Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities 2

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities 2

Editors involved in this dispute

Heracletus (talk · contribs) – filing party
Qwerty786 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Community of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kosovo Serb enclaves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
North Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

What is the relation between the Community of Serbian municipalities in Kosovo formed in 2008, after elections organised by Serbia, with the Community of Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo, which will be formed from the 2013 municipal elections organised by Kosovo authorities?
How should this relation be represented in the relevant articles?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

I agree. Heracletus (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' discussion

User:Hasteur has filled a similar request, trying however to make it into a conduct review, and potentially cause sanctions by involving the Arbitration Committee, even though this had nothing to do with the reasons for which we had sought dispute resolution or the articles involved, or their content, or even our conduct in them. After filling this request, he/she tried to disengage himself/herself from this process, stating he/she is not involved in this, even though he filled this and tried to push it to be a mediation over his/her own grievances, contrary to what is stated here: "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted." The relevant differences to prove this and related content are: [1], Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities, [2] and [3]. This kind of conduct is highly disruptive and forced me to enter a new request. He even then proceed to try and enforce his views, while either remaining a third party or claiming the filing party position only in order to disrupt the mediation process, as can be seen in the history of his request. Heracletus (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an involved party I ask that the committee close this request and force Heracletus to face the original MedCom request as is is only an attempt by Heracletus to frame the debate the way they want it. Hasteur (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly indicated here that you are not an involved party, and here that you only want to get involved in order to disrupt the mediation process against me. And, you have even made the following edit summary while reverting me: "Shut the dumb editor up and sieze the rights of the filing party". Heracletus (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you do admit that you are deliberately trying to frame the debate under terms that are favorable to you. Since you kept moaning and complaining over the fact that I was not a party to the dispute and trying to remove my text, I thought it only fitting that I become a party to the dispute and take the rights granted by MedCom to prevent you from whitewashing the debate. Hasteur (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot set the topic for a mediation process for which you are not a participant and then just walk away. You wrote here: "Since Heracletus is either incompentent and can't understand the rules of the road or is willfully trying to yank me in to this case by making it a conduct issue with me as well, I'll add myself to this case and come down on the prejudiced side of opposing anything Heracletus wants.", so it is clear that you only want to disrupt the mediation process against me, otherwise you believe you are not a participant to the content dispute. Furthermore, you try to make this into a conduct review to settle your grievances. I will just ignore you here from now on. Heracletus (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

← The above is moved from the MedCom-only section, per the clear instructions. AGK [•] 13:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject pro forma. This request plainly duplicates (in scope) the one filed earlier. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 13:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]