User talk:BigDunc

SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia. Comments that I feel are unhelpful will be removed at my discretion.

START A NEW TOPIC ON THIS PAGE

Note: If you post a message here, I'll reply here for continuity. If I post a message on your talk page I will have put it on my watchlist, so you can reply there.

Archives [1] [2]

Disruptive editing

You have been reported here for your continued disruptive edits at Ulster Defence Regiment. The Thunderer (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

I am placing you under the terms of the Troubles Arbcom enforcement on this article only after examining your editing. It is my opinion that your recent edits to this article have been unhelpful and obstructive.

This means that you are limited to one revert on this article per week. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert. If you violate the terms of the probation, you may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.

Logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Log_of_blocks, bans, and probations. Black Kite 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• [3] Quite apart from the fact that this is sourced, your edit was just tit-for-tat warring, as your edit summary suggested.
• [4] Adding onesource tag to section that clearly has more than one source.
• [5] adding onesource tag to a short uncontroversial section. You did that *after* I invoked the ArbCom sanction as well. Please keep to the terms of the sanction. Thankyou. Black Kite 20:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont see anything there that warrents being placed on probation. I was not even an involved party to that ArbCom case. BigDunc^Talk 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"...any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation". My only interest is ensuring that this article continues to be improved, which is why I have only invoked probation on this article rather than all the Troubles ones (which is the usual sanction). The sanction does not prevent you editing and improving the article, it is only to prevent any further tit-for-tat reverting. If I consider that any other editor (on whatever side) is preventing the improvement on the article, I will invoke a similar sanction, as I will on other Troubles articles. If you consider that other editors are doing this, please inform me. I will also use the ArbCom sanctions if I consider that editors are proxy reverting for those that are sanctioned. Black Kite 20:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if that is happening. But I do know that GDD1000 and The Thunderer are the same editor. GDD1000 being a self confessed member of the regiment with a COI and then he leaves when 2 Admins remove copyrighted material and the Thunderer arrives doing the exact same edits. BigDunc^Talk 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Ulster_Defence_Regiment. Black Kite 21:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, don't waste your time with this BS. What dose the the tag say? "This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source." GDD1000 has been at this for long enough, so what is good for the goose. Now the fact is the section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Point 1. Point two "This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source," again. So what if the tag was placed *after* you invoked the ArbCom sanction. What is your point? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing why I have been put on probation Black Kite? A warning would have been more than enough for inserting tags. BigDunc^Talk 21:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw clearly problematic editing. Don't worry about it - it's not a big deal. It only prevents you reverting more than once a week on this article, and to be honest, as I've said above, if I see revert wars happening again I'll take further action anyway. Black Kite 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not worried about it as long as I have your assurance that you will be as quick with others, you just have to look at the USC article which you protected if you look at my contributions you will see any edit I make to any article that The Thunderer feels that he owns is instantly reverted by him. Could you give me your opinion on the edits on the USC page when I removed duplicate links. BigDunc^Talk 21:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My view on that is that it's a fairly pointless edit war. I don't see that either version really makes much difference, to be honest - why not compromise on keeping the text the same, but removing the extra wikilinks? Black Kite 21:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Further Report

As you don't seem to be settling I have filed a further report here. You are most welcome to comment. The Thunderer (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• And I have closed it. Both of you - this is unproductive. I don't intend to waste my time following your edits round the encyclopedia and protecting articles because of petty tit-for-tat edit wars. I have protected the Ulster Constabulary article for an hour. When that protection expires, if I see that type of edit-warring occurring again, I will invoke the full ArbCom sanction - that's all Troubles articles on both of you and probably throw in a couple of blocks as well. Engage on the talk pages, please. This is helping no-one at all. Copied to User:The Thunderer's talkpage. Black Kite 21:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Attacks on the UDR

