Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleSahaja Yoga
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyWill Beback
Parties involvedSfacets, Sahajhist, Will Beback
Mediator(s)Somitho

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Sahaja Yoga]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Sahaja Yoga]]

Mediation Case: 2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


Request Information[edit]

Request made by: Will Beback · † · 23:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the issue taking place?
Sahaja Yoga and Nirmala Srivastava
Who's involved?
Sfacets, Sahajhist, Will Beback
What's going on?
Sfacets and Sahajhist push a particular POV and engage in ownership of the articles about a guru and her organization, topics with which they have conflicts of interest.
What would you like to change about that?
Editors should not remove properly-sourced critical information while inserting poorly-sourced or unsourced self-serving material.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
Any method is fine with me. I can be reached on my talk page or by email.

Mediator response[edit]

I've accepted the case, and remind all parties to try to remain civil. Somitho 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I also would like to remind all parties to sign using ~~~~ Somitho 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this dispute still active? Do you need another mediator? --Ideogram 00:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mediator is active, as well as dispute. I am awaiting ideal solutions from all parties before I move along. Somitho 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I can say I more or less agree with the state the article is in. The main points of contention appear to be external link/source related, apart from the disagreement arising over whether the chakra table should be included in full or merely highlight the differences betwen the SY system and that followed in Hinduism. Sfacets 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sfacets - are you back? Can we resume the mediation now? -Will Beback · † ·
Hi Will, yes I am back (on and off), I don't know where Sahajhist is though - maybe we should wait for his return before continuing? Sfacets 09:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he's returning then we can wait. -Will Beback · † · 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we give him 14 days, and if he does not respond. Continue without him, if needed; allowing him to reopen or come back at any moment? Somitho 07:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is very fair, both because of the number of editors involved in this case, and because Sahajhist should not be left out of the discussion... Sfacets 10:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sahajhist appears to be back and editing one of the articles.[1]. -Will Beback · † · 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about editing like this: [2]. Sahajhist is adding unsourced assertions that appear incorrect on their face, and removing sourced material that does not agree with the official viewpoint. This is the type of behavior that I think is unhelpful and that we keep seeing from this group of editors. -Will Beback · † · 09:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm back (tho not on a regular basis as I'm a writer/publisher in the Real World) and my edits to the Nirmala Srivastava page are intended primarily to add references as requested by someone else. There is also some light editing to improve text. I dont see anything controversial in this. Sahajhist 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two of your edits in this new batch [Now retired from public life, Nirmala Srivastava from 1970 to 2003 travelled extensively across the world spreading Sahaja Yoga, giving numerous public lectures, and interviews to newspapers, television and radio.] that I am concerned about are when you deleted a sourced assertion:
And when you added an unsourced assertion that appears to be contradicted by various sources:
  • Now retired from public life, Nirmala Srivastava from 1970 to 2003 travelled extensively across the world spreading Sahaja Yoga...
I have seen videos of her travelling in 2006, and I haven't seen any source that says she's now retired. Can you please explain why you've deleted the first item, a source which has been deleted many times by Sahajist editors? Can you explain how we can verify that she is now retired and wasn't travelling from 2003-2006 despite video evidnece to the contrary? -Will Beback · † · 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last public lecture given by Shri Mataji was in Delhi, March 2003. The last lecture to Sahaja Yogis was also in Delhi, March 2003. All visits by Shri Mataji and Sir C.P. since then have been private family visits. I can understand cynicism on your part at that statement given that there are well-documented and extensive photo/video archives of their Australian, UK, Italian and US visits in 2006, on various websites. However, these are still primarily private visits. With regard to your first point, it is indeed true that Sahaja Yogis regard Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi as an incarnation of the Goddess. However in this context 'Shri Adi Shakti' is only one of her Divine aspects. So any statement in the first para needs to be wider. btw, shouldnt we be discussing this on the appropriate talk page? Sahajhist 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way I could have known your reasoning because you didn't give any of that explanation in your edit summaries. What is your source for the information about the travelling and retirement? The issue is not so much the edits as the editing behavior. Pro-Sahaja editors, you and Sfacets in particular, add unsourced information and remove sourced info. Regarding the 'Shri Adi Shakti' if it is incomplete then why did you delete it instead of adding to it? The repeated deletions of sources and external links without adequate explanation I requested this mediation. Is that an adequate source or not, and if not then why not? Will Beback · † · 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should be on the relevant talk page. Sahajhist 07:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, only discussion of content should be held on article talk pages. This is a discussion of the editing behavior that is the subject of this mediation. -Will Beback · † · 08:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. If I can widen this slightly: I would suggest that the Nirmala Srivastava page be a straight-forward biography, leaving matters of theology such as 'Shri Adi Shakti' to be dealt with on the Sahaja Yoga page. What is your view on this? Sahajhist 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editing problems that we need to address here are that you deleted that assertion without comment, and what sources we can use to reference the theology. Why did you delete it? A complete section on theology, whether in the Srivastava article or the SY article would have to include using "Shri Adi Shakti: The Kingdom Of God" as a source, but that link has been removed countless times from the articles. Can we agree to use that as a source for Sahaja Yoga's theology and for views of Srivastava?
Also, I gather from your statements that both you and Sfacets are residents of Melbourne, and hence members of the Melbourne collective. There have been problems with several unregistered editors from Melbourne. (most recently user:211.28.128.27). Is there a discussion of Wikipedia articles among the Melbourne Collective? Do you know the individuals who are editing? They are a part of the problem and their editing behavior reflects poorly on all pro-Sahaja editors. -Will Beback · † · 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not ask them directly: symelb[at]yahoo.com.au WikiPossum 11:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's start with you. Are you rsponsible for any of the unregisted edits? What is your involvement here? Would you like to participate in a useful manner in this mediation? -Will Beback · † · 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in for any meditation. WikiPossum 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Since user:211.28.128.27 added a link to Sahajhist's blog it appears that the user is that editor. Sahajhist has been warned previously about adding links to his blog.[4][5] Is there something about our policies which isn't clear? Do you think they don't apply to you? -Will Beback · † · 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your assumptions, misguided as they may be... there is no Cabal. (*looks at title*) oh. Sfacets 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you and Sahajhist can clarify matters by indicating if any of the unregistered edits were made by either of you. Or perhaps there's one unregistered user in Melbourne making all of these edits. user:211.28.128.27 appears to be an experienced editor. -Will Beback · † · 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The http://www.adishakti.org website is a separate interpretation of SY (although the author continues to use SY as a center point, he goes off on all kinds of tangents) and so cannot be used to draw information about SY theology from.
That there are one or more editors from Melbourne editing the article without signing in means nothing, and especially does not imply that they are "part of the problem" or that their "editing behavior reflects poorly on all pro-Sahaj editors". Does that mean by extension, that every time an anti-Sahaj anonymous editor makes a change it reflects poorly on yourself and other editors? You seem to be implying that any edits I would make would be to push a POV, which I have denied from the beginning. Sfacets 06:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The worship of Srivastava as Shri Adi Shakti is documented both on www.adishakti.org and on SY websites. Sahajhist suggests covering the matter in the SY article. You seem to suggest that it would not be appropriate there, which puts us back at the Srivastava article. Is there are an orthodox theology in SY, and if so who are the keepers of the orthodoxy?
Do we know that the unregistered users are not either you or Sahajhist? Sahajhist has remoevd info from an IP talk page on at least one occasion.[6] These unregistered users are the source of many problem edits, including ones which promote the scholarship of Sahajhist. If they are one person it'd be helpful if they'd register and even join this mediation. Maybe it's Sahajhist, maybe it's a third party. At least you can help us narrow it down. -Will Beback · † · 06:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any suggestions regarding the location of the content... orthodoxy would imply that SY were a religion, and that is debated. The organizational side of the spiritual movement would be what is called "Sahaja Yoga Internatonal" or Vishwa Nirmala Dharma, so if any orthodoxy exists it would be more likely found (at least more reliably) on the sahajayoga.org website, rather than adishakti.org.
SY doesn't define itself as a religion, but as a spiritual practice which incorporates elements, and people, of different beliefs (for example a Sikh can practice both Sikhism and SahajaYoga, and have been known to do so.) Ideally the source of any content would come straight from Sri Nirmala Srivastava's speeches and writings.
I have no idea who the anonymous user is, however (if he/she is not Sahajhist), I see no issue with the addition of the writings of Sahajhist, since these are relevant to the article especially from a historical point of view. Sfacets 09:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would it be incorrect to call SY a "new religious movement"? Should we limit ourselves to reporting only on the orthodox version of it ? Is there only one interpretation of Srivastava's sppeches and writings? Are you saying that blogs and other one person source are acceptable generally? -Will Beback · † · 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An official Vishwa Nirmala Dharma says that Srivastava founded a "global religion".
  • Shri Mataji has made us aware that all the religions are from the same principle and are to be respected by all of us. She has founded a global religion, Vishwa Nirmala Dharma, which is the innate pure religion, relating to the core experience at the roots of all religions, and She grants this experience to those who ask for it. It is Self-Realization. As a result of Her teaching, many rituals, dogmas or prejudices about religion have been corrected. We respect all the incarnations, prophets and the realized souls of the past. The universal character of this worship can be seen in the Sahaja Yoga publications such as Bible Enlightened, Islam Enlightened and Geeta Enlightened and this culture of spiritual tolerance and understanding can be verified from thousands of Shri Mataji's speeches. [7]
