User talk:Sunray/Archive22

Draza Mihailovic mediation

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic

Hi Sunray. First, be advised that a party to this mediation case has added another editor to the list of parties[1]. This is typically only done when necessary, so the edit may be worth a more detailed look. Second, I'm wondering what the status on this mediation is? Will it be getting underway soon? Do you need another mediator to assist you with the workload? Let me know what I can do to help. Regards, AGK 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance, AGK. My situation was that i took the case thinking that Atama had indicated he wanted to co-mediate. For some reason, we never connected on that possibility. Meanwhile, I got busy off-wiki. I did communicate with one of the parties (above on this talk page) and they communicated with the other participants. I admit, that I could have been more communicative with them. However, I'm back now and will notify the participants accordingly. Sunray (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As to the addition of Isidoradaven. Looking over the discussion on the article talk page, I agree that he should be a participant. Sunray (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That all makes sense. Glad to see that you've gotten the ball rolling. I hope the mediation goes well. If you need support or a second opinion at any point, do drop me a message. AGK 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I'm here, I'll ask about the status of the History of Georgia mediation. Is party inactivity preventing that case from getting off the ground? AGK 16:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one of the parties (Iberieli) has been unavailable. He did communicate that he was writing mid-terms, but that was some time ago. He has been inactive since April 21 and does not have e-mail enabled. I've left a final note for him to sign-in in the next by May 15. If he doesn't, I will close it as inactive. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll leave you to it. Regards, AGK 20:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Draft

Hi. Sorry if I reverted your edits a bit brutally, but it appears that there was some misunderstanding on my part regarding the implications of the mediation. If it is "usual practice" (but does "usual" mean "compulsory" ?) not to touch the article while the mediation is going, then I feel it would be completely counter-productive. I have had no real interest in the mediation from the start, and only accepted it as a gesture of goodwill, and most of all as a favor to another editor, so he could discuss in a more formal manner, with a mediator.

To be absolutely honest, I hadn't even realized initially that I had been reverted by the mediator, that's how interested in the mediation I am. I'd hate to waste your time and to disrespect your efforts, but I'd also hate not to be able to work on the article, as I precisely have the time to do so these days (and believe me, it does need an awful lot of work). So if the mediation means that I can't work on the article, you may count me out or just cancel it as far as I'm concerned. There is a talk page for discussion, after all. I am perfectly able and willing to discuss, but if "discussing" means "not being able to work on the article", then I'm not interested. Thanks and best regards, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You may have missed my comment on the article talk page. To put it plainly: Articles are usually protected during a mediation to prevent edit waring by participants or major changes to the article that are not agreed to by all participants. Unfortunately, both these conditions seem now to be in play. You are one of the participants taking initiative right now, and I have recognized that on the mediation talk page. I would urge you to find a way to collaborate on that page. I think you have something valuable to offer. Sunray (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive the intrusion, but here are my thoughts, if you'd like them. Usual does not mean compulsory, of course; Mediators are not security guards. But an uninvolved administrator is likely to take especially strong action against somebody who edit wars instead of participating in consensus-building through mediation, so any editing of an article undergoing mediation should be undertaken very cautiously. Having said that, good-faith editing of the article to update its content in line with what is roughly agreed by the parties to the mediation is all part of the process; be bold – revert – discuss, and all that. Regards, AGK 10:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I should have done that days ago but I have added more info on my draft, which has progressed quite a bit, I think. Please tell me what you think when you have five minutes. Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I must say that I find Direktor's attitude deplorable to say the least and, to be honest, I don't give a damn about his opinion. I'll try not to indulge in conflicts, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just made a (long) comment and suggestion at the end of the page, which I hope will all help us work calmly and finish this business in the course of next week (we definitely have to get things going). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No problem and thanks. I must say that I'm really eager to get things going. Hence, I am more than willing to get concrete advice on how to flesh out and improve the draft after I have "completed" it (that is, when I'm done with the beginning, the middle and the end). I hope this can be sorted out in the course of this week. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have finished the draft. That is, I do not regard it as "finished" (is anything ever finished here ?) or perfect, but at least it has now a beginning, a middle and an end. Now I'd really like to have advice to flesh it out, to correct things and add as many info as possible, so it can replace be used ASAP to create an acceptable article and replace the current piece of crap. cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Just added more info. Please let me know what you think. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your appreciation, I certainly don't pretend to have done something perfect (is anything perfect and definitive here ?), but I've tried my best to be approach the character fairly and provide the basis for a honest article. I might add some more stuff, but not before a few days because I need to take a little break from all this Chetnik business (especially since afterwards, I'll start rewriting the Chetniks article. Who-wheee ! More fun and joy !) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

On civility

I must say that I find Direktor to be absolutely unbearable and that discussing with this user is very difficult for me. If you could ask him to stop being arrogant and agressive (not only to me, but also to FKPCascais, and in general to anybody who does not adhere to his personal bias), it would be nice of you. (perhaps his tactic is to be purposely obnoxious so other users insult him and he can later complain to the admins ? I have already witnessed such behaviour. Anyway, I have no interest in further exchange with him). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me one of the difficulties with polls that they can "polarize" things (pun intended). It is hard for participants to hold their fire when one says "yes" and the other says "no." I was away for awhile yesterday, but will be more active in trying to find some common ground. One more comment: It often is easier to ask someone to do something than to ask them to stop. Sunray (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, I might just assume that I don't understand (or appreciate) his humour. I have no interest in personal conflicts, but online obnoxiousness irks me in general. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to let you know that I have reported to the administrators Direktor's latest agressive message and apparent intention to menace me with something. I have no interest in such kind of conflicts and hope he will now leave it at that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Now this takes the cake. I am really not sure that a mediation involving such a character should continue at all. I do not see any point in working at any degree with such an user (not that I saw any, but now I feel quite free to say it). Is it possible for him to be kicked out of the mediation, or for the mediation to simply come to an end ? If I do not get an apology (and I certainly won't) I see no way for me to work with this guy. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You say that you see no way to work with Direktor. Would you allow me to make some observations?

1. You referred to " a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics...) you also spoke about arguing with "cretins."
2. It is clear that D. considered himself included in those remarks.

IMO, such remarks breach WP:CIV no matter whom they are directed at. A case could also be made that they are a violation of WP:NPA. It is my belief that accusations and counter accusations will go nowhere.

