Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Closed; see final comment.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Transnistrian referendum, 2006

view edit delete watch
Filed: 11:01, October 4 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

MariusM (talk · contribs)
William Mauco (talk · contribs)

*Peteris_Cedrins (talk · contribs) (left, see his statement below)

Articles involved

Transnistrian referendum, 2006

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

long discussions in the article talk page [1]

Issues to be mediated

Should we include in the article the fact that: "No political party in Transnistria ask for reunification with the Republic of Moldova. Previously, Transnistrian Supreme Court banned political organisations on the ground that they are "against the state", wanting reunification with Moldova[1]".

Should we include in the article the fact that: "Before the referendum, 4 members of pro-moldovan NGO "Dignitas" from Slobozia were arrested by Transistrian Special Forces, but were released after few days in custody, no charges being made against them [2]".

Additional issues to be mediated

Should we include in the article the claim of HCHRM (Moldovan Helsinki Commitee) that "electoral tourism" took place during Transnistrian referendum?
Should we mention in the article the media climate in the rest of Moldova? If yes, should be given details about which media was subject of persecution?
Should we mention that Viktor Alksnis, who is quoted in the article saying that referendum in Transnistria was held at democratic standards, previously expressed the opinion that Transnistria is the base from which the restoration of the Soviet Union will begin?

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree.--MariusM 11:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.-- int19h 11:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.--Pēteris Cedriņš 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree. Anna Planeta 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Agree.—Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Disagree. - Mauco 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Pernambuco 17:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; see talk page . `'mikkanarxi 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. - Mauco 02:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accept:

