User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Miscellaneous

This has been created as part of the mediation process for the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles.

It is my request that only two types of edits occur on this page:
 * 1) Material may be moved here when discussion on that material is relatively inactive and there exists no page where the material might be more suitably placed.
 * 2) Material may be moved away from this page to a new location, either for more active consideration, or for better organization.

I ask that no new edits be made directly to this page

Offer to help
I have access to an excellent library in the University a few blocks from where I live that has a very well stocked section on religious studies. I visit that library quite often. If you need some references from books not widely available, please let me know. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 18:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I may take you up on your offer at some point. --BostonMA 18:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Save This Page
BostonMA, is this page going to be saved for long term use? I can see where this mediation is headed. I would like to bookmark it for future mediators. Is this page going to reliably indexed? Thanks.SSS108 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi SSS108. Sometimes parties engage in mediation through private channels such as email.  One reason to do so is to allieviate the fear that one party will use statements by the other party for purposes which that party does not approve.  If I am to be your mediator, I will be asking you some direct questions, and this is the occassion for one such direct question.  Regardless of your intent, do you think your comments above might be construed as concern for preserving documentation which might be later used against Andries?  --BostonMA 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I spent a good deal of time writing my argument against Andries and I do not want to have to rewrite my argument again if this mediation fails and the page is deleted. That was the intention for my inquiry.

As you may know, BostonMA, these discussion pages are public domain. My comments and words can similarly be used against me (as a matter of fact, they were just recently used against me on a Yahoo Group). Nevertheless, I prefer that ALL our correspondence be made public.

SSS108 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi SSS108, thank you for responding. It is not my intent to say whether mediation should be done publicly or privately, or whether the page should be kept or deleted. I have not heard the opinions of Andries, and his/her feelings will definitely have an impact on the answer, for without his/her participation, there will be little discussion to actually record. I did not answer your question because I do not yet know the answer to your question. I apologize for not explaining that in my reply above.

I appreciate that you have spent considerable time writing your arguments and no one likes their efforts to go to waste. You have stated that you would like the SSB article to be neutral, fair and balanced. That is an honorable objective, and there is no reason to doubt your sincerity. However, I would say the same about Andries. The fact is, that people of good will may have honest disagreements. What appears to one side as maliciousness, may appear to the other as an effort to put things right. And it is precisely the issue of how things may appear to the parties on the opposite side of the fence that prompted me to put my question to you, i.e. "Regardless of your intent, do you think your comments above might be construed as concern for preserving documentation which might be later used against Andries?" I want to know whether we are on the same page, whether we both agree that things that may seem above board to you, may seem to be a set-up to someone else. If you understand the issue the way I've described it, please let me know. If you disagree with what I am saying, please let me know that as well. Sincerely, --BostonMA 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, your question is entirely valid and I see nothing wrong with you asking it. I am actually glad you asked it so that other readers will understand what prompted me to ask it in the first place. I just don't think we are off to a very good start when Andries is essentially calling you a newbie and inexperienced. If Andries does not agree to mediation, is this page deleted? That is what I want to know.

SSS108 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi SSS108, My position is that Andries's concern about my being a newbie is entirely legitimate. Members of the mediation committee have gone through an approval process which is something I have not done. Andries has no apriori reason to think that I would do a good job as mediator. It may be that I waste a great deal of his time and effort. Or worse, I might aggravate the disharmony. I see his concerns as reasonable and prudent, and because I see his concerns as reasonable and prudent, I do not want any hesitancy on his part to be held against him.

Andries has not flatly rejected my offer of mediation, but has offered his own proposal, which would have involved postponing mediation for a bit. I have in turn offered a counterproposal. I have not yet heard back from Andries, and it has not been even 24 hours, so my assumption is that he is still considering my proposal, and that the issue of mediation is still being negotiated.

Regarding whether the page is kept or deleted, I raised the point previously that we have not yet heard from one of the parties, and I am reluctant to make any promises without his input. If I were the party involved, I would have no problem keeping the page. However, there are some editors who feel very strongly about the removal from Wikipedia of anything that they consider to be a personal attack. It is quite possible that Andries and yourself may have differing opinions regarding what constitutes a personal attack. I therefore cannot promise in advance that new material that is added will be kept. We need to hear from Andries about that. I will however, give my opinion on the current material. I would favor keeping the current material unless a very strong and persuasive argument were raised to delete it.