You have made a contribution to the mediation. I hope you will find a way to continue to do so. However, engaging in exchanges of this sort will be counterproductive. We should, perhaps, pause to mourn the needs that were not met. Then we move on. It is time to commit to dealing only in content. Would you be able to do that? Sunray (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. To be absolutely clear : I am very willing to deal only in content. Only I don't think I'd be able to do so with Direktor. Working with Nuujinn (sorry if I misspell his alias) seems to pose no problem. However, I see absolutely no possibility of achieving anything worthwile if Direktor sticks around. This user's presence will just result in useless confrontations and waste of time. This is why I have expressed the desire that he leave the mediation. Otherwise, my opinion is that the mediation is bound to fail, and that it should just die by now if he is to remain around. It could, of course, continue informally with some editors, but given the level of hostility that said user generates with his "confrontational" style, I don't think anything is possible should he continue to take part in it. Sorry if I seem too blunt, but IMHO he has made no interesting contributions whatsoever to the mediation and is not capable of doing any. I'm not sure if he realizes the extreme hostility that his acerbic attitude can generate, but he has certainly made a loyal enemy out of me (I never liked him in the first place, but it was his attitude towards Fpkcascais which truly made him unsufferable to me, and friday's absurd exchange was the last drop), which is why I'd rather not have any direct contact with him. To make a long story shorter : I am more than OK to deal in content (have I been trying to do anything else in this mediation ?), but I think Direktor has to go. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Dealing only in content" involves not engaging with, or criticizing, other editors. I hear you saying that you are unable to do that with Direktor right now. That is unfortunate as I value your contributions. Several participants, including you and Direktor, have engaged in personal commentary and attacks. None of the violations are sufficient to exclude a participant from the mediation--in fact, most of the disputes have involved two or more participants who were equally at fault. If you do decide to stick around, you will need to let me deal with other participant's violations of policy. If you get involved, you will be equally vulnerable to sanctions. Sunray (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I am more than willing to stick around if Direktor goes. I consider that it is this editor who has been causing most of the controversy with his agressive attitude and wholly unjustified arrogance. I am unable to tolerate such behaviour when it becomes so repetitive, and I think this user will never change. In this context, it causes the mediation to become a useless waste of time. Alastairgreen I find easier to ignore. Hence, I think you would make things much easier, and the mediation would proceed much more easily, if you would ask Direktor to go. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Haven't been able to do much lately, sorry. I'll be on vacation for two weeks (will be able to contribute again from 22 July). cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the provocations above. imho a user who makes it his ambition to ignore others for "daring" to oppose him is not really cut-out for Wikipedia discussion. I am sorry, but I do not intend to make myself less difficult to ignore. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, if you noticed the time stamp on these posts, they were during the time when you made the "WP:MEAT" comments. I regarded both of your behaviour to be in breach of WP behavioral policies and made that clear to each of you on talk pages and at WP:AN/I. It is now in the past. If you have learned anything from that affair, I would have hoped it was to stick to content. That includes avoiding commentary such as the statement just above. In it you have strayed just over, but close, to the line by using scare quotes and a threat veiled as a statement of fact. This will not serve you well on Wikipedia, IMO. "Sticking to content" sometimes means letting something go. Sunray (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Holiday

Hi Sunray, I've been on holiday, but have now added my opening statement, as well as a comment to the discussion. Best regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We are making some progress, I think. Welcome aboard! Sunray (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Personal comments

(sorry for the belated response) I do lose my temper at times, that I am aware of. I do, however, admit when I am wrong. Even though I would not style them personal attacks, my comments were inappropriate and I apologize. You may rest assured my edits henceforth will exclusively address content.

In addition, I feel I should have a word with you. The central issue itself is not a very complex one, once you get through the obscurity of the subject matter. The issue is, quite simply, whether someone may or may not use the word "collaboration" in any way at all when referring to Draža Mihailović during World War II.

This wording was in use in the article for a very long time, supported by a large number of good-quality sources presented by other editors and myself. The term was introduced after a very long, very thorough research I conducted on the matter some eight months ago. [text removed - SR]

With that in mind, I'd like to ask you whether you would like to review them, and if so how should they be posted and organized? The current "brawl" on the mediation talkpage is not very helpful, I imagine... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I agree that some of the statements were less than personal attacks, however they were all personal remarks, at the very least. I appreciate your willingness to avoid that mode in future. But I note that you do comment on FkpCascals above. So did you mean starting from now? I've got eyes and am able to form my own conclusions, you know. :)

With respect to use of the word "collaborator" it will be up to the participants to decide the best way to refer to Mihailović. I will ask questions and generally try to facilitate the discussion. If participants are working through the issues, I will be relatively "hands off" apart from assisting in setting objectives and timeframes. I will review all sources and proposed wordings of article text. Sunray (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Brawl? It seems to me to be going fairly well... or am I missing something? Sunray (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm "babying you" or something :P, certainly not. The gist of it is that we basically need someone to "pass judgment" on the sources, more accurately their alleged misinterpretation on the part of Nuujin, AlasdairGreen27, and myself. I know you're not here to "pass judgment" on anything, but let me assure you: based on past experiences - no amount of discussion will end this. The "balance of sources" is such that any discussion would've ended loong ago or would not have been necessary at all in a "normal" situation, but what can one do in the face of simple refusal to accept them? What I mean by that is that the issue is obviously vague, i.e. its not a factual dispute but a discussion on "interpretation".

As such, and with past experience in mind, I cannot see discussion putting an end to it - in fact its utterly pointless. We are plainly going in circles and repeating the talkpage text. I wonder if you would think it a good idea if we simply list the relevant quotes from sources for you to present an opinion as to whether the term "collaboration" is appropriate or not (i.e. if they have been misinterpreted or no)? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the best place for this discussion is the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree on that. May I also add that I took a look at the sources (you may check that on the history) and that none of them (with the possible exception of "Serbia's secret war", which was written by a physician, not by a historian) make such a crude and inaccurate statement as "Mihailovic was a collaborator". They may be "good-quality sources" but I'm not sure about the quality of their interpretation. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to discussing your re-write and getting comments from other participants. Sunray (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

who is Sunray

im looking at your history and it seems all you do is undo people's changes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironfever (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I do remove link spam, as I did in your case. You have been warned twice. Sunray (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Polley

Please stop altering my changes. I have been given direct instructions by Sarah Polley herself to make these corrections.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezmaz (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is highly recommended that you leave an edit summary stating your reason for making the changes. In this case, they are fairly significant (i.e., you are removing considerable content), thus you may wish to leave an explanation on the discussion page. I will await your explanation. Sunray (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision

Sarah Polley never asked me to make any revisions that is not what I said and please do not put that in public as it is not true. Please delete that comment you made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezmaz (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have misinterpreted what you said. I note that you clearly did say: "someone close to Sarah Polley," not Sarah Polley herself. Unfortunately edit summaries are a permanent record and cannot be changed. However, I will put a note on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've commented further on this matter on the article talk page here. Sunray (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Please email me directly to discuss anything you like.

