but that will be done over time.The Thunderer (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Chris Ryder Book says that the incidence of crime among UDR members is greater than the population as a whole. Why was that not included in the article? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I did change quite a few quotes to reduce dependancy on Potter. I was also going to change more. I did actally include the UDR crimes figures with two reports. One which showed the % higher than the national average and then a further study which showed it was under the national average for the age groups who served. Those are still there on one of the pages. Thunderer (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The information on the article is WP:SYN, and the further study was challanged and the information was removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why this correctly referenced information was removed. The authors are both respected academics, authors and award winging journalists. They meet our policies on WP:V and WP:RS so what is the objection. The information is factual and can be supported by an additional number of sources.

"The regiment was formed in 1970 after recommendations from the Hunt Report (1969),[6] which suggested disbanding the part time "B Specials" an all Protestant police force, membership of which heavily overlapped with the Orange Order,[7][8] and seen by Catholics as the strong arm of the "Protestant ascendancy".[9][10] Nationalists had been faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile, and being attacked by irregular Protestant mobs, while the RUC and B Specials turned a blind eye, or were active participants.[11][12][13][14][15] They were to be replaced according to Hunt, with a force that would be "impartial in every sense and remove the responsibility of military style operations from the police force."[6]" --Domer48_'fenian' 22:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what's wrong with it: Nationalists had been faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile, and being attacked by irregular Protestant mobs, while the RUC and B Specials turned a blind eye, or were active participants. This in itself is controversial and POV. For a start it refers to Nationalists. The early troubles which arose from marches by protest groups were not in themselves Nationalist marches. It can be argued that Nationalist and even Republican influences were behind it but that is according to the POV of whatever you read. The same goes for statements of 'state forces being hostile. The only state forces involved were the police, not even the special police (until much later and then only on a small number of occasions). This type of argument is warranted on dissertations about how and why the Troubles started and on the varying and different opinions of the various factions involved, bearing in mind that the Civil Rights Movement and student groupings contained more than a fair sprinkling of Protestants. The very answering of your question takes some careful time and consideration and I'd like you to consider that to explain this argument on an article about a regiment of infantry would detract from the concept of what the wiki is about. The article concerns the UDR, not the actual Troubles. It is pertinent to mention the lead up to the Hunt Report and the other reports. It's also pertinent to examine the fact that the minority population were less trustful at working class level of the police but only on a small scale because if you put in too much weight then you have to explain to the reader all of the reasons why this was; the fact that the Catholic establishment had consistently refused to take part in the mechanisms of the state; the fact that the Catholic establishment actively promoted resistance against the state; the fact that the Irish Govermnent harboured sentiments which condoned civil disturbance in the North in the hope of unseating the Stormont Administration and forcing a United Ireland; the fact that the IRA (later called the Official IRA) and the Wolfe Tone Societies were the promoters of the Civil Rights movement to foment civil disturbance; the fact that Sinn Fein and other Republican organisations kept up a campaign of propaganda against the Northern State which included the accusation that Northern Ireland wasn't a voluntary cecedence from the South but rather an occupation of Irish soil by the British and that vilification of the police (in particular) formed an agressive part of that propaganda to the point where many of the minority believed it and still do.

Now if you want the article to be consumed by that sort of argument then we do have a problem (as we know we have) because the guidelines for this type of article urge us to keep it as concise as possible and stick to the subject matter, albeit with a nominal amount of background. With this type of argument though the background, which will keep repeating itself throughout the article, starts to become the main subject. We should be concentrating on the Ulster Defence Regiment - not the socio-political influences which led to its raising and were a constant source of political accusation throughout its existence.

If you want to have an article which deals with this type of socio-political argument it should be started and could be linked to the UDR page as a means of further reading.

