Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Michael Roach

Resolved:

Dispute resolved

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

---

To begin mediation, could both parties please state their case here. We can begin discussion afterward. Thank you. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 13:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A. Ramachandran's case

The site www.diamond-cutter.org is a site critical of the subject of the article. Normally, it could and should be included. However it fails to meet two Wikipedia policies.

1. It contains materials which violates the copyright of the subject of the article.
2. It contains anonymous first-person essays critical of the subject which, being anonymous, cannot be verified. Thus, it fails to meet both WP:LIVING and WP:EL.

A Ramachandran 13:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Diamondwatchers case

1. The site www.diamond-cutter.org can be linked to as it does not constitute copyright violation. The use of all materials copyrighted to the subject of the article fall under the definition of "Fair Use" as specified by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and the definition of "Fair Use" as stipulated in "Section 107, Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use" of US Copyright law. See [http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/10.html] and [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107]
2. The site does not include anonymous first-person essays critical of the subject and thus does not contravene WP:LIVING and WP:EL. All materials are edited and approved by a named individual who has extensive experience and expertise in the subject matter. Appropriate references from known experts and public figures are given throught the site to support the subject matter. See [http://www.diamond-cutter.org/about/about.html]

Diamondwatcher 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginning discussion

You seem to be giving conflicting arguments. What is your rationale for claiming that this website does/doesn't violate copyrights or has/doesn't have first person annonymous essays? It seems to me that this mediation should be fairly straightforward. We simply have to decide whether this website contains copyright violations, whether it contains annonymous essays, and whether those even matter. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration of A Ramachandran's case

Unreliable and unverifiable research

As an example of a first person anonymous account, see http://www.diamond-cutter.org/geshe-michael-roach-problems/geshe-michael-roach-behavior.html (you'll have to cut and paste, I won't post links to this site on Wikipedia). The page gives an "example" of behavior of Geshe Roach "During the Tantra Course at Diamond Mountain in the fall term of 2005" and goes on to accuse him of certain behavior. But it does not identify any person reporting this behavior. In other words, we have to take the word of the editor that any individual was actually there and saw this incident, that they reported it to the editor truthfully, that the edit did not spin it to his purpose.

The editor of the site is one "Gary Friedman" - a Google search for "Gary Friedman"+buddhism returns only 114 hits, most of which are, I think, for another Gary Friedman. This man is not an "individual who has extensive experience and expertise in the subject matter." He has no published work in the area that I can find, and no assertion that he holds a degree in a relevant field has been asserted. He's simply not notable. There is no reason to believe that all the material is reliable. According to WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, point 2, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." should be avoided.

Copyright violations

First, there are copyvio letters written by Michael Roach and other documents belonging to Roach and/or Diamond Mountain there. They are in PDF format and linked from http://www.diamond-cutter.org/references/documents.html. The copyvios include the links titled

• Letter to Lamas (open does not mean anyone else can publish without permission)
• Diamond Mountain Spin (this one has a copyright notice at the bottom)
• Spiritual Partners Poster (poster image rights belong to Diamond Mountain)
• Yoga of Business Poster (ditto)
• Tantra in America (transcript of a talk, rights belong to Roach)
• Magic of Empty Teachers (another talk, has Diamond Mountain logo on it)

These are all copyright violations. The site has no right to publish any of them.

These facts can be verified by going to the page indicated and viewing the documents.

Second, Diamondwatcher is misinterpreting fair use. I have some experience with this so I happen to know the meaning of fair use. Verbatim copying of whole documents is never fair use. Fair use means that parts of the document are quoted along with criticism or commentary, like quotes in a book review, literary criticism, etc. See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Law and Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#What_is_fair_use.3F. If there is any doubt about this, check with Wikipedia's legal staff.

Thirdly, Wikipedia policy expressly prohibits link to sites which are known to violate another individual's copyright. From Wp:el#Restrictions_on_linking:

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception.

1. Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement...

A Ramachandran 01:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Site Contains Reliable and Verifiable research

Ramachandra is identifying particular articles, rather than the website as a whole, as first person articles such as the example stated are rare on the site. The majority of the site is well researched and references are quoted. As this is the case, I would prefer to deal with articles on an individual basis. In response this “specific” claim, a refutation is below.

The example of a first person anonymous account, see [http://www.diamond-cutter.org/geshe-michael-roach-problems/geshe-michael-roach-behavior.html]. The page gives an "example" of behavior of Geshe Roach "During the Tantra Course at Diamond Mountain in the fall term of 2005" and also has a link to an audio file of the actual incident, recorded by the author of the article. While one cannot actually “see” the incident take place one can hear everything as stated in the article including the thump as Geshe Michael Roach strikes himself and Christies audible upset at the incident.

A Google search for Gary Friedman is not likely to turn up very much as Gary lives quietly in India, and has never published anything before this site. This does not make him less qualified, it just means that “you” have not heard of him. Ramachandra is welcome to cite specific articles on the site that he feels are not reliable, and I shall answer those on an individual basis. Diamond-Cutter.org is willing to adjust articles as required, however, as stated, we need to identify these individually, and the specific “problems” with each of them before discussion can take place. Generalisation is also unreliable and I feel that is what Ramachandra is doing here.

Alleged Copyright violations

I hold that the examples stated above by Ramachandra are all examples of fair use for the following reasons:

All materials that are copyright of Michael Roach or his organization have mention made of the source, and of the name of the author. This is in accordance with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: Article 10 (Fair Use), point 3.

The US Gov't Copyright Website states: Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. [http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html]

Nowhere in US Copyright Law or the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works does it state that an entire article cannot be quoted for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. All materials in the site are used non commercially, do not have an effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work as none of it is available commercially for sale. All materials are also the subject of comment and discussion within the site and they are copied for that purpose only.

I am happy to take the advice of Wikipedia lawyers on this issue, however I feel Ramachandra has a personal agenda in this case. If these materials are treated on an individual basis, and it is the concencus that they are copyright violations, then Diamond-Cutter.org will take them off the site if the result is that the site can be linked to.

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: Article 10 (Fair Use)

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries. (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice. (3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author, if it appears thereon.

US Copyright Law defines "Fair Use" in this way: Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Rebuttal by A Ramachandran

Respectfully, Diamondwatcher is not a lawyer and does not understand copyright law. While I am not a lawyer, I am involved is both software copyright and open source licensing as well as text publishing. I assure you that the use the site is making of other's material is not a fair one. This is an educated opinion as compared to t a desparate gamble to keep a link to the site.

I also suspect the Diamondwatcher is in some way involved with the site, either hosting it or as one of the contributors to it. I ask that he disclose whether this is the case, as it would involve an additional concern of conflict of interest. A Ramachandran 15:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with A Ramachandran on this. While there may not be any explicit, official rules on what constitutes fair use, there are definitly practiced norms. For example, only a few sentences of a written work, 30 seconds of media, etc. are to be used and they must give credit to the author. Copying of an entire essay would almost certainly not constitute fair use. In addition, I immediately thought of WP:COI before I even read A Ramachandran's comment. Diamondwatcher does imply connection to this website. In addition, this website does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view. While that does not automatically exclude a link from appearing on Wikipedia, it makes it less credible. I would like to see how Diamondwatcher responds to these issues. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Diamondwatcher

I am not a lawyer, but I am also professionally involved in publishing, particularly on the internet (I am a programmer, copywriter and website developer, amongst other things) so I believe that in this regard Ramachandra and I are equally of educated opinion. I would ask that Ramachandra refrain from making "desparate gambles" by implying that my level of expertise in an issue is less than his own, before he has knowledge that this is the case.

I must point out that I agree the site is not fully written from a neutral point of view however neither are any of Michael Roach's own sites which are linked to from the same article. They are all definitly written from a "pro" perspective, and as such are equally not fully written from a neutral point of view. Should we remove these links for this reason? Very few websites are ever written from a neutral point of view and both the CNN and BBC world sites, for example, are also both extremely biased in view, however these have been cited elswhere on wikipedia as examples of sources that can be trusted.

Regarding my involvement with the diamond-citter.org website, I have a personal connection with the site owner but have no active role in the site itself. The site owner will listen to my recommendations, however, as I am a publisher and IT professional and my opinion is valued. In this regard, I can assisit in having copyrighted materials removed from the site if need be. I believe that the site will remove materials such as those mentioned by Ramachandra if it will assist in approving a link from wikpedia. To this end, please let me know if the list supplied above is complete in your view, and if removing these particular materials will settle the copyright issues in full.

Another point. If the articles in question were linked from diamond-cutter.org to the same articles residing on sites that have copyright permission for these artciles (such as the Diamond Mountain website), would this also settle the copyright issues regarding the diamond-cutter.org site. It would be easy to make the links to these articles external links from diamond-cutter.org. Maybe this is the best solution to the copyright problem.

I think it easiest if we deal with one issue at a time. It would be good to settle the copyright issue first, as it is easiest, then move on to Ramachandra's other concerns. Do you both agree with this?

Response by A Ramachandran

Well, I don't think simply removing the copyright violating material will make the site acceptable. That is only one problem. There is no proof that the site is reliable or that the editor is a recognized expert in the field. In fact, the site gives me the impression of either a personal or sectarian vendetta. In fact, the nature of the site makes me doubt that the editor of the site is actually a Buddhist. Certainly the site doesn't fall within the limits of "Right speech".

Another thing that makes me dubious is that I can find no third party sources to verify the site. The letter by the Dalai Lama is not published on the Gov't of Tibet's site, which it would be if it were official and the Dalai Lama wanted to stand behind it. The only other criticism I can find appears to be diamond-cutter spam on Buddhist forums. I say spam because it looks like at least in some cases, the links were promoted by someone with an agenda so spread the information from the site, just as is being attempted on Wikipedia. It seems very strange that there should be such a controversy and that all the information about it comes from a single site. I don't think Wikipedia has any obligation to link to it, and in fact has several valid reasons given in Wikipedia policy not to link to it... A Ramachandran 04:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Response by Diamondwatcher

I do not find Ramachandra Bhai to be very open on this subject, so perhaps he should look up the meaning of Mediation. I was of the impression that is was to settle or resolve an issue with the assistance of a 3rd party. I have offered an olive branch, and it has been basically ignored.

Of course, Wikipedia has no obligation to link to anything, but then of course it wouldn't contain any in formation at all. I also know of no link spam concerned with this site. Please quote references if your going to accuse.

To be truthful, the site owners and contributors want the site to be a useful resource. They would like it to be fair and legal, so this excercise can not only be used to place a link from Wikipedia but also to improve the website and make it fairer and more open.

Ramachandra seems to be objecting to the general "tone" of the site rather than anything specific. This is not a valid argument against the site. I would rather deal is specifics than vagaries, please Ramachand.

May I cite an example. Michael Moore! Please take a look at the General Criticism heading. If Ramachandra was serious and not on his own vendetta then surely he would remove most of these links also. In fact, most of these links would be far less acceptable to Wikipedia than the Diamond-Cutter links. Should we remove these also? I am a big Michael Moore fan, however I feel it is good to have these links, as long as they don't put Wikipedia in jeopardy of legal action.

Red herring alert. I cannot and will not put every article on Wikipedia on my watchlist. You are welcome to patrol that article yourself. A Ramachandran 02:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Right speech", please note that the Dalai Lama in an interview in February 2005 stated ""The best thing is, whenever exploitation, sexual abuse or money abuse happen, make them public." and again at the "Life as a Western Buddhist Nun Conference", Dharamsala, India, March 4th 1996 "When teachers break the precepts, behaving in ways that are clearly damaging to themselves and others, students must face the situation, even though this can be challenging, criticize openly, that's the only way" and again "As far as my own understanding goes, the two claims—that you are not subject to precepts and you are free — these are the result of incorrect understanding. Even though one's realization may be higher than the high beings one's behavior should conform to the human way of life. Criticize openly. That's the only way. The fact that the teacher may have done many other good things should not keep us silent". So who is Buddhist?

Please Consider:

• If there are copyright violations, please confirm the exact articles and I will attempt to use whatever influence I have to resolve the copyright issue by either:

a) having the materials removed or

b) having those materials linked to on sited that have copyright to use them

Please state which of the above is best in your opinion

• If there are any other "specific" problems with "specific articles" then let me know. ::It may be possible to request authors to allow their names to be used. For example, the majority of the pages contain information that can easily be checked. The letters from HHDL's office can be checked by contacting them (contact details are available along with the articles). Many of the pages contain information from which the validity of materials can be checked.

Let us continue and explain in detail:

Steps taken already to resolve the Copyright Issue

• Letter to Lamas (open does not mean anyone else can publish without permission)

- Removed.

• Diamond Mountain Spin (this one has a copyright notice at the bottom)

- Removed. Only a portion is quoted on the site for comment, which is "Fair Use"

• Spiritual Partners Poster (poster image rights belong to Diamond Mountain)

- Removed. only a portion of the content, the header photo, is used elsewhere in the site for comment/critical purposes.

• Yoga of Business Poster (ditto)

- Removed. only a portion of the content, the header photo, is used elsewhere in the site for comment/critical purposes.

• Tantra in America (transcript of a talk, rights belong to Roach)

- This is now a link to the Diamond Mountain website wich has copyright

• Magic of Empty Teachers (another talk, has Diamond Mountain logo on it)

- This is now a link to the Diamond Mountain website wich has copyright

I hope this resolved the copyright issue. If not, then please be specific about why. We can now move on to the other issue.

Verifiability and reliability of the site

I would hold that all info on the site is factually verifiable, and contact details/references are given in many cases to make verification easy.

I must also point out that nowhere on the site are conclusions reached. The site disseminates information only and it is up to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Below is a list of pages making up the site in question with a comment on their contents. I would like to ask Ramachandra exactly what in the site, page by page, he feels is inappropriate and we can then proceed from there.

• Home

- Contains only snippets of information found on other pages

• About Diamond-Cutter.org

- States only the site aims and objectives

• Letters of Support to Diamond-Cutter.org

- contains only letters of support for the site written by visitors... a positive visitors board

• Letters of Disagreement with Diamond-Cutter.org

- contains only letters against the site... a negative visitors board

• How to Help Diamond-Cutter.org

- How to support the site (no financial support is requested

• FAQ's

- Contains only information that is verifiable by other sources, and information about the site's policies.

• Geshe Michael Roach

- A fairly standard Bio of Michael Roach which can be checked by anyone interested. No critical comments. Some named references to information supplied.

• Geshe Michael Roach's Three Year Retreat

- Contains only well know information about the 3 year retreat which can easily be verified. Some named references to information supplied.

• Geshe Michael Roach's Claims of Realization

- Contains only a summary of Michael Roach's claims and a "Fair Use" portion of the open letter in which he makes these claims.

• Is Geshe Michael Roach a Monk?

- Contains easily verifiable information and named quotes from easily verifiable sources.

• Why does Geshe Michael Roach wear Long Hair and Jewelry?

- Contains easily verifiable information and "Fair Use" portion of the open letter in which he makes discusses this fact.

• Geshe Michael Roach and Diamonds

- Contains easily verifiable information with references from known and trusted sources.

• Geshe Michael Roach and Yoga

- Contains only background information, with no criticism of Roach.

• Geshe Michael Roach Business and Money

- Contains only background information, with some praise for Roach.