I'm not sure how to give you my email address outside of this public setting...let me know if you know a way.

Ezmaz (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, removing large tracts of text and citations from articles is often regarded as vandalism. Usually changes of this nature are discussed on the article talk page. In case you are unsure how to do this, from the article, click on the "Discussion" link on the top left hand side of the page. You will see that I've left a note at the bottom of the talk page.

However you prefer to do it, it is important to communicate. If you prefer, you can email me by clicking on "Toolbox" on the left hand side of my Talk page and then clicking on "E-mail this user." Sunray (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation template

Somebody removed the mediation template from the Draža Mihailović article. BoDu (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sunray (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that you have not reverted the template. Why? BoDu (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My only concern is that the article remain stable while the mediation is in progress. It was mediation participants' edit waring that led me to put the template on the article page. However, it is more properly placed on the talk page. I am happy to leave things as they are as long as the article is stable. If there are major changes made to the article during the mediation, we will revert them and warn the editors concerned. If necessary we can lock the article, but I would prefer not to. Sunray (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

willing to stand aside?

Sunray, could you clarify what you mean exactly by "willing to stand aside"? I'm not really sure what that means. tia, --Nuujinn (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It means that you do not entirely agree (i.e., have some concerns) but are willing to accept the decision to go ahead with the proposal. Sunray (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing of the article during mediation

I´m sorry to bother you with this, but I understood that we (the participants on the mediation) had agreed not to edit (including reverts) the article while we are in the mediation process. The issue is that some IP has edited the Draža Mihailović article and a mediation participant, User:Nuujinn, has reverted his edits. Afterwords, another mediation participant, User:DIREKTOR, has donne it as well. Why are they being allowed to "police" the article? Very unfair. Is the agreement still on? If it is, could you please correct the situation by reminding those users about the agreement? Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've already agreed to not even revert controversial edits since it bothers FkpCascais so. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Trouth. But, the reason shouldn´t be "because it bothers me", but because we had agreed to. FkpCascais (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have been trathened by User:DIREKTOR, in the Tomasevic section of the mediation talk page, with a ANI report because of prejudice (I don´t know why), while he has been the only one showing strong prejudice against Serbs in several ocasions, being the last found just today here: [2]. Please don´t use the easiest solution as "us both" to stop, because that would be extremely unfair. FkpCascais (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the actions taken by Nuujinn. He is correct in pointing out that the article is currently under mediation and that major edits should not be made. I do not understand why you reverted him. All users should recognize that an article in mediation should not be edited. If an IP doesn't know that, it is appropriate for another editor to advise him. Sunray (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The two of you have been insulting one another since the beginning of the mediation. I have tried several ways to get you to take responsibility for your own actions, but you seem not to pay my words any attention. To make matters worse, you have apparently breached privilege by reporting this at AN/I. If you are determined to get another point of view you may contact the Mediation Committee Chair, but, once again, you need to take responsibility for your own actions. Would you be able to do that now? Sunray (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by another editor during mediation

With respect to the threat. I did see that and consider it borderline with respect to WP:CIV. However, it was not a legal threat, thus not against policy. Best to keep to the high road yourself. You and Direktor have a history of conflict so any sort of response by you could result in escalation. Sunray (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know. That is the reason why I reported it to you. The last thing I want is to level myself again with that user. FkpCascais (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But, Sunray, I don´t understand why you allowed him to talk strictly on me, as he does there, even acusing me of canvasing, while I was only asking an opinion from another user, and he acuses me directly of many things, while I just commented on what I was asked to explain. Why do I have to have his direct attacks towards me on there? (he talks on me and my prejudice, not on the content of my explanation...) FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not a cop. My role is to try to assist parties in mediation. I try various ways to encourage editors to work together collaboratively and within policy. But I have to call things the way I see them. I am concerned that you are locked in a dispute with D. and have great difficulty disengaging. Would you be willing to let it go? Sunray (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been allways so rigorous about my comments, I don´t see why are others being treated differently. I have been allways cooperative when asked, I don´t understand why is the question given to me? Those comments are very offensive to me, and they are much more "personal comments" than some of mines, that you removed... Please give equal treatment, and dont try to turn this on me! Then, yes, I think I am being very clear about wanting to "go on", I even posted several positive comments about the mediation process, more in a encouraging way, than being honest, so I am assuming much of good faith by my side already, despite being completely ignored until now, in every request I made. FkpCascais (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that these remarks by Direktor were personal comments within the meaning of WP:NPA? If so, you and I are not in agreement. However, I appreciate the fact that you have at times assumed good faith and hope that you will continue to do so. The most important message I would like you to receive right now is to continue to look to your own behaviour and not to anyone else's. Would you be able to do that? Sunray (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

These,

• "Oh this is just getting silly. Its like I'm talking with creationists - if a source contradicts Fkp's baseless preconceptions about this person unfounded in any reference whatsoever, the source simply has to be wrong."
• "and your (mine) nationalist ethnic prejudice against non-Serbs will be reported on WP:AN/I should you (me) once again attempt to attack the credibility of established experts on such basis. CANVASSING on this issue shall not help you (me) either."
• "seeing as how you (me) did not even read his work, and are basing your (mine) attack on his credibility exclusively on the fact that he is challenging your (mine) own preconceptions about Draža Mihailović"

are all "personal comments" , the kind that you will certainly and promply remove, if they were made by me. FkpCascais (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, are you saying that all comments of mine that you removed were WP:NPA? Please don´t say no, and leave that impression (as if all deleted comments were WP:NPA). That was clearly not your removal of comments requirement (it was only "personal comments"), why are you mentioning NPA now? I have already asked you to be fair and not to turn this on me. FkpCascais (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely: WP:NPA = "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Sunray (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Should I start listing your quotes? I did not say that stuff about "ethnic preconceptions" for no reason, as I'm sure you remember. Or are you going to leave Sun alone and not try to pressure him into bullying me?