Now, I found THAT edit perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and agree with the reasons why. You see, we CAN work together. The Thunderer (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have done that last week but left it as I didn't want the guff that would have surrounded it, that is why I asked an uninvolved admin to have a look. BigDunc^Talk 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got me all wrong you know. I am perfectly reasonable and happy to change an article or help someone else do so if I feel it warrants it. I accept that our working relationship here is tainted by past controversy and that colours my view on some of the things you do. I can't be more honest than that. If we BOTH realise that and tread a little warier for the time being until we establish a working partnership then perhaps we can make a substantial difference on some of these articles. I am not biased in any way, shape or form - not intentionally anyway. If you discuss things with me and I get to see your viewpoint on a specific matter then things could be quite different. Want to give it a try? The Thunderer (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi - I was coming here to agree with you, but since you two seem to be coming to some agreement here, I'll leave it :) Black Kite 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Could I be any fairer than this? The Thunderer (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and your gesture. As I've said before on many occasions I am not a POV pusher but recognise my own shortcomings when editing articles. I would be grateful for your help in ensuring that anything on matters concerning Ireland doesn't contain undue weight or synthesis for either faction, that they are left to reflect the true facts and that propaganda by both sides is clearly indicated as such. The Thunderer (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

100% agree I too am not a POV pusher no matter what some editors feel I always try to maintain a stance that is NPOV, so hopefully Black Kite will recognise this and lift IMO unfair sanction he imposed on me. BigDunc^Talk 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the major issue I have had with this is that you appear to be thinking that I'm pushing a certain POV then you write something to counter that. The instance of yer man's sexual conviction coming to mind straight away. The concerns about ethnic cleansing along the border seem to have been genuine and have been explored at academic level. It may not have been PIRA policy but it is appearing as such. If you feel for example that is an incorrect POV then we need to look at other ways of exploring the accusations and explaining them in such a way that a reader with no knowldege of Ireland can make a reasonable assessment from the facts - not by trying to dilute the facts by pointing out that a commentator later received a conviction for sexual offences. It could be summed up by saying that while Unionists accuse PIRA of an ethinic cleansing policy, PIRA deny it, although some ex-PIRA operatives support the accusations. As with the B Specials there may not have been an official policy in place but local commanders or activists could have pursued their own agenda without official sanction. Had you considered that? The Thunderer (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well a point on that, you felt the need to qualify who Farrell was and also you made an issue of the religon of the author of the RUC book, if he was an orange Protestant would you have put it in? Also McKenna just made a claim and is being given undue weight IMO also some ex-PIRA operatives according to no one but himself, this is a man who is described as a Walter Mitty character. So as there is no article on this man you at least need to qualify who and what he is. BigDunc^Talk 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As regards Farrell - v - Doherty I feel it's justified because People's Democracry definitely had a thing about the B Specials from the word go. As did NICRA. It's known that the Stickies and members of the Wolfe Tone Societies who were founder members of NICRA were intending to foment civil disturbance and use every propaganda means at their disposal to discredit, and if possible unseat the Stormont government. I've not doubt that PD used propaganda too. For that reason I would say that, on the surface anyway, Farrell's opinions are subject to scrutiny. Had Doherty been an Orange Protestant I would still have included him because it would have been a balancing view. In the event Doherty appears to be a fairly neutral source although the "author notes" in his book do say he was a member of the RUC Reserve so he has at least some RUC (and military) connections. As for McKenna, who described him as a "Walter Mitty"? If it was An Phoblact or some similar strongly Republican based publication then it has to be viewed along the lines that whatever was written about him there is also tinged with propaganda or at best, disinformation, even if it was true. The origins of the sources we use do have a bearing. You and others have noted that we must be careful when synthesizing material gleaned from the Regimental History, now I happen to agree with that because although Potter seems to be self analytical when it comes to the UDR there's no doubt that he would be a supporter and anything political he said would need to be examined very carefully. You've no idea how much useful stuff I discarded over the last month or so because it came from Unionist, DUP or Orange sources. These simply cannot be relied upon for a neutral POV and in my opinion the same applies to anything which has a known opposite bias. Let's face the truth here too, would you expect to find anything complimetary to the security forces in An Phoblact? Would you