User:Sunray/Mediation discussions/Archive 1

FkpCascais
Dear fellows, as I was the main co-initiator of the push for this mediation, I feel that after my recent abscence an explanation of my view of the current situation wan´t be harmfull and instead, it could be even benefitial. Despite everything, I must confess a deap diasapointment over this entire process. There are numerous reasons for it. These are some of the reasons why am I skeptical:
 * We have totally failed to discuss the main issue here: if Mihailovic can, or not, be considered a collaborator. Instead, the mediator has opted to allow one editor, Nuujinn, to freely rewrite and edit the "new" article.
 * The mediator has failed to give equal treatment to all participants, and seems to be highly convinced that one participant (Nuujinn) is somehow "neutral", despite evidence from the begining that he clearly, but subtily, favours one side of the dispute here.
 * The mediator recomends further leadership to the same participant, clearly failing to understand that Nuujinn is a willingfull, but after all, just another participant. Basically, the "special" relationship between them, Sunray (mediator) and Nuujinn (participant), was clear from the beggining, not being bad just because, but bad because it is harmfull to the objectivity of the article.
 * The mediator has had the need to reapetedly impose certain rules, but has failed to impose his authority when those rules were broken against me. I was insulted: when I was revengfully acused of "ethnical prejudice" while simply demonstrating how an author of certain nationality may have a conflict of interess when analising this issue. I was also edit-wared in the draft and that behaviour was perfectly allowed by the mediator, despite my objections, thus even encouraging such behaviour. But, aside this two incidents, all my initiatives and objections were completely ignored.
 * This kind of attitude towards me has, purpously or not, made my contribution here very frustrating and difficult.
 * Resumingly, because of all this reasons, my role here, despite all my initial willingness, and lost gigabites and time, has came to a hoult, and I will postpone my decition weather I should continue or not to be active on this mediation depending on further actions.


 * Thank you for stating your views. I would like to discuss them with you when you are ready to do that. Sunray (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please contact me if you decide you would like to return to the mediation. Sunray (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I want be able to be as active as I would like in the near future, but I will stay in the mediation. I expressed some criticism that I beleave could be positive for the process. I really expect to see some better understanding about which are, and which aren´t the real "fruitcakes with tatoos" here... FkpCascais (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fkp: You said that you were postponing your decision as to whether you would be active in the mediation. I asked you if you would speak to me prior to returning to the mediation talk page. The reason for that is because you expressed strong criticisms of the process and of me. I want to establish an understanding with you about that. You said:


 * ... "The mediator has failed to give equal treatment to all participants, and seems to be highly convinced that one participant (Nuujinn) is somehow "neutral", despite evidence from the begining that he clearly, but subtily, favours one side of the dispute here.
 * "The mediator recomends further leadership to the same participant, clearly failing to understand that Nuujinn is a willingfull, but after all, just another participant. Basically, the "special" relationship between them, Sunray (mediator) and Nuujinn (participant), was clear from the beggining, not being bad just because, but bad because it is harmfull to the objectivity of the article.
 * "The mediator has had the need to reapetedly impose certain rules, but has failed to impose his authority when those rules were broken against me. I was insulted: when I was revengfully acused of "ethnical prejudice" while simply demonstrating how an author of certain nationality may have a conflict of interess when analising this issue. I was also edit-wared in the draft and that behaviour was perfectly allowed by the mediator, despite my objections, thus even encouraging such behaviour. But, aside this two incidents, all my initiatives and objections were completely ignored.
 * "This kind of attitude towards me has, purpously or not, made my contribution here very frustrating and difficult."

I see things very differently than you, so I want to discuss each of these statements. You seem to be saying that I have given special treatment to Nujinn and that I favour one side of the dispute. What is your basis for saying that? We had agreed that all participants would collaboratively edit Nuujinn jumped in and did that. I recognized his contribution. However, how have I given unequal treatment? If others had contributed (as they now will) I plan to give them recognition for their work. I am aware of the biases of most participants. My job is to try to find balance. What could I do that would improve on that, in your opinion?

