User talk:BostonMA/Sai Baba Mediation Related

This is an archive page. Please do not edit this page without permission. If you would like to comment, please do so at User talk:BostonMA. Thank-you.

Request for Mediation

You offered to mediate on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sathya Sai Baba; although we generally only assign members of the Mediation Committee to mediations, we have accepted your offer. Please familiarize yourslef with Wikipedia:Mediation, contact the parties involved, and keep the committee informed of the progress of the mediation via the mediation subage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sathya Sai Baba. Thank you for your interest in mediation, and good luck; if there is anything I or the other committee members can do to help you, please do not hesitate to ask.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 13:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you invite Jossi?

As far as I am aware Jossi is not a party to the mediation. Andries 03:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not. Just an editor that cares about NPOV and that inititated the request for mediation. BostonMA: if you believe that my participation in the mediation page is not helpful, please say so. I can make my comments directly to your via private email. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation:Sathya Sai Baba

So where do things head from here? Jossie has seen the SSB page through many phases. It appears Willmcw does not help moderate the page anymore. So I think Jossie's presence is entirely appropriate. He is also more experienced than Thaumaturgic and myself and knows more than either of us. I think he should be allowed to be a party in the mediation. SSS108 03:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the confidence, but I am not a party to the mediation. See my comment above. If you need my assistance with any questions you may have about Wikipedia content policies, and dispute resolution practices, you may do so via private email. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

BostonMA, I was just curious where things stand on the Sathya Sai Baba mediation process? There has been no activity or comments for almost a week. Any reason? Thanks SSS108 16:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, the SSB article took years to develop the way it is standing now. I am aware that the recommendation is to use Nagel's outdated Dutch language 1994 article, but that takes time. Using non-English language sources takes a lot of time, because the used sentences have to be translated according to Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:verifiability. Andries 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, and for years, the Sathya Sai Baba has been thoroughly biased. No one cared to translate Alexandra Nagel's article although it was on the page about a year. BostonMA, I am asking to be excused from the mediation process. I feel SSS108's stance adequately represents my own. I am going on vacation for several weeks and do not want to be logging in and making comments during that time. Thank you very much. Thaumaturgic 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am back from vacation. I noticed that many of the major disagreements have been settled through the mediation. If needed, I will add comments on the discussion page. I would prefer not to be included in further mediation queries, as SSS108 shares my views. Thank you for all of your help BostonMa. Thaumaturgic 20:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Question of Arbitration

BostonMA, I noticed Andries is heavily editing the Sathya Sai Baba main page. He also removed the "non compliant" header on the page. Andries refuses to answer mediation questions and has thus far refused to answer your question (although he is very active on wikipedia). I believe I have no choice but to request arbitration in this matter. I am more than willing to take my risks with arbitration since Andries is deciding which questions are "urgent" and which ones are not, edits the article as he chooses (according to his timeline and terms) and even removed the "non compliant" warning from the article. Removing the warning gives the perception that the article has no ongoing disputes. All this behavior, from Andries, leaves me feeling like the entire process is being compromised and I have no way to address my concerns in a fair and balanced way. Therefore, I am kindly seeking the intervention of the arbitration committee. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, I have been reading Andries edits. For the most part, they seem to me to be moving the article in the right direction, by removing much of the material that was both POV and improperly sourced. By saying that the article is moving in the right direction, I am not saying that it is no longer POV, or that it is free from other problems. However, I personally am not inclined to object while Andries is making edits in the positive direction.

If you wish to file a request for arbitration, I cannot stop you. However, I think a useful step prior to arbitration would be to file a request for comment. A request for comment, like this mediation, basically works on the basis of moral authority, rather than having the power to sanction anyone. One of the values of a request for comment is that it draws in more of the Wikipedia community than mediation. A request for comment must be "certified" by more than one editor, and each of the editors certifying the RfA must have experienced the same conflict with the editor against whom the RfA has been filed. Both sides then tell there story, and the community comments on it. Sometimes there is a clear consensus by the community, and sometimes not. A lot depends upon who bothers to read the RfA and who bothers to comment on it. The larger the input from the community, I think the better.

