Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Popular Republican Union (2007)

Popular Republican Union (2007)

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. D0kkaebi (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Francis Le français (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Popular Republican Union (2007) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• [edit war on page] that leaded to [page protection by admin against IP contributors].
• [On the article talk page, except first topic, all discussions are to explain to the other party and the suspected sockpuppets the reasons the changes are not proper]
• [On my talk page from this topic and all following]
• [Strong doubt on socketpuppet usage, concluded with an advice on behavioral monitoring]
• [RFC opened but the other party refuse the comments brought by experienced user "focusandlearn"]

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Is the part related to Departmental election is valid or does it fall under WP:NOT? Discussion here
2. What is the political positioning of UPR? Several proposal in the talk including: neither right nor left, syncretic, centrist, diverse, far right, sovereignist. Discussion here
3. Is bondy blog source valid? . Discussion here
4. Lamayenneonadore source valid? Discussion here
5. Official radio of quebec university choq.ca valid source? Discussion here
6. Announcement of presidential candidacy at national congress, does it fall under 5P? Discussion here
7. Asselineau sitting with UMP members at Paris counsel or member of the UMP? [Edit war]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. D0kkaebi (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. I am going to reject this case under the discretion given to the Chairperson under prerequisite to mediation #9 "to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." While any of those may be used (except perhaps third opinion, which has already been rejected by third opinion volunteers), I would strongly suggest that the parties accept the offer made by FoCuSandLeArN to prepare and negotiate a draft taking into consideration the disputed issues. There is good reason to believe from discussion on the talk page that a person with skills in the French language will be needed to help sort through the linguistic difficulties of the parties as well as sources which may be in French or for which French is needed to help determine reliability and Focus has a FR-3 ability in that language. The only Committee member who claims an advanced ability in French has only an FR-2 ability and is already tied up at the moment with a particularly difficult mediation. For those reasons, I believe that the best thing for the encyclopedia at this moment is to continue discussion at the talk page with the assistance of Focus. Failing that, the dispute should first go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for help with determining the validity (i.e. reliability) of sources and once that is complete, then to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or to a properly-crafted request for comments or, sequentially, both. If all that fails, then this may be refiled here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)

  @ TransporterMan: FYI. It may help to keep in mind that D0kkaebi is involved in an obvious conflict of interest on this matter, being himself a high ranking member of the PRU/UPR team.
  Under this user name or another (Lawren00), he has repeatedly promoted his party and François Asselineau, as well as repeatledly complained about the POV-pushing of other editors even when his own contributions were blatantly biased. So let's not be fooled by all these requests. Azurfrog (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)