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be happy to take on this case, and do apologize for the delay. First off, I haven't taken an in-depth look of the issue on the talk page yet, so I would like to query all of the participants above: is Mauco, who was the only one not to agree to mediation, a key part in the dispute? In other words, without him agreeing to mediation, is it still worthwhile, in all of your opinions to have a mediation, and will he accept the agreement that will hopefully be found during mediation? If not, mediation probably isn't the right route. Also, let me verify that I have the facts straight after a cursory glance at this page: Anna Planeta is a sockpuppet of another one of the involved users? The second thing I request is that all parties place this page on your watchlists, to facilitate discussion and communication. Thanks a lot, and I look forward to working with all of you to improve Wikipedia! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Mauco is now on a wikibreak (as anounced in his talk page), probabily is better if we wait until he returns. He was against the mediation because he thought that other users should be involved, and because he considered that other preliminary steps should be made before mediation. However, I had long discussions (almost one month) in the article's talk page with Mauco and I don't believe further discussion will help. One of the users that Mauco wanted: Pernambuco, already agreed mediation, the others were informed. One - Tekleni - told that mediation is a good idea but didn't seem interested to join it [2]. Other user - Khoikhoi (who, contrary with Mauco's claim, didn't revert me on this article) - was informed about mediation [3], told Mauco that it is a good option in this case [4] but he didn't join as he has no time. The third user that Mauco wanted - Mikkalai - was not against the inclusion of contested paragraph but asked for a refference, which was meantime added, and afterwards he also anounced that he is taking a break (see User_talk:Mikkalai). I believe that is a consensus that mediation will help in this case, we should wait Mauco's wikibreak end.--MariusM 00:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauco is key, yes, but Anna Planeta is not a sockpuppet -- she is an actual person who has considerable knowledge of, and access to, information about the region, and I asked her to participate for that reason. As it is, this is futile, because Mauco does not agree to mediation. I would say that it's sort of like the former Soviet Russia and her most beloved heiress, Transnistria, not agreeing with the civilized world -- but that would be way too POV. --Pēteris Cedriņš 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauco is a key person in the dispute, most certainly. He might reconsider though, given that other parties agreed, but obviously not until he's back from his wikibreak. -- int19h 07:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not key to this. I am ready to go ahead if the others are. - Pernambuco 03:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because all of you agree that Mauco is key to the case, would any of you object to waiting until he returns, and then proceeding from there? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MariusM and Mauco are key, I'm willing to wait to insure an appropriate resolution. Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting for me. I am back now. However, I am mildly disagreeing to this particular mediation. It is not a disagreement with mediation in principle, but in the way that this this very specific attempt at dispute resolution has been resolved. In brief: Normally, when a page gets locked, the idea is to try discussion first (on Talk) and not send it straight to mediation. If Talk fails, then the next steps could involve the Mediation Cabal or maybe try Esperanza, as well as Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Third opinion, and so on. In my deeply held opinion, this should have been explored before formal mediation. I also have other complaints with the way that this particular process was initiated.[5] None of this should be construed as obstructivism but quite the contrary because I think that in the long run Wikipedia works best if we all follow the rules. - Mauco 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I don't think anyone who has read through Talk:Transnistrian referendum, 2006 could come to any conclusion other than formal mediation on inclusion of political climate is the only option, seeing that you and MariusM can't even agree over who reverted what, when, and why--let alone on the content. While there has been a wide-ranging discussion of fact and opinion in Talk:Transnistrian referendum, 2006, the scope of the actual mediation is quite narrow. And dismissing MariusM's inclusion of opposition arrests prior to the vote as simply bomb plot suspects being arrested, questioned, and released based on Russian news service reports (when the Russian government is clearly pursuing its own agenda, ignoring its commitments while at the same time passing resolutions hailing the referendum) fails to qualify as disinterested objectivity. You've already indicated you disagree regarding accepting mediation. You're certainly entitled to keep to that position. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba, we are not debating the content dispute of the article (at least not yet). Hold your horses. Your polemic is not appropriate here, at this point in time. I was commenting on procedure, and would have expected a qualified reply in kind. - Mauco 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was it takes two to not tango, and that an examination of the record shows that it's as improbable as an army of monkeys at typewriters producing Hamlet that a solution would be arrived at through normal discourse. You'll pardon my love of metaphor. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauco, I'm glad you are back. Indeed you had some comments against the mediation that you shared with Khoikhoi, but Khoikhoi himself told that mediation is a good option in this particular situation [6]. The Mediation Comitee agreed to be involved in this case, I hope you will change your mind and accept mediation.--MariusM 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid comment. I am still leery about the un-Wikipedia-like way that this has been handled so far. A previous attempt by MariusM at mediation over another article, also involving a content dispute with me, failed for this same reason. He then escalated it to arbitration where it was, of course, rejected by the arbitration committee for this same reason. All of that could have been avoided by merely following the guidelines set out by WP:DR. They are there for a reason, after all, and I am sorry to note that I am so far the only one here on this page to have to point this out. - Mauco 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The faster this goes, the sooner a decision will be reached one way or the other, and revert wars stop. I don't see how, at this point, it would be productive to not go ahead with the mediation, even if that proves to be unsuccessful in the end. -- int19h 06:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was the same reason for failure: you refused mediation. However, I hope you will be more constructive in this case.--MariusM 15:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the edit war start again. Mauco reverted the contested paragraph and, in addition, he blanked also the "electoral tourism" claim of HCHRM [7]--MariusM 06:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, are you even remotely familiar with the most basic principles of Wikipedia dispute resolution? When a paragraph is contested, it is not kept in the article. Indeed, while the article was locked (for that very same reason) it, in accordance with these guidelines, was indeed not part of the article. Immediately upon releasing the lock, you then added it back in, without mentioning it to anyone else in Talk and - needless to say - without prior consensus of any kind, and despite this filed request for mediation in the matter. - Mauco 14:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't invent Wikipedia principles. You want to keep the paragraph out, and you refuse mediation in order to label as long as possible the paragraph as contested and to keep it out. I don't agree that you have veto rights in Transnistria related articles, as you seems to ask.--MariusM 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument. No one is claiming any veto rights. I have qualms on mediation for reasons of procedure, which have been pointed out. You did not follow WP:DR and this is my only concern. - Mauco 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those preliminary steps are not obligatory. Even mediation itself is not obligatory. As I see, everybody, including Mediation Comitee, agreed that mediation can help in this case, only you are against. This is not "veto"? Let's be constructive and try to solve problems, not being stalled in endless discussion.--MariusM 19:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, welcome back, William Mauco. The case - and the above discussion - seems more complex than what my tired body can comprehend right now, so I will revisit this case later (i.e. tomorrow) when I'm less tired. However, I do want to urge all of you to tone down some of your arguments and debates above. Civility and communication are integral and go hand-in-hand. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcoming me back. I am still lukewarm on mediation in the current format but have been urged to be "constructive." Would it be constructive to suggest that this is basically a content dispute between myself and MariusM, and put it to mediation on those terms only? What do the other parties think about that interpretation? - Mauco 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. I was never very much involved in this dispute to begin with. - Pernambuco 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really expect to get this long-winded, so my apologies in advance... It seems to me the area of conflict is larger than content. I see it as three separate areas requiring some sort of resolution going forward:

Sources considered reputable (unbiased) and unreputable (biased) and citing thereof. I believe that all sources should be allowed. There can be annotations as to the sources themselves, for example, www.moldova.org=pro-Moldova.... www.olvia.idknet.com=PMR press agency, etc. I believe one outcome of this mediation should be that people agree to not revert edits because they don't like the source, as in, "Well, that source isn't good enough (for me). You can put that in when (I think) you have a better source (I approve of)." It should be possible to cover ranges of perceptions of veracity through annotation of the sources themselves.
Whether to include or not include any sort of statements on political climate, or other background information which may, or may not be, construed to be "directly related" to the specific topic of the referendum itself. (Apart from what the content of that statement might be.)
Now come the two statements in particular under mediation, whose mediation came about as not having resolution on the two points above (which I believe also need to be settled in order to avoid repeats).

First: that there was no opposition because opposition is illegal (as advocating Moldovan union advocates, by definition, the dissolution of the PMR state, considered an act against the state), pro-Moldovan parties have been harrassed, etc. (And let's not say that's old information, Jamestown Foundation articles from just before the referendum indicate the situation has not changed--and they are a truly impartial party.)

—I don't believe there should be any controversy around this item. As I've indicated earlier, perhaps it could have been written with a bit more clarity, however, I believe that statement is both accurate and vital.

Second: that certain arrests and their timing were acts of intimidation by the state. MariusM believes so in inserting the statement. Mauco cites (Russian) newspaper reports they were simply arrested as bomb suspects, questioned and released, that's what police do. The issue there is, is that sufficient grounds for deletion of MariusM's statement because Mauco believes he has disproved MariusM's statement?

—Intimidation and repression are patterns established over time, which over time also insure the desired behavior even when an overt threat has not been made. If the arrests/releases are perceived and/or interpreted as acts of intimidation, then they are. If the authorities subsequently issue a statement to the contrary, that does not "disprove" intimidation—the intimidation has already happened whether or not it was premedidated or intentional in this instant. I believe this item can be resolved with the addition that the arrests have been reported as intimidation in the Moldovan press; the PMR authorities maintain the arrests were "...." I do not believe the appropriate solution is simply deletion, or to allege intellectual dishonesty.

Regardless of what's decided on the two content items (bullets under 3. above), I think going forward it would help if the parties agreed that information published in Moldova can't be used to disprove/delete information published in Transnistria or Russia/the ex-Soviet sphere of influence, and vice versa, that information originating from Transnistria/Russia/CIS/et al. cannot be used to disprove/delete information tied to Moldovan sources. If this means it becomes a "he said/she said" article, that's fine, it would still get us closer to "impartiality." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies! Would the other parties like to comment on the issues raised above, or whether this conflict is solely a content dispute between Mauco and MariusM? Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While me and Mauco were the main protagonists of the conflict, we can not exclude others on this topic, as Wikipedia is not our propriety. To summarize the problem: the arrest of the 4 members of antiseparatist Transnistrian organisation "Dignitas" is a fact that nobody dispute. Mauco claimed that we should not mention in the article that fact because is not related with Transnistrian referendum. I believe he will agree to mention only if Transnistrian authorities will issue an official statement telling: "we arrested those guys because we want to intimidate oposition before the referendum". Of course, they will never issue such statement. Also, he don't want to mention the banning of some political parties as this is, he claims, an old affair (it was in 2001). The picture he want to create is that Transnistria is a democratic country (contrary what international community believes). I believe the ban is relevant as the same person who was in power in 2001 (Igor Smirnov) is in power now. In Soviet Union, a change appeared in the political climate only after some leaders died (Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko). I agree with Vecrumba's observation: "Intimidation and repression are patterns established over time, which over time also insure the desired behavior even when an overt threat has not been made". In Soviet Union only after 3 years from the arrival of Gorbatchev in power people started to feel free to express their political views (I am not talking about few dissidents who dare this even in Brezhnev time, I am talking about ordinary people).--MariusM 11:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of my two main problems with this particular mediation request is the above: MariusM (who filed the request) selectively handpicked only his "home team" and conveniently forgot to list a number of people who were much more involved in the edits (and who had reverted him, along with myself); thus - in my view - stacking the deck. My second problem was that he went straight to here, without trying the normal sequence of dispute resolution first. There are also a lot of fallacies in what he posts above, but since we are not (yet) in formal mediation, I will limit my rebuttal to this comment on the procedural mishaps. - Mauco 16:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 15 october I already answered at all Mauco's problems [8]. All people interested were informed about mediation and invited to join, some of them are not so interested in this subject (and not all persons who Mauco claim that reverted me did this). I am open to accept other people in the mediation. Mauco, can you say which other people you believe need to be involved? Regarding "fallacies", this is the kind of personal attack without any basis I am used from Mauco.--MariusM 21:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to leave out all users who have no edits in mainspace on this issue. They are not parties to this dispute.

I would like to only involve those who were parties to the dispute. This can be myself and MariusM, if others agree. If others disagree, they would include users who made edits to this dispute. They are: Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Of these, two users User:Mikkalai and User:Tekleni are not yet part of this mediation effort.

I would also like to know why the steps in WP:DR were not respected. These three requests will give me confidence that the dispute is dealt with in a fair and balanced manner. - Mauco 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I started mediation I included a "2 against 2" situation. You want to have a "5 against 1" mediation. This is what you call "fair and balanced manner". I have nothing against involving Mikkalai and Tekleni, if they want to join (nobody can force them, and I know you invited them long time ago). However, the reason other don't edited the mainspace was that article was protected, not because they were not interested in subject. Is quite rude telling other Wikipedians that they don't have the right to express their opinion on this subject. What if, after we reach a consensus during mediation, Vecrumba will revert in mainspace as he was not part in the mediation and has no obligation to accept mediation outcome? I believe Vecrumba and Peteris Cedrins should be part of mediation too, as they showed interest in this problem. For the sake of compromise, I would accept to let out Anna Planeta (which Mauco accused, without proofs, as being a sockpuppet of Cedrins), as she was not active not even in talk pages. This will give a "5 against 3" situation in Mauco's favour, or 5 against 4 considering that God is on my side, as I just received assurances :-).--MariusM 12:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk. It was between Tekleni and MariusM. Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day. But later, then Tekleni explained that it was solved. It is not sure what "side" he is on. You can not say this about me either. What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? - Pernambuco 12:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you reverted the paragraph I was trying to include in the article. Anyhow, you are wellcome in the mediation.--MariusM 13:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But William Mauco was not part of that. I do not understand. When I stumbled on the page the fight was between you and Tekleni, you both reverted each other back and forth. I just stopped that. I don't know if I am the "Tekleni side" either, Or what that is. Simply ..I just wanted to get the war parties to stop. - Pernambuco 13:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Pernambuco, I don't see the process as one of taking sides. My interest in Moldovan issues is peripheral, to say the least -- my home is in a heavily Russian-speaking city in the most russified region of Latvia, and there is a connection between the Transnistrian government and some of the persons and groupings that attempted to subvert the elected government of the Latvian SSR in 1991. I have long followed developments in Moldova and Transnistria at a distance -- a Latvian friend of mine was educated in Chişinău (when it was Kishinev) and has written on Moldovan issues at length, and I have a friend in Romania with whom I often discuss politics, history, language policy, etc. (Anna Planeta; I invited her because, as a well-connected translator who has written extensively on politics, she has access to information I would otherwise not have access to -- she is no longer interested in participating, however). I followed Wikipedia articles on Moldova also, and I began to do so again after Edward Lucas gave a favorable mention to William Mauco in his blog. Whilst I was glad to see that there is a considerable increase in the material available in Transnistria-related articles, I find much of the increased quantity increasingly tendentious, I'm afraid. The only reason I agreed to mediation was because MariusM asked me to. I suspect that he invited me because I've lashed out at William Mauco.

