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

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities

Editors involved in this dispute

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)

How should the organization from 2008 be handled with the organization that is forming in the next few months?
How should the nationalistic and conduct issues regarding this organization be handled, especially with respect to WP:ARBMAC??

Additional issues (added by other parties)

The filling party, User:Hasteur, filled this request, trying 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 reformulate this request. Heracletus (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently, he objected to this and tried to revert while continuing as a third party, until he decided to act again as the filing party, with the only intention to disrupt this mediation process against me. As he has written further below, "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." Heracletus (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

I do not agree, due to User:Hasteur's disruptive editing (see the history of the page). User:Hasteur wants to act as a third party to this, while also setting the topic and making comments about it. He even kept resetting the topic, after the other involved user, User:Qwerty786 had agreed. Furthermore, he tries to make this into a conduct review, trying to push his own grievances on the issue. Heracletus (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will participate Qwerty786 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty786: Topic and situation has changed, you may want to review your participation Heracletus (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree only to stop Heracletus attempting to frame it as a "Everybody is on a vendetta against me" debate. Hasteur (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Heracletus and Hasteur: Would you be able to read my comments below and then reply simply either "I agree" or "I do not agree"? Sunray (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

DRN Case manager's note: This is a referral from DRN for failure to come to a solution due to conduct based issues. Indications were made at DRN that one (or more) of the parties to the case would not respect the outcome unless it was in their favor (or enforced by an Admin). Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No party ever indicated such a thing in DRN or anywhere else. To prove this, one can check Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities. Furthermore, the issues which caused User:Hasteur to choose to close the dispute resolution thread on DRN had nothing to do with the dispute, and all to do with what he/she perceived as bad faith against certain volunteers, including himself. By claiming that any party would not respect the outcome unless it was in their favour, User:Hasteur once again tries to be disruptive towards the mediation he/she himself/herself filled a request for. Heracletus (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again we have one user being a general nusiance to wikipedia (by striking my comment which violates WP:TPO) and others trying to come to a resolution. Hasteur (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I assert that all pages except Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities and the talk pages that are not Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities or Talk:Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities#Recent_edits are not germane to this Mediation but are a symptom of a larger pattern of disruption by Heracletus and would encourage the Mediation Committee to explicitly leave them out of this issue unless it is the goal of the committee to have an Omnibus Serbia/Kosovo mediation. Hasteur (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Heracletus has failed to read WP:TPO multiple times after it being pointed out to him I present

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

. 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. Hasteur (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In considering whether to accept this case, one of the criteria is that it be focused on content, not conduct. What members of the Mediation Committee see, above, does not give us confidence that the conduct issues are yet under control. Referring to one another's "disruptive editing" or "pattern of disruption" does not seem to indicate a willingness to mediate in good faith. If the parties are willing to cease personal attacks and agree to do their part to meet the prerequisites for mediation we can then accept this case. Would each of you indicate your intentions in the "Parties agreement to mediation" section. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. User:Hasteur is not a part of this content dispute. He/She's just an editor who under the pretence of volunteering in dispute resolution noticeboard tried to make this into a matter over conduct, there, here and here. Although, he/she acknowledged that he/she was not a part of this dispute here, when I tried to turn this into a request for mediation over the content dispute, he/she got into an edit war, trying to again get it over conduct. When this failed, he/she then decided that he/she was involved in the dispute in order to disrupt this process, here. He/she 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 he/she only wants to disrupt the mediation process against me, otherwise he/she believes that he/she is not a participant to the content dispute. On the other hand, after setting the topic as a conduct dispute, he/she initially tried to vanish out of it. All these can be seen in the history of this page.

Even when I tried to create my own request which focuses only on the content, here, he/she tried to disrupt this, too. I am not here to settle any conduct disputes and I won't participate in a content dispute resolution with an uninvolved party who just comes here to "add [himself/herself] to this case and come down on the prejudiced side of opposing anything [I] want..." I did try with a request for a content dispute here. The issues are:

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?

I am open to redefining those issues if User:Qwerty786 thinks they are otherwise, but refuse to acknowledge User:Hasteur, ~~per WP:Deny~~. Heracletus (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also very open to other parties who may already have a position on the content and I tried to get some input from both Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo on the content issue. However, I also expect such parties to act as involved parties and not as mediators or dispute resolution volunteers. Heracletus (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray Please observe the persistent pattern of re-litigating the same points over and over again that already came to a definite consensus multiple times previously, the "It's not my fault, it's others editing that is causing this problem" behavior, attempting to forcibly disengage from disputants by discrediting them while at the same time reeling them in with a hook of a notification ping (for which WP:DENY is the wrong essay), and making slight procedural flubs be grounds for an entire re-running of the process because the editor in question does not like how the process is appearing to disagree with their viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that there are persistent points of conflict, as evidenced by ArbCom decisions and Arbitration Enforcement in the general subject matter area. Mediation is a different approach to conflict that has nothing to do with litigation, re-litigation, or arbitration. We wouldn't necessarily reject a mediation because there had been a previous consensus on a particular topic. It is sometimes necessary to re-exaamine a consensus decision. There is no such thing as "binding mediation" in Wikipedia. I agree with you about WP:DENY. Sunray (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If if there are not at least two parties who agree to mediate in good faith, this case will be rejected. This is likely the penultimate comment on this by the Mediation Committee. The final word will be to either accept or reject this case. Sunray (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. Parties do not agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]