User talk:Spottykitty

More than a correction of facts you appear to have a grudge and appear to be conducting a vendetta against this guy. TruthInNews (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I went through the article with a tooth comb and find no reference whatsoever to any investments being sought let alone mention of a company.

Obviously this further confirms that this is some sort of personal score being settled. I think Wiki should not let itself be used as a medium for such activity under the guise of "truth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthInNews (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he has a company in no way or manner is indicative he is seeking investors. Also the alleged conviction was in respect of a church account and not an investment firm. I fail to see the link.

There are thousands of companies that are privately owned and funded without seeking outside investment. There is no evidence, here or elsewhere, that this person is seeking outside investment nor has done so at anytime in the past.

Also if articles are to contain such information resulting from an ex parte reference to an uncorroborated news paper article as well as assumptions, it would indeed set a very dangerous trend and open Wiki to numerous litigation. TruthInNews (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Methinks this has all the hallmarks of a personal hatchet job trying to use Wiki as a cover. Puhul Dosi (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange that not a single search of Torrance court records or LA County records in California shows anyone by this name with either a civil or criminal conviction for the past 10 years. For that matter there isn't any in all 50 states!

Hmmm! as the previous poster had mentioned this sure looks like a hatchet job by any definition. LotusPetals (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This must be indeed a first in Wiki where a "pay for info" link is provided as a verifiable source.

I respectfully suggest you do some further reading on Wiki policy regarding material to be used in the biographies of living persons.

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

Wiki will be leaving itself open to costly and unnecessary litigation to further the ends of a single individual with an axe to grind.

Also the Zoom link you have provided seems to be in error. I hope you have got the party in the newspaper article correct and not in error like this so called Zoom link.

Also I believe "TruthInNews"'s comment on assumptions was in reference to your unsubstantiated claim that Dr. Abeyesundere is seeking investors in a company and therefore it is in the public interest that this edit of yours be made public. So far there is nothing to show such is the case. LotusPetals (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Need To Be Very Cautious Before Setting a Dangerous Trend
This whole issue keeps getting weirder by the day.

(1) On 6th February it was stated that “''I think that there may be people who would like to know more about him than is written. It is for these people that I am persisting in posting this information. He seems to be seeking investors in his company. If this is the case, don't you think we have a duty to inform potential investors of his history?'' “

This statement clearly tries to show the edit is for the good of the general public and not to carry out a personal vendetta..

(2) However when I pointed out that “''I went through the article with a tooth comb and find no reference whatsoever to any investments being sought let alone mention of a company”, the statement was retracted on 7th February with the comment “Thank you for your response to my comment. You are right that there is no claim in the article that Sunil Abeyesundere is seeking investors.''”

(3) Then on 7th February the following comments were made “''With respect to his company, this ZoomInfo page documents that he is (or claims to be) the CEO of Amni International, Inc. The biography on that page states that he is in "full charge" of the company. It is a logical conclusion that he might be seeking investment, as any CEO might do.''”

Not seeing the so called logic in it, the following reply was made in response on 7th February. “''The fact that he has a company in no way or manner is indicative he is seeking investors. Also the alleged conviction was in respect of a church account and not an investment firm. I fail to see the link.''

''There are thousands of companies that are privately owned and funded without seeking outside investment. There is no evidence, here or elsewhere, that this person is seeking outside investment nor has done so at anytime in the past.''”

(4) On 7th February, in response to the comment “Also if articles are to contain such information resulting from an ex parte reference to an uncorroborated news paper article as well as assumptions, it would indeed set a very dangerous trend and open Wiki to numerous litigation.”, a pay-to-view link was provided to backup the newspaper article. I doubt readers will be willing to fork out money to read citations in an otherwise free encyclopaedia.

(5) In response to the reply in (3) above, the following was posted on 9th February. “''Regarding the Zoominfo page, I was quite surprised to find that it had been changed on Feb 7. It was changed in several steps.''” The comment goes on further as to what is supposed to have changed with the zoom article.

I think we need to bear in mind what poster “LotusPetals” stated on on 8th February and I quote below.

QUOTE:

I respectfully suggest you do some further reading on Wiki policy regarding material to be used in the biographies of living persons.

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

Wiki will be leaving itself open to costly and unnecessary litigation to further the ends of a single individual with an axe to grind.

UNQUOTE

We have no positive proof that Dr. Abeyesundere is the party that is alleged to have been the subject of a criminal trial and is referred to in a newspaper article.

We can be setting a very dangerous irreversible trend here without adequate verification.

To give an example, there is reference to a Dr. Sarath Amunugama in the article. In Sri Lanka there are 3 persons with that same name, the politician and Cabinet minister, an educator and a doctor of medicine. All bear the same name and all have the title "Dr.". If an article appears which affects the repute of a person bearing that name how do we identify which one it is going just by the name in the absence of a photo positively linking the person?

I think this edit needs to be further reviewed and the implications carefully assessed. TruthInNews (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Need to be very careful
We are skating on very thin ice here.

Better err than have to face legal ramifications.

I see very little public benefit particularly as the issue deals with bookkeeping misdeeds at a church, a private organization, and not fraud perpetrated upon the general public to warrant a public warning per se.

The allegation that public investment is sought by the individual just does not hold up in the light of what has been stated.

P.S. - It was stated by you that "I do not have a vendetta against him, in that I do not expect him to repay me." This seems to imply that Dr. Abeyesundere owes you money but may not pay it back.

Wiki is not the forum for making such allegations.

Even if it is factual that is entirely a private matter between two parties. I feel this whole editorial exercise is an attempt at discrediting an individual for some personal grudge. LegalLuminary (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable aspersions
I note that in your post to "TruthInNews" (which I will leave him to respond to in full) you have inter alia stated that "'First, you recall that I was a victim of his crime, and so I recognize his picture! Of course, that cannot be used as a source.'".

This is blatant character assassination by any definition when the accusation of a crime committed against you cannot be substantiated. Despite being aware and acknowledging it can't be used as a source you repeat the accusation; a common enough trick practiced in court so it sticks in the mind of the jury even if struck off the record by the judge and the jury asked to disregard it.

That kind of conduct should not be condoned on Wiki and should be strongly disallowed whatever the reasons.

You also state "I believe it would also benefit his customers, suppliers, and contractors to make this information easily available.". I doubt any well established company of repute would resort to a Wiki entry for vetting a party it wishes to do business with. For that purpose there are bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce etc. which have the resources, the track record and the ability to provide the required information.

I agree with the others that this is nