User talk:SSS108

User talk:SSS108/archive1/June 16th 2006

TOP [1] ^ Relating To Andries ^ TRACK MODIFYING POLICY Example 1 Here, Andries amended the policy Reference Example 2 Here, Andries modified the policy Talk Example 3 Here, Andries modified the policy Andries (talk · contribs) ProEdits (talk · contribs) ^ Relating To Sathya Sai Baba ^ SATHYA SAI BABA WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES Sathya Sai Baba Main Article Talk Belief And Practices In The Sathya Sai Organization Sathya Sai Baba Categories ^ Relating To Mediation ^ MEDIATION TOPICS Mediation Main Mediation Nagel Mediation Websites Mediation Premanand As A Source Mediation Implementation of Policies MEDIATION REMINDERS Mediation Miscellaneous Mediation Reminders: Mediator Mediation Reminders: Editors BostonMA Talk

^ Mediation: ^ Hi. I was originally accepted as a mediator by Andries only for a trial period of 2 weeks. On the 19th, I wrote to Andies [2] requesting that he express whether he wished me to continue as mediator. Andries responded on the 21st [3] accepting my continued role as mediator and acknowledging that there were a number of mediation questions that he had not yet answered. I felt that it was appropriate to give him some time, and to wait to see what would happen next. I did not want to pressure parties to focus on the mediation if the parties did not themselves find the issues to be burning. You have expressed curiosity regarding the status of the mediation. It is difficult to know for sure whether you are only curious, or whether you are also anxious for more active mediation. (I am guessing the latter). So please let me know if you would like me to more energetically encourage Andries to participate in the mediation. I think sufficient time has elapsed since his acknowledgement that there are open issues that I may justifiably ask him to focus on these. There is another issue that I would like to address, however. I have been personally disappointed that you have not been more active in editting the SSB articles, for example in adding new material. I don't mean to single you out, I am also disappointed the Andries has been reluctant to make improvements to the article in ways that we have all agreed would be beneficial. I point this out because other editors who look at this conflict might form the impression that those in the conflict, (I do not mean only your side), are more interested in the struggle over the point of view than in the overall writing of a good article or a good encyclopedia. One of the issues that appeared to be close to settlement is the issue of using material from Alexandra Nagel's later articles. I believe Andries has reluctantly agreed that Wikipedia policy does not support using these articles as sources even though they may be more up-to-date, or at least is very close to agreeing to such. My suggestion is that you write a note in the SSB talk page stating that you intend to make some edits removing material that has been sourced by Nagel's later writings. Describe which things you will remove. Then wait some time, perhaps a day. Then, if there is no contention about this, I suggest that you remove those materials from the article. I would urge you to be exceptionally careful in this, because if you remove things other than what you have described in the talk page, or if you add things during the same edits, there is a potential for an edit war. I hope that this will not happen, but it is worth it to be careful. So that is my suggestion. However, if you wish for me to suggest to Andries that he focus his attention on the open mediation issues I will do that (either in addition to, or instead of, the suggestion above). I apologize in advance if my suggestion does not work out, however, I think it is worth it to test where things actually stand. --BostonMA 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC) I tried editing the article yet Andries deleted my edits. I offered to write a biographical section citing Kasturi and Andries won't agree. How can I edit it the article when I can get no where with Andries? Andries believes that there are no reputable biographical sources for SSB and deletes everything associated with it. Look at the talk section. SSS108 03:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Hi. I see that you made an edit today [4] and that Andries reverted it [5]. Andries may feel justified making the revert because he believes that there is a source to back up his position. If you give advance warning of what you intend to do on the talk page, say for example, remove some material as unsourced, then Andries will likely present what he believes to be sources on the talk page. At that point, it can be discussed whether the sources are adequate or not. I will be starting two new pages shortly, dealing with Kasturi and Premanand. --BostonMA 15:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Hi, I've added a number of new questions, which can be accessed by clicking on the appropriate links at User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Reminders for Editors. If it is alright with you, I will just update the timestamp for this message whenever I add something new. --BostonMA 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC) BostonMA, I would like for you to encourage Andries in the mediation process. I noticed that Andries is very active in editing the SSB article and adding controversial and critical material to the article but refuses to answer the questions posed in mediation. See Talk Page SSS108 talk-email 20:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC) ^ Complaint I ^ BostonMA, even though Andries has not followed through with the mediation process, he is reverting the article and promptly came out of hiding after I made a few relevant changes on the main SSB article. Andries said he would answer the outstanding questions the past weekend and has not: Ref1 Several requests were made of him and he has withheld a response for his failure to give any sort of explanation of reply Ref2 Why Andries has enough time to watch the SSB article (he responded within 18 minutes of my post) and revert the article, but cannot answer the questions posed in mediation is a mystery. What to do? SSS108 talk-email 20:00, 7 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 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

^ Sincere apology ^

SSS108, I sincerely apologize for my absense from Wikipedia and the mediation process. Unfortunately, other obligations have been pressing me. I feel that this point I should state that I cannot promise a return to the process in any reasonable time frame, and I will have to suggest that the parties seek another mediator or some other means of dealing with the remaining issues. Although I believe that progress was made through the mediation, I also understand that the conflict has not been fully resolved, and I apologize for what feels to me as abandoning the parties. I wish it could be otherwise. Sincerely, --BostonMA 16:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I understand. Thank you so much for your help, patience and guidance. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