Sunray, this is basically an attempt to manipulate your judgment. You're now supposed to take a more aggressive stance towards me so that you can convince Fkp you don't hate him. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@direkpor, please stop following me around, and yes, if you have any quotes of mine that bother you, yes please expose them, but in some other chapter than this. FkpCascais (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Btw, direktor, I think you should, because strategically, you are once again wanting to give a false impression on me, and you again acused me of having "ethnic preconceptions". Please expose your "you remmeber (???)" reasons and quotes of mine, if not, I´ll report you. Actually, now you have to. Also, remind that trying to demonstrate how an author may have an conflict of interess about analising certain issues because of his nationality has nothing to do with "ethnic preconceptions", so I demand you now to expose those quotes of mine where that prejudice can be observed. I´m sure there aren´t ANY! against any nationality, but I´ll give you a chance. FkpCascais (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been to the Balkans. I have listened to each of your fellow nationals explain why the other guys are the worst kind of devils. True peace may be at least a generation in coming. But would you two be willing to give it a rest now, at least for the duration of this mediation? Otherwise, you will have to decide who is going to get left holding the stick. Sunray (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, you're stuffing us into "Balkans-guy" templates. :) Let me stop you right there. The thing is, I actually don't consider Croats to be at all superior to Serbs (or Montenegrins, or Bosniaks) - since we're basically exactly the same, Serbo-Croatian Yugoslavs. The idiotic conflicts of the '90s were started virtually in equal measure by both Croat and Serb nationalists. I'm not some Croat guy fighting the Serb guy, in fact most of my time here on Wiki has been spent countering Croatian nationalist POV. The ethnic hatred you seem to be attributing this dispute to is not really there, I think. Fkp hates me because he thinks I'm condescending, over-aggressive, and overbearing, and I'm just extremely annoyed this matter hasn't been resolved in all this time. Fkp removed sources & referenced information. He should've simply been warned then and there by an admin not to do so without sources of his own, and this whole mess would've been nipped in the bud, and we'd be working to turn the article into something respectable in a friendly atmosphere.

Therefore, as I said, we're not at all opposed to each other on ethic grounds. Fkp's just trying to discredit the main source opposing him by any means necessary, and is I think clutching at straws. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Methinks thou doth protest too much. However, I will now sit back and wait to find out who will be left beating the horse after it has died. Sunray (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What dost thou meaneth by thateth? :)) Couldst thou eplaineth? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, I have no idea what direktor wrote, neither I care, unless he provided what I asked him)

Sunray, I am not in the Balkans, I only lived 3 (of mine 30) years there, and, as much as doesn´t appear in this situation, I have not that many links to there. I made my entire studies in Portugal and Spain, all of my all-time friends are Portuguese, Spanish, or members of other foreign nationalities here where I live (it´s not like I live in some emigrants society, like the ones that exist in some places, mostly because here are very few people from entire ex-Yugoslavia, living in the entire country). Honestly, beside my family, and the fact that I have family and land properties there that I go to visit from time to time, together with my football pasion that I mostly edit here in a "nostalgic" way, beside also generally apreciating history, and also, have inevitable followed what happend there during the 1990s, I don´t have much links, and I could easily be considered more as Portuguese or Spanish, same as my passport says. Also, even in the Balkans, just as everywhere, there are obviously many kinds of people, and the ones I get along with, and my family, in general, can hardly be considered "Balcanic", specially because of my general ancestry, that comes from Jewish/Czech mixed with an old Belgrade monarchic family on my fathers side, and a Sarajevo Serbian family from my mother side, that curiously had a grandfather that went into the Partisans, and later on, was an Ambasador and, along with other things, used to travel with Tito in person, as a something like a personal conseglier, to the various tours that he made around the world.

The problem I´m having here has nothing to do with Balkans, but rather with the behavior of certain individuals, that is not considered correct, neither here, neither in the Balkans, so there is no excuse for that.

I will explain to you, Sunray, the main reason why I got involved in this article. It happend when I noteced that the article had a very unfair and biased POV. I tryied to fix some minor issues, but I was promtly and arrogantly reverted. The talk page says much of the rest. I think that for you, Sunray, would be very important to know this: Do you know why are people, specially Serbs, so "affraid" to defend Mihailovic in this case? Because most people these days wrongly primarily associate the Chetniks and Mihailovic to the awfull things that happend in Yugoslavia during the 1990s, where many paramilitary groups took the name of Mihailovic and the Chetniks to name their militias that mostly ended up engadged in shamefull activities. That is why Serbs don´t come to defend Mihailovic these days, so they wan´t be linked with the "dirty" nationalism of the 1990s, and not because they don´t agree with what I am defending on the mediation. But, since I haven´t been in Yugoslavia during the 1990s, I don´t make that association, and I am able of clearly separating the Chetniks and Mihailovic in the WWII from the, unrelated to them, things that happend during the 1990s. The, so called, "Chetniks" from the 1990s had nothing to do with the movement and Mihailovic from back then. Since I finded the entire situation unfair, and because I am, we could say, a law enthusiast, I finded that, since nobody else wanted to do it because of the reasons I explained, it would be fair and good for WP to try to do something to bring the article to a more neutral ground.

Now, Sunray, I will ask you please to remove those awfully unhappy comments that direktor did on the mediation page. From your words, as long as they are there, they will be reminding me that the "horse is still breading". I can´t beleave that you don´t understand how insulting they are for me. FkpCascais (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@direktor, I´m waiting for you to deliver the evidence I asked you. I´m very serios and I feel very insulted. An apologies would also be an acceptfull alternsative to end to this. FkpCascais (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I see Sunray that you decided to "sit back" and have fun while I´m being acused of having "ethnic prejudice" (while no evidence was given to me when asked). Should I remind you that you removed comments of mine like these [3] where I simply ask direktor not to use unpolite expressions. Even here on this same conversation, I´m not talking on other users, but direktor still attacks and talk on me. You could at least be coherent? Direktor not answering to me is understandable, but could you please be kind and unswer to me about this? As I remember I had never ignored you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Observation: One difference between you and Direktor is that you are more voluable. Because you say more you may get more "personal remarks" comments from me.

HOWEVER, I am not a judge. I am not required to ensure that everyone gets treated equally. Just fairly. My decisions about how to treat participants fairly is mine alone. If I make a serious error in interpreting policy, I am accountable for that. What I try to do (no big secret) is to get each participant to look to their own behaviour. When I speak to Direktor, he usually stops. You sometimes do not. Now, once again, this issue is finished. I've looked at Direktor's comments. They were close to the line. But not, IMHO, over it.