That is what I believe is wrong with the way the article has been approached. Thunderer (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possibly to provide references which support your opinion? The references I've used are respected academics, authors and award winging journalists. While your views on the conflict are important, could we keep the discussion on track and address the issue I raised. What is the problem with the sources used, as they reflect the reality that existed and not just the views of a section of socity. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything we need to know is in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. However these sources don't reflect the reality. They reflect an author's opinion and the language used is not correct for the style of reportage needed. To my mind it's almost like Marxist rhetoric, no offence. The reality was quite different in fact as official reports of the time bear out.Thunderer (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion Thunderer is irrelevant we deal with verifiable and reliably sourced content. BigDunc^Talk 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There's that "YOU" word again Dunc. I think we all need to adopt a less confrontational attitude towards this. I am firmly of the belief that it will get us further and faster. Thunderer (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well stop pushing your opinion. BigDunc^Talk 11:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But that works both ways Dunc. I believe my opinion is a valid interpretation of the guidleines laid down in the Manual of Style. I believe that overloading the article with opinions about the Northern Ireland Troubles isn't the way forward. I believe it is an article about a military regiment which needs to be treated as such and, while noting controversial points, doesn't put any undue weight on them. I believe that sort of political commentary belongs elsewhere. (I've said "I believe" so many times I feel like bursting into song but I'm sure you both get my drift?).Thunderer (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer while your intitled to your opinion "these sources don't reflect the reality" they are in fact both WP:V and WP:RS. That they are factually correct and not simply based on their own opinion. Now please place any contradicting information here, as our opinions and views are not relevant. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to place contradicting information here. I don't want to see this discussion or the article becoming over-ridden by political argument which shouldn't be on a military piece. Thunderer (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer the only contradicting information that has been provided to date is an opinion, were as I have provided quite a number of sources from academics, authors and award winging journalists.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But that's my point Domer. What does that information tell us about the Ulster Defence Regiment?Thunderer (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It might explain why any and all negative information keeps getting removed. The removal is not based on any policy, simply the opinion of an editor. The only question is, are these sources WP:V and WP:RS, if yes, are they relevent to the subject matter, obviously they are. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer, I'm not opposed to having the historical truths in the article. I just think the way it's being approached at the moment gives too much weight to the Nationalist point of view and that too much of the propaganda put out is being seen as truth. I don't think we need that type of speculation or spin in the article. To be honest, and I'll reply to David separately, I think we should leave the dissemination of these facts to him. Provide him with the information and allow him to decide what is relevent to this article. Does that sound reasonable? Thunderer (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer I think you are being naive in thinking that the history and role of the UDR can be separated from the politics. The disbandment of the USC and raising of the UDR was a political act. The regiment's raison d'etre was the Troubles, without them it would not have existed in anything like the same form, probably there would have been TA units just as in the rest of the United Kingdom. To be blunt, you might just about get through Good Article skirting the issue, since GA is very much dependent on a single reviewer, and if you happened to get one who didn't know much about the situation you might get away with it. However, if you went for A-class within MILHIST, I for one would oppose its promotion without considerably more attention to all political views, and I suspect that a number of other project members (some of them former/current serving personnel, just like yourself) would do the same. There are problems with some of the suggestions currently on the table - the Hunt Report specifically rejected some of the more lurid allegations against the USC, particularly about B-Specials standing by and allowing attacks on Catholics to proceed - the offical line being that they were simply inadequately trained in public order issues, and sometimes inadquately supervised by full-time RUC officers. You've been happy to describe me as an experienced MILHIST editor, and this is me trying to get that experience across. It would be nice if you could also get my name rigth Underdown, not Underwood, and please try to hold back on the barrackroom language. We all need to carefully examine how our responses to others might be percieved by others, we may not intend to be inflammatory, but taking a step back, and not responding to everything immediately may help everyone to make a breakthrough. David Underdown (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

David, first of all let me apologise for consistently getting your name wrong. I won't do it again. I also think you're picking up my views incorrectly and that's probably my fault for not expressing them properly. I'm not against having a political overview, what I am against is having half truths or propaganda from the Nationalist side and there is much of it. It's been pushed for so long that many people believe the agenda to be fact which in many cases it isn't, so I'm pushing for a more clinical analysis rather than taking opinions from authors, from either viewpoint, whose agenda is pro or anti - UDR. I would prefere that you, as a neutral editor, assumed command of this particular agenda and , possibly along with others, create or edit a section which covers this controversial subject adequately but without and slant. Would you agree? Domer and Dunc would you agree to this?

