User:Sunray/Mediation discussions/Mihailovic

Purpose

This page is for individual discussions of concerns with participants in a mediation. They are not private discussions, but as they are on my user page, I expect them to be restricted to the individual or individuals concerned. Sunray (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Groundrules

The following groundrules have worked in many mediations to ensure that participants have a basis for collaboration. Note that you do not have to like each other, or even always see things the same way. The basis for the groundrules is respectful listening and problem-solving. I expect them to be followed by discussants on this page. Sunray (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Focus on content rather than the contributor. Note: This is to be interpreted literally, as worded.
• Be guided by WP content policies, particularly WP:V and WP:NPOV
• Commit to being as economical as possible in posts to this discussion page.
• Work towards consensus in editorial decisions.

Archives of earlier discussions

• Archive 1 - Mihailovic 1

Material posted by DIREKTOR and responses

[Note: I do not intend to discuss this further unless DIREKTOR returns to the mediation and signs the Groundrules] Sunray (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"WP:UNDUE"? I can't believe what I'm reading. Sunray, WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with the origin of an author or scholar. NO policy touches in the slightest on the origins of any author or scholar. WP:UNDUE states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Where in the world are the points of view/reliable sources that claim Mihailović did NOT collaborate?? Are you not aware that so far not a single solitary source has been brought forth that denies the collaboration of Draža Mihailović?? WP:UNDUE? here is Ramet The Three Yugoslavias (pp. 145-146) [1].

Both the Chetniks political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented; it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogenous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces. The Chetniks collaborated extensively and systematically with the Italian occupation forces until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and beginning in 1944, portions of the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović collaborated openly with the Germans and Ustaša forces in Serbia and Croatia. Moreover, as already mentioned, the Chetniks loyal to Kosta Pećanac collaborated with the Germans from early in the war. (...)

And yet I see WP:UNDUE falsely and baselessly cited here to prevent the usage of the word "collaborate" in this article. This is Professor Sabrina P. Ramet, essentially expressing her opinion in no uncertain terms on the phenomenon of nationalist Chetnik-worship among Serbs, i.e. on the opionions of uninformed, politically motivated individuals such as User:FkpCascais. She touches on the phenomenon that is the very cause of this farcical "mediation". This person collaborated. The Chetniks collaborated. And we are here fighting admin "middle-ground-affinity" and mythical nationalist preconceptions from rural Serbia.
Here she is again on p.8:

Draža Mihailović entered into open collaboration with fascist Italy and cooperated with the Germans on certain occaisions as well. Mihailović was quite open about the fact that he regarded the anti-Axis Partisans, rather than the Axis occupation forces, as his principal foe.

I need not even quote anything: there are whole chapters and even whole Books describing the man's collaboration in detail.
Is there any grounds for my being dissalowed from immediately writing in the article that Draža Mihailovič "entered into open collaboration"? Anything short of ending this mediation quickly is frankly insulting and offensive, considering the amount of wasted effort this place has drawn (which of course translates directly into damage to Wikipedia and its content), and the MOUNTAIN of sources - that were absurdly quoted in the article from the very beginning. In any case, any "ruling" or whatnot this mediation attampts to impose in contradiction with, and in demonstrable misquoting of, Wikipedia policy, will not be accepted on my part, and I will politely ask the good fellas at MILHIST and WP:AN to have a good look at the sources, the nonsense "dispute", and at the whole disturbing, mismanaged affair. The sources are there, high-quality sources, lots of them, and it is absolutely incredible that you would condone for another second a state of affairs where they stand and wait on essentially the approval of some random internet guy, a teenager from Serbia that, when asked for sources, feels the need to share his music videos with me.

On November 20 1944 the Germans intercepted a radio message from Mihailović to Vojvoda ["duke"] Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with the enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945.