On the other hand, he did gore your ox. By that I mean he got to you. You were angry. Perhaps this was because you value respect and would like more consideration. Respectful dealings are sometimes an outcome of mediation, but not always. I spoke about your national origins because I wonder sometimes whether that is at the bottom of this. However, you both protested that interpretation. So maybe it is just that you are very different personalities. I do not know. If I cannot assist you in being able to work together, then, by default, I must work on trying to get some sort of a group solution to the problem. If you feel you must respond to this, I would suggest that you consider looking forward to ways in which you may be able to collaborate better. Over and out. Sunray (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you please be kind and remove the acusation of ethnic prejudice. That is very serius, and I will take further action against it, specially because is untrouth and no further evidence was provided. You can personally agree with it,or not, but it is a strong insultive personal comment of the kind that you haven´t been allowing to be made, but sudently now you do. As I understand, I am allowed to try to demostrate a possible conflict of interess that a certain author can have in certain situation, and I shouldn´t be allowed to be insulted because of it, specially because I was asked to respond to that, as I did. Please don´t ask me to asume good faith while insulted and the insult is being defended. You can have whatever personal opinion on me, but you should on this situation be coherent with yourself. FkpCascais (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I reported this ~incident to ANI. FkpCascais (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No I will not remove the statement about ethnic prejudice, nor any other of Direktor's recent remarks. I do have some comments on his remarks that I think you might consider:

• "Baseless preconceptions" - This has to do with content.
• "Nationalistic ethnic prejudice" - You are a Serb, right. He is a Croat. You do seem prejudiced against one another.
• "Report on WP:AN/I" - Threat, perhaps, or a warning. Against policy?... Don't see it.
• CANVASSING on this issue shall not help you either." - Probably a statement of fact.

What have I missed? I understand that it makes you angry, but you are the only one who can deal with that.

Since you have reported this, you need to bear in mind that all communications during mediation are privileged (see "The privileged nature of mediation". You must be careful to respect this. Sunray (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But you are actually wrong on one issue. It doesn´t mind (to you, nor anyone else) what nationality the participants are, the baseless acusations of "nationalistic ethnic prejudice" shouldn´t be donne by any of participants. I have asked for evidence, I was ignored, I asked for apologies, I was ignored, now direktor needs to proove his alledged "ethnic prejudice" that he found on me. As of you, I feel that you should have removed (only) that specific acusation, as I pointed out to you several times, because lacked proof, and because is insultive and also is a personal comment (the kind you allways removed there). You should have insisted with direktor to proof his acusations, or to apologise to me, if you really wanted to resolve this issue, not to recomd me to stick with the insult, and take it (???). FkpCascais (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. But, I honestly hope that you will be intolerable on this and that you wan´t have double standards in any case. I will also like to remind you that explaining how two nationalities are not very compatible in analising eachother has nothing to do with ethnical prejudice, as much effort that the other side propagandistically tryies to describe it as. How do you expect that to be explained differently? But, please don´t tell me that I don´t have the right to raise that question. You, or anybody can oppose, or not, to it, but that should never, ever, be reason to give green light to free personal acusations of racial attacks, even worste, implying that our nationalities, in this case, allow it. Also, be sure that if I, in any moment, see you having difficulties, you can be sure that I will never sit back and watch you while you´re fighting the beast. As I think that you can see, I´m not here doing anything to make you come to my side, and the integrity and respect are much more important for me that any discussion. I saw that you asked me in some previous comment something like if I was ready to take responsability for my actions, well you should have clear that I allways take responsability for my actions, but I also feel the same responsability in exposing and reporting, if necessary, whatever and whoever wrongdoings I see, taking it wherever it needs. That feeling of justice or non-tolerance towards injustice, is perhaps the Balkanic feature that I am most proud of having inheredet. Now, I promise you to make an effort to avoid creating any further problems to the mediation, mostly because of the respect that I have towards the work of one user, but you shouldn´t also be so demanding with me, and permisive about others. We have/should all respect one another, if possible equally, if not, we should at least make an effort to it, and that should also be taken in account. FkpCascais (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sunray. You have new messages at Nuujinn's talk page.
Message added 00:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Endless discussion...

Sunray, I don't see an end in sight... Please explain to me the concept of consensus as applied here. If two users are in a discussion: one says one thing, the other another. The first lists numerous sources in support of his statement, the latter refuses to agree to the former's statement. The Second guy refuses to agree regardless of anything, he's deeply convinced the First is wrong, but he has virtually nothing to corroborate his position with. In short, the two will never ever agree (and the Second may also realize that by sheer refusal he may yet have his way) - there will not be "consensus".
How is consensus (WP:CONS) formed in such a hypothetical situation? How can such a discussion ever see an end except through frustrated abandonment?

The above is my primary inquiry. I'll also add here that I've been taught, through my medical training and my years on Wiki, that sources and research are the only things that matter in any even remotely non-trivial, serious discussion. Opinions and polemics are an irrelevant joke in any such discourse. How do sources get to shape the outcome of this dispute? I feel they are being marginalized and disregarded. The only thing that seems to matter is "does the other guy agree?" - and that is not going to happen. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"...and the first guy is allways right"... FkpCascais (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "right" or "wrong", there's only "sourced" and "unsourced". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not apply with two people, only agreement or disagreement. Consensus must have three or more people. In Wikipedia, the policies guide consensus. Sources are a part of that. However, consensus is needed on proper weight of sources. I never promised you a rose garden... Sunray (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, I mentioned two people as an example. I know its not a rose garden, and after six months had you promised it I would not've believed you anyway. My questions regard the role of sources in consensus forming. See above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I'll come to the point then: consensus to my understanding should be defined by sources, not votes. I believe the mediation discussion focuses far to little on the sources, and excessively on the opinions of the users themselves. I would also like to formally once again request your aid and your commitment as mediator to assist in focusing the discussion on one thing imparticular: determining what is the position of the sources in general on the key issues.

If this is not done somehow, I fear there can be no productive end to this mediation. I feel this current discussion is utterly pointless and irrelevant. The two sides will never EVER agree on the issue unless sources are imposed as the determinant. "Wikipedia is not a democracy." --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement that we need to focus the discussion. My sense is that we need to take it in small chunks, at first. I have an idea about how to do that. I will present it shortly. Sunray (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Main issue

@"Most of the participants have agreed that we must mention collaboration. I have suggested that we avoid labeling him collaborator and simply describe what the Chetniks, led by Mihailović, did."

Are we in agreement then, that "Draža Mihailović engaged in collaboration" is a correct and necessary statement of fact? (Please, do not ignore this question.)