Though I most definitely do have a bias (influenced by the fact that different states and regions on the periphery of the former Russian Empire and the Soviet Union have many features in common), I have attempted to write and edit balanced, researched, "NPOV" articles for Wikipedia since June 2005 -- when I have the time and inspiration. I've seen many a Central and Eastern European talk page spiral into the venomous inane, and many a phrase or paragraph get watered down into a parody of "neutrality." Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Wiki processes like mediation, what an admin's powers and principalities might be, how people get blackballed, etc. -- nor do I want to become more familiar with these mechanisms, frankly. All I know is that not a few people I know who might have made valuable contributors get turned off or driven off. Therefore, I didn't read reams of material on things like meatpuppetry, for which I assume Anna Planeta qualifies (though she is most certainly not a sockpuppet, and I don't take kindly to groundless accusations). Perhaps I qualify as MariusM's meatpuppet, too, in some sense. This sort of thickening atmosphere makes contributing exceedingly unpleasant.

Having worked with editors on various books and publications, I cannot imagine what the product would have been were the relations between them such as they often tend to become here at Wikipedia. I doubtless violated the rules on personal attacks in my comments to Mauco, and I regret that. I respectfully withdraw from this probably doomed attempt at mediation. Puerile bickering, spin, and the fact that "the point is not whether the facts are true or not" (quoth Mauco, the phrase taken out of context for emphasis) were not what I had in mind when I was first attracted to Wikipedia. I still think Wikipedia is a very valuable resource and a fascinating project, but the reasons why articles on history and politics are generally very inferior to articles on astronomy or biology ought to be abundantly clear.