For the execution of Operation Weiss the Germans employed from the beginning the 717th and 718th divisions, parts of the 714th division, the 7th SS Divison Prinz Eugen, the 187th Infantry Reserve Division, several Croatian quisling brigades, as well as about ninety German and Croatian aircraft, and from February 27 on, the 369th Infantry Division (Croatian Legionnaries). The Italians used the Lombardia, Re, and Sassari divisions from the beginning, as well as about 6,000 Chetnik auxiliaries from Lika and northern Dalmatia. Later they used also parts of the Bergamo, Marche, and Murge divisions. In the final phase, the Battle of the Neretva River, the total number of Chetnik auxiliaries and other Chetnik formations closely working together with the Italians was between 12,000 and 15,000 men.

And yet one cannot possibly quote in the article the sourced fact that the Chetniks served as auxilliaries..? I suppose that too is WP:UNDUE.

...Konjic proved to be another matter. This town was jointly held by Italians and Chetniks, and in the course of the battle for its control it was reinforced by some German and Croatian and additional Chetnik troops.

Apparently to make sure that the crucial operation on the Neretva would be carried out successfully, and also to be present at the scene of the kill, Mihailović himself moved from Montenegro to Kalinovik where he joined Ostojić, who had up to this point been in command of operations in Herzegovina. On March 9 Mihailović wrote to Colonel Stanišić:

"I manage the whole operation through Branko [i.e. Ostojić, Mihailović's Chief of Operations]. No action is ordered without my approval. Branko is keeeping me informed of even the smallest details. All his proposals are reviewed, studied, approved or corrected..."

As for User:FkpCascais's claim of "gathering sources" for days and weeks on end, I ask you (Sunray) to please be serious. There are no more than half a dozen original research publications on this - and I read them all. At best, User:FkpCascais will unearth some Chetnik-supporter rubbish they're shoveling out in Serbia and Bosnia dime-a-dozen since the War. Either that, or a publication that does not actually contradict any of this (as was the case up 'til now). No respectable historian (since the publication of the evidence from the OKW in '75) could possibly contradict so demonstrable a fact, one that has been "so amply and voluminously documented". It does not even matter in the end, the evidence and sources brought forth by Tomasevich alone are absolutely unimpeachable and beyond any debate, being based directly on primary evidence of the highest quality. Sunray, I beg of you, end this.. it did not make sense at the start, now its just plain absurd and offensive. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Lord! We have again direktor completely ignoring what everyone else has been saying, missingforming about other participants pretensions, and disregarding possibly the most important policy to aply here. This is just a start, because afterwords we have him calling me "uninformed politically motivated user" compares me with "rural Serbia", and this needs no comment "At best, User:FkpCascais will unearth some Chetnik-supporter rubbish", and another one "some random internet guy, a teenager from Serbia". All this in 1 comment! I haven´t even started discussing and he have this already, just after you Sunray insisted on the rules, that he basically broke all here. Nuujinn that has been defending a similar POV would be a much better interlocutor for this. I´m really starting to think that despite all evident semi-disruptive behaviour that could possibly be even benefitial for me, I´d rather not take this free insults and I already see a list of reasons why direktor should not be accepted to return here. I even had some hope a healty discussion could happend.

@direktor, I am not going to debate anything with you, but within the mediation. I have been gathering sources, and when asked, I´ll present them, preferably about concrete issues. Please don´t answer this and leave Sunray respond to this. FkpCascais (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, all I'm saying is that you have never ever posted a single source on this. Never. I invite anyone to verify this fact. You have no sources. You are not looking for sources. You cannot possibly get any sources because 1) I'm familiar with all the main original research on this, and 2) no hypothetical respectable historian I've missed could possibly state Draža Mihailović did not collaborate the evidence being what it is. It takes a few hours, days at best, to "gather sources", so I'm pretty damn sure you're not really gathering any sources other than that "music" you've posted.

