User talk:SSS108/Mediation & Mediation Attempt

Please Do Not Edit This Page: It Is An Archive. Thank You

---

TOP ^[1]

^ Relating To Mediation ^

MEDIATION TOPICS

• Mediation Main
• Mediation Nagel
• Mediation Websites
• Mediation Premanand As A Source
• Mediation Implementation of Policies

MEDIATION REMINDERS

• Mediation Miscellaneous
• Mediation Reminders: Mediator
• Mediation Reminders: Editors
• BostonMA Talk

^ Mediation: ^

Hi. I was originally accepted as a mediator by Andries only for a trial period of 2 weeks. On the 19th, I wrote to Andies [2] requesting that he express whether he wished me to continue as mediator. Andries responded on the 21st [3] accepting my continued role as mediator and acknowledging that there were a number of mediation questions that he had not yet answered. I felt that it was appropriate to give him some time, and to wait to see what would happen next. I did not want to pressure parties to focus on the mediation if the parties did not themselves find the issues to be burning. You have expressed curiosity regarding the status of the mediation. It is difficult to know for sure whether you are only curious, or whether you are also anxious for more active mediation. (I am guessing the latter). So please let me know if you would like me to more energetically encourage Andries to participate in the mediation. I think sufficient time has elapsed since his acknowledgement that there are open issues that I may justifiably ask him to focus on these.

There is another issue that I would like to address, however. I have been personally disappointed that you have not been more active in editting the SSB articles, for example in adding new material. I don't mean to single you out, I am also disappointed the Andries has been reluctant to make improvements to the article in ways that we have all agreed would be beneficial. I point this out because other editors who look at this conflict might form the impression that those in the conflict, (I do not mean only your side), are more interested in the struggle over the point of view than in the overall writing of a good article or a good encyclopedia.

One of the issues that appeared to be close to settlement is the issue of using material from Alexandra Nagel's later articles. I believe Andries has reluctantly agreed that Wikipedia policy does not support using these articles as sources even though they may be more up-to-date, or at least is very close to agreeing to such. My suggestion is that you write a note in the SSB talk page stating that you intend to make some edits removing material that has been sourced by Nagel's later writings. Describe which things you will remove. Then wait some time, perhaps a day. Then, if there is no contention about this, I suggest that you remove those materials from the article. I would urge you to be exceptionally careful in this, because if you remove things other than what you have described in the talk page, or if you add things during the same edits, there is a potential for an edit war. I hope that this will not happen, but it is worth it to be careful.

So that is my suggestion. However, if you wish for me to suggest to Andries that he focus his attention on the open mediation issues I will do that (either in addition to, or instead of, the suggestion above). I apologize in advance if my suggestion does not work out, however, I think it is worth it to test where things actually stand. --BostonMA 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried editing the article yet Andries deleted my edits. I offered to write a biographical section citing Kasturi and Andries won't agree. How can I edit it the article when I can get no where with Andries? Andries believes that there are no reputable biographical sources for SSB and deletes everything associated with it. Look at the talk section. SSS108 03:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you made an edit today [4] and that Andries reverted it [5]. Andries may feel justified making the revert because he believes that there is a source to back up his position. If you give advance warning of what you intend to do on the talk page, say for example, remove some material as unsourced, then Andries will likely present what he believes to be sources on the talk page. At that point, it can be discussed whether the sources are adequate or not. I will be starting two new pages shortly, dealing with Kasturi and Premanand. --BostonMA 15:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a number of new questions, which can be accessed by clicking on the appropriate links at User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Reminders for Editors. If it is alright with you, I will just update the timestamp for this message whenever I add something new. --BostonMA 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I would like for you to encourage Andries in the mediation process. I noticed that Andries is very active in editing the SSB article and adding controversial and critical material to the article but refuses to answer the questions posed in mediation. See Talk Page SSS108 ^talk-email 20:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

^ Complaint I ^

BostonMA, even though Andries has not followed through with the mediation process, he is reverting the article and promptly came out of hiding after I made a few relevant changes on the main SSB article. Andries said he would answer the outstanding questions the past weekend and has not: Ref1 Several requests were made of him and he has withheld a response for his failure to give any sort of explanation of reply Ref2 Why Andries has enough time to watch the SSB article (he responded within 18 minutes of my post) and revert the article, but cannot answer the questions posed in mediation is a mystery. What to do? SSS108 ^talk-email 20:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

^ Complaint II ^

BostonMA, I was wondering if you can kindly assess whether or not Andries is willing to complete the mediation process. Andries seems more interested in the Prem Rawat article than participating in this mediation, which he agreed to. In my opinion, Andries is stonewalling the discussion and I was hoping you could create a time-table within which Andries would answer the questions. I think this is only fair. I also noticed that Andries promptly responded to questions about the Salon.com article, which he felt was important, but seems hesitant to answer questions that directly challenge the notability of Premanand. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

^ Sincere apology ^

SSS108, I sincerely apologize for my absense from Wikipedia and the mediation process. Unfortunately, other obligations have been pressing me. I feel that this point I should state that I cannot promise a return to the process in any reasonable time frame, and I will have to suggest that the parties seek another mediator or some other means of dealing with the remaining issues. Although I believe that progress was made through the mediation, I also understand that the conflict has not been fully resolved, and I apologize for what feels to me as abandoning the parties. I wish it could be otherwise. Sincerely, --BostonMA 16:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I understand. Thank you so much for your help, patience and guidance. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

^ Mediaton Request: Sathya Sai Baba 2 ^

Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case relating to the above article. First thing that we need to decide is what format the mediation should take. I would recommend carrying out the mediation on Wikipedia, specifically here. If you have any objection to using Wikipedia, then please let me know. One other thing, if you plan to take a Wikibreak in the next week or so, or know that you will not be around much could you pleaes let me know. --Wisden17 12:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've been keeping an eye on him on Wikipedia, if I've not heard anything by tomorrow, then I shall get in contact with him. --Wisden17 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've closed the case, as I judged his behaviour as that of somebody who is unwilling to participate. To take the case to arbitration go to WP:RfAr to file a case, you may mention that you had tried to mediate the case and that the mediation failed due to unwillingness to participate. --Wisden17 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries has now said that he is willing to particpate in the mediation, and that the wikibreak is only temporary (via e-mail). I said to him that you are not now willing to participate in the mediation, and would like to take the case to arbitration, is my understanding correct? If you are still interested in the mediation I could relist the case. --Wisden17 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, well let me tell you what I told Andries, this is my reply to him:

Hi,

I have closed this mediation as I find it highly odd how you suddenly declared you were taking a wikibreak the minute the mediation was about to start. Either way it is immaterial as the other party seems keen now to take the case to arbitration so he is now, by definition, unwilling to participate in the mediation.

I was going to leave a message on your talk page, but I shall take this as my notification to you that the mediation has been closed.

I would not like to advise you either way whether to take a case or not to Arbitration, when I have been in the situation of accepting to do the mediation. However, you can read what you like from my reply to him, and may use it as evidence, if you wished to explain you thought the mediaiton would not work. I should point out though that I am happy to resume the mediation if both parties agree, however as I told Andries you now seem keen to go to RfAr, due to his behaviou regarding the mediation, and thus you now no longer wish to participate in the mediation. That's all I'd like to say on the matter, although I should point out that some mediaiton do take place via e-mail, so that is not that strange, however I understand your point in the context. --Wisden17 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)