While the AdiShakti folks may have a different theology than the Vishwa Nirmala Dharma, Wikipedia doesn't exist in order to promote one viewpoint over another. Rather, we should cover all viewpoints in the debate over whether it is a religion or not. -Will Beback · † · 05:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Hey Will, forget the mediation, you need a meditation. WikiPossum 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not encourage actions to be taken outside of MEDCAB within the case, please do so on the talk page. Somitho 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be moving alot of the Mediator Responce to Discussion as it does not belong above. I welcome all parties back to the mediation and will be reviewing the allegations of parties taking this off of Wikipedia. While I do personally disapprove of such, there is no rule/policy which prevents it from happening. Would parties agree to hold a meeting on IRC some day this week? If we can come to a mutually agreeable time I will setup a channel. Somitho 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of using IRC, but if you think it will help I'm willing. -Will Beback · † · 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Will need some tech help tho. How about Skype? Sahajhist 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't use Skype, my laptop doesn't have a Mic port, Irc sounds good, would have to agree on a time which suits the different timezones though Sfacets 05:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we come to a decision on this? I would be able to chat on IRC in the evenings, between 16:00 and 23:00 (EST) within the next few days - not sure what that corresponds to in different countries... Sfacets 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could be available at that time on Sunday Feb 5 or Monday Feb 6. While realtime communication may be helpful, it isn't the point of this mediation. I requested this mediation because some editors have been practicing ownership of articles by repeatedly removing sourced material and inserting unsourced material as well as other problematic behavior. That behavior has continued even duing the mediation. When I've asked serious questions to the other parties they've responded with jokes. If you're unwilling to mediate please let me know so that we can proceed with other dispute resolution steps. -Will Beback · † · 03:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same time frame (AEST) as Sfacets, and I would like to express my support for Somitho as Mediator. Sahajhist 11:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we figure this in UTC? 16:00 Melbourne time would appear to be 11:00 UTC - Is that right? I'm still not sure what the aim or agenda of the IRC discussion will be. -Will Beback · † ·
According to WorldTimeServer, 23.30 Melbourne is 12.30 UTC/GMT [8] The agenda is up to Somitho as Mediator. Sahajhist 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion of this case continuing elsewhere, in a yahoogroup run by the owner of adishakti.org. The assumption is being made there that Sahajhist and Sfacets are one and the same. For the record, this assumption is incorrect. Sahajhist 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen any evidence that Sahajhist and Sfacets are the same person. Both have identified themselves with real names and have differing styles, etc. For the purposes of Wikipedia, even different people who edit together may be termed "meat puppets" and treated as "sock puppets". WP:SOCK. I think that there may be some element of that in this case. -Will Beback · † · 20:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly interested in the more esoteric Wikipedia terminology. I wish to point out that I do not discuss Wikipedia editing matters with Sfacets. And even though we live in the same city, we have never met or had a phone conversation. Sahajhist 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does Will Beback have any basis for his accusations of meatpuppetry? If not may I suggest he not make them? Sfacets 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The basis is the editing behavior exhibited by the involved editors. Obviously the nature of the relationship between is not within the scope of this mediation, and we cna't judge claims about it, one way or another. All we can do is view the editing. There have certainly been meatpuppet problems with these articles in the past, as demonstrated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. -Will Beback · † · 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so don't make claims. Is this mediation going anywhere? it has been almost two months. Either we get on with it or we don't but at least some sign of life would be good. Sfacets 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to get you guys into a discussion, but without any luck. Instead there've been non-reponses, joke responses, and claims of being "away". If you want to participate in this mediation that a seriouss discussion of what sources will be allowed in Sahaja Yoga articles and of your conflict of interest and ownership issues would move the mediation forward. -Will Beback · † · 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact of the matter is that we haven't received any feedback from the moderator. I have answered point by point to your assertions on the talkpage, the ball is in your court. Sfacets 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess bouncing around the world doesn't help coordination. My apologies for the continuous delay. Name your time and I will do my best to be available today Febuary 6th, or tomorrow the 7th. Now please do attend if you come up with a time. I will be rescheduling my entire trip around this. We will use #wikipedia-en to meet. We will get a private channel following that. I use the IRC nick "Soms" If you need help getting on IRC, please drop me a message on my talk page and I will coordinate assistance. Somitho 10:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just now saw your note, and I guess the others missed it too. In the meantime I prepared a point-by-point review of the Sfacet's comments on the evidence list I'd earlier provided. Since we're all in different timezones the ability to synchronize is difficult. What do you want to do on the IRC? If you're travelling maybe we can proceed wth a less stressfull mode of discourse. That said, I can commit to being available for an hour or two starting at 6:00 UTC on 7 Feb. -Will Beback · † · 10:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what IRC is or how to use it. And none of my family or friends use it either. (and I've been using the internet for some 12 years now). Please leave technical instructions or a link on my user page. Thanks. Sahajhist 12:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize, Sahajhist, I'm not much good at IRC myself. There are some instructions at WP:IRC. You may need to download some software. -Will Beback · † · 20:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback, did you mean 6pm? Because that corresponds to 5am here in Australia - if it is at 6am then it will be 5pm here, and I won't be back yet (no pun intended). I get back at around 7pm... Sfacets 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
No I meant 06:00 UTC (10 pm my time), or about 5 hours from now. -Will Beback · † · 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I would only be able to log on @ about 8:00 UTC then. I will not be available at this time - sorry for any inconvenience Somitho. Sfacets 04:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this dispute still active? Do you need another mediator? --Ideogram 09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --Ideogram 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers[edit]