All you can possibly do at this point is try to get me blocked so you can push your unsourced nonsense. Yes. You are a random internet guy, and you are undoubtedly a teenager. You certainly are uninformed, that much is a demonstrable fact, and I do consider you politically motivated. And, yes, all this in one comment (shocking!). Shall we briefly review your history of blatant abuse, where you tell me to "go kick rocks in my village", call me an "imbecile", say that I "shit out my words", call me "simple", a "terrorist" etc. etc...? [2]

The sources are clear on this issue, and in no case will I sit by and let them be ignored. Either through this mediation or otherwise the position statements of these numerous sources will not be censured from Wikipedia. After a year this cannot help but become really personal. I've posted about a dozen various sources here over the past year, and I dare you to show me a single one. Just one, to justify prolonging this affair another minute. The work on the article by Nuujin and JJG naturally will neither stop nor go to waste, but the mediation itself needs to end - now. The issue itself has past beyond sensible debate, and one cannot possibly quote WP:UNDUE without even one source in contradiction. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First, don´t you understand when something is told to you? I´ll present sources when asked, not to you particularly, but to the mediation. Also, I checked the Tomasevic book, and even there I found several sources that pretty much explain all you exagerate and missinterpret. It will be just perfect to demostrate your selectivness on his work. About the report on me you posted here, yes, I told you those things ugly 2 years ago because back then I touth you deserve to hear them, now there is one great difference, in 2 years I evolved, you obviously didn´t. Regarding music, yes, that is the only thing you´ll here from me next time you try to disrespect this mediation and try to make a parallel one on some other page.

@Sunray, another post where I am attacked without any reason. Is there any limit for this? FkpCascais (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop lobbying for sanctions and avoiding the issue. You were not "attacked", if it turned out that way I apologize. Just post your source, because WP:UNDUE is apparently the foundation for the continuation of this mediation. I am supremely confident the only thing you will present will be some instance where Chetniks actually fought the Axis, and then demand that we accept this as some kind of "contradicting" statement to the above sources, which is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH - you drawing conclusions for the scholar. And remember: you consider Tomasevich "unreliable" for some unfathomable reason. You have your own "neutral sources".. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First I would like hear an in-depth elaboration of your claim of WP:UNDUE applying to Tomasevich. Either that or I would like you to withdraw that comment. Imo, the policy quite demonstrably does not apply. The source in question does not represent a fringe view, WP:UNDUE does not apply, and I would like to hear you yourself affirm Tomasevich as a reliable source without any reservations that may serve as a "loophole" for relativizing and bending scholarly publications, and indeed the bare facts themselves, to the whims of Wikipedia users. I was clear on this above, I think.

My concern is that you care a lot more about getting Wikipedia users to agree, than about the veracity of Wikipedia content or the actual facts of the issue that is being discussed. I fear that your position, and hence the mediation itself, may be influenced by a need to assume (or to appear to assume), the absolute middle ground at all times - regardless of what the situation with the sources might be. E.g. if the source were to state that the sky is blue, and one or two users were to claim that it is yellow, the conclusion from your mediation may well be that it is in fact green (with a great cheer sounding all-round for your conflict-resolving abilities). I would sincerely like to see you prove me wrong. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that I was implying that WP:UNDUE applies specifically to Tomasevich. That policy applies to the balance of sources in an article. WP:UNDUE states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." I was merely stating WP Policy. Per WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:CON, It is up to article editors to agree on the weighting of sources in an article.

As to your speculation about me caring more about getting WP users to agree than about the veracity of content. This simply not true. Your further speculations that "my position... may be influenced by a need to assume... the absolute middle ground at all times..." are baseless and unwelcome. If you are going to keep on criticizing the mediation and attacking me I will end this discussion. Sunray (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". In order for WP:UNDUE to apply to sources that actively affirm the collaboration of the Chetniks/Mihailović, I should expect that at least some sources denying the collaboration of the Chetniks/Mihailović should be available to constitute another "significant viewpoint that has been published by reliable sources". This is not the case. In other words, I do not quite understand how WP:UNDUE applies to the only significant viewpoint we've thus far seen on this specific issue (let alone how this "viewpoint", or rather cold hard fact, could possibly be challenged without any real sources).

