Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mata Amritanandamayi

Mata Amritanandamayi

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party
 * 2) aka JamesRoberts


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi
 * Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) User:Amrit914 is of the opinion that Mata Amritanandamayi is a relatively unknown person and hence the section in question (Mata Amritanandamayi) should come under the rule WP:BLPCRIME. I (User:Drajay1976) disagree with this assessment. In my opinion, Amritanandamayi is a well known person and hence WP:WELLKNOWN should apply. An editing war has been going on in that page regarding this section. I am of the opinion that the section even meets WP:BLPCRIME. Both parties have agreed to mediation in the talk page.
 * 2) I have not included the specific allegations raised by Ms. Gail Tredwell in the section. The allegations which have found mention in third party sources include the following (most of these allegations are there in multiple third party sources). I would like to ask you whether inclusion of any/all of these specific allegations (supported by multiple third party sources) in the section is acceptable if WP:WELLKNOWN is the policy to be followed here. Of course, these cannot be presented as facts, but only as controversial allegations against the Guru.
 * She had attempted to protect the guru’s misdeeds from public view
 * She was physically tortured by Mata Amritanandamayi during her stay at the ashram
 * Lies were told to cover up the source of the wealth of Amritanandamayi's relatives
 * Amritanandamayi is either not omniscient or if she is, she was knowingly permitting sexual abuse of Ms. Tredwell--Drajay1976 (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Some more issues
 * 1) Here, user:Abhayakara has put forth the argument that the section violates WP:GRAPEVINE. Since this could only mean that in the users assessment, the section is either "unsourced" or "poorly sourced", this argument needs to be subjected to mediation as well. It must be noted that user:Abhayakara was the first one to raise this arguemnt.
 * 2) user:Abhayakara has also argued in an edit summery where he removed the section that "it" (the section) "is alleged to be (and appears to be) in violation of WP:BLP". He has not clarified his stance. So far, the only arguments put forward to claim that the section was in violation of WP:BLP was that it violated WP:BLPGOSSIP & WP:BLPCRIME. The first argument was withdrawn by the person who made the allegation (User:Amrit914). The second argument was refuted by me and it was the point of contention between the original parties who sought mediation (User:Amrit914 and myself). Since user:Abhayakara has stated that "it seems to" him that (possibly) another provision of WP:BLP was in violation here, he must be made a party to the mediation. This would give him the chance to be in the clear with regards to his own fear that he was "putting words in the mediators' mouth".
 * 3) User:Xrie had reverted the removal of the section in question by User:Amrit914. His argument was that "I second the inclusion of the controversy, maintaining NPOV. Since Amritanandamayi herself has given an explanation about the controversy, I think it becomes more relevant." I agree with this argument. If user:Abhayakara's stand is included in the mediation, I think User:Xrie's position should also be taken into account. --Drajay1976 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) I would like to clarify that I have not withdrawn my argument that the section violates WP:BLPGOSSIP. Am I correct that WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPGOSSIP are the same thing?  JamesRoberts (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You had claimed in the edit summery that it violated WP:BLPGOSSIP. What I said in this regard was "WP:BLPGOSSIP does not apply here because of obvious reasons. There are no weasel words/anonymous sources; the sources are reliable; allegations are not being presented as true, only the controversy is being presented as true and lastly, the info is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." You said "Fair enough. However this section may still be in violation of WP:BLPCRIME." I misunderstood the last statement, it seems. I thought you had withdrawn your argument. I apologize for the misunderstanding. --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1:
 * Consider that neither the courts nor the police nor the media have done any investigation on these alleged crimes of money-laundering and rape. The media has merely reported that people have commented on the crimes alleged in a self-published book.  There is absolutely no proof.  Not even a single person has come forward to corroborate Ms. Tredwell's accusations.  More than one person who are mentioned in the book have written on a blog that she lied about them in the book.  So far there is only a lot of "he said, she said". Why don't we let this issue play out, let they real facts come out before including material that has potential to harm the reputation of others?  This section could be included if a conviction, or charge is secured. Right now this section is only serving to promote an unpublished book and allegations which harm the reputation of the subject.  JamesRoberts (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Drajay1976 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. JamesRoberts (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Accept. Mediator to be assigned. On behalf of the mediation committee Sunray (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll volunteer to mediate this case. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The mediation will be on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mediation closed as successful. PhilKnight (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)