• The Problems

- Contains only general information, with references from known and trusted sources.

• A High Lama's Advice to Geshe Michael Roach

- Contains only information that can be verified by contacting Venerable Gyumed Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Jampa. Contains no conclusions or judgments.

• Is Geshe Michael Roach Cult Building?

- Contains factual easily verified background information

• Allegations of Sexual Conduct between Geshe Michael Roach and Students

- Contains factual easily verified background information and a signed open letter by an individual well know to those associated with Michael Roach

• Geshe Michael Roach's Errant Behavior

- Contains factual information backed up by an audio clip

• Diamond Mountain's Unqualified Tantric Lamas

- Contains factual easily verified information and references from know and trusted sources

• New Diamond Mountain Ordination Lineage

- Contains factual easily verified information backed up by photographs

• Diamond Mountain Dakinis

- Contains factual easily verified information

• Geshe Michael Roach's Misleading Statements

- Contains factual easily verified information and references from know and trusted sources

• Dalai Lama's Office

- Contains factual easily verified information and snippets of information found on other pages

• Dalai Lama's Office Denounces Geshe Michael Roach

- Contains factual easily verified information with contact details for those interested in verifying the details.

• Diamond Mountain Puts Spin On Dalai Lama's Disapproval

- Contains only factual easily verified information, no conclusions or judgments are made.

• Geshe Michael Roach Misleads Students Over Dalai Lama's Gifts

- Contains factual easily verified background information along with transcripts backed up by audio clips

• Dalai Lama's Office Refuses Geshe Michael Roach Offering

- Contains factual easily verified background information along with transcripts backed up by audio clips

• References

- references from know and trusted sources

• Documents of Interest

- Links to various documentation

• Alternatives to ACI

- List of links to Buddhist resources

• The Dalai Lama’s Advice

- references from a know and trusted source

• World View Links

- List of links to Buddhist resources

I would like to hear from our kind and venerable mediator at this point, with his advice on ways to proceed. My own view is to find an amicable settlement to the dispute, rather than just sticking to a rigid opinion as Ramachandra seems to be doing. It isn't about who's write and who's wrong, it's about resolving a difference to the benefit of all parties.