Also, FkpCascais, BoDu, and Jean-Jacques Georges have not agreed that Draža Mihailović engaged in collaboration - nor are they going to do so. Ever. It is absurd, however, to think that their (or mine) agreement or disagreement alone should affect the article in the slightest. Consensus assumes that the involved users are willing to alter their position with respect to sources. This is not the case here.

The bottom line is that user agreement is secondary to sources. When user opinions are not founded on sources, they should be disregarded. Any old Joe and his buddy can walk into this discussion and refuse to agree, is it that easy to disregard proper sources? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet the current draft (by JJG) does talk about collaboration. So far no one has argued against that. Sunray (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether we should talk about collaboration in the article, there is not conflict there, but whether it should be stated that Draža Mihailović (the "title character", as it were) engaged in collaboration or no. JJG has argued against that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sunray? I get the feeling that you're avoiding stating your opinion in a straightforward manner, I can't imagine why. I hope you don't think I'm "pestering" you or anything. Its just... I cannot imagine us moving forward without this done. Humor me? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is that you think "we can´t move forward"? We have been. I apologise to say so, but it looks you want to indirectly blackmail by saying: "If not, we want be moving forward...". FkpCascais (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Um... what? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your perception seems to be different than mine Direktor. I've suggested that we avoid labels like "collaborator" but so far everyone seems willing to talk about what actually happened and you have often reminded other participants to stick to sources. As to stating my opinion, I am not paid to express my opinion, apart from matters concerning the application of WP policies. Sunray (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well as I said, there is a very notable and significant difference between labeling people ("collaborator", "thief", "criminal") and simply stating that a person collaborated, or stole something, or committed a crime.

E.g: The sources say Joe Josephson stole a car, and we have an article about him. A lead stating something like "Joe Josephson was a criminal" would be POV labeling. A lead like "Joe Josephson stole a car" is I think obviously neutral and can in no way be termed labeling.

Therefore, as I understand, we have three "levels" of severity available to us:

• Mentioning that Chetniks collaborated with the Axis ("talking about collaboration"). This would require that we misrepresent the sources by omission of Draža Mihailović's personal collaboration.
• Stating that "Draža Mihailović engaged in collaboration". This statement is simply not labeling, as well as represents the large number of sources (vast majority) that support the veracity of this fact.
• Stating that "Draža Mihailović was a 'collaborator'". This statement is obvious labeling, and while appropriate perhaps for "full time" collaborators such as Vidkun Quisling, Andrei Vlasov, or Ante Pavelić, it is not NPOV in describing Draža Mihailović.

Once again, please don't get the impression I'm "pestering" you or something. This is not my intention. I am merely trying my best to ascertain your position as the neutral mediator of this dispute. I am under the impression this is part of the "job". Am I wrong? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in generally in agreement with what you say, above. With respect to the second level of severity, the sources do seem to be conflicting. So I think it would be preferable to describe the collaboration rather than say that he "engaged in collaboration." Yes, it is part of my role to try to remain neutral. However, equally, my role is to facilitate consensus. We do not yet have consensus on "engaged in collaboration" however, I think that we are close: most participants agree that there was collaboration; some differ as to whether M. engaged directly in it. Sometimes it is good to move on past a particular point and return to it later. This is a good discussion, but it should be occurring on the mediation talk page, IMO. Sunray (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, I see your point. I would however like to see the conflicting sources that directly contradict the relevant statement. When you judge the time to be right, we can perhaps solve this by trying to evaluate them. Ok, see you at mediation talk. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This ([4]) was my point regarding Tomasevic. While most acusational text is sourced from his work, we have users claiming the part of "non-Yugoslav sources"... I´m not sure Sunray how is this donne in other cases, but I see a major problem evolving from here in the future, because the same user has claimed that will rewrite all the Yugoslav WWII articles on basis of Tomasevic work. FkpCascais (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of articles about WWII in Yugoslavia have already been severely damaged, so all should be watched closely in order to avoid more POV-pushing by anyone. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I talking more on purpously saying something otherway... FkpCascais (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Private mediation.

As a member of the Mediation Committee, I wonder if you would mind giving some attention to this subject [5] , which I posted on the policy discussion page some time ago. Please note that I am no longer involved in any mediation process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I too have some concerns about this matter. One can take the intermediate path of "one-on-one discussion in a quiet corner of a public place", and particularly, on wikipedia and on the individuals' own talk pages. This seems to me a good way of resolving technical misunderstandings between a pair of editors, which is often actually a problem of bridging different cultures. And other parties in the mediation ought to know that such conversations are going on and can see what is said there and even but in, if they feel the need. But some of these other parties might perceive it as an aggressive tactic, e.g. coalition forming, or creation of noise / confusion. I guess the answer is that it is easier to start a conflict than to stop one. Gill110951 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Private mediation is supported by WP policy and sometimes used. However "private" means confidential, according to WP policy. Other editors do not have the right to see or hear the conversation. For this reason I do not tend to use it much. Sunray (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Newfoundland Dominion or Crown Colony?

Hi,

I changed the Blue Ensign back to the flag of the "British Colony" of Newfoundland, because as best as I can determine, Newfoundland didn't actually become a "Dominion" until September 26, 1907. I've seen it said that Newfoundland became a Dominion in 1855, but I think that is false as Newfoundland was actually considered a "self-governing colony" from 1855 to 1907. In 1933 Newfoundland technically lost it's "dominion" status and reverted back to a "colony", but remained a "dominion" in name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brynner737 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I see now why you changed it. The way it is now is consistent with other WP articles for Newfoundland and Labrador and Dominion of Newfoundland. So that's good and I've learned something in the process. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Thanks for telling me. I have have tried all means of getting this user to discuss BEFORE adding this data, but it seems to be a case of "all or nothing". I had expected them to have given up by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Adrenaline/Epinephrine Debate

Yes, Sunray I will let Wikidonn represent me as he seems to have the same believe in relation to the Adrenaline/Epinephrine Debate as me. (Also is this the right place to reply?) JE19426 (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, message received. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

CANDU reactors

my edit to the CANDU reactor page is gone you say its because it is CANada(not CANadian) Deuterium Uranium, is fine if you checked it :) (the site is down right now so I can't look to know) ...what about the photoneutron reaction? a reference in one of the sections to a whole paragraph in 'Purpose of using heavy water' section about it and now its all deleted ...the photoneutrons have done nothing against you have they? 79.65.114.211 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops I didn't mean to delete your addition on photoneutrons. I hadn't seen that as it was way down the screen. I will restore it now. However, you need to find some reliable sources to support it. I know you know what you are talking about, but we have to be able to verify everything with citations. If you need any assistance with formating the sources, I could help with that. Sunray (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Al Gore