You also say that I have been unfair in my use of the rules (I assume we are talking about WP policies), especially with respect to you. I regard this as a serious allegation and I would like you to explain, in detail, how what I have done is unfair. Would you be able to explain? Sunray (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course Sunray, I have just been bussy off-wiki tonight. I´ll unswer this to you as soon as I can. FkpCascais (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I want to start by apologising to you for the dilay on this, but I haven´t been with much time lately and I didn´t wanted to answer to you on this in rush. My intention was not to be hard on you personally regarding this, but since you took the responsability for this mediation it is unfortunatelly you that will end up critisized for the decitions and events that take place on the mediation. The problem lies in the fact that the mediation has been active for long time now, and some issues in my point of view could have been solved.
 * Regarding Nuujinn, it is well known the fact that in the beggining of the mediation he had proposed to exclude himself from the mediation in case any of other participants objected. Based on some reasons I had, I objected, and he ended up revoking his own decition because, allegedly, you asked him to. This episode was however quite embaracing because it showed Nuujinn´s lack of commitment with his own words, and perhaps some "playing with the risk" that went wrong. How serious he was regarding his own proposition of excluding himself I don´t know, but it was you however that "by allowing the confidence vote" to take place, ended up putting me in an embaracing situation there. However, as much as it seems that the reason of my objection was because we had different POV´s on the subject, it isn´t, and the main reason of my objection, as explained was because of the alleged neutrality that Nuujinn insisted in having. That is a debate that I still have today: if it is more benefitial to have in mediations participants that are more assumed on what they stand for (as direktor), against the more subtil, but equally sided, participants. But the reason of my vote was definitelly the alleged neutrality. However, I do understand that because of the easier dialogue between parts, it ends up being more benefitial to have participants like Nuujinn, as a kind of "lawyers" for one side, but only in the case that they act openly, and not pretending to be neutral (the neutrality, if insisted, ends up to be insulting to the other side). My objection regarding you, is that after this initial incident, you basically gave full confidence to Nuujinn from the begining, atributing him several times the lead in the tasks. Despite that, in the editing content itself, I openly showed some disagreement but you never intervened on my side, and Nuujin´s decitions ended in all ocasions to be accepted by you without any analisis whatsoever.
 * I didn´t said that you favour one side here, where did I? I was refering to Nuujin in that first sentence. But, anyway, I do beleave that if you give more influence to Nuujin over others, one side ends up being clearly beneficiated. An exemple can be seen in the source that some participants want to use as a source for collaboration where it is said that negotiations between Mihailovic and German officials take place, but is completelly ignored that the same source, just in following line, says how a German official recomends that Mihailovic is not to be trusted because his men decapitated and dismembered many German soldiers... Nuujinn even said that decapitation of German soldiers is not an act of resistance! Perhaps not the most apropriate one, but... The distortion is huge... Exemples like these are found in great number (selective sourcing) and it is massively used by direktor. All this is wrong, and some stand against it is absolutely needed. Here I beleave you could intervene.
 * I do understand that editing is appreciated, but I haven´t been inactive all this time, and if you go back you will see how much I have donne in bringing some balance here. Also, the insistance that I had in the correct interpretation of the sources is equally important. And don´t forget I was edit warred in my first attempt to edit the draft, and it ended up allowed by you. It is perfectly understandable that I ended up disencouraged to continue.
 * The unequal treatment has to do with what I have mentioned earlier, but also regarding the acusation of "ethnic prejudice" and edit-warring that ended up being allowed. The fact that Mihailovic and the Chetniks are labeled as collaborators in this and other related articles and templates, and that fact has been kept unchanged (despite evidence) and even defended against any change, it does make one side clearly a looser by now. You should understand the insulting that that is (nazification).
 * The words regarding your rules have to do with the rules you asked us to subscribe here (initially and lately).
 * Can I further explain myself? Please remember, I allways collaborated on anything on the mediation despite all difficulties and lack of support I had, and I still am. My intention is to help wikipedia have the best and free of NPOV article as posible. This was not my area of editing here, but I did decided to help on this. It should be also taken into account that it is not me that is objecting to anything here (I even proposed an separate chapter on the collaboration issue). It is other participants that are objecting and not allowing any positive tone to be included in the article. I just want the facts to be written, and the sources well interpreted. Like in any judgment, it is the acusation that needs to make the case, not otherway. And here, we have enormous disruption by a number of users that "highjacked" the articles and don´t allow to be written nothing else but the acusational tone, without even having won the "case", and it is even doubtfull if they even have the case... Don´t forget that is is a officially recognised allied leader and his troops (the awards given by UK, USA and France are the only official judgment on that, beside the US post-mortum judgment that confirmed the award) that we are talking about here, basically against a few historians and Tito (well known freedom of speach defender, irony). So I really don´t think that I am the problem here. I don´t insist in acusing nobody of anything, and it is not me that is going around writting all the worste (unsourced, or only selectively) about other people or movements. FkpCascais (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will discuss each of the concerns you have raised, briefly.
 * "Based on some reasons I had, I objected [to Nuujinn's participation]."
 * Participants usually include themselves in a mediation. Normally we do not exclude people (no matter what they may say about withdrawing, since it is not up to another participant to exclude them). If there is an objection, the mediator reviews the reasons given and makes a determination. Your objection had to do with Nujinn's bias versus his claim of neutrality. This was discussed at the time. I do not consider that a reason to exclude someone and explained why. You may not agree with my decision, but I had to make it based on the evidence presented, which I did. I'm not sure why you are re-hashing this, because it was exhaustively dealt with here.
 * "I do beleave that if you give more influence to Nuujin over others, one side ends up being clearly beneficiated."
 * Nuujinn has worked hard at editing the draft prepared by JJG. Some participants have indicated that they appreciate what he has done and I have recognized his work. As the mediation progresses, I will comment when any participant follows the groundrules and contributes to the mediation. While such comments focus on actions taken during the mediation, one shouldn't conclude that I am not aware of various participant's bias. I will try to find ways to help participants deal with that so as to ensure a balanced article.
 * "The fact that Mihailovic and the Chetniks are labeled as collaborators in this and other related articles and templates, and that fact has been kept unchanged (despite evidence) and even defended against any change..."
 * Right now the mediation is about the Draza Mihailovic article only. Other articles may only be dealt with once there is a determination in this part of the mediation. It will require an effort on the part of several participants to get there.