^ Mediaton Request: Sathya Sai Baba 2 ^

Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case relating to the above article. First thing that we need to decide is what format the mediation should take. I would recommend carrying out the mediation on Wikipedia, specifically here. If you have any objection to using Wikipedia, then please let me know. One other thing, if you plan to take a Wikibreak in the next week or so, or know that you will not be around much could you pleaes let me know. --Wisden17 12:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've been keeping an eye on him on Wikipedia, if I've not heard anything by tomorrow, then I shall get in contact with him. --Wisden17 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've closed the case, as I judged his behaviour as that of somebody who is unwilling to participate. To take the case to arbitration go to WP:RfAr to file a case, you may mention that you had tried to mediate the case and that the mediation failed due to unwillingness to participate. --Wisden17 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries has now said that he is willing to particpate in the mediation, and that the wikibreak is only temporary (via e-mail). I said to him that you are not now willing to participate in the mediation, and would like to take the case to arbitration, is my understanding correct? If you are still interested in the mediation I could relist the case. --Wisden17 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, well let me tell you what I told Andries, this is my reply to him:

Hi,

I have closed this mediation as I find it highly odd how you suddenly declared you were taking a wikibreak the minute the mediation was about to start. Either way it is immaterial as the other party seems keen now to take the case to arbitration so he is now, by definition, unwilling to participate in the mediation.

I was going to leave a message on your talk page, but I shall take this as my notification to you that the mediation has been closed.

I would not like to advise you either way whether to take a case or not to Arbitration, when I have been in the situation of accepting to do the mediation. However, you can read what you like from my reply to him, and may use it as evidence, if you wished to explain you thought the mediaiton would not work. I should point out though that I am happy to resume the mediation if both parties agree, however as I told Andries you now seem keen to go to RfAr, due to his behaviou regarding the mediation, and thus you now no longer wish to participate in the mediation. That's all I'd like to say on the matter, although I should point out that some mediaiton do take place via e-mail, so that is not that strange, however I understand your point in the context. --Wisden17 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya ^

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba - Court Case

You seem to be adding material from/about the court case "as requested by GRBerry". My prior comments may have been somewhat lost in the talk page. So I will repeat them here for you:

I am saying that the material is not appropriate to use until it is published by a reliable publisher that publishes many/most cases from the court. And the only portions of the material that it will be appropriate to use are those published by that reliable publisher. This is what WP:BLP and the final sentence "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." of the definition of a primary source in WP:RS means for primary court documents. GRBerry 01:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked where the RFC is/was posted. I suspect that means you don't recognize the term that RFC is an acronym for. It is short for "Request for Comment". The general discussion of RFCs is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment (shortcut: WP:RFC). Almost all the way at the bottom are listings of pages where requests can be posted. The expectation is that the request will be written in a neutral tone, ideally linking to where on the talk page prior discussion of the issue has occurred. This specific one was listed on the topical page for Religion & Philosophy, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. When I started watching that page a couple months ago, the general expectation seemed to be that a comment might or might not be received, so I don't know how many more commentators the article talk page may get. Items are purged from the bottom of the list roughly when they are two months old. GRBerry 01:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the neutral summary area on this articles talk page, so creating that wasn't done. However, I find it extremely unusual to find such a summary area to 1) exist and 2) actually have enough to discern the issue. See for recent examples that I responded to Talk:David Bautista#RFC (Request For Comments) (where they did make a neutral summary saying that they were debating about which of two web-sites was a reliable source, but didn't link to either of the two so the first thing I did was ask for more material) and Talk:Kyra Phillips#Unbalanced (where no neutral summary section was created). This is run of the course, and I recommend, especially given the arbitration results, that you view it as water under the bridge. GRBerry 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note. I have deleted the links in GRberry's entry above where links were found to SSS108's personal webpages. This is in accordance with the arbitration policy, of course.--ProEdits 12:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

• Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).
• Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)
• Andries and SSB108 are forgiven any offenses they have committed by introducing unreliable information into the article and encouraged to edit in compliance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

For the Arbitration Committee. 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

^ Harassment and stalking ^

Note SSS108. You have stalked me on Wikipedia, trying to disrupt my editing of the Arne Næss page. on which subject you have no knowledge, not least since he is Norwegian. To disrupt my editing by blanking my entry from mere spite is stalking. I do not wish you to send me messages to my user pages, so please desist. And desist from blanking material I put on other Wikipedia articles, or you can be charged with vandalism, you know!

I remind you of some rules on Wikipedia: Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.

"Harassment is sometimes described as a violation of don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point or no personal attacks, but is properly both a subset and special case of both, while at the same time being separate from both for definition reasons. The policy of "no personal attacks" is primarily about content, not behavior (for example, calling certain editors "assholes" is a violation of NPA, but is not in itself harassment), while the policy of "don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" covers many less malicious behaviors that, while unacceptable, are not as bad as harassment (for example, disruption intended to support a cause). And yet, it is a subset of both, in that it is disruption to prove a point, and it is an attempt to personally attack another editor of Wikipedia."

Stalking is a legal term for repeated harassment or other forms of invasion of a person's privacy in a manner that causes fear to its target. Statutes vary between jurisdiction but may include such acts as: repeated following; unwanted contact (by letter or other means of communication); observing a person's actions closely for an extended period of time; or contacting family members, friends, or associates of a target inappropriately cyberstalking

You are also guilty of this on a large scale, and you know it. More precisely, you engage in what Wikipedia defines as: "Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone. This term is used interchangeably with online harassment and online abuse. A cyberstalker follows the victim's online activity to gather information, initiate contact, make threats, or engage in other forms of verbal intimidation. Cyberstalkers target victims using online forums, bulletin boards, chat rooms, spyware, and spam. They may engage in live chat harassment or flaming (online verbal abuse and/or character defamation); leaving improper messages on message boards or in guest books; sending electronic viruses; sending unsolicited e-mail; tracing another person's computer and Internet activity, and electronic identity theft." Before you try to mirror this back at me, you chief tactic, I point out that I am NOT guilty of anything like this, hence - though would in character doubtless like to claim it of me, it is untrue! --ProEdits 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)