User talk:Sunray/Archive25

WP:AN

Hi Sunray, For your information, you've been mentioned a few times at WP:AN#Sanction warranted? concerning edits by DIREKTOR. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen that. I usually stay out of ANI requests involving participants in a mediation, unless there is a need to explain why I have taken a particular action. Your analysis of the situation is spot on, IMO, and several others have provided their input. The issues seem clear. Sunray (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have notified you, except that the original subject of the thread has virtually nothing to do with the mediation or yourself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions and doubts

Hello Sunray, I just wanted to clear out some questions regarding the mediation. It is not urgent, but tell me when you find time. Best regards. FkpCascais (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, please go ahead with your questions. Sunray (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The latest events took me the time I thought to spend around mediation issues, however this may be even more important, since it is related.

DIREKTOR has started heavily editing the same old rethoric on the same and related articles. He has openly being criticizing and disregarding the mediation, including inviting me to abandon it (!). He is being highly disrputive, and with the help of few "friendly" users, he has been pushing his same old edits. Now, I have reverted his edits on several ocasions, however, he menaged to convince User:Future Perfect at Sunrise that I was edit warring (while restoring the previous versions of the article, and some images case where direktors insensitivity comes again in evidence) and he put me under sanctions (!) ANI report. I have obviously challenged this sanction, and I hope FPS will understand what happend (specially because I was´n´t even warned about the ANI thread by direktor, so I didn´t had the chance to even defend myself (?!).

However, what is important is that the articles (including all related ones, and exactly about the issue under mediation) are being heavily edited by DIREKTOR, and all this disregarding and opelnly critisizing of the mediation which is actualy being very disturbing. Something should be done, otherwise this would give an extremely wrong perception about the policies, conflict resolutions, the mediation, and basically respect. Here is one of the recent exemples: [1] where you can see me trying to bring him back to the mediation, but you see his ideas... and on Talk:Yugoslav Front you can see several recent exemples (just see at bottom, for exemple). Everywhere I reminded him about the mediation (which is often, because I beleave it is the only way of solving this dispute), this was the responce in front of the entire wiki community (!). For that, which is total lack of respect towards you and all of us participants, and because he unilateraly decided to ignore everything and just returned (worste then ever) to his POV, I really think something should be done. Because I defended the mediation, I defended the return to mediated discussion, I restore previous versions, but unfortunatelly I ended up being punished clearly opening the highway for his disruption and lack of respect. I apologise by my long comment, but I let myself write this because I am really outraged with all this. FkpCascais (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well since the user is talking about me I wil take the liberty to respond. The sheer amount of wrong information present above is staggering.

Firstly, as can be exepected, my edits are not those of a year and a half ago. Indeed, if you recall, I was the one OPPOSING new edits by User:FkpCascais. This time, I've carefully taken the time to source every word, and followed the sources almost verbatim. I've posted my proposed edits on the talkpage and discussed them before introducing them, requesting that contradicting sources are presented, and waiting for someone to do so. As things stand now, the original version of the article has already been massacred beyon recognition, and towards FkpCascias' view. Needless to say it now contains utter gibberish. Fkp did not complain even when some user entered imaginary events such as a "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia" into the article.

I do not have the help of "friendly" users, I am essentially editing alone. I did not say a word to old Future Perfect, he merely noticed Fkp breached 3RR in removing some long-standing image from the Yugoslav Front article and sanctioned him for it - lightly. Next, I am not "heavily editing" articles. All I added were two, rather short, paragraphs, etc.

As for the mediation, allow me to demonstrate how User:FkpCascais uses it to push his POV into the article. When numerous editors sympathetic to User:FkpCascais' position edited the article beyond all recognition - he did not say a word. But when another editpr enters immaculately sourced facts contrary to Serbian nationalist propaganda, Fkp comes here demanding that the mediation (somehow) does something about it.

