User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Agreements to Participate
This page was set up in response to a request for mediation initiated by Jossi (talk · contribs). The parties to the mediation would be:
This would be an entirely voluntary mediation. I have no official status with Wikipedia, and I am not an admin. My only aim would be to assist in dispute resolution. Please let me know if you are willing to have me play the role of mediator by commenting here. --BostonMA 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Links
[edit]Acceptance of Mediation by the parties
[edit]- Thank you BostonMA. Yes, if you could assist in the mediation process, it would be greatly appreciated. I am simply asking that the Sathya Sai Baba (SSB) article (and related SSB articles) be neutral, fair and balanced. I agree. SSS108 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- BostonMA, yes, I agree to have you mediate. Thaumaturgic 15:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thaumaturgic is taking a vacation and is excused from participation in the mediation process during that time. --BostonMA 13:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Andries has accepted mediation on a trial basis on 13:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC) per discussion in section Negotiations with Andries. (note added by BostonMA 14:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
- Hi Andries. It has now been 2 weeks. Please express whether you a willing to have me continue as mediator. Thanks. --BostonMA 02:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree to continue with mediation with you. I understand that I have a backlog in answering questions. Andries 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I will answer all outstanding questions this weekend
[edit]BostonMA, I will answer all outstanding questions this weekend. Please note that I have already implemented the agreements about e.g. Nagel as a source to a great extent. I have not touched most of the parts that Moreno insists on having in the article, even if they did not follow policies at all, because experience has shown that he reverts anything that I delete so that would be waste of time. Andries 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Timely Responses to Questions Posed by Mediator
[edit]If we are to continue the mediation, I think it is appropriate that I ask you whether you think you should answer questions promptly, even when you believe they may not be important or urgent. Please respond to that question directly. Thank-you. BostonMA 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- BostonMA, you ask many difficult question that sometimes have little or even no relevance for the current version of the article. I understand that you have done a lot of effort for mediation and I appreciate this very much. I will answer your new questions within in a week and if I cannot then I will let you know in advance. Andries 20:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- SSS108, is a one week response time acceptable to you? --BostonMA 21:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
BostonMA, one week max is acceptable to me, yes. One week with excuses for extensions beyond one week is not acceptable to me. SSS108 talk-email 02:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- BostonMA, I would also like to clarify my answer above. I believe a one week response time to give a direct answer is acceptable. If Andries gives indirect responses that do not satisfy the question's purpose, and keeps delaying mediation with indirect responses, I would consider this the same as not giving an answer and will proceed with my edits. I am just making this clear now, so Andries will not say he does not understand my position in the future. SSS108 talk-email 18:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I had not understood that my slowness in giving replies bothered editors so much. Though I do understand that editors and especially the mediator has put a lot of effort in bringing parties together, I failed to understand the relevance of most of the questions for the article. That was together with the sometimes difficult nature of the questions, and my character of thinking and re-thinking about a problem, the reason for slowness in answering questions. I will really try to be faster. Andries 12:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)