Diamondwatcher 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a task for both users here. A Ramachandran, please explain exactly where you feel copyright violations have occured. This seems to be the main concern of this discussion. Diamondwatcher, please provide sources for claims that you say can be "easily verified." It seems to me that you two are arguing two completely different cases and, therefore, not coming to any conclusions. Let's try to concentrate on these two aspects for now, and see where that leads us. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability does not mean that someone can go out and research and somehow come to the conclusion that the information provided is factual. It means that reliable references are cited, just as on Wikipedia. For example, the Dalai Lama letter is unverifiable, because it is not quoted from another reputable published source. Please provide a link to the source if you have one. That same for all other assertions of fact. A Ramachandran 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Take the page titled "Allegations of Sexual Conduct between Geshe Michael Roach and Students" where a letter is published from a named individual. But in that letter, this individual repeats gossip which he has heard from other unnamed individuals. There is a word for that, and it is "hearsay". It is also what is known as unreliable information, because it is unsourced. That's why the site fails WP:RS and thus fails the criteria for inclusion as a link in Wikipedia. The site is full of this sort of hearsay innuendo. If the owner were taken to court for it, he would probably lose. There is no reason for Wikipedia to fall in with this sort of libel. And libel it is to repeat allegations by others which you do not know are true. A Ramachandran 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems difficult to get Ramachandra to stick to a point. I take it the copyright issue is dead, so now lets get on with verification issue. Can you please, Ramachandra, list the pages that you think are problematic in this area. One question. Are letters left on website guestbooks and on forums grounds to ban linking to that site? Another Question. What about the Michael More example... should these links also be removed? In the time being, I'll do some more research in order to supply a better ansswer to our mediators request. By the way... does our mediator believe that ramachandra is actually happy to mediate, or in fact knows what the word means? Diamondwatcher 08:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I do, and I would rather that you assume good faith when it comes to mediation, especially when A Ramachandran is doing nothing besides arguing his side of the case. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize you are a mediator, but why assume good faith with all the evidence to the contrary? There is no requirement for it one it is established that evidence does not support the assumption. A Ramachanda has now been blocked: "This user is a confirmed sock puppet of Ekajati, established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely." Some of us recognize a familiar pattern by this/these editors(s)of non-collaborative wikilawyering this type of issue and trying to suppress links critical of various spiritual authorities on flimsy grounds based on a bias against critics, when wikipedia states that material from both the religious organization and the critics must be treated with caution. The site clearly states the materials that are used with permission, and the copyrighted material is cited in the context of critical commentary and within fair use guidelines. The site clearly states: "If anyone can prove beyond doubt that any of the information on this web site is fabricated or incorrect, we will immediately print an apology and remove that particular information." The site also clearly states caveats like: "Neither this web site nor its owners make any warranty that the information contained in these letters is true or correct. We publish them here as they are serious allegations, and need to be investigated. The name of the author is included, and most people who have been involved in Diamond Mountain over the years will know him. We invite Geshe Michael Roach or any of the ladies involved to reply to these allegations." Thus, since the site is merely reporting that credible allegations exist without claiming they are true, and Roach et al have not even responded to refute the allegations despite the invitation, Ramachanda's claim that "If the owner were taken to court for it, he would probably lose" is simply his own opinion and based on personal bias. In short, all wikipedia is doing is linking to the best available critical, expert site on that particular subject which lists relatively credible but unproven allegations clearly stated to be such rather than fact, where the subject has been informed of them but not responded, and clearly states the reader should make their own assessments. Wikipedia should do likewise, and is not taking a position on this, but clearly Ramachanda brings his own, non-negotialble position and bias into the editing, and rejects all compromises. Other editors will not be steamrolled by such tactics, and will exercise their authority to edit appropriately. --Dseer 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This mediation does seem to be in an odd situation now, since one of the parties has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I wonder how it is to proceed?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation presumes good faith, and mediators have to assume good faith, but when there is no evidence of good faith, other editors do not have to presume it even under Wikipedia guidelines. This is the same familiar pattern with a group of "three" editors repeated in other, similar articles. In this article, Diamondwatcher attempted to collaborate and find a compromise with A Ramanchandra, Ekajati, and Hanuman Das, who had a long record of being active in supporting each other in suppressing critical links on sites devoted to controversial religious figures, and together refusing to collaborate or compromise their rigid position even when other editors refuted their arguments. Ekajati says in response to the block, he is "proud" of "A Ramachandra". "Hanuman Das" who tag teamed with "Ekajati" regularly and whom Diamondwatcher tried to compromise with recently, left in a literal tantrum last month. "A Ramachandra" is now banned indefinitely as a sock puppet, and "Ekajati" was temporarily banned and now says he won't participate anymore, but wants his ban switched with "A Ramachandra" ;-). Experience with these editors has shown that at some point, collaborative and inclusionist editors here must be bold, do what is right, call a spade a spade, and do whatever it takes to move on. Because the majority of editors were in favor of a compromise and it was only A Ramachandran who refused to compromise and who failed to adequately justify his claims or behavior in the mediation I did not participate in, I have reinserted the critical link, and I intend to support others in ensuring that it stays there unless a legitimate and compelling case to the contrary is made. So far it hasn't. I recommend Diamondwatcher withdraw from mediation since he was correct that the other party was not engaging in good faith mediation, and it is no longer needed. --Dseer 00:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekajati/Ramachandra/Hanuman Das Sockpuppetry

It's hard to mediate in "good faith" with a serial sockpuppeter assuming all three user names above with a known agenda. This is the latest information on confirmed and suspected sockpuppetry charges against Ramachandra, AKA Ekajati, AKA Hunuman Das, et al, who may very well 'reincarnate' again under other user names with a similar agenda:

User:Ekajati Suspected sockpuppeteer Ekajati (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Suspected sockpuppets Chai Walla (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Baba Louis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Report submission by --Pigmantalk • contribs 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Ekajati (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is under a two month ban for sockpuppetry. Currently confirmed sockpuppets of Ekajati are Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Tunnels of Set (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Hanuman Das changed his account name and was previously under the user name Adityanath (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). While still under the Adityanath account, two accounts were found to be sockpuppets of the Adityanath account: Baba Louis (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Chai Walla (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). See here for findings.

Since Hanuman Das is a sockpuppet of Ekajati, then accounts found to be sockpuppets of Hanuman Das are therefore socks of Ekajati.

As of 1/29/2007, Chai Walla is working on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath [1]. This means Ekajati is using this sock to evade the ban.

Above posted for informational and advisory purposes by --Dseer 03:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is definitly an interesting turn of events. I have seen some good arguments saying that this link is fit for Wikipedia. I am still not completely convinced that everything on the website falls under fair use, and I am still slightly worried about the conflict of interest issue. It seems, however, that the concensus is for keeping the link. I request that nothing from this website be cited in the article because I am not totally sold on it, but I would be willing to allow the link to remain. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to cease mediation on this issue, as the other party is no longer able to continue. I wish to send a huge than you to דניאל - Danielr for his partience and help, and to everyone else who has spent time on this matter. Diamondwatcher 03:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

One must always be cautious in dealing with both sides of a partisan religious issue. Here, I agree, the link is sufficient, I would add the customary "Criticism" section, but simply say that "Critics have identified various concerns, see critical link". Ekajati/Hanuman Das/A Ramachandran and probably other "socks" were active all over Wikipedia, agreeing with each "other", and trying to block critical links against many controversial spiritual teachers using wikilawyering, threats and intimidation. Since the issue is simply adding the link to experts on the critical POV relative to a subject to confirm that there is a controversy, not to endorse the controversial material or cite it in the article, Ekajati's position was too extreme and biased against NPOV. In the case of the Andrew Cohen article, Ekajati accused other editors of "smearing" the subject, and threatened other other editors with banning if they restored a critical link he deleted, and also reported them to the BLP noticeboard. The difference there was that some of us editors recognized his approach from several articles and were not intimidated by his wikilawyering WP:LAWYER, psuedo-legalisms, non-collaboration and threats. We pointed out both in discussion and at the BLP noticeboard in Wikipedian logic why he was wrong, biased, and that he was non-collaborative and threatening other editors, and restored the link over his objections, and so called his bluff. Having taken mediation training, I assure you that you can't mediate with someone like that with a devious agenda, sometimes you have to be bold and trust yourself when a review of contributions shows a non-collaborative agenda, and contest them wherever they take their argument. While you have to be very cautious and should always use the best available sources, the fact is such critical links by reputable critics and ex-followers are quite normal in response to NRMs with controversial spiritual figures, I can think of a dozen regarding different controversial figures, and none of them have been shut down by legal action, either due to copyright issues or libel issues, despite the claims of our sockpuppets, and I can prove if it comes to that. Besides the logic in the above mediation case, there is the simple fact that history with NRMs shows that usually these ex-followers have more evidence than they disclose, and if they were forced to testify under oath to defend against a lawsuit, the NRM might well come out much worse. Since Ekajati has been active in trying to circumvent bans and creating sockpuppets to support his agenda, although all known sockpuppets have been blocked, he may try to sneak back. I invite all those interested in the inclusionist Wikipedian logic by which the deletionist Ekajati's assertions were rebutted in the Cohen article to read here: [[1]], and here: [[2]]. And here is the mediator's favorable comments on the same logical position regarding the deletionist position at the Ken Wilber article: [[3]]. --Dseer 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing Case

OK, I am going to go ahead and close this case. Thank you all for participating in this discussion. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.