Indeed, the article is now a Serbian nationalist love-fest, completely detached from real history. As I said, the article now talks about completely imaginary events, such as a "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia". This example is particularly descriptive of the political nationalist, Balkans POV of the users in question. While the Serbian President has recently thanked the Russian president for the Soviet assistance in the liberation of Belgrade, radical nationalist see those events as a "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia". And Wikipedia supports them. The situation is simply intolerable. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Was there any single page where you haven´t chased me direktor? FkpCascais (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My offer to mediate some of differences between the two of you still stands. Sunray (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Sunray. You know that I allways favoured a mediated discussion. Sunray, I am having a different problem. I got sanctioned by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who was competely unaware about the mediation, or basically anything on the dispute, and got me a sanction reliying only on direktors version of facts and without me even receving a ANI notece so I could defend myself (not first time direktor does this to other users). The thing is that my reverts (I still dispute if 3 or 4, but anyway) consist on revrting the direktors "Chetniks collaboration force" lead resume, while the issue beside being mediated is also rightfully restored to previous stable version. Direktor also opened a discussion on the issue that was also not finished, so by that side he also fails to insist inserting his version several times. Obviously direktor failed to inform any of this to the admin, claiming "I was removing sourced info". I tried the explain the WP:UNDUE problem, and why direktor is proceding wrong in insisting in that edit while ignoring mediation, however I think I need help to clarify the issue. The discussion is User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#FkpCascais. I reverted him over that twice, and reverted him over a pictures issue, which basically consists about this discussion: Talk:Yugoslav Front#Images. As you can see other users are "allowed" to add or remove pics as they feel like, however, despite agreement from other users (they didn´t opose neither revert my edit for days), I was edit warred over it by direktor, who finds perfectly reasonable to have 2 pics of Chetniks in the article, both posing with Axis troops. Sunray, I know we had our disagreements on the past, but I stood along all the way, and I really need your help in this situation, speacially regarding the first issue. Could you please help me to clarify this, at least to explain why this or this is wrong, or why reverting it to previous version is right. Notece how it is exactly the same lead situation as in Mihailovic, and direktor knowing perfectly well how we discussed this already at mediation ignores it completely and insists on it.I am sorry to drag you into this, but it is related to the mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I reading correctly that you did break the 3RR rule? Sunray (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I´m not sure Sunray, and 2 of the reverts were about the lead change on behalve of direktor, exactly the one describing sucintly the Chetnik movement (direktor already broke 3RR when reverting mediation related edits and he allways said that those reverts are rightfull, remember? It happend more than once I beleave). His editsin this case are exactly what we are we discussing on mediation and direktor should not have changed the previous version. Even if we forget that, he opened a discussion on talk page, however he insisted on his edits without the discussion being complete, so by any side I beleave he shouldn´t have edit warred over it, which I reverted, so 2 reverts are on that. I also made one revert divided into 3 separate edits, so I could explain in edit summary each, but I could have done it in one, so I am not sure if it counts as 1 or 2. On the other side I´m counting on direktors behalve 4 reverts in less than 24 hours, so I don´t understand why he wasn´t punished as well. Anyway, direktor provided his version where he totaly failed to explain everything involving the issue, and Future didn´t even took me in consideration, he took decition against me. Have you seen the edits in question? FkpCascais (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC) About your question, well I don´t really know, and that is why I asked Future to be specific but he simply refuses to. Really. :( FkpCascais (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, my problem is that because of reverting direktors lead edits ("Chetniks collborators") I was acccused of "Battleground mentality" and "disruptive behavior" (it is what it says on ARBMAC!) because direktor purposly didn´t informed in the report (to which I wasn´t notified to, so I couldn´t explain it myself) about the mediation and the complexities of the case. He just presented it as "insistent removal of sourced content". I need you, as mediator, please to explain to the admin that the case is not that simple and that his edit is the exact reason why the mediation started in first place. I need that because otherwise a totaly wrong impression is left. If I was, for exemple, glorifiying them in leads, as much sources as I could add direktor would certainly claim that he is rightfully reverting to the previous version. I think the admin doesn´t beleave me, or something, and i am planing to appeal the decition, however I do hope that with someones clarification it wan´t be necessary, or at least the unfair observation will be removed. I was definitely not disruptive neither it was me having a battleground mentality, but rather direktor who knows those edits must be discussed and would be reverted, that is for sure. The admin seems to think that Direktor was making fine sourced contributions, and I was the one being desruptive, which is definitely not fair, and was a situation created actually by direktor to punish me. FkpCascais (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to comment on what you have said, but you must understand that in my role of mediator, I cannot take action, other than to facilitate discussion between participants. Sunray (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that, don´t warry, I´m not asking you to take action, just to help me clarify this unusual situation to the admin that took action unaware of it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do. Sunray (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed seems so hard just confirming the collaboration issue is under mediation. (???)