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion[edit]

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

While I am a follower of the movement, I certainly do not engage in ownership of the article... the fact that there are relatively few editors contributing effectively to the article simply means that a high number of edits are made by me. All the sources have been discussed and gone over on the talk page, I have even invited Request for Comment for one of the sources which was contested.

The whole idea that there is ownership going on regarding the article is rubbish - each change is discussed in the talk page, and then only implemented if there isn't overwhelming opposition (notably Will Beback).

I have hands on knowledge of the subject matter, (as does Sahajhist, who is an author on related subjects) and don't see an issue trying to contribute to the article, using reliable sources to back my edits, discussed on the talk page, and am open to discussion regarding changes: indeed, many changes have been made to the article uninterrupted by either Sahajhist or myself - these simply need to follow Wikipedia policy, which, as can been seen on the discussion page, has been the basis of my arguments, notably when dealing with questionable sources or external links.

Also please note for the record that Will Beback has gone ahead with this case despite my absence from active editing. Sfacets 07:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So noted, Somitho 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the timeline for this mediation: if editors aren't active then inevitably it will have to be postponed. However it appears that all of the editors are active at the present time. -Will Beback · † · 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been active to the extent of cleaning up a few article (mostly reverting vandalism) - I don't have the time at the moment to engage in this meditation, so I would ask that this is kept open for a period of time allowing for this. My thanks, Sfacets 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is to be any accusation of 'ownership' of the Sahaja Yoga page, the accusation should be made against Will Beback. As for cabals, Will Beback heads his own cabal - as can be clearly seen on the talk page. Also, for the record, I will be only occasionally editing for the next few weeks owing to commitments in the Real World Sahajhist 10:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy commentary by user:Dseer moved to talk page.