A clarification. There are two types of RFC's. There are "article" RFC's and "behavior" RFC's. In an article RFC, a larger section of the community examines a content dispute and gives their opinions. In a "behavior" RFC, it is the behavior of an editor that is discussed. I'm not sure which might be more appropriate. When Jossi filed the request for mediation, he mentioned that there had been a RFC which had not been particularly fruitful. Please ask Jossi's opinion regarding an RFC at this point. He may feel that such an effort would have limited value. It also might be worth your time to get opinions from editors other than Jossi and myself. There are a number of places you might go for such opinions. The Village Pump has a section for Assistance, and another for Miscellaneous. If you post to one of these pages, explaining that you are seeking advice regarding RFC's and possible arbitration, someone may be willing to offer advice. --BostonMA 01:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I realize that it is one more task to undertake. However, I think your prospects with a Request for Arbitration are iffy unless you take this step first. Please get a second opinion. Jossi may be willing to offer an opinion on this. You may use material from the mediation to make your case in the request for comment. However, I will not be taking a position against any of the parties, as I would like to keep the door open for mediation.

However, on the subject of mediation, I understand that it is frustrating for you to see Andries ignore open questions, yet edit freely on Wikipedia. There is obviously many more issues to resolve. However, there has been agreement on a number of issues, and I don't think these are insignificant. Ideally, at the end of mediation, I could leave, and the parties could edit cooperatively without my input. What would be needed for that to happen is not simply that particular content issues are resolved, but that the editors have actually learned how to resolve their disputes by themselves. In that way, the mediation process ideally helps editors to become better editors, and more effective editors. It doesn't always work that way of course. In my opinion, a positive change in the editors is the larger picture, and the slights that Andries has given me or the mediation through his choices about when, or even whether, to respond to questions are only a part of that picture. A relatively small part of the picture in my opinion. It is not up to me to tell you that you should share my values. However, I encourage you to think about the long term. Sincerely, --BostonMA 01:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I have talked to several people and all agree that filing a request with the Arbitration Committee would be premature. Consequently, I will withhold filing this request. Having said this, I do not understand how the mediation process is now supposed to work. Andries has not answered the questions about Premanand and you said you feel that Andries refusal to answer these questions is a "relatively small part of the picture". This appears to put the mediation into a standstill. Until there is a time-table in place and an actual agenda to the mediation, I am unsure how the mediation process can continue with any kind of success. Let me know your thoughts. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, in the last few days, both you and Andries have made edits to SSB related articles which I consider to be improvements. Please continue to do so. Even if Andries does not respond to my questions, if he allows you to make improvements without conflict, then I don't see his unresponsiveness as an immediate problem. If the parties become locked in a fight again, well that is another issue. So please make improvements, and let's see what happens. That is how I would like to proceed for now. --BostonMA 11:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have again removed the non-compliant warning at Sathya Sai Baba, because I have repeatedly requested a justification for the non-compliant warning on the talk page and received none. This is the normal procedure: a warning has to be accompanied by a reason on the talk page and if there is none then it can be removed. Andries 16:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, There are several outstanding issues. I am proposing deletion of the Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba article. It is unfair that two pages are being devoted to the controversy (one on the main page and the other on the allegations page). So there needs to be decision about the deletion of this page. There are other issues, but since the mediation is at a standstill, and I am refusing to move forward with it until Andries answers his outstanding questions, I guess the entire process is back at square one. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

New discussions for mediation SSS108 ^talk-email 00:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Needed