Hi Sunray - Thanks for your efforts over there to close the RfC - you are right, there is no consensus to include at the present time. I have been on Wiki-lite for a few days and don't have the patience to slog through all of that to count - I just wanted to check with you if you have me there as one of the 14 "not includes". If not, I'll post another note, but would just as soon let it stand as it is. Thanks. (Nice to meet you, by the way.) Tvoz/talk 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were one of the first to comment and your views have been clear throughout. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Epinephrine Mediation

I have some serious concerns redarding the mediation Wikidonn seems to do nothing but restate his arguments, which forces me to restate my points. This is getting us no further than the talk page discussions did, so I have to ask, is there anything you can do to get us beyond this, because there seems to be nothing that we agree on,and it seems unlikely that any sort or agreement will be reached soon. Ronk01 talk, 04:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It is common to reach this point in a mediation. Do not despair. I will be busy off wiki until July 11, but will take a more active role after that. Sunray (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As this mediation regards an article title, which is a rather black and white decision, I fail to see any places where compromises can be reached, which concerns me Ronk01 talk, 15:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is "black and white," there may be no compromise needed. But it is not yet clear that it is black and white. The focus of the mediation is to determine what is black and white and what the participants can agree to. Sunray (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, as an article title dispute, the outcome must favor ine party or the other, and unfortunately, that leaves little room for compromise. (By the way, ArbCom's charter provides for them to resolve unmediatable content disputes) Ronk01 talk, 22:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The key will be for both parties to come to an agreement on the application of policy. As to ArbCom: this is a mediatable content dispute. Mediation may not succeed, but that will not change the fact that it is mediatable. Sunray (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There is precedent for Arbcom to take up failed mediations. (See Prem Rawat) Ronk01 talk, 23:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and also for mediations to take up where arbitration left off. I "successfully" mediated one of the many iterations of the Prem Rawat affair. I know the case intimately. You see, there was a behavioural component to that one that is not present in this case. Once ArbCom had ruled on (and controlled) the disruptive behaviour, it was able to be mediated. But I would recommend against the Epinephrine case going to arbitration—and ArbCom listens to mediators—so let's get this one sorted! Sunray (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, as a former mediator of the Prem Rawat mess myself, there was a behavorial component (unfortunately that still has not completely gone away) along with an administrator who was abusing their power. Ronk01 talk, 23:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, on the mediation page, Ronk01 stated: "I am willing to concede on any issue other than the page name, and quite frankly, I think that mediation is no longer a forum where this dispute can be resolved." If that is how he feels, isn't this mediation a just waste of time? --WikiDonn (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikidonn, the same could be said of you Ronk01 talk, 23:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01 made that statement on July 11. Since then, we have had the above discussion. I have made my view clear: I'm pretty sure that mediation is the last stop on the line. If the two of you cannot settle this in mediation, it will be over. My hope is that we will be able to come up with a resolution that you both can accept. For that to happen, one, or both, of you will have to give some ground. Sunray (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So what happens if there is nothing we agree on? I have given up some ground, on which name is used more in academia, but he has done nothing to consider my point that Wikipedia is for the general reader, and outright ignores most of the things that I say. Must the article remain epinephrine simply because not everyone agrees with the move? That is not consensus. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you check on the mediation case page, you will see both consensus and discussion of the "interests of the general reader" we will get to the questions you raise. I will be out of range of the Internet for awhile now. Sunray (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, I will be going on vacation soon. Would it be possible for someone to take my place for the next two weeks in the mediation? Since I am not the only one on my side of the argument, maybe someone else should get a chance to give their perspective. I would suggest inviting either JE19426 or Weakopedia to take my place. --WikiDonn (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will contact one of the editors you mention. Sunray (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikidonn has stated intention to change the page name without consensus or even agreement. He is preparing to start an edit war, and I refuse to be a part in this if he is allowed to make this change without consensus. Ronk01 talk, 15:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikidonn no longer seems willing to participate in mediation, what are our options from here? Ronk01 talk, 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

He has indicated to me (above) that he will be on vacation for the next while. He has suggested that either JE19426 or Weakopedia step in for him. I am willing to contact them (JE19426 first, since he requested to join the mediation previously). Would you be willing to continue the mediation with one of them? Sunray (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I hold no objections to continuing with different participant. Hopefully, any new participants will be more cooperative with mediation. Ronk01 talk, 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to take WDs place temporarily - I can certainly try. I don't have a strong ideological connection to the subject, and while I believe that Adrenaline is the appropriate title I am prepared to look at the whole matter again to see if we cannot reach some kind of consensus - there may be room for compromise in this case, but if not I hope we can arrive at a sustainable solution that is acceptable to all. I will take a look at the supporting materials today and see if I can make a reasoned contribution tomorrow. Weakopedia (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have had unreliable internet access recently and my ISP has said it will likely continue for a while, so I am afraid I won't be able to take over from WikiDonn while he is away. JE19426 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Weakopedia has said he would step up. I've replied to him on his talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be rather interested to know what you meant by this statement: "are at a point in the mediation where the writing is on the wall and the participants are attempting to adjust to that." Just curious. (Yes, I do vet all messages relating to this mediation, habit I suppose from my time over at the Mediation Cabal) Ronk01 talk, 06:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a comment I made to Shirik about the events that were taking place then. It was my view that participants were adjusting to the nature of the compromise that might be reached. Sunray (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a potential compromise? Ronk01 talk, 09:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sunray, I replied to your question over at my talkpage, but in case you don't see that here is a summary.

[6] You ask on my talkpage that I answer your four questions on the mediation page

[7] I add a note to the mediation page saying I am doing just that

[8] I answer the four questions, directly under Ronks answers using the same numbered format as Ronk and your questions

[9] You class my answers as an opening statement prior to moving them to a different section

[10] You repeat you request on my talkpage to answer the four questions

Now we seem to be back to square one! Were my numbered answers insufficient? Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I didn't realise I had to make an opening statement, I just answered your four questions and asked a couple of my own, but if you want an opening statement here you go - just slot it into whichever section you think best.