MedCab Responce Guys, try to remain civil please. I will leave the above discussion up for now; but if it continues to steer to a blame game; I will snip it out. I am going to review the article, and talk page; to see what compromise we can come to. Somitho 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Sahaja Yoga I would like for all parties to agree to obstain from editing Sahaja Yoga until we can come to a compromise; unless it is vandalism happening outside of one of the parties to this case. If this is acceptable please notate below with an '''accept''' or an '''object'''. Somitho 08:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accept -Will Beback · † · 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept (maybe some minor tidying though, no additions/removals) Sfacets 20:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What you would like to see come from this mediation"[edit]

Sfacets: I would like an agreement reached with the help of a third-party (in this case Somitho, thanks) to insure that the sources as well as external links are consistent with Wikipedia policies and are not being added arbitrarily by individuals without considering these policies. This would prune out any "poorly sourced" material and along with it any notion that there is conflict of interest. Sfacets 19:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be easy enough to accomplish, could you please post what you consider most relevant, properly sourced, and civil to the article? Could you also post why you feel some of the stuff included already should not be included? Please use Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16_Sahaja_Yoga/Sfacets to come up with your ideal article as well. Somitho 08:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: As stated above, editors should not remove properly-sourced critical information while inserting poorly-sourced or unsourced self-serving material. Editors with a conflict of interest should pay close attention to the applicable guideline, WP:COI. -Will Beback · † · 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, could you explain why you feel that the information which is critical was properly sourced, and why Sfacets should not have removed it? This is something I have noticed no one has bothered to approach, trying to approach each other with a civil mind and explain why it should stay or be removed. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16_Sahaja_Yoga/Will Beback Please use this to create your ideal article, with the information you find relevant and why; following current guidelines of course. Somitho 08:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the churning of sources Talk:Sahaja Yoga#Removed links and critical material, I sought to settle which sources would be acceptable for these topics. Talk:Sahaja Yoga#Valid sources Even so the sources continue to be contested. For example, International Sahaja Public School#Copyright Infringement. The Independent is one of the major national newspapers in the U.K., yet there have been endless objections to including it as a source and it has been removed over and over, even after there had seemed to be consensus that it was an acceptable source. (Mirrored on Rick Ross' site article [9]).
This is just one source. Sfacets/Sahajhist have at times rejected articles because they were out of date, because the authors had insufficient credentials, because they believed the publications had insufficient cicrulation, or even ad hominem attacks on the webmasters hosting mirrors of the sources.
Meanwhile they've use the flimsiest excuses for sources to support other material,[10] and have added older websites that have no authorship information, for example, [11].
Another example is the removal of the "Religious Movements" page, objections that weren't based on a single complaint but rather on an ever-changing set of complaints. Out of date, too many footnotes, lack of credentials by author, etc. They would never say how the article was out of date,[12][13][14][15] or what credentials were required to write a source for the article, but they insisted that "pro" sources be included regardless of date or lack or author's credentials. All I seek for these article are the usual standards of WP:V and WP:NPOV. -Will Beback · † · 11:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sahajhist: My New year's wish is for all participants to use common sense, so the article can be finished. And thats a serious comment. Sahajhist 07:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sahajhist, hopefully this will happen. I think we can come to a solution both parties can be happy with. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16_Sahaja_Yoga/Sahajhist please use this article, in the same fashion as I have instructed the other two. Following current guidelines, and policy; and then please let me know why you feel it should be this way rather than the others.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Will, I have moved your evidence to the talk page; thank you for providing it. Discussion of such evidence should take place here, but be posted there. Somitho 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded point by point to edits made by myself. Would it be permissible to mount a compilation of evidence supporting disputed behavior on the part of Will Beback, or would another case need to be opened? Sfacets 03:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox/user articles[edit]