I merely stated, in the most honest manner, the concern that is the root cause of my reservations. My intention was not to insult, attack, or indeed, even to criticize, as you put it. However, considering the sheer amount of time this mediation has lasted without really resolving any disputed point, one cannot but feel surprised by the apprehension at the notion of being criticized. "Attack"?

As I said, therefore, my concern is that the sources do not sufficiently supersede user opinion in the mediation. When a top quality source is posted, I find that instead of simply being accepted by the mediation as such, various reasons are posted to "relativize" the plain facts confirmed therein. There are numerous other sources of course, and I posted them, but I am using this one to "draw the line in the sand" as it were, because as the AHA says, it is indeed the best source on the subject and has been for many decades.

Unless one can simply post information supported by such sources, and have it accepted without being superseded by user opinion, what else can anyone do? I emphasize: there are no sources denying the collaboration of the Chetniks/Mihailović, and yet I've had WP:UNDUE cited in the capacity that undue weight is being given to Tomasevich as opposed to - none. And, I must add once more, Tomasevich is simply the most prominent in the mountain of prominent scholars that agree with him. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've said, on the mediation talk page, that I consider Tomasevich to be a reliable source. Moreover, the Chetnik collaboration has been agreed to by participants in the mediation. We follow WP policy regarding sources. Thus, I don't understand why you keep rehashing these points. Given your concerns, which do not seem to abate, perhaps you should not rejoin the mediation for now. When you see how it is going, we can talk some more about your participation. Sunray (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes but what about WP:UNDUE? Does it really apply? And, if so, how? Which is to say, if so, what are the other viewpoints regarding Chetnik collaboration published in reliable sources?

(P.S. To my knowledge Fkp has not agreed to Chetnik collaboration, and that is essentially the cause of all this.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are good questions. I think that they are important issues to clarify in the mediation. The policies are a given. As editors, participants have to reach consensus on how they apply in this article. My role is to facilitate that agreement. Sunray (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well since WP:UNDUE was cited by you yourself, I thought I'd simply ask you directly to clarify the above?

That's basically what I'm requesting all along in this thread, and its not an insiginificant issue. You've (unintentionally) provided what User:FkpCascais sees as a "loophole" which he can (and is) using to delay and confuse a very straightforward matter, namely the use of referenced information from T. and Ramet. And since I am completely dumbfounded as to how the policy applies, I would like its application explained or the "loophole" closed, as it were. (If you consider the location of this discussion inappropriate, please feel free to move my posts over to the mediation talkpage.)

• @"As editors, participants have to reach consensus on how they apply in this article. My role is to facilitate that agreement." - there's the problem.
  • What happens when the sources are clear, but the users simply don't agree? Will the "requirement" that users "agree" on the application of sources essentially force a distortion of the sourced facts such as the green sky I mention above?

This is what we have here, and this is the problem behind the sheer length of the discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want assurance that your point of view will be the one that is adopted? I cannot give you that assurance. As far as WP:UNDUE is concerned, to say more would only be repeating what I have said previously. Your unwillingness to stop flogging a point and your continuing criticism of the process strongly support what I've already advised: Take a bye for now. Sunray (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I've been asking for this whole time is assurance that the sources will be followed, and not evaded - such as by blatantly misquoting policy. My question is a straightforward and perfectly legitimate one, and you are being deliberately evasive: if WP:UNDUE applies, what are the "other viewpoints published in reliable sources" (on DM's collaboration)?
When I am forced, forced mind you, to repeat myself over and over again with no answer given, WP:STICK is incredibly quoted to me. This is both condecsending and insulting, and is the last straw. You have misquoted policy, either deliberately or no, and you (the mediator!) are refusing to withdraw that statement or even to clarify yourself in any real and relevant way as defined by that policy itself.