[Comment by Weakopedia moved to mediation talk page]. Sunray (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should not rebut here, but I will anyway... Ronk01 talk, 12:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the right place for your comment and am moving it to the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we move the opening statement to the mediation page also? Otherwise Ronks reply is a little isolated. Weakopedia (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Both statements are on the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The reply Ronk made here, which you moved to the mediation page, was a reply to the statement I posted here, just above. Just before where Ronk says Perhaps I should not rebut here.... But that statement is still here - now Ronks reply is on the mediation page, but he is replying to the statement above, which is here on your talkpage but not on the mediation page.

Shall I cut out the statement from here on your talkpage and insert it at the Opening Statements section of the mediation page? That way Ronks reply and the statement he is referencing will be on the same page. Weakopedia (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

<blush> I hadn't seen your statement. Sorry. Yes, I will move it now. Sunray (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who has noticed that the mediation has essentially ground to a halt? Ronk01 talk, 02:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made a proposal for a compromise overa t the casepage, could you please check it out when you have a spare moment? Ronk01 talk, 06:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Current request for mediation

With regards to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Epinephrine, I fear issues may be escalating again. There was a request at WP:RFPP today for move protection due to these comments. I declined the request for protection as I assumed it would only heat tensions further. However, I should note that I've put the article on my talk page, and if a move war develops I may have to end up blocking one (or both) of your participants for edit warring. I hope that doesn't happen, but it could. I don't know if there's anything you can do about this or what to do, but I figured I would pass on this information so you're aware. I will try to keep an eye on things there to make sure everything remains civil and calm. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The nature of mediation

I am not sure what Direktor and FkpCascais think mediation is all about. They continue on this thread long after everyone else has left. They don't seem to wish to take any advice from me, so I've got this section on hold and plan to come back to it later. I've asked Direktor for his comments on the next section for discussion, below. When I have that, we will be able to move on. Sunray (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But Sunray, I´m not sure you are being fair on your observation. First, if you see, I was answering to Nuujin in my last comment, so who left? The 3 of us have made our last comments 3 days ago, in same day. Some more sources were brouth and we analised them. And, most important, I asked you for advice, by asking if you wanted us to continue discussing, stop or focus on some particular subject, so how can you say what you said about your advices? Did you even read my comments? Also, I was the one that answered to the section below in first place, and did exactly what you asked us to do. So, I don´t want to sound ofended, but I don´t understand what possible complain you may have about me? FkpCascais (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you had read my posts, I did ask you to stop the discussion. I said I would consider your remarks. Yet you continued. I thus had little choice but to wait until you were done. Please take a look at the wall of text in this section. Is it reasonable to expect anyone to read through all this verbiage? On Day One of this mediation I asked participants to be concise. It seems to me you have ignored this request. From time to time I make further suggestions or requests. More often than not, you ignore these as well in the on-going battle of wills between Fkp and Direktor. This may entertain the two of you, but I am sure I can speak for most of the rest of us, when I say it is just tedious. Would you be willing to re-dedicate yourselves this mediation? Sunray (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I was talking with Nuujin, and it is not my fault direktor inserted an entire Tito related block here. I kept my post quite concise and I even mentioned it. If you are not willing to read on this (because this is one of the main issues we´ll have trough this entire mediation) well I´m not sure if you did well by accepting this. Your last two comments are very disapointing and unfair, and make me think about your capability to handle this. You are anyway allowing too much influence over you by one particular participant, and being quite unfair with another (me). Wouldn´t be easier for you to stop implicating with me, and focus more on the mediation? FkpCascais (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that your participation in the discussion has been mainly interaction with Nuujin? I count 7 posts by Nuujin, 26 by Direktor and 23 by you. You say that my "tedious" comment was unfair. I don't see that. I am feeling discouraged with the recent progress of this mediation. I need participants to pay attention to my requests. Yet this is not happening. Several times in this past section I have asked you and Direktor to stop. Admittedly Nuujin did intervene a couple of times to request sources. You (Fkp) never responded to my requests. I gave you two options, which you did not reply to. I then told you I would consider your remarks and comment further. I asked you to stop the discussion. Again you ignored me. Now you accuse me of being unfair. Please explain on my talk page. Meanwhile, I will await Direktor's comments on the next section. Does he agree, disagree, suggest changes? Sunray (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to answer here. Lets keep it together.

• Since you asked me to stop, there are 4 comments of each one: Nuujin, direktor and me. (Why you counted all? The part in question is the one of 4 comments)
• It started with a minor remark I made to Nuujins observation, and the discussion continued between us. I do have the right to disagree with Nuujin by making a short remark, instead of leaving his observations unchallenged.
• I never responded to your requests? Or Nuujins? I did to both.
• I did stoped the discussion when you asked me to. I didn´t responded to direktors comment, and I avoided responding him for a while. I just ended responding him afterwords because I would be rude if I had chose to ignore him, and I even made him a remark about his dispertion from the subject, indirectly hoping to remind him about your advice.
• Btw, you are now making us wait Nuujin and Direktor to express themselfs (or to prepare themselfs a strategy), but you didn´t said a word when I was abscent, and you closed an entire section without me giving my opinion.
• You are making a problem about me (???) when I did all you asked, discused using as concise as possible comments with "your" Nuujin, and I was the first to respond to the bottom section that the other participants didn´t yet. I even asked you for opinion in one of the 4 "so problematic" comments of mine. You still prefer to "loose" time counting each ones edits...
• Sounds strange that you are doing this to me now, just after I did provided some good explanations just back.
• I do have reasons to be skeptical about this mediation.
• Lately, I have been very collaborative and kind with you, and I do feel ofended with the sorts of observations of yours of the kind that my argumentations are "tedious". But, I wan´t leave the mediation and let you have some version that is not right. I´m doing this for WP, not for any of you.
• If you feel "discouradged", it is certainly not my fault. You are however being excesively influenced by one user and you favorize him from the begining. Regarding the relationship of you and me, I gave you the benefit of doubt, but I don´t have any reasons to be too complacendent.

I don´t feel right to have this particular discussion cut in between two or more pages. When donne, we can archive it, or something else, alltogether, but until then, lets keep it together to avoid possible missunderstandings, OK? FkpCascais (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a discussion or dispute between you and me. This is a mediation. I have asked you and Direktor both to cease discussion on this thread. Would you be willing to do so now? . Sunray (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn´t we already did that 5 days ago? And, as I said, I was talking to Nuujin, why are you excluding him? Please be serios and precise on your judgments. I also asked you to stop unnecessarily implicating with me and focus on the mediation, would you be willing to do so? FkpCascais (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be on the road for a few days and will have infrequent access to the Internet. I am unhappy about these comments and have asked Fkp to consider withdrawing them. Sunray (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)