BostonMA, Andries agreed to mediation for establishing the reputability of the Indian CSICOP. Also need to discuss the introduction to the SSB article. Thanks. Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 13:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No mediation is needed for the reptuability of Indian CSICOP, because the direct treatment of Beyerstein's study can be replaced with Nagel's 1994 university article that also mentions the study. Andries 16:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am objecting not only to Beyerstein's work, but also the link that goes to Andries site promoting Beyerstein's original research. Andries, are you willing to remove the link as well? We still need to discuss the introductory paragraph. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not prepared to remove the link in the references to Dale Beyerstein's study. Feel free to upload Beyerstein's study to the wikiref geocities website. Andries 16:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Beyerstein's study is original research and has not been published by reputable sources. Hence my suggestion for mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But even Beyerstein's study is original research then so what? I dropped my intention for a direct treatment of Beyerstein's study, but instead will indirectly refer to it via Nagel's 1994 article. Andries 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Should I start reposting the link to my site and my article about Beyerstein's 20 year old lie? Ref If you want to include original research, then I see no reason why I can't include my link as well. Make up your mind Andries. Is original research allowed or not? If you want to include a link to Beyerstein's original research, then you are employing double standards. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that your original research has never been referred to by reputable sources. Andries 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because Nagel referred to the article does not make it reputable. Nagel's article is reputable. Reference the reputable sources that published Beyerstein's work. Putting a link to his non-reputable original research on the SSB article is no different than posting one of my links on the site. If you disagree, then we need to have BostonMA mediate. Do you agree to mediate this topic? SSS108 ^talk-email 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nagel mentions Beyerstein in a reference, so I think that Beyerstein's study can also be linked to as a reference. Andries 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What does Nagel say about Beyerstein? --BostonMA 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, the only place Nagel mentions Beyerstein are in her Notes and "Literatuur" Ref She does not make a single mention to his name in the main text of the article. And one of the Notes that goes back to his name is an estimation of followers between 50-100 million. Guess I should change the number of adherents to reflect the number cited in Nagel's article? After all, it is so reputable and all. No link to his site. No mention to his name in the text of the article. No quotes taken from his alleged "book". No nothing. He is simply cited in the "Literatuur" section and the Notes, that goes back to an estimation of followers. Once again showing why I doubt Andries claims. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do you agree that this is the only mention of Beyerstein in Nagels article? --BostonMA 14:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the only mentioning of Beyerstein by Nagel. Nagel refers to Beyerstein's 1992 study in the notes 9, 23, 27 & 28. Note 23 contains an estimate by Beyerstein of 6 million followers. The other three notes are used as examples of criticisms by skeptics and rationalists. For example, in note 9 she wrote "Convincing with regards to weakening of various supernatural stories that circulate about Sai Baba is further the work of the Canadian Beyerstein" dutch original in the same word order "Overtuigend inzake het ontkrachten van allerlei bovennatuurlijke verhalen die over Sai Baba de ronde doen, is verder het werk van de Canadees Beyerstein (1992)." I have seen scholars quoting each other's notes in articles, so I do not see anything wrong with what I do. Andries 16:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I am concerned that the current text in the article states:

"According to a 1994 article by Alexandra Nagel, Dale Beyerstein concluded in 1992 convincingly the untruths of all kinds of supernatural phenomena."

whereas, the translation of the Dutch which you provide says:

"Convincing with regards to weakening of various supernatural stories that circulate about Sai Baba is further the work of the Canadian Beyerstein"