You are primarily concerned with achieving user agreement, as opposed to pursuing an article based on reliable sources. This works when the participants are both sensible and bend to presented evidence, but you are unable to deal with a situation where one side simply refuses to agree with the sources. Since you see your role as mediator such that you must achieve agreement at all costs, you are unwilling to force the application of WP:V when necessary - and if WP:V cannot be applied, there is no concveivable way this mediation can ever end (with both sides actually participating).

The mediation has by now so thoroughly discredited itself I cannot be held in any way responsible for leaving it - as any sensible person would. You will find your mission of getting users to agree will be far more easy without me around. At this point you should feel free to draw any meaningless one-sided "conclusions" you like in the RfM, but be aware I have NO intention whatsoever to pay mind to anything other than sourced information (as any Wikipedian that understands policy should). I'm gone for good. My only hope is that you will have pity on the poor souls still trapped in that abominable mess, i.e. that you yourself will drop the stick and back away slowly from that horse caracass, it has been dead for quite a while.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

June 6, 2011 - FkpCascais/DIREKTOR

I beleave this may become a problem. I really suspect direktor will wait for us to place the article and finish the mediation, and he´ll just restore his version. The main goal of the mediation would not have a purpose if that is not solved. He should discuss his edits within the mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Imagine: a Wikipedia article that is continuously edited! Scandalous. Or perhaps you would like the mediation to somehow serve as a tool to prevent those edits you happen not to like, and a tool for the removal of sourced material that offends your patriotic sensibilities (as a replacement for your complete lack of sources).

All I said was that if this one paragraph is removed in the process, I will restore it. I have nothing against introducing the draft. Fkp, however, is just beginning to realize that there are no "final versions" on Wikipedia, and that a mediation's purpose is to achieve consensus on a dispute, not article-writing. He obviously did not read what I said before: though as a Wikipedian I applaud Nuujin's good work, I do not see how the mediation was necessary for the purpose of drawing a draft, or how the draft will solve any issues. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If we are to move forward, letting go of the past is required. Best not to make predictions about what editors will do, nor to dictate what others can do, should do or want to do.

Sunray, I'm fine with the notion of waiting or working here. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not "predicting" anything, but direktor is already openly announcing his insistence on the same problematic edits he refuses to discuss here. I´m sorry Nuujinn, but you are actually saying that we should let go the reason why the mediation started? I appreciate your effort on the draft, however you being close to finish it does not mean that it will be the end of the mediation itself. First of all, I prefer to see you finish it (as you seem to be near) and then discuss the issues I disagree with (which may be many, or not, I don´t know yet). Similarly, direktor, who is atentively observing the progress of the mediation, instead of announcing problematic edits in the future, should come back to the mediation and discuss those same changes, which were (only!) the reason why the mediation was initiated in first place. I´ll wait for see Sunray´s view on this. FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussing future edits is, in fact, reccomended. I have tried discussing these issues here - at immense length, and have been clear as to my perceived reasons behind the utter failure of such attempts. The reason I posted here is the same as in other places you've been canvassing - simply to make sure your version of events is not the only one people hear.

Fkp is right in one thing, though, posting the draft will not solve anything, nor was there ever a possibility of resolving this by such means. This is exactly what I have been saying for quite a while now. Due to the fact that no agreement of any kind has been reached, the draft in actuality has nothing to do with the mediation, and could/should have been done without it. Understanding this, I withdrew. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@direktor, seems to me that you fail to understand the difference of canvasing and solving mediation issues. Should I start numbering your recent personal attacks against me, or your still active staking (on at least 5 pages in just few days)? If you have evidence of me canvasisng against you, please present evidence. I don´t think this is a place for discussing this. Please refrain bringing into the mediation you personal issues against me.