I've added articles I want you each to work on, and let us know why you feel they should be this way. Please do not edit each others articles or have outside assistance. The purpose of this is to find out exactly what originality you wish to contribute, along with handle the dispute at hand in a civil fashion. Hopefully the compromise we come to will include a piece of the old, and the new; by rewriting portions of the article. Please follow all current guidelines and policy when doing this, remembering WP:NPOV and WP:REF when doing so. Somitho 08:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my earlier comment: for the next six weeks I'm busy in the Real World. Sahajhist 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you commit to not edit the article (see above) until we can proceed with the mediation? -Will Beback · † · 06:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't received any answer to my question: Somitho, where would you want these articles? Sfacets 00:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the redlinks at #"What you would like to see come from this mediation". -Will Beback · † · 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, right... I'm so blind. Thanks! Sfacets 09:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking the flow[edit]

I'm finding it difficult to follow what(ever) is going on here. Sahajhist 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good next step would be for you to agree, as Sfacets and I have done, to stop editing the related articles until the meditation mediation has completed. See #Discussion above. Then we should probably alert the mediator that everyone's active again and see how he'd like to progress next. He did ask us to create versions of the articles as we'd like to see them, but my concern is more about what sources are acceptable. There have been recurring problems with these articles with sourced material being removed, often for vague reasons. (Likewise unsourced material keeps being added). If we can agree on what sources are acceptable then writing the articles will be simpler and the results will be more stable. -Will Beback · † · 02:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so you agree on the need for meditation? Sahajhist 03:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. -Will Beback · † · 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sahajhist, can you clarify if any of the unregistered edits to these articles recently were made by you? For example, user:211.28.128.27? -Will Beback · † · 05:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Mediator[edit]

Will Beback needs to explain his decision to take this mediation outside of Wikipedia [16] Sahajhist 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jai Shri Ganapathy" is not me. It appears as if someone simply copied this page and posted it in a forum. -Will Beback · † · 04:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I like how they cluelessly referred to me as "JN's clone" :) Maybe "we" should stop "indecent act(s) in public". Will Beback, looks like you have some fans... Sfacets 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to know you both as well, and it appears that both of you have posted to that forum. I guess the bottom line is this shows the importnace of getting Wikiepdia articles right. People are watching. -Will Beback · † · 05:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be looking into the above Somitho 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Round two[edit]

Will Beback[edit]

Copied in from the talk page

1.

  • WB: "Adding unsourced assertions about SY"
  • S: [sources were added]

It's been a constant struggle to get sources for the material in the article.

2.

  • WB: "Removing sourced material"
  • S: I am not going to go through this again, as I have previously mentioned, all discussions and debates were held on the article's talk page.

This is the heart of the matter. I am not satisifed by the explanation in the talk pages and in some cases Sfacets and Sahajhist seem to have ignored the discussions. Please explain why so many reliably sourced assertions have been removed over and over again, often with extremely picky attacks on the sources, for example The Independent.

3.

  • WB: "Removing material, albeit unsourced"
  • S: Isn't this just a tad hypocritical in light of the accusations made against Sahajhist and myself in the sections above?

My point exactly is that you have been acting hypocritically in adding unsourced material (sometimes sourced after requests), while deleting the unsourced material added by others. Which standard is correct?

4.

  • WB: "Removing editing tags" (list of 13 tag removals)
  • S:

This is an indicator of aggressive editing.

5.

  • WB: "Removing links and sources" (26 examples)
  • S: [various replies]

The constant deletion of critical sources is the key matter in this case, as stated above. If we can agree on some of the basic sources that will be allowed then there wouldn't be so much friction.

6.

While links critical sites have been removed dozens of times, often because they didn't meet ad hoc standards (too old, too many footnotes, anonymous, etc), sympathetic websites that didn't meet the same standards were being added. For example, these Youtube videos violate copyright. Yet several sources were deleted because they violated copyrights. A double standard.

7.

  • WB: "Watering down criticism" & "Adding weasel words"
  • S: [Various responses]

Among other things you've repeatedly removed, without comment, descriptions of the group as a "new religious movement". [17][18], while promoting it as a mere form of meditation. Constantly removing terms that aren't liked without any comments is another example of aggressive editing.

8.

  • WB: "Demanding quote from a source, removing material 8 hours later, refusing to restore it once quote was provided"
  • S: "I removed it because you were refusing to provide it (selective memory, perhaps?). Refusing to restore it? Why couldn't you just restore it? I was BUSY, as I stated"

No, I never refused. But you may have forgotten that when you made your demand I had already asked you for a couple of pieces of information that you'd be perhaps too busy to answer. I repeated my requests for those items and rather than answering you found the time to go delete the sourced material I'd added. I consider that to be another strong case of aggressive editing.