It seems to me that Nagel is saying that Beyerstein convincingly weakened the stories. It seems to me that the current text of the article states that Beyerstein convincingly concluded that the stories were untrue. I am not convinced that these are the same. I am also concerned about references to unspecified stories. Nagel does not specify which stories she found convincingly weakened by Beyerstein, nor does the current text, but rather refers to "all kinds of supernatural phenomena". I am concerned that vague references such as this are not that informative, yet may serve to express a particular point of view. Please address these concerns. --BostonMA 18:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The main source of the somewhat differing meanings is the Dutch verb "ontkrachten" in "ontkrachten van allerlei bovennatuurlijke verhalen" The somewhat unusual Dutch word "ontkrachten" means literally "de-power" so the fragment reads literally "de-power all kinds of supernatural stories". The word is translated by my dictionary as "1. enfeeble => enervate, negate" and the expression "een argument ontkrachten" is translated by the dictionary as "weaken an argument" I think it is informative that there is a study that treats the subject of the various kinds of miracles in a totally different way than Haraldson. Both studies are quite thorough. Andries 19:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a better translation would be "Convincing with regards to negating various supernatural stories that circulate about Sai Baba is further the work of the Canadian Beyerstein. " which could be voiced in Wikipedia as "Nagel wrote in a 1994 article that the 1992 work of the Canadian Beyerstein convincingly negated supernatural stories of all kinds circulating about SB." Andries 19:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not questioning whether Beyerstein's writing is informative. I am questioning whether it is informative to tell readers of Wikipedia that per Nagel, some unnamed stories have been negated (undermined, weakened or whatever) by Beyerstein. --BostonMA 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, from my personal experience as a devotee. SSB and his ashram are just absolutely full of miracle stories. It is hard to explain if you do not know it from experience. Andries 20:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no clue what Andries is talking about. Beyerstein never saw Sathya Sai Baba. He made critiques about things he read about SSB. Miracle stories are not confined to SSB's ashram. They are world-wide and Mick Brown testified to this fact, first-hand, in his book. BostonMA, I object to the link to Beyerstein's original research. Can this link be included? Using Andries logic, he can start linking to Premanand too because Nagel references him as well. But when I want to cite Kasturi, who has been published in numerous reputable sources, Andries objects. Something is very wrong with this picture. Since when are references on published articles "reputable" by association? SSS108 ^talk-email 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I have misgivings about your approach and I am trying to understand those misgivings. I would like to give you a well argued opinion, but at the moment, what I say may be a bit rough and rambling. I am hoping that you will engage my misgivings nevertheless.

If Beyerstein's writings had been published by a reputable publisher, then those writings could be used to support statements in Wikipedia articles per WP:V. Even if Beyerstein's writings had not been published by reputable publishers, but a reputable publisher had published a work which described specific stories which Beyerstein had shown to be untrue, then mention of those stories and how they were shown to be untrue would be information which could be supported according to WP:V. However, neither of those scenarios appears (at the moment) to be the case. That is why you have Nagel being used to support very unspecific assertions about Beyerstein writings about Sathya Sai Baba. It appears very contrived. Whether or not it is your intent, the contrived nature of the situation has the appearance of an evasion the restrictions imposed by Wikipedia policy. If Beyerstein's claims have not been published by a reputable publisher, then one mentions them because they appeared in footnotes to Nagel. If Nagel's footnotes omit all specifics and details, then one mentions that Beyerstein made some unspecified points about some unspecified stories anyway.

When I questioned whether some of the statements in the article were insufficiently informative, and might be expressions of POV, I did not mean that no-one under any circumstances could derive information from them. I have an idea which I do not know how to express yet, except to say that there are statements which are informative, and there are statements which are informative in some "encycolpedic" sense. Information gives us knowledge. It is knowledge to know the birthday of the queen of England. It is also knowledge to know that the birthday of the queen of England can be found in Wikipedia. Imparting the second kind of knowledge is not informative in the encyclopedic sense. Even though true, even though informative in a broader sense, it just isn't the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Now getting back to the unspecified stories about Sathya Sai Baba, which Beyerstein "negated", the negation of which Nagel mentions in some footnotes, and the story of this negation which appears in the Wikipedia article -- I am not convinced that this is encyclopedic information. I understand that there are many points that may be raised against these reflections. The analogy about the queen of England certainly has problems. I am still struggling to find the way to express my misgivings. I hope you will address my concerns as best as you can appreciate them, so that we all may become clearer regarding the issues involved. --BostonMA 03:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What you are basically saying is that information in an encyclopedia should be specific and that the assertion by Nagel about Beyerstein is not specific enough to be included in the article. Correct? Mick Brown is more specific, but, like Nagel, does not mention Beyerstein as a source in the main text, but only in the bibiography section. Andries 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the assertions are not specific enough is a significant part of my concern. There are times when it is acceptable to omit detail. Excessive detail may interrupt the flow of narrative. Some details may be of interest to very few of the likely readers of an article. The list of cases where details might appropriately be omitted is quite open-ended. However, in the current case, the details are apparently being omitted because of the Wikipedia policies prohibitting original research, and requiring verifiability. A reader cannot immediately tell from the text of the article why the details are missing. It could have been an editorial oversight, or it could have been for some other reason altogether. However, in this case, the mentioning of unspecified stories seems to obscure for the reader that the particulars of these stories did not meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. I hope that helps to clarify my concern. --BostonMA 14:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a reasonable reputable magazine article that mentions specifics of Beyerstein's study [1] It was published in the year 2000 in the Dutch New Age magazine Spiegelbeeld The translation is quite good.

