Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive3

Participation

Two individuals have been added to the participants list since the mediation was formally accepted: Isidoradaven and Nuujinn. I note that both have been involved in discussions related to this mediation, so their participation makes sense to me. However, I would like to check with other participants and the filing party about this. Is there any reason why Isidoradaven and Nuujinn should not be included? Sunray (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to withdraw if anyone objects to my participation. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem about Nuujinn is that he repeatedly needs to show himself as neutral and "without a dog in this race" when all points to the oposite. He clearly defended one side since the beggining, and even failed to give equal treatment when it came about the behavior of intervenients on the talk page, allways defending one side. He definitelly is not neutral on this, and this phalse neutrality, perhaps unconcient (WP:AGF), makes me opose to his participation on this debate. All this is quite contrary to all other participants, including Isidoradaven, who clearly stand behind what defend. FkpCascais (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting comment. Neutrality is not a prerequisite for being a participant in mediation. I believe that we all have biases and it is what we do with them that counts. Neutrality is an important value in Wikipedia. The mediation will be served if participants strive for it, but I wouldn't say that it is a hanging offense if someone demonstrates bias. Sunray (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I agree, I just asking if "phalse neutrality" is positive for this discussion? I could also be rightfully repeating that I am not neither a Mihailovic, neither a Chetnik simpatizer, but I don´t use that as a fact that demonstrates that my judgment on this is probably more right. I just think that everybody should say what defends without constantly attempting to bring your opinion to his side with some alledged neutrality. You are the mediator, and "we" are the participants, and if some participants don´t have this clear, I don´t see the benefit of having them on this discussion, but obviously, I will accept every decition taken on this. FkpCascais (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, are you suggesting that I do not accept Sunray's role as mediator? As for what I "defend," I would like to think that I defend well sourced material. But as I say, if you or anyone else objects to my participation, I'll be glad to withdraw from the mediation. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FkpCascais (talk · contribs) that Nuujinn (talk · contribs) is not neutral on this, but I do not object to his participation. BoDu (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I should be a participant also. I have been involved with this dispute with direktor in the past. I posted, but this has been removed by Fkp... [1] (LAz17 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).

User:FkpCascais does like very much to remove posts he dislikes [2]. Welcome, LAzo. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fkp, it is my view that removing posts in a mediation should be the responsibility of the mediator unless the mediator is temporarily unavailable and the post is a flagrant violation of WP policy (e.g., vandalism). I have three questions:

1. @Fkp: Would you be willing to refrain from removing others' posts?
2. @LAz17: Would you be willing to reformulate your post so as to comment on content, not the contributor?
3. @LAz17: As to your participation here, I note that you have not participated much in the current discussion on the article talk page. What is your reason for wanting to participate in the mediation? Sunray (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuujin is indeed completely neutral in this dispute. The reason why Fkp and BoDu (who never-ever uses indent) find him "hostile" is the fact that any neutral observer will notice Fkp's whole argument looks as if the fellow is completely disregarding a metric ton of sources. The whole debate over on the talkpage is basically: 1) Fkp refuses to agree 2) people throw sources at him, 3) Fkp refuses to agree, 4) people throw more sources at him, 5) he refuses to agree, 6) editors repeat the sources, etc, etc. etc...

Its a matter of national pride for Fkp and BoDu. This is not my opinion, it is perfectly obvious from the categorical, uncompromising position of these editors, as well as their simple refusal to accept sourced information. The users simply ignore any arguments and sources, because they can never ever agree to what they're saying. Hence this mediation: it was requested due to the fact that Fkp was alone on the talkpage opposed by practically every other involved editor (apart from BoDu, who simply repeats the same things over and over again). One of the most frustrating discussions I've had (and I've had my share :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that it often doesn't serve our purpose to repeat things over and over. However, for that to happen, in my view, editors must listen to one another—and show that they have understood. One more thing: You have made some fairly personal remarks about Fkp and BoDu. Would you be able to focus on content, not the contributor in this mediation? Sunray (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I like this discussion. Something that I want to add is that according to WP:NPOV, achieving neutrality has not so much to do with an individual's neutrality as that of a group of editors presenting different perspectives in such a way as to produce articles that are balanced, in line with sources on the subject. Such is not only WP policy, but also a desired outcome of mediation. Sunray (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@Sunray, you´re right. I deeply apologise to you for having removed other users post.