  • Summary:

Sfacets and Sahajhist have acted together to keep critical material out of articles related to their guru. They've edited aggressively in relation to other users in order to promote a certain orthodox POV about her. -Will Beback · † · 10:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sfacets[edit]

1. Examples?

2. The argument over the independant was a brief one, where I asked to verify the validity of it as a source - it ended up that it was viable, and so was kept. Again, some examples of where Sahajhist and I ignored the discussion would be appreciated.

3. Examples?

4. What?

5. Totally agree with you here.

6. You are confusing external links and sources, these have different rules for inclusion.

7. Constantly? You have given two very distinct examples... this seems to be an ongoing theme - one or two edits are deemed by Will Beback to be constant rather than variable.

8. Actually, if you were to check you would see that I had answered your requests, but my request was still waiting to be fulfilled.

9. Well that's all very nice, except for the fact that you have demonstrated no link between our edits, and seem to have now shifted from your original complaint to include the adjective "aggressive". Sfacets 13:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Complaint[edit]

Just 12 hours after writing above that:

  • The argument over the independant was a brief one, where I asked to verify the validity of it as a source - it ended up that it was viable, and so was kept.

Sfacets has once again deleted the material sourced from The Independent.[19] This is exactly the behavior that caused me to ask for mediation. All critical material is removed, sooner or later, regardless of how well it is sourced, with all manner of excuses. -Will Beback · † · 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the discussion page - the content was not removed because of the reference, but because of undue weight. Please place things in context. Sfacets 03:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The larger context is that you (and other pro-SY editors) have come up with excuse after excuse to remove that source. You are pushing the pro-SY POV and anything which contradicts that view is deleted, sooner or later, for one reason or another. Why didn't you mention "undue weight" when we were discussing it before? Or is this a "tit-for-tat" reaction to edits on the articles of other gurus? Either way it is bad editing behavior. -Will Beback · † · 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issue with that, as long as the excuses are valid, the reasons I give for adding/removing content are almost always (if not always) discussed on the talk page where the input of other editors is solicited. The reason I hadn't mentioned it before? I was not aware at the time of the policy regarding WP:Undue_weight#Undue_weight undue weight. Again, I would apreciate it if you wouldn't depreciate my edits by unsubstantiated claims of 'revenge editing'. I'm not pushing anything, I am sticking to guidelines, and making edits accordingly. I could say the same for you, as an active editor on multiple "cult" related articles. Sfacets 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What I see is that you removed sourced, neutral material without any discussion, even though it had been the subject of previous disputes that had been resolved. I call on you to revert your deletion until the matter can be resolved again. -Will Beback · † · 23:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see on the talk page, I requested commentary on my edit - it is POV (because of the undue weight) so I removed it. Please comment on why you think it should stay. Sfacets 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Agian I ask you to restore the material until we can come to a consensus about it. Why is that so difficult? -Will Beback · † · 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the material should stay off until we come to a consensus on whether to keep or remove it. Sfacets 01:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Is that the standard you apply to all editing situations? There was no consensus to delete it, or even prior disucssion. Remember, it's neutral material from a relaible source. Do we just go around deleting such material? -Will Beback · † · 02:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of complaining about it's removal, why not explain the reasons you think it should be kept? Sfacets 02:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I already explained on the page, but I'll do so again here. The example in the article is not a lone case. There have been numerous complaints posted to the article, most of which were not sourced reliably. But that doens't mean the complaints don't exist. And there are two major newspapers that have reported problems at the school. There was a major court case in Italy over a child being sent to a different SY school. So we can start compiling all of this info and add it. But it certainly does not give "undue weight" to list a single example - just the opposite - it understates the case. -Will Beback · † · 06:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - how many complaints have there been since the beginning of the school? Maybe three distinct cases. The school started maybe 18 years ago. You do the maths. Sfacets 08:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Enough to be reported in major papers. We don't say that a person obeyed thousands of laws so the allegation that they broke one or two is "undue weight". Most schools don't have any articles in major papers alleging poor conditions. Even one is significant. And the three are just those that are reported in these reliable sources. There appear to be more reported in sources that are less reliable, meaning we're looking at just the best reported allegations. -Will Beback · † · 08:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it was reported in a "major paper" doesn't make the fact that in the context of the article it is undue weight - and what's to say that this isn't a mere copy of one of the less reliable sources? The fact is, it is not the paper stating that the kid was grubby and was bad at school, it was by a (one) parent, a minority view (see WP:Undue weight) in this case. Sfacets 11:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many cases, including charges of sexual abuse:
There may be others as well, these are just the ones that have been previously removed from the article. -Will Beback · † · 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahajhist[edit]