"After years of intensely sweet hope in February '93 the dream got disturbed. Of course, there had been instances for reading negative opinions on Baba before. But the study by Dale Beyerstein was the first sound of criticism sufficiently substantiated to be taken seriously. The sense of acute dilapidation which then took hold of me will remain with me for life.

Here as well it were the details which convinced. For instance with regard to Baba’s supposed creation of a so-called ‘lingam’ (an ovally shaped smooth stone), which he annually coughed up from his throat with Mahasivarathri. Among others, Beyerstein quotes the devotees themselves: "Baba has said He often finds it difficult to postpone or prevent the formation of lingams within Him". (N. Kasturi, quoted in Beyerstein 1992, 71). Remarkable of course: God finding something difficult... While vomiting up a lingam is a fairly common feat among Indian ‘holy men' in general, as tells us the great Houdini by another quotation. It is done by just (be it after some training) swallowing one in advance — with the proviso that regurgitation of the lingam is to take place within due time after that... Another example concerned the American Walter Cowan, who by Baba's grace was supposed to have been resurrected from the dead — a story which both personnel concerned as well as the doctors in question forcibly refuted."

Andries 18:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, are you saying Mick Brown referenced Beyerstein? If so, where? SSS108 ^talk-email 04:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, I believe that Mick Brown referenced Beyerstein when he wrote in his book The Spiritual Tourist the following "Pondering his claims for omniscient knowledge, sceptics have produced documentation clearly showing discrepancies between Baba's reading of historical events and biblical prophecies and the established accounts" Brown mentions in his bibliography of his book Beyerstein's study. Andries 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

On what page did you get that quote from? Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In the paperback version in The Spiritual Tourist it is on page 73. On the same page as the reference to Erlendur Haraldsson, Premanand, Indian Skeptic, resurrection of Walter Cowan, and John Hislop. Andries 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Although Beyerstein is listed in the Bibliography, it is your assumption that the quote you cited was attributed to him. You do not know this because Brown never mentioned Beyerstein's name. Brown did mention other's names however. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert of the Sathya Sai Baba

I did not revert to a version that excluded edits agreed upon my mediation. At least I am not aware of such edits. Andries 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you are incorrect. I asked you whether you were willing to accept my edits (to the introductory paragraphs) or not. You said you did not accept my edits. I asked you if you were willing to have BostonMA mediate. You said "yes, if BostonMA's wants to". Before BostonMA even approached this topic, you reverted the article to your own edits: Compare April 3rd's Agreement with April 4th's Edits SSS108 ^talk-email 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Request For Mediation 2

BostonMA, we need your help: Request For Mediation Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, thank you for your reply. I figured you have a life and were busy :-) I think the Introductory Paragraphs section is being resolved. Unless Andries objects to something, I am going to make a large edit tomorrow. This is the proposed edit for the introductory paragraphs: User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox and the proposed edit for the entire article: User:SSS108/Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba_Sandbox (which I am working on today. Please supervise. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here is the discussion: Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 22:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, there is something else you can help me with. I am trying to get some Dutch paragraphs translated into English and have not been successful. I do not know if This Submission is accurate or worded correctly. I am requesting these translations as a result of This Thread SSS108 ^talk-email 01:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, not sure if you saw this:

"It has been very frustrating for me to see what I consider a systematic attempt to undermine and bias the SSB article. The disagreements are numerous and with each edit, it seems only more disagreements fester. Do you have any proposed solution or approach to address these disagreements?" SSS108 ^talk-email 06:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi SSS108. Yes I saw this. I do not have a well thought out answer yet. Sincerely, BostonMA 12:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, do you think that having the arbitration committee step in would be the proper thing to do? I know it is a step that you have warned about in the past. I am also aware that there are risks involved, including being permanently banned from editing the article. Nevertheless, I am willing to take those risks because I see no end to sight to Andries ever-increasing arguments against SSB that go into minute details, with such verbal loquacity, it is (in my opinion) absurd. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Court Cases As Sources

