Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Michael Roach

message: 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)

message: 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.
#It contains materials which violates the copyright of the subject of the article.
#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)
thread_title:  A. Ramachandran's case 

message: #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  and 
#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 
Diamondwatcher 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamondwatchers case 

message: ====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.
:#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)
thread_title: Elaboration of A Ramachandran's case

message: 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.
:#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)
thread_title: Copyright violations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rebuttal by A Ramachandran 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response by A Ramachandran 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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: [], and here: []. And here is the mediator's favorable comments on the same logical position regarding the deletionist position at the Ken Wilber article: []. --Dseer 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ekajati/Ramachandra/Hanuman Das Sockpuppetry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Closing Case