This discussion should be on the talk page of the relevant article. Sahajhist 07:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what, exactly, do you see as the purpose of this page? -Will Beback · † · 08:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has become a total waste of everyone's time. The Mediator should archive the few useful parts of the discussion on the appropriate talk pages and close this case. Sahajhist 11:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to withdraw from the mediation please say so. If you choose to stay please participate in good faith. -Will Beback · † · 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still maintain that these discussions should be on the relevant talkpages. Sahajhist 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again I ask you, since you volunteer your opinion on what doesn't belong here, what is your opinion on what does belong here? May I also ask if you are still participating in this mediation in good faith, or would you prefer to withdraw? -Will Beback · † · 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my position above, and now await a response from the Mediator. Sahajhist 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Mediator Responce[edit]

I've reviewed the case and spent a great deal of time just reading the responces and diff's. I appreciate everyone maintaining atleast a small level of civility here, and apologize for some delay. I have had a fairly interesting schedule cause small conflict. I see good points from all parties participating here, both of which need inclusion but slight restructuring. It is my opinion that you should compromise on the following:
  • Add all relevant sourced material back to the article. If it is sourced, and related to the article; it belongs there.
  • Avoid weasal words and stay on the manual of style.
  • Allow a reasonable amount of time for each party to reply, until then revert it, and put it on the talk page. Because of the possibility of someone not famililar with wikipedia reviewing the article, you should not keep disputed information on the article, as it is an encyclopedia which must be sourced properly.
  • Think each edit through, and get peer review to maintain a neutral point of view. It would be wonderful to see you work together on this, rather than claim each other is wrong, and jump to defense. NPOV is critical to maintaining an encyclopedia, not a book of personal views or commentaries.
  • Do not link to personal blogs, or take any non civil thoughts to any non-WP run site. While communication is nice, it just gives the wrong idea of things.
  • Strive to be inclusionist on this article. An encyclopedia should be a haven of information, and if the article should stay, it should contain as much research as possible; no matter if it is critism or not. This should help maintain a neutral point of view.
If you all can agree to the above, we can try to rewrite the article to include the above points while getting both sides included. Somitho 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Discussion[edit]

continue discussion below here.

Somitho's suggestions sound good to me. -Will Beback · † · 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger picture may be overtaking us guys [20] Sahajhist 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to the actual discussion we're having here. Are you willing to follow the mediator's suggestions? -Will Beback · † · 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and related discussions in Wikipedia are not being held in isolation. Consider the selective quoting by the owner of adishakti.org who has even set up a new website where he continues to confuse me with Sfacets. [21] Sahajhist 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is more than a little creepy... Sfacets 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to this mediation, do you guys accept or reject the mediator's suggestions? -Will Beback · † · 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are good suggestions, although the 1st point should not be taken as a cue to indiscriminately add any disputed content directly back into the article... the idea of first putting it onto the discussion page is a good one. So... let's get crackin'! Sfacets 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm accused of being Milo![22] Sahajhist 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of nutters... anyone here still think anything on that website is worth linking to? Sfacets 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Sanity is not a criteria. And we don't normally link to Yahoo groups. Let's stop worrying about what's written about us, and focus on what we write. -Will Beback · † · 05:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to adishakti.org, written by the same person. Sfacets 17:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying that we should remove a link because you think the proponents are "nutters"? -Will Beback · † · 06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was merely pointing towards their continued logical fallacies as well as poor research methods - arriving at misguided conclusions. Sfacets 07:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16_Sahaja_Yoga&oldid=1136450907"