BostonMA, Can court cases be cited as sources on Wikipedia? Can court case testimonies, which are public record, be cited as sources on Wikipedia? Or do they have to referenced first by reputable sources? Thanks SSS108 ^talk-email 10:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I will offer my opinion on the matter, although you should not consider my opinions authoritative. In my opinion, the judgements and decisions of a court should be considered as coming from a reputable source. Presumably the court weighed the evidence, in a manner not too different from a peer reviewed journar. Of course courts do get things wrong. However, Wikipedia editors should avoid doing original research to dispute a court's decision. Occassionally reputable sources may make assertions which contradict the assertions of a court. In that case, mentioning the disagreement may be appropriate.

The above is my opinion regarding the use of court decisions as sources for Wikipedia. I think using the assertions of the parties to the case is a very different matter. Because of the adversarial nature of court cases, the assertions made by one side are likely to not present a balanced picture. At the very least, the statements of one side are likely to omit information which would be damaging to their case. One of the roles of a court is to evaluate the reliability of the testimony of various witnesses. If courts accept that testimony may not be reliable, then I do not believe that Wikipedia ought to treat the testimony of witnesses to court cases as a reliable source. To evaluate the reliability of witness testimony, would in my opinion constitute Original Research. It would be better to let a court, or a reputable investigative journalist or some other reputable source comment on the testimony before it is included in Wikipedia, rather than for Wikipedia editors to repeat assertions which may not be accepted by a community of experts in the field in question.

I am of course open to hearing alternative points of view. Sincerely, --BostonMA 14:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been discussing the inclusion of court data in the article for Sathya Sai Baba with SSS108. The material we are seeking to include would be from a lawsuit that was dismissed by the plaintiff in the case. The dimissal of this lawsuit was the direct result of testimony given by a material witness. Do you feel that these public, legal records can be cited in the article for Sathya Sai Baba, even though a verdict was not given due to the dimissal of the lawsuit from the plaintiff? This information would significantly impact — and affect just about every aspect to — the arguments being used on the Wikipedia article for Sathya Sai Baba. It is very, very important. Thaumaturgic 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know what you mean by "dismissed by the plaintiff". Do you mean that the plaintiff withdrew the case? You state that the dismissal was the direct result of certain testimony. Who drew that conclusion? Is there a reputable source that asserts that the dismissal was the direct result of the testimony in question? Did the plaintiff assert it about himself? --BostonMA 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I will not go into details at the present time. I guess we will have to wait until the full records are typed out and you can view the material itself. We would only be citing court transcripts and documents. Nothing more. Thaumaturgic 05:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned in RFA

An RFA that makes mention about you and your former position as a mediator can be found: Here. Please inform me of any discrepancies. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 18:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your question

