Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

One of the participants has retired.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Ulster Defence Regiment edit

request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 19:29, October 28 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

BigDunc (talk · contribs), filing party
The Thunderer (talk · contribs)
Domer48 (talk · contribs)
David Underdown (talk · contribs)

Articles involved edit

Ulster Defence Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

[1]
Example link 2

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

It is basically a content dispute IMO were The Thunderer has inserted and removed content without discussion and when pulled on his edits he accuses me of not showing good faith. Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has proposed that Thunderer and I avail of the help that can be provided here.

Confirmed--Tznkai (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that the article in question has been the subject of slanted editing for some time by various editors of different viewpoints which had left it looking like a debate on the issues surrounding the Northern Ireland Troubles, an ethnic conflict. Approaching the article from a purely historical perspective, with a keen knowledge of the Troubles, I have managed to get the article upgraded to B Class and am now working towards A Class. This makes it necessary to remove partisan POV, stick to the facts and explain the issues concisely and to create subpages where necessary to remove large lists from the main article for the further reference of the interested reader. It is my belief that nowhere else in the world is there such a comprehensive study of this militia unit and that the Wikipedia article as it stands is the only informed non POV reference piece available on the WWW. I would like it to be enhanced and improved and to keep it POV free. Thunderer (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is the removal of correctly referenced sourced material, in addition to civility issues on both talk pages and edit summaries. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated edit

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

Agree. BigDunc^Talk 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.Thunderer (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. David Underdown (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's comments edit

I am willing to consider taking on this case, but would like to determine just how mediatable it is. Would you be willing to make a brief statement of what you consider the key issues and what you hope to get from mediation? Please use the case talk page for this. Sunray (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Underdown has contacted me to ask about joining in the mediation. I note that his involvement with the article has been fairly recent, but generally constructive. What do the participants think of him joining in? Sunray (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem. BigDunc^Talk 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to David Underwood taking part.Thunderer (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've signed on as mediator. I like the spirit shown by the participants. That doesn't mean that it will be easy, however. I am currently talking to another mediator about co-mediating with me. More on this later. Sunray (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Kinney joined as co-mediator on 4 November, 2008. Discussion continuing on case talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.

Accept - I will contact available mediators and ascertain who is willing to take on this meditation.

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.