Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive1

My name

I am removing my name from this list. I do not wish to partake in this mediation, and appear to have been added because I reverted some edits to this page while on WP:RCP. The actions which I reverted removed references from the page. Although I agree mediation is needed, I do not feel I need to be a part of it. Also, can someone WP:DUCK the IP that reported me, 87.25.163.32, 151.95.202.227 and the other IPs making the same edit as them to anyone in this case? If so, we may need to clean our dresser drawers. Hamtechperson 00:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Description of the issues

I feel it may be necessary to clearly point out that the issues listed by User:FkpCascais are not agreed upon. They are, in fact, obviously biased, simply incorrect and/or distorted for the benefit of the author's side of the debate in a somewhat naïve attempt to canvass the mediation.

• "An inflexible insistance on behalve of User:DIREKTOR in the heavy and serious accusation to consider, and include in the lede, Mihailovic "an World War II Axis collaborator" is being challenged. He backes his statement with 4 sources, and the interpretation of them has also being discussed."
  • There are no alleged "accusations", this is not a court of law (the man, however, has indeed been convicted of these "accusations" in a court of law). There are merely facts sourced by some five university publications by historical experts. User:FkpCascais is the only one insisting on "interpreting" sources which are little more than a professional listing of facts and cannot be "interpreted" with much latitude.
  • The text suggests that others are introducing these "accusations", while they were included in the article for months and were only removed by User:FkpCascais recently. Thus starting this whole mess.
  • My position is anything but "inflexible" in that I am willing to accept any version of text deemed neutral by other involved parties. I was and am merely insistent that the sourced information about Draža Mihailović's collaboration not be removed by User:FkpCascais.
• "Several parts of this (Mihailovic) and related articles have been edited by DIREKTOR in accordance to this accusations. A more NPOV editing is demanded by many other editors regarding this issue, since there are many contradictory sources."
  • Again, it can easily be shown with diffs that User:FkpCascais was the one who altered the long-standing version of the lead that included a sourced statement on Mihailović's collaboration. And again, there are obviously no "accusations" taking place on enWiki.
• "An inclusion of Gen.Draža Mihailović and the Chetniks on the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism has also been challenged."
  • The user here follows the proper course of events, stating clearly that he has removed (very well sourced) information, not reverted an addition of information (as he suggested previously).
• "The reliability of some sources is being challenged on both sides."
  • The reliability of sources is not being challenged "on both sides" since there are is not a single solitary secondary source supporting the position of User:FkpCascais. The user's "challenge" of the half a dozen or so cited professional university publications opposing him is based solely on his personal opinion of the university professors publishing the sourced information. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing IP sock edits

I removed the issues listed by the IP sockpuppet for a number of reasons. The user behind the IP is a violent multiple sockpuppeteer with a history of vandalism, personal attacks, and WP:OUTING attempts against me personally (he "has it in for me", as it were). The sock also obviously did not participate in the dispute in any way and has added his own, completely different and long-since concluded issues that may well unnecessarily confound attempts to understand the already complex issue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Undoing posts by other users

(Discussion removed.) —AGK 01:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to parties

We're here to discuss the differences relating to issues of article content. Discussions relating to the conduct of another user are outwith this case's scope. Please be advised that the mediator will not attempt to police party conduct. If it becomes impossible to mediate this dispute over bickering between parties, the mediator will probably find himself with no option but to close the case. Please don't make the mediator's job more difficult than it has to be. Hoping that co-operation will be forthcoming, AGK 01:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sunshine" for everybody... :))

At last the sun shines into our dark and forgotten corner of Wikipedia, tearing away the cobwebs and driving away the shadow... :)

(Forgive the "poetic" moment, I couldn't resist.) I'd give you the traditional greeting Sunray, but its not easy to use a Kalashnikov online. Welcome to the Balkans, may god help you... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. It is not my first trip to the Balkans, so I have a sense of what you mean. As to the poetic moment, it is my hope that the mediation might indeed result in a ray of sunshine. If it does, it will be though the efforts and goodwill of the participants and I will try hard to promote that. I also appreciate the humour, it is often an asset in helping to find agreement, I think. Sunray (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Update

I've asked Sunray (talk · contribs), the mediator, for an update on the status of this case. I am sorry for the delay thus far. AGK 11:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the update. Please, take all the time needed, Sunray (talk · contribs) already explained that he may need some time, on mine side, I have no problems with it, even having a contrary version in the article on present time to the one I stand for. I will express my gratitude once more for letting us know this, and it is just good to know that the case is not forgotten. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)