With regard to the issues to debate, I don´t see any other possibility of solving this out of the mediation. You have already presented wrongly in the past some observations about the mediation, where you stated that a "middle ground" solution is favoured over "scholarly bla, bla, sources". That is not the case, and there is obviously a reason why your selective use of sources is not find as the correct one. All I see is you not wanting to admit any other solution that yours, and that is why you left the mediation. Sunray offered himself to mediate this, but you refused that help. Your reasons in my view are not valid, and much less should you be allowed to edit the issue after such refusal of yours. FkpCascais (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks. I don't want people to think I'm returning to this quagmire, if you want to talk, post this again on my talkpage (you're always welcome there, as opposed to vice versa :))

P.S. I would also like to point out that the lead paragraph on collaboration does not use the word "collaborator", and does not even include the statement that "Draža Mihailović collaborated", which, if you recall, used to be my position in these discussions. Taking to heart arguments against labeling, I've made a concession in the wording, choosing instead to simply list the more prominent of Mihailović's controversial actions, and to (quote) "let the reader decide for himself". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Double standards

From the begining we had agreed that we should not edit the version in place on the article while the mediation is still in progress. Much less, we were allowed to edit the controversial parts. Direktor two days ago edited precisely the most controversial one. Why is that not reverted and considered disruptive? He knows this quite well (about not editing the articles), and it was he who reverted so many times other users making edits on those precise parts under this excuse. FkpCascais (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If I did this I would promptly be reverted and probably punished. Why he isnt? FkpCascais (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am formally requesting his edits to be reverted, and in case he insists not being a mediation participant, his comments from this page should be removed (this is a mediation page, not open forum). He should also be warned about not being allowed to edit the controversial parts that were under mediation, and to be severily punished if he does. We did not loose all this time so he make fun of us and makes the same POV pushing when the mediation finishes. Either he signs the Sunray´s groundrules and returns to the mediation, or his rights to edit the controversial matters and further add inflamating comments on the mediation should be cessed immediatelly. FkpCascais (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Double standards (of User:FkpCascais)

From the begining we had agreed that we should not edit the version in place on the article while the mediation is still in progress. Much less, we were allowed to edit the controversial parts. Months ago the articles was massacred beyond recognition, controversial parts and all, by various weeken-editors and Serbian IPs. However, since it was to Fkp's liking, all the admins from here to Vancouver were spared the incessant canvassing (STANDARD 01). This time, a single, meticulously sourced paragraph was added that Fkp does not like - all hell is raised, the alarms sounded, bells rung, etc.. (STANDARD 02)

Thankfully an RfM does not really have the authority to freeze an article in place, contrary to Fkp's apparent convictions. Thus, even if people were stupid enough to ignore the double standards employed, there is little chance the mediation will be used any longer as Fkp's tool to prevent the restoring of high-quality sources to the article.

The fact of the matter is that, completely devoid of any serious argument or reference, and being prevented from edit-warring by his sanction, Fkp is now trying to use the mediation to essentially do his edit-warring for him. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I don´t know about any "massacred" articles (can you please indicate which, and the precise IP´s?) and everything IP´s added, it was all promtly reverted.

So I refrained to edit the article because I am stupid, right? Then when you reverted several users on Mihailovic article claiming you did it rightfully, you actually broke 3RR?

And, yes, I am putting my edits trough the mediation process where an agreement can be reached, while you are the one escaping from mediation and trying to put your edits trough force. Simple. FkpCascais (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hahah.. you're kidding? :) Pls compare the mediation version and the current version. You might notice some slight differences..

You refrained from editing the article for the same reason I did, because we were participants in this mediation.

You are stil under a terrible misconception: you seem to think participation in an RfM is mandatory or something. Or that an RfM "freezes" the article its about. I cannot stress this enough: READ what an RfM is.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you actually remove all the weasel words you allways use, we are basically left with... nothing. This thread of yours seems just like a responce to the previous mine, some way you think could balance things. However, I opened my thread not about you, but because I find unfair that an user edits the controversial issues, posts here on the mediation, posts offensive comments about the mediation, and much more, all without even being a mediation participant. As you can see, my thread has to do with the mediation, while this thread of yours seems to be here just to attack me personally. So, what can I say... What else do I need to take? I mean, come on, seriously, just say it. FkpCascais (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)