Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 3

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. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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, -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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, -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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." -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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, -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'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)