Anyway, the questions I raised at the mediation page are serios questions. The fact that an outside editor has entered and cluttered the discussion with his own issues has no matter with the issues I raised there. Should I expect at least for you to unswer the issues raised by me (an actual mediation participant)? FkpCascais (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If they are questions about the mediation no problem. If they are questions about someone who is not currently a participant, no. Sunray (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you´re right, apologies, I didn´t noteced some of the actions you took recently. Well, direktor derailed the conversation on the mediation, where I was basically asking how will the issue procede afterwords, and what will happend if direktor tries to push his same old POV into the articles? I mean, I am the one trying to solve things under mediation, and he seems to have been left with the impression that he will just wait for the mediation to finish and then he´ll just add what he wants (note that he had already announced it, so I am not making "predictions" as Nuujinn stated). FkpCascais (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be unwise for someone to add something against a consensus. In any case, the current proposal is to move the mediation to the article talk page before we close it. Sunray (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you are basically asking me to think positively despite evidence and knowing that over this issue none good faith on part of some users was showed in past, but ok, let´s see how it goes. The question then is: do you consider including the discussions with outside mediation participants that happend on those talk-pages (direktor, for exemple, has been very active and enthusiastic there lately) or only the in-mediation discussions are the ones that count? FkpCascais (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the information. I am not even going to try discussing with Direktor (especially after my further interactions with him there where he actually outdid himself). I am not entirely adverse to discussing with Nujinn, though. When the article is unlocked, I might work on the former draft/new article if time permits. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, the annoying guy quoting all the sources is the problem.. Without me you'd all be free to simply agree to ignore the refs and reach a "consensus" pretty damn quickly.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Make that misquoting, misreading, etc. As I said, I am not going to try working with this guy. IMHO, his contributions are unimpressive and his position amazingly weak. My only problem is that I find him so unpleasant that the mere thought of his existence tends to ruin any enjoyment I might feel on wikipedia. Hence, I do not believe in a mediation, or in any kind of productive interaction, with this person. Working with other contributors is not a problem for me, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Please see the Perpetual Mediation thread on WP:ANI. Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A little confused

Hello, this comment on my nomination confused me a little. Were you referring to my comments as observable neutral facts or requesting I make my comments more neutral and factual? If I need to clarify my response I'm more than happy to, but could you clarify your comment a little, as I am slightly confused. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, your comment here clarifies your comments. Please disregard the above. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Making WP:Mediation meaningful

Please consider how you might assist Feezo, who you will know is the mediator at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands.

As context, please scan "Hands off" mediation plan.

Mediation involves conflated issues, but wider community intervention is needed in order to help, support and encourage Feezo so that we may reach those issues. --Tenmei (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I did communicate with Feezo following your note, and note that other mediators have had a look see. Sunray (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent refactoring

I'd like to request you please apologize for your removal of this edit. According to WP:RPA "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." This post was not directed against you, or anyone for that matter, and far from being an obvious true "personal attack", it was not a personal attack in any sense of the term as defined by WP:NPA. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, the statement is untrouth. I dare you to present one diff, anywhere, where I said what you claim, and also, your adition of "collaboration" in the lead was never neither long (a couple of months) neither standing (you were reverted at least 10 times in that short period of time). This intentional missinformation must end. It is a mediation, and Sunray has all the right to remove provoking inacurate comments towards other users, which beside that, are completely useless. FkpCascais (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor: Your statement strikes me as wikilawyering. More importantly, it is entirely beside the point. The mediation is still in progress and we are attempting to establish terms for discussing the new draft article. If you continue to make personal comments and argue with everyone, it will not aid your cause. I strongly recommend that you stop this race to the bottom now. As I said in the mediation and have repeated to you, the only way to interpret WP:NPA in a dispute of this nature is to follow the statement "comment on content, not the contributor" to the letter. Please do so from here on out. Sunray (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that, as far as I'm concerned, you are taking far too much liberty with other people's posts. Or to be more accurate, with my posts, since actual personal attacks laden with expressions of unbridled hatred on the part of User:Jean-Jacques Georges have gone completely untouched. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I deal with each individual in a manner appropriate to the situation. Right now I am speaking to you. I want to be sure that you understand what I have said above, and will act accordingly. Would please confirm that now? Once you have done that, if you wish to raise a concern about another user's actions, by all means do so, (with the appropriate diff). I don't always catch everything. Sunray (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, if by "commenting on content and not the contributor" you understand that I am not to post things like

• "User:FkpCascais, claiming that Draža Mihailović did not collaborate at all, started repeatedly altering a (long-standing) statement to that effect from the article's lead."

then I must refuse on the grounds that I will be severely restricted in my ability to prove any point. I would suggest that you sanction actual personal attacks as opposed to any and all "comments on the contributor", and as I said, I believe it is clear that is what WP:No Personal Attacks policy is all about. I would like to know whether you are still behind the removal of statements such as the above (which are not personal attacks by any definition)?