@Nuujinn, I don´t understand your question to me. Why are you intentionally turning my words around and talking about Sunray? I was clear, I object your participation because you insist in acting in some "phalse neutrality". You don´t wanting to understand this, and asking me something completely different makes me think that you desire to continue with your manipulative attitude. I´ll repeat, I object your participation.

Regarding Laz17, I opose his participation because he clearly missed the major issues in discussion here, and the precisions about who defends what, being now a little bit late to cach up the 3 months of discussions in wich he was not present. I had invited him to participate about a week ago, and he rejected it. He bases his opinion on this issue having in mind his relationship and previous experience with some participants on other articles, but he clearly missed what is in question here and the discussion regarding this specifical article. FkpCascais (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding direktor and his remark on me, I can just say that the situation has been exactly the oposite, I had to repeat myself over and over again, but he intentionally refused to understand it, even doing all possible to sabotage the mediation. DIREKTOR, your sources don´t say what you say they do, you are manipulating and missinterpreting them, and there are other users that agree on this. You even used sources that say exactly the oposite that you used them for, and you were cought! You were the one that was intentionally disruptive refusing to understand this, so you would avoid an analisis to "your" sources. That is the reason why you avoided mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@Sunray, I apologise for this last remark, but I commented on user because I was confronted with same attitude. I will avoid doing it from now on, but other users should too. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Second warning: Don't make personal remarks. Period. Examples: Not OK: "he intentionally refused..." OK: "Your sources don't say..." Not OK: "You are manipulating..." If someone else makes personal remarks about you, I will deal with that. Is that clear? Sunray (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. After my first offer to withdraw, you said that the problem with me is that I claim to be neutral, but am not. Sunray said that was an interesting comment and the neutrality was not a prerequisite for participation in mediation. You asked if "phalse neutrality" (I assume you meant "false neutrality") was positive for the discussion. The you said, and I quote: 'I just think that everybody should say what defends without constantly attempting to bring your opinion to his side with some alledged neutrality. You are the mediator, and "we" are the participants, and if some participants don´t have this clear, I don´t see the benefit of having them on this discussion....' Since you were talking about me just prior to this, and I was at the time the only person you had said you were concerned about in terms of participation, I assume that I am the person you meant in your implication, and that you think I'm trying to sway Sunray somehow by claiming neutrality. Honestly, I think that accusation makes little sense as Sunray is a mediator, and as I understand it, his purpose here is to help us (or perhaps I should say "you all") reach consensus, not decide who's right or wrong, and mediation isn't binding. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we all know who exactly is the mediator, and I was allways directing towards Sunray, so I really can´t see how could you be confused on that, or how could you missinterpret who is the mediator, and who are the participants. Beside an attempt that was made during the discussion by AlasdairGreen27 to make me beleave that you, Nuujinn, was the mediator (here [3]), I think that we all know clearly who the mediator is. I´m sorry, please Nuujinn don´t take this personally, but I also don´t understand this: you already said twice that you will withrow if anybody, including me, objects. I already objected twice, and you are, again, like with your alledged neutrality issue, saying one thing, doing another... FkpCascais (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, it honestly saddens me to see you act this way, but yes, consider me withdrawn from the mediation, after this refactoring you thoughts are clearly stated. Your canvassing efforts for this mediation sadden me as well, I'm trying to assume good faith, but you're making it very difficult to do so. Sunray, I wish you the best of luck with this one! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn: It makes more sense to me that you wait until others have had a chance to comment. We are only just beginning. Regarding most of the issues here, we will attempt to make decisions by consensus. On the question of participation, I will make the decision after hearing participants views. So far, in this discussion, I see no reason for you not to participate. But let's hold off making any snap decisions. Would you be willing to wait? Sunray (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, my feeling is that if FkpCascais really opposes my participation, it would be difficult for me to be of benefit in the mediation. I'll be following the discussions regardless, but I'm certainly willing to hold off on a final decision for the time being. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

[quote]As to your participation here, I note that you have not participated much in the current discussion on the article talk page. What is your reason for wanting to participate in the mediation?[/quote] I have been involved in some similar issues in the past. It was precisely this issue actually. Direktor and I had two disputes - one was resolved, about the ethnic composition of the partizans - and because that was done I did not bother to go about resolving the second issue, that being this chetnik stuff. (LAz17 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)).