BostonMA, and SSS108, I do not think that there is much merit in behavior of SSS108 of announcing his edits first and asking for disagreements and continuing with the proposed edits even though I clearly and timely voiced my disagreements and explained why I disagreed. Andries 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, could you make a proposal for how editing ought to proceed in such a way that the editors do not get blocked? Thanks for any ideas. Sincerely, BostonMA 14:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite easy to make edits in such a way that editors do not get blocked i.e. by following the letter of the Wikipedia three revert rule. How to prevent reverts and ensure cooperative editing in such a highly controversial article such as Sathya Sai Baba is a more important question and something that I do not know the answer to. Andries 18:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How to prevent reverts? Discuss them first and get the opinion of a neutral 3rd party. However, I am unsure how anyone can expect BostonMA to mediate over each and every single excruciating detail, which would be very demanding of his time and energy. With my each new attempt to balance the article, Andries responds with multiple attempts to take the article back to pushing what appears to be an expose and an Anti-Sai agenda on the article. I see no end to this type of activity and I think something needs to be done about it. Not only is Andries openly antagonistic against SSB (and is an administration for the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet), he is also very vocal about his trauma and appears to using Wikipedia as a grieving forum, pushing links to his Anti-Sai Site and indirectly spreading his antagonism against SSB on other articles: Example. I find this type of editing to be deeply disturbing. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem if you replace links to the www.exbaba.com website that I am afiliated with with links to saiguru.net with which I have no association. All the external links there on that article are on topic. Andries 16:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, your comments are amusing. First and foremost, SaiGuru.net is owned by Anti-Sai Activists who happen to be your friends. Secondly, SaiGuru.net is a mirror site to your Anti-Sai Site. SaiGuru.net duplicates web-pages obtained from your website, verbatim. Changing the link to another site when the information originated from your website is nothing less than misleading and deceptive at best. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your repeated complaints that I link to a website with which I am affiliated do not make a sincere impression on me if you object to replacing them with links to a website with which I am not affiliated. The real reason is, I think, that you simply do not like the POV of the anti-SSB websites and my affiliation with exbaba is just a pretext for your complaints. Andries 16:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The information originally came from your website. That is like me duplicating the content on my website, putting it on a propenents site and saying it is okay to link to it because it is not on "my" site. Your propositions and actions show you are attempting to mislead readers about the referenced content on Wikipedia. If the information originally came from your site, and was subsequently copied to another Anti-Sai Site, citing the second site and dismissing the original site is deceptive. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I continue to disagree. Please refer to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that you think is violated. Andries 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT and WP:NPOV? --BostonMA 19:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not think that I broke any of these policies. The testimonies are in the external link section, not in the main text. Andries 19:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I don't believe that sticking to the 3RR rule will prevent the editors of SSB from being eventually blocked if they engage in edit warring. Note that SSS108 was blocked by an admin for what appeared to the admin as disruptive editting. That the admin later decided that he could have also blocked for 3RR does not change the fact that avoiding 3RR violations is not a guarantee that one will not be blocked. I am also concerned that SSS108 may decide that he has no alternative but to go to the arbitration committee. I think he understands that there is a possibility that you will both may be banned as a result. SSS108 might very well be banned from editting SSB related articles, however, you might be banned from editting articles related to gurus and/or "new religious movements". So, I'm hoping that you may come up with a better solution to the continual conflict related to SSB articles than to merely avoid violating 3RR. Sincerely, BostonMA 16:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, now you sound like my boss at work who tells me that I should not tell him what the problems there are unless I also come with the solutions  :) Unfortunately in this case I have no idea what the solutions are. May be we should take a look at other heavily controversial articles to see how they deal with and solve disputes. I do not think that the Arbitration committee considers my or SSS108's violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines serious enough to get us banned. I do admit that I made some violations, especially in the past, but I rarely if ever objected to removing statements that I inserted that were not or largely inappropriately sourced. I usually cite reputable sources. Andries 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, save your self-praise. You cited numerous non-reputable sources (including original research) on the SSB article, for 2 years, since you were active on it. The removal of all of your non-reputable references was the direct result of other's actions. Not yours. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree to a great extent. First of all it is not a matter of black and white what constitutes a reputable source. And secondly, the statements backed up by doubtful sources that I had used, could and can also be backed up by reputable sources, only they were in Dutch language or not available online and hence inconvenient. I never ever steeped as low as you with your blatant violation of Wikipedia original research. You kept on quoting your own opinions that you had voiced on your own personal website and kept on doing that for a long time in spite of my repeated complaints. Andries 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The main difference between you and me in the matter of editing the SSB article was that I did not obstinately follow my own ideas when there were complaints that were backed up by referring to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Andries 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I know that we all are enjoying a peaceful respite regarding edits on the Sathya Sai Baba article. However, there have been no decisions on how we are to proceed with edits in the future. I am currently gathering information to include a new section in the article and would like to know how I am supposed to proceed. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I want to thank your for all the thinking and time you spent on mediation. Especially with regards to the false statements by SSS108/Joe Moreno about me on his website that was beyond your task as a mediator. Good luck with your studies, work, or any other task outside of Wikipedia. Andries 10:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)