Concerning the terms, they are your proposal, and I do not see how it is just to label me as the guy who "argues with everyone" simply because I do not support your proposal. To me it seems that the proposal itself, or to be more accurate, the conditions which you are using to force it through, are the element that has frozen the (previously ongoing) discussion in place. Why not post the draft in the article? What use is there in stalling that universally agreed-upon edit? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason for your avoiding answering any of the above inquiries? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I did answer. But briefly, I will add that you did not pay much attention to what I said, which was, in essence: There have been continual behavioural problems with participants. Therefore a strict interpretation of policy is necessary in order to meet their spirit. For people who are have a hard time meeting WP goals, it is easiest to say something simple like: "stick to content, not the contributor. Period." That is what ARBMAC is all about. Sunray (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR's recent edits

Sunray, here DIREKTOR undid a section that I created, could you ask that he not do this again. It muddles the discussions, I think. I'd rather have that be a separate section but it is just to complicated to piece out the bits now. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nuujin, I thought you wouldn't mind and I wanted to keep the continuity of the discussion. I do apologize if offense was taken and I certainly would not mind you restoring the title of the section. But.. why do you think we need another section about an edit conflict? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

One reason is I had to fight through four edit conflicts to get that comment in, I wish you all would learn to think about what you're going to say and say it instead of constantly tweaking what I regard as giant walls of text. The other that any break aids navigation and helps one figure out where an edit occurred when walking diffs or looking at the talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't call the recent exchange "giant walls of text".. apart from the sources quotes the posts were rather small. But Nuujin you must grant that it is the right of both of us to tweak our posts to best present our meaning, not to mention fix typos. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To maintain order on the article talk page, the only refactoring should be by a moderator. I am still considering whether I want to be involved in that capacity, as are other mediators. Nuujinn has raised another concern that I consider significant: excessively long posts. This was raised by Fainites on June 9 and some editors have refused to limit the length of their posts. Talk page guidelines set out a number of good practices, including: "Be concise". My other concern is the frequent ad hominem on the talk page. I no reason for remarks directed at the individual, rather than the content at issue. I will make a statement about behavioral expectations by the end of the day Monday. Sunray (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I should let this go, but I think DIREKTOR is today in violation of the three posts per day restriction, even loosely construed. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And again today. A slip here or there is understandable, and I appreciate the relative brevity, but I find that the pushing of the established envelope of this and other terms of discussion tiring and unhelpful to discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've now pointed that out in response to a query by Direktor on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks for the barnstar Sunray - but without your steady persistence it would not have happened ... so you are part of the barn star - I'm not sure how to award them or if I have the authority to do so - but you probably have a fine collection already! Quite an endurance event that Sustainability one.Granitethighs 00:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Belated thanks too

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For a long, exhausting, but ultimately well worth while effort to bring "Sustainability" to GA standard Granitethighs 08:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

General Draža Mihailović

Serbia is the fortress of the Templars. It has always been in history. I have no time to waste with the Jesuits. Read this Anti-Freemason Exhibition. Even an the latest war in the Balkans it was a Serbian uprising against the Holy Roman united of Europe, founded by Otto von Habsburg.Thanks.--213.137.116.21 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability

Thanks Sunray - yes, I can fit in some time whenever you are ready. The page has been very stable since it was upped to GA which is reassuring. Only thing is I've never had anything to do with any FA articles so I dont know what is involved. I will read up WP:FA and see what needs doing. If you could tell me what you think are the main areas that need addressing I can make a start - there's no rush is there - we can just nudge away at it when we have time. All the best.Granitethighs 02:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good GT. I will get back to you with some thoughts. Sunray (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Check your email please. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, thank you for your comments on the flag carrier page. I have replied to your post. If you have not already done so, I invite you read the discussion on the [Project Aviation page]. On this page I had already addressed some of the suggestions that you made on the Flag Carrier talk page, specifically those listed under your dot point number 3. Gfcvoice (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)