User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Complaints

This page is for the recording and discussion of complaints related to the mediation process for the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles.

Complaint about SSS108's behavior: repeatedly removing the word boys

The lates dispute about the inclusion of the word "boy" that I have with SSS108 cannot, I think, be a case in the mediation because I followed all policies of Wikipedia (i.e. providing verifiable, reputable sources such as salon.com), but still SSS108 continues to revert my edits. If SSS108 is so unreasonable or ignorant of Wikipedia policies then what is there left to mediate in this case? I have no intention to have the word "boy" removed unless SSS108 or others come with new good reasons. Until now I have not seen any. Andries 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

View Talk Page And Reasons Given by SSS108

Also, the Salon.com article was discussed as possibly being an op-ed Reference The fact that Michelle Goldberg had private, reciprocated correspondence, with Anti-Sai Activists, in which she expressed a hope of bringing attention to their cause proves it was written with a personal bias. Even Andries said "Read the articles and watch their documentaries and it is clear that Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com, Danish Radio, and Tanya Datta of the BBC are sympathetic to the critics and ex-followers" [1] Goldberg's private correspondence is published on Andries Anti-Sai Site [2] Therefore, the Salon.com article was not neutral and was specifically written with a personal, Anti-Sai point of view being expressed (op-ed).

This issue was also discussed under the "Reputable Sources" discussion: Discussion So this issue is not as clear-cut as Andries would have everyone believe and, in my opinion, is not unreasonable at all. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:18, 4 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 02:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why questions about sources that are not used in the article are urgent. Andries 09:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, it is not clear from your comment whether you are saying that you feel that it is OK to not answer questions promptly if you do not feel they are urgent. Could you clarify whether you are willing to answer questions promptly? One of the reasons why prompt answers are useful is that the other parties and the mediator do not wait unnecessarily for your response. --BostonMA 12:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I will answer the questions, but if you have seen our discussions at talk:Sathya Sai Baba and our edits at Sathya Sai Baba then I hope that you will agree with me that SSS108 and I continue to have dispute and disagreements, but that they are now to a great extent productive, that is they lead to a better article. In contrast, our previous disputes were to a great extent unproductive: we both repeated our arguments endlessly and both kept reverting the edits of the other. There is much to gain when I and SSS108 now devote our time to improving the article. Andries 15:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I recognize that the disputes have become more productive and less repetitive. I also recognize that the SSB article has been improving. Further, I appeciate that you have answered a number of the open questions within the last day. However, I would like to press you for an answer to the particular question of whether or not you feel that you should answer mediation questions promptly, even when you do not believe those questions to be important or urgent. On more than one occassion, you have not responded to issues on the mediation page, or even questions that I put to you directly on talk pages.

[Further discussion moved to User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Agreements to Participate#Timely Responses to Questions Posed by Mediator]

I notice that SSS108 criticizes me for editing Wikipedia without giving a reply to outstanding mediation questions. I have always edited other subjects than Sathya Sai Baba and I will continue to do so. And let us face, the dispute about the Sathya Sai Baba set of articles may be resolved to some extent, but they will never be fully resolved: SSS108 will always want to minimize and discredit criticism and I will always resist that. No mediation is going to change that. I think it is reasonable that BostonMA will after some time stop mediation. Andries 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, it is clear (and fully documented on Wikipedia) that you will always want to minimize and discredit favorable content about SSB and push your POV. The only one who has stonewalled, circumvented and effectively stopped mediation has been you. When something is discussed that is important to your POV, you answer the questions within one day (i.e., Nagel, Goldberg, including/excluding Kasturi, etc.). However, when it comes to other questions that are meant to assess your neutrality and your understanding of NPOV, you delay, give indirect responses, say it is "not urgent", "not relevant", etc. You consistently fail to give reasons for your refusal to answer these questions directly. BostonMA asked you specific questions on this page and on your talk page and you ignored his questions. This rightly casts a shadow on your sincerity to participate in mediation. I don't know if BostonMA accepted your answer to his question about promptly answering questions, however, as far as I can see, you did not answer the question. You have not agreed to answer questions promptly. Rather, you create a loophole you can jump through for not answering questions. This is unfair to everyone involved. Apparently the entire mediation process is supposed to revolve around you, your time schedule, your likes and dislikes and your assessments on whether the questions are "urgent", "relevant" or not. (BostonMA, yes you can move this response if you want.) SSS108 ^talk-email 18:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have answered all questions posed by the mediator so it is beyond me why you say that I stopped or circumvented mediation. It is true that I have stated that questions regarding sources that are not used in any of the SSB related articles cannot reasonably be considered urgent and I continue to hold this opinion. And of course, it takes me more time to develop an opinion on subjects and sources that I have not thought about. When I already have an opinion then I am able to reply promptly. Andries 19:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Give all the facts, Andries. You answered the questions after several weeks of delays. And only after I kept applying pressure for you to answer them. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)