As to barrack room language, to be honest I haven't been using any ;). What you've seen is just a grumpy old fecker being sarcastic ;) Thunderer (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No I wouldn't agree David is part of this mediation and is not an outsider (so to speak). Also I see a lot of respected journalists and authors being portrayed as pushing nationalist propoganda. Gamble and Potter anyone, the bastions of neutrality. BigDunc^Talk 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

David is from Milhist Dunc and only here to help. He didn't require mediation and in fact should be viewed as a mediator. No-one is saying that Gamble and Potter are neutral sources either. Potter in particular though, basing his book as he does largely from official records, is an authority on the subject - if very 3 UDR in approach. Gamble is a very useful source for the inner workings of the regiment and deals with 5 UDR, plus as a member of the UDR Association he is able to interact with Home Headquarters and perhaps supply information from other battalions which, as far as I can see, is badly needed. Thunderer (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus building excerise

• Proposed text for the article:

The regiment was formed in 1970 after recommendations from the Hunt Report (1969),which suggested disbanding the part time "B Specials" an all Protestant police force, membership of which heavily overlapped with the Orange Order, and seen by Catholics as the strong arm of the "Protestant ascendancy". Nationalists had been faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile, and being attacked by irregular Protestant mobs, while the RUC and B Specials turned a blind eye, or were active participants. They were to be replaced according to Hunt, with a force that would be "impartial in every sense and remove the responsibility of military style operations from the police force." ,

Reasons to Support

• All of the information is correctly sourced and referenced. Nationalist concerns are not mentioned, only that that they had some. These concerns were very real, and will give context and background to their issues with the UDR on recruitment.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• • As I've pointed out in my suggested ammendment below, there is actually an error in your referencing. For source 1/11 you've given the url for the "Subversion in the UDR" report, not the Hunt Report. In addition, WP:CITE says you should give full information for websites, i.e. a title, publisher, date etc., rather than just bare urls. David Underdown (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasons to reject

Suggested ammendments

1.Source 1 and 11 don't actually seem to contain the the things they are supposed to reference, I think the url you intended was http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/hunt.htm 2.As general background, I'm not sure we actually gain anything by mentioning the Orange Order here, it simply raises more questions (as an aside, was the proportion of membership higher amongst B-Specials than amongst the general Protestant population?) 3.The Scarman Report states

3.2 Undoubtedly mistakes were made and certain individual officers acted wrongly on occasions. But the general case of a partisan force co-operating with Protestant mobs to attack Catholic people is devoid of substance, and we reject it utterly.

So we must be careful not to seem to repeat this allegation without balance. Equally Scarman does point out specific occassions on which the RUC and USC response was inadequate and did not prevent Protestants attacking Catholics. 4.As I commented on the article talk page (and quoted a comment that had been made during a GA review of one of "my" articles). Sometimes sourcing a short sentence with a host of sources, rather than strengthening your case, may actually subtly undermine it by the appearance of desparation. 5.I think I also commented that it might be better simply to quote more fully from the Scarman report

In 1969 the USC contained no Catholics[14] but was a force drawn from the Protestant section of the community. Totally distrusted by the Catholics, who saw them as the strong arm of the Protestant ascendancy, they could not show themselves in a Catholic area without heightening tension. Moreover they were neither trained nor equipped for riot control duty.