Now, I have responded to your concerns and I hope you find my answers helpful. Would you be willing to withdraw your comments about me on the mediation page now? Sunray (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer, and yes, I do find your answer helpfull. I also hope my critic was also helpfull so you can understand how certain actions, or lack of action in other cases, may affect one side in the mediation. Regarding Nuujin, I would only like to adress that I do acknolledge his efforts, and I don´t object him taking the lead in certain tasks. I just find that because of that (bigger lead of Nuujin) the objections, when made, should be taken into account and analised. His efforts are appreciated, but that shouldn´t give him more rights regarding the content of the article. It is important to confirm allways the objections made. After all, I wouldn´t mind at all to make an article on my own, but I supose that would make strong objections from some other participants, so it ends up to be more "peacefull" to have JJG & Nuujinn editing the drafts, but, again, the objections that appear with time must be analised (not only mine, but from any of the participants).
 * I do understand that the mediation is about this specific article, but the insistence and edit-warring that direktor has done on other related articles is close, or it can even be considered, disruption. I apreciate a lot the feedback that you made on my complain on this issue, that I beleave has already been mentioned by JJG earlier, as well. Thank you.
 * I will bring my critics to the begining of this page, if you don´t mind.
 * Thank you once again for your answers and for having listened to my critics. FkpCascais (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you moved that text. Hopefully we can keep moving forward and focusing on the mediation issues. Sunray (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)