Thanks. I haven't heard any reason that would exclude you, but will wait to hear from other participants. Sunray (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

@Sunray, I apologise for my position on this, but I would just prefer to have the participants as concentrated and clear as possible in the concrete issues regarding this dispute. The fact that Nuujinn repeatedly stated his alledged neutrality (while clearly choosing sides) is somehow pretencious and offending regarding other participants. The final false acusation of canvassing also didn´t felt good. I´m not having any agenda, and I am open and clear about my points, the acusation of canvassing would curiously have more to do with someone dissimulately defending one POV while claiming neutrality. The reason behind my objection on Laz17 participation is already explained. Please feel free (Sunray) to tell me if I am wrong on this. Whatever is decided, I´ll withrow myself from some time to give the chance to other participants to express themselfs. FkpCascais (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if others want to comment first. Sunray (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, is it necessary to repeat all the facts from the sources here as well? Most of them are in the talkpage, but they're really just a "taster" of the huge amounts of materiel in the quoted publications. In any case it seems useful to mention that the I've provided links to the sources in the refs. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking whether it is necessary to present a source here to support a point you are making? If so, I do think that it would be useful, as the discussion evolves, to support your points with specific references or diffs. However, we need to be as economical as possible. Does that answer your question? Sunray (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I'm asking is have you already familiarized yourself with some of the more significant (sourced) facts listed in the talkpage, or would you like a rundown? I'm just taking into consideration that this is a surprisingly frustrating, obscure, and at the same time complex area of history - which of course, is the root cause of the problems we often face on similar articles... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional participant(s)

On the question of participants, a concern about neutrality was expressed in the case of Nuujinn and a lack of involvement in discussions on the talk page in the case of LAz17. I have responded to the issue of neutrality by saying that I do not consider it as a prerequisite for participation in a mediation. In the case of LAz17, I do think that engagement on the talk page is a valid consideration for inclusion in a mediation. Therefore, I would be willing to include Nuujinn, but not LAz17 at this point. Sunray (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Sunray, I never said neutrality was a problem. I´m saying exactly the oposite, no one is neutral, and nobody should pretentiously claim it for himself, and it´s negative to have people claiming neutrality while campaigning for one side. That is unfair. Participants should just say what they think, and not comment on their own neutrality about the issue... What Nuujinn does, is saying in other words: "In my own neutral objective opinion: He´s guilty! I must be right, you know, because I dont have a dog in this race..." I´ll repeat myself, that´s pretencious and offensive, and I didn´t noteced his will in changing on this. Even with his "alledged" withrowing, saying one thing, doing another... and after I objected (I had to repeat my objection), he attacked me. When I say something, I do it, and I don´t attack others because of it. FkpCascais (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I honestly don't care whether Draza collaborated or not, I just want to follow the sources, but I hear what you are saying, and I concede your point that it might seem pretentious. I'll stop making a claim for neutrality since it bothers you so. As for personal attacks or accusations, everyone's record speaks for itself.

Sunray asked me to reconsider withdrawing, so I have not made a final decision about participating yet. People do sometimes change their minds, however, so I would ask that you assume good faith on my part. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I´m just being honest about what I think. I´m just one of the participants, so obviously it is not up to me to decide. But, my position stands, and one of the reasons could be that you still didn´t understood that your "neutrality claim" is incorrect, but you say that you just wan´t say it because it "bothers me". Even Sunray, as mediator, acknolledged that we all have biases. I still think that you didn´t get the point... FkpCascais (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, Nuujin you're certainly not leaving... your incredible ability to remain calm in the face of continued baseless disagreement is not only necessary here, but should probably be isolated from your genome and obligatorily spliced into the chromosomes of every future Wikipedia user. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I'm certainly not going to abandon the article, and I've not participated in a formal mediation before, but it seems to me that success will depend on all parties being willing to work together. I am not convinced that my participation is critical to this mediation, and I have complete faith in Sunray's ability to handle this with or without me. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sun, you state that one does not have to have be on the talk page to be included, and then you exclude me anyways. Do bother to look at some of my contributions from june 2009 - [4] you can clearly see that I have been quite involved on this - on the chetniks, draza mihajlovic, and yugoslav front topics. This issue overlaps all three of these, not just the DM page. The only reason why not to include me is because FKP is not happy because I disagree with him. He is pissed off with anyone who disagrees with him on this issue. He explicitly told me to stay out of this on my talk page. What is he afraid of, that his pOV will not prevail? (LAz17 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).