David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on excercise

Not outright rejection, but I wonder if it might be better to return to this area later, rather than start out with one of the areas which has already proved difficult to resolve. Bringing up precisely the same example time and time again doesn't seem to me to be a particularly helpful way of proceeding. David Underdown (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

David this is just an example, that you consider it difficult may be a positive. On this excercise we will deal with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. It will require calm discussion and problem solving skills. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't have any objections to dealing with it now. This gets right to the nub of the matter and if we can sort this out objectively I believe we can then move on to other things and other articles. Good idea of yours Domer. Thunderer (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Thunderer for putting forward a rational in the above discussion. Could it now be possible to provide referenced sources to support the rational you provided. For example according too xyz, when the "state forces" opposed violence in the streets in 1968/9/70 it wasn't against Nationalists per se it was against protest groups like the Civil Rights Movement who were not Nationalist in any sense and even contained many Protestants who were seeking better conditions, and this is supported by abcd. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above Domer, I don't want to get into that. I'd much prefer that someone else commented on the opinions and views put forward and took the decision to write the piece, under discussion with us so that all views can be put forward.Thunderer (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My rationale would be to forget Nationalism. That's a political entity and state of mind. Concentrate on the minority community - Catholics. When the "state forces" opposed violence in the streets in 1968/9/70 it wasn't against Nationalists per se it was against protest groups like the Civil Rights Movement who were not Nationalist in any sense and even contained many Protestants who were seeking better conditions. Ok there was a Nationalist, even Republican agenda behind that and of course that should be included but any article which includes the statement "Nationalists were faced with hostile Crown Forces" would be seen immediately as POV pushing. Thunderer (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, even the Scarman report indicates that police and army believed (incorrectly) that they were dealing with IRA inspired violence, and to some extent reacted accordingly, and did believe the crowds to have hostile intent. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some truths here but also some innacuracies.

1. The violence was IRA inspired. The Civil Rights Movement was under the direction of the IRA with several IRA members being on the management committee. It is universally accepted now and admitted by the IRA that the CRM was formed to "foment civil disturbance in the Northern statelet".
2. The minority population were actively dicoruaged by church and political leaders from joining the police or specials although Doherty is emphatic that there were some Catholics in the specials. There is a recorded percentage for those in the police.
3. Membership of the Orange Order was almost universal amongst the Protestant working classes.
4. There's no doubt that the allegations of the police and specials co-operating with mobs is propaganda.
5. The assertion that the specials were the "strong arm of the ascendancy" is propaganda although in my opinion there is some truth in it. It's more to do with the successes of the specials against the IRA since 1920 however.
6. Specials were not supposed to patrol Catholic areas except in times of great emergency when they were deployed to protect Catholic property, in both Catholic and Protestant areas. It is true that they were not trained in crowd control. In Belfast they patrolled quiet areas to release police for crowd control. In the rural areas they operated as a paramilitary gendarmerie or milita, setting up roadblocks, denying access to areas for terrorists, guarding key installations etc.

Those are truths. Many of which, as you've correctly noted, are mentioned in Scarman, Hunt and Cameron. The propaganda issue is the main one we need to be careful of in my opinion. It's too easy to repeat rhetoric as accepted fact because it's been repetitiously alleged for 50 or more years.Thunderer (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again Thunderer for your views and opinions, could you possibly add some references to your contrabution. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer on the section titled "Reasons to reject" could you please confine yourself to policy based reasons such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Of course if there is any other policy based reason please add it, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about! I am impressed with the way participants have taken on some difficult issues and worked on them. Neither mediator had to intervene once, which is a milestone. What I like about this, is that while you still, obviously, have issues with each other, you are working out a process for dealing with them. Brilliant! Sunray (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If Thunderer can provide some reliable and verifiable sources for his claims above then maybe we can get somewhere. Domer has provided plenty of sources for what he wants added so Thunderer could you now provide sources for your counter claims. BigDunc^Talk 20:19, 11 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)