expect to see that publication condone the actions of a turncoat like McKenna or O'Callaghan? What might be useful would be to analyse why McKenna made his statements. Did he receive financial reward or benefit in kind? Was he a police informer? Is there anything else which you could see in his past which would make his allegations about his IRA activity untrue? It needs to be rock solid you see? Even if you are I had been in the IRA with the guy, inless we had been involved with operations he was on we might not have a clue about him. On the other hand, the UDR, UVF, UDA, RUC et al had eejits in their ranks and it stands to reason that PIRA and the Stickies had a few as well. Bunting for example - what the hell made someone with such a radical Proddie background join the Stickies and then be militant enough to join INLA? The Thunderer (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the IRA never said O'Callaghan was not a member, and as regard Doherty I doubt very much that if he was protestant and I added (A Protestant military historian from Derry) it would not have been reverted, this information that you added is all found in the first line of both mens articles which are linked so why the need to add it if not as you say well poisoning. Also Farrell is a highly respected solicitor and human rights activist. Also it wasnt An Phoblacht that called him walter mitty, I will find the source again as far as I remember it was a British newspaper but might be wrong.BigDunc^Talk 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)No I don't think I would have deleted Doherty's credentials if he was a Proddie, simply because of Farrell's. Everyone should be aware of how Republican groupings use human rights groups to make mischievous accusations and everyone should be aware how Unionists try to counter it. That's one of the reasons it's so hard to separate truth from fiction in some cases. For all that anyone may dislike PIRA and P/Sinn Feinn for having conducted a campaign of violence, their ability to manipulate domestic and international law in their favour has to be admired. They often leave the British government looking like eejits. If now a Unionist writer turned round and said the B Men were all Proddies, now that would be a bllody good quote to put in but you're going to find that all Unionist views are pro-USC and all Nationalist/Republican ones are anti, and for that reason non Nationalist/Republican Catholics are very likely to share those views. It's damnation by association. That's the over-riding consideration in all articles about the Troubles in my view. One side will try to outdo the other in making accusations then trying to poison the well about accusations made about their darlings. "Oh no that man can't be right because he was convicted of kicking his dog". You and I have to either pick the middle ground and keep the articles non-controversial, which I think is nigh on impossible, or ensure that when we do list one side's POV that we sensibly balance that with the opposing POV, except on the occasions where it is so blatantly obvious that there is nothing to counter the allegations. The Miami Massacre being one such very good example. I have many other cases from the Regimental History which I could list of UDR men convicted of terrorist crime, or thrown out for being associated with the UDA/UVF or even just because they were bad boys who used their own guns to rob banks or shops. There is the case of two privates from 3 UDR who were jailed for life because they committed murder. Potter says everyone knew they were bad boys but they escaped the normal vetting for UDR because they transferred into the UDR from regular units. I could litter that entire article with stuff like that but what's the point? We're not here to analyse everything that was ever done, we're here to provide as complete an encyclopedic (verifiable) record as we can - without caggage. The Thunderer (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Dunc, if you can assure me that you'll discuss any controversial edits and/or reverts on the talk page of the UDR article before making them, then I'd be quite happy to remove the ArbCom sanction. Thanks, Black Kite 15:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I give you an assurance that I will. BigDunc^Talk 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. [6] Black Kite 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I seen thanks. BigDunc^Talk 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

UDR Uniforms

I can provide some insider stuff if you want to e-mail. The Thunderer (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article on Oliver Cromwell is completely biased against the great Protestant protector of the English people. The article smells highly of Jesuitry and "hate speech" against Protestants. It uses words like "massacre" and "dictator" repeatedly when such radical left wing comments are not even close to a moderate view of history. It seems as if some Jesuits wrote this article and that Wikipedia allows this type of hate rhetoric on an ongoing basis, because I have also seen the same type of "hate speech" used against numerous Protestant figures in history located on Wikipedia. To claim these articles are neutral is a lie. Having worked for one of the largest corporations in the world as a communicator and also as an international broadcast news anchor, I can tell you "slant" and "neutral" when I see it. The When I went into the article to correct some of the lies and remove other lies, I was "slapped on the hand" repeatedly. I do not appreciate such censorship of one religious perspective while you foster and breed a hate-driven religious perspective on the other hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PURECREATIONS (talk • contribs) 05:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)