@Laz: ..."pissed off"... No comments...

@direktpor: "baseless"? Please speak for yourself and don´t make provocative comments on my decisions when they are not related to you.

@Nuujinn: please stop questioning Sunray´s ability to handle this without your "help". FkpCascais (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I said "I have complete faith in Sunray's ability to handle this with or without me." In what way does that even imply I question Sunray´s ability to handle this? Or are you referring to some other statement I have made? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Nuujinn, you did gave signs of that in previous comments, but this last sentence is just another that talks on that issue, and nobody even mentioned it, unless you. There is no reason to comment something unless you think that there may be some reason. Nobody ever had any doubts on Sunray´s role here, but you comment the issue that your abscence may put (or not) in danger the mediation, and you still continue with your "mediator" attitude. Sorry, you are not the mediator, but it is Sunray, and nobody is questioning that, only you keep mentioning it. FkpCascais (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't be "neutral" unless you agree with FkpCascais... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, frankly I'm baffled by your interpretation of my statements. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the above discussion: One more time: comment on content, not the contributor. Two further points:

1. I have indicated that I am willing to include Nuujinn. I now consider that matter closed.
2. LAz17 points out that he has been involved with the article despite not having been active in the recent discussions on the talk page. We have heard from Fkp on this. Does anyone else have a comment on including LAz?

We will be moving forward on this mediation directly, so if anyone has comments, would they be able to make them now. Sunray (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the newest reason why Laz shouldn´t participate: [5]. I doubt that his kind of attitude and language could be usefull here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I think the more eyes on a topic the better, and he does have a history with this article, so if LAz17 is interested in participating, I think it would be a benefit to the discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

it seems that FkpCascals and LAz17 are in conflict and the dispute includes issues related to Draza Mihajlovic. That likely indicates that LAz should be included in the mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am NOT in conflict with Laz, I am in conflict with his language and attitude... And Sunray, I don´t understand why we lost time on this objections in first place, if you are going to ignore them now? Having a participant, that didn´t even participate on the discussion, that didn´t even bothered to read the discussion, and that uses the F word and many others constantly... Also, his comment about Mihailovic being a "a known criminal who buthered thousands of innocent civilians based on ethnic/religious identification alone" really shows his objectivity on the issue, or is it the POV you all wanna have wining here, at the end? Well, I don´t know what else should some user do to be considered not welcomed, but, you decide... Anyway, how many active participants are here? 6 to 1? That is very fair... But please, don´t do ME a favor...FkpCascais (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A person's past behaviour is rarely an issue for a mediation. What is important is their level of commitment to the mediation. Would you be willing to focus on the content issues introduced in the next section now? Sunray (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Past? Do you really consider beneficial to have a user that just yesterday (past, in your words) told me to "Fuck off" and has been very upseting with his behavior to a number of other users on a different discussion? It also depends if he is going to be blocked... FkpCascais (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh!, but listen, better thinking, let him participate! He would be very usefull, and I bet it is going to be very pleasent to have him here (irony). After all, it is not my credibility that is in stake here... He´s welcome! In Nujinn´s words, with same exact meaning: "I wish you luck on this one, Sunray". FkpCascais (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Sunray, when I responded to direktor for unfairly having commented on me, I got from you an angry bold answer about not commenting on other users, but when direktor makes a clear unnecessary provocation, your response is: "with respect...one more time...". FkpCascais (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Each participant is responsible for their own behaviour. I will comment (and have done so) when I think it is necessary but I do not intend to play the role of arbiter nor to get drawn into game-playing between participants. I have warned two individuals and given a general warning about personal attacks. That is enough, I hope. Sunray (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sun, perhaps it is better that I stay out, as fkp truly hates me. At any rate, if you want me to participate later feel free to call me. Lastly, there is a good book, The Serbs, by Tim Judah... it is quite a famous book too. If you want I could pick out some stuff that relates to this topic out of that book. Best Regards, (LAz17 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)).