Sorry to run on at such length, but I felt that explaining my POV more fully, among baseless squibs about sockpuppets and hints at dishonesty, had become necessary. --Pēteris Cedriņš 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that the quote from me WAS taken out of context. At the risk of now being misinterpreted as a liar, allow me to merely point out that Wiki has policy called Wikipedia:Verifiability but does not have a policy called Wikipedia:Truth. Obviously, the encyclopedia (and most of its editors) strive for truth, but the absence of this specific policy has a long and very involved history by itself. Suffice to say that there are plenty of good reasons. - Mauco 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) Thanks for all the discussion so far! I just want to point out that this "me-against-them" attitude isn't helpful in mediation. We're all here to help Wikipedia, and we're all here - volunteering our time and services - to help write and edit the most accuate, factual, and comprehensive article possible. We're also here to achieve a compromise - that's what mediation is. A mediator is not a judge who will pick a side; instead, if you all agree, I will be working with all of you to find a compromise and acceptable solution. Everyone who is involved in this issue, as long as they are not sockpuppets of another person involved, etc., should be welcome to participate if they wish. I hope that clarifies the role of mediation to all of you. Now, mediation cannot proceed if one of the major involved parties does not feel that mediation is helpful and does not wish to participate: a solution and compromise must be between all the involved parties, and mediation cannot proceed if one person involved does not wish to join. Let me reiterate this point: is there any party that does not wish to move forward with mediation? Please do not feel pressured in any way to say that you must join mediation, and you may, as always, contact me privately if you wish - I'll always be here, listening and responding to you. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That user is me, unfortunately. I can not be part of a mediation process where there are participants who were never part of the dispute in the first place, and where some of the parties to the actual dispute have not even been invited. I would trust this process a lot more (and will accept to participate) if we can at least extend an invitation to the two "missing" editors, User:Mikkalai and User:Tekleni, and if User:Vecrumba will agree to excuse himself and leave the proceedings, since he was never part of this dispute in the first place and only joined (with some very partisan views) after the page had already been locked on full protection. - Mauco 23:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in "reverting" at all except for correcting vandalism, that it is always possible to have a meeting of the minds. (Discussing the PMR has certainly put that belief to the test.) My interest in Transnistria is admittedly from a Latvian perspective (given the OMON transplantation to the PMR) and somewhat late in coming regarding participating Wiki-wise. Mauco would agree (despite our disagreements) that I'm not a flit-in, flit-out on Transnistria. Unfortunately, regarding Mauco's request, I do not feel I can simply withdraw at this time because I believe that MariusM has been disadvantaged in all of this as his English is not up to par with some of the other participants—and that disadvantage has subjected his views to both misinterpretation and mischaracterization (and contributed to leading to the reverts, beyond just disagreements on subject matter). If my summary of the mediation issues, earlier, is partisan, my apologies—I believe I made a fair assessment of the situation. If MariusM feels I have mischaracterized it in any way, he can certainly indicate I have missed the point, as can Mauco, obviously. As mediation is still a process for arriving at an agreement, I don't see that Mauco should feel disadvantaged by my presence; he is more than capable of expressing himself well and defending his position ably. (And if I remain in the mediation, I obviously agree to abide by any decision whether it's to my partisan liking or not.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mauco's idea to invite Mikkalai and Tekleni at this mediation. I know they were already invited, long time ago, by Mauco himself, but I think will be good if our mediator will send them an invitation.--MariusM 09:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let us please invite them in. If they accept to join (even if they don´t have much to say), you can count me in, too. In the light of Vecrumba´s very reasonable explanation above, I can accept that he participates as well, even though he has already declared his "partisan-ness". - Mauco 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you all feel that both Mikkalai and Tekleni should be re-invited, I will send them a note doing so. Again, I reiterate: any person that is involved or wishes to participate should be welcome, as long as they are willing to actively join the discussion and be part of the mediation. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) Thanks for the comments, Mikkalai. Would you mind keeping all comments to this page, however, for ease of following the discussion? I know it's a long page, but I feel that at this point keeping it all centralized and away from the talk page would be beneficial. I'm also awaiting a reply from Tekleni about this issue, and will give him some more time to respond before leaving him another reminder and then proceeding from there. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not hold this up longer. Regardless of what Tekleni decides, or if we do not hear from him, I am ready to give it a try now. - Mauco 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay; I've been giving Tekleni some time to reply. Because he hasn't been active in the past few days, I'll leave him another reminder note, and if he doesn't reply soon, we can proceed. Thanks for your patience. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already started the arguments in the talk page. Tekleni can join latter if he want.--MariusM 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we can go ahead without Tekleni by now, then lets. - Mauco 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After article was unprotected a new edit war started between me and Mauco. I took advantage of this already opened mediation to include as aditional issue 2, the new dispute, especially as Mauco made refference at this ongoing mediation.--MariusM 18:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? No. Please provide DIFFs for this claim. It is simply good Wikipedia practice that when a disputed article is under mediation, we don't change it, and especially not without prior mention on the Talk page of that article. You observed neither and I merely pointed this out to you. If you do not agree, let me know so I can get on the page and edit out the portions that I don't agree with ... and if I do that, then what is the point of mediation? - Mauco 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your patience; I've been following along on the talk page and here. While I appreciate that some of your opinions and positions are already on the talk page, I would like to clarify a few issues - the tangling of several issues and arguments is making this more complex for everyone and is hindering communication. Therefore, can I request that each of you state briefly (here on this page) in bullet form your positions on each of the issues? You've been discussing issues 1, 2, and 3 on the talk page: now pretend that no one else knows anything about the topic or the background, and explain why you feel the way you do. I've used this technique in the past, and it hopefully will make each of you understand the other's position better and clarify the entire conflict. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lack of progress in this mediation; barring any objections, I'm going to close it out, given that the issue seems to have dissipated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for you to make the first move, or otherwise steer this somehow. I am not familiar with the mediation process, sorry. - Mauco 18:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. First, I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to participate here, but it's now become clear that this issue cannot be resolved via mediation alone. It appears the conflict is not restricted to specific issues that can be resolved readily, but is a long-standing conflict that involves multiple articles. Combined with the lack of progress we've had, as well as the lack of interest at times, I do not feel that it is in the best interest of anyone to proceed, though I will continue to urge everyone - as always - to be civil, courteous, and respectful of everyone else. Thus, I'm going to take the liberty of closing this mediation as the best possible path forward at this point. Thanks for your understanding, and best of luck to all of you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.