I am hoping that you will give a clearer response to the issues I raised above, i.e. that actions which may seem to one party to be completely above board, may appear to another party as a set-up. I am guessing that you would agree with me here, but I think it is worthwhile to verify this guess. Sincerely, --BostonMA 14:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the question I have is whether this voluntary mediation interferes with, or will postpone, an official mediator from intervening? I don't think any of us can afford postponing offical intervention when the current effort can, at any moment and on any whim, be entirely dismissed. Thaumaturgic 18:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In reading your comments, I can see that there may be a misunderstanding about what mediation is and the difference between mediation (official or not) and arbitration. I would suggest that you read Mediation and Arbitration.
 * Mediation: Mediation is the activity in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest.
 * Arbitration The Arbitration Committee exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes. This solution may be anything up to and including a ban from editing Wikipedia for a period of time.
 * Mediation is a step before arbitration, designed to assist people in a dispute. Arbitration is the last resort in dispute resolution at Wikipedia. BostonMA if one is to judge by his comments in this page, seem highly capable to mediate in this dispute. &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, BostonMA has my vote of confidence.

SSS108 16:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, Jossie. Thaumaturgic 15:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Issue Regarding Emails
Andries keeps accusing me of publishing "emails" (plural) that he sent to me, and making "misguided comments" about them. First and foremost, I have only published ONE email from Andries where he attempted to submit anonymous affidavits from anonymous affiants to my site. Anyone can see whether or not my comments, at the end of the article, are "misguided" or not: Reference

It is also important to point out that I have an email policy, clearly stated on my contact form and on the affidavits submission form, that all emails sent to me become my property and may be archived and duplicated on my site. Therefore, when Andries submitted his email to my site, he knew I would publish it (as I have done with other Anti-Sai Activists).

As a matter of fact, Andries was upset that I did not immediately publish his email on my site! Andries complained, in a Yahoo Group, that I refused to accept his submission: Reference

Let us look at the exaggerations and contradictions: Andries is complaining that I am publishing his "emails", when in fact there was only ONE email. Andries complained, in the Yahoo Group, that I did not publish his email on my site. Now, after publishing it, Andries is complaining that I published it! A no win situation.

Also, this email issue is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. I am not asking Andries to email me and I don't know why he keeps bringing this issue up when he is not emailing me and I am not asking him to.

SSS108 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As a consequence of your policy I sometimes prefer to raise concerns here on Wikipedia, instead of e-mailing you. Andries 16:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Andries, I never asked you to email me to begin with. So this issue is moot. When you originally emailed me, you fully expected me to publish your email. You even complained that I did not immediately publish your email. After publishing your email, now you are complaining that I published it! And I prefer you to bring up your issues in public and not in private with me. This should be done in order to maintain transparency. So let us end this discussion here and now, regarding emails. It's over as far I as concerned.


 * SSS108 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries Deleting My Replies
Andries has deleted two of my replies and I ask that he refrain from doing this: Reference

SSS108 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry that was unintentionally done in the heat of the discussion. Andries 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I will accept that answer in good faith. But you happened to delete two of my posts, located in two different sections, in one edit.

SSS108 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Creator of Spin-off Articles
As backgrojund, note that most if not all the articles were initiated by Andries. The current content forks have been like this since the beginning and are somewhat arbitrary. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossie, that is not true. Andries created/started the following pages: Prema Sai Baba, Sathya Sai Organization, Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of higher learning, Prasanthi Nilayam, Basava Premanand, Beliefs and Practices In the Sathya Sai Organization, History and Origins of the Sathya Sai Movement and several others. You can verify this by going to the earliest posts and seeing who started the page: I also have some of the relevant links posted on my page about this issue: Reference


 * SSS108 17:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no contradiction between Jossi's and SSS108's statements. Andries 20:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the related policies and guidelines Article_size and POV fork Andries 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The contradiction is crystal clear. Jossie said Andries did not start/create most of the articles in question and the origins to these separate articles were "arbitrary". In fact, the origins to all these separate articles are not "arbitrary". They can be directly traced back to Andries. That is the point I made. Whether they are POV Forks is irrelevant.

SSS108 21:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Jossi's comment should have read "most if not all of" --BostonMA 12:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that very important clarification BostonMA. Sorry Jossie.

SSS108 18:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Sorry... my mistyping. I have corrected it. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

An Apology
I apologize for my absense yesterday. I was unexpectedly asked to assist someone at work. I will be quite busy most of today as well. --BostonMA 12:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * BostonMA, this mediation will not be finished in a week or within two weeks, so your absence for a few days is not a problem. Only getting the right books will take me months and I cannot ask Jossi for what I need from these books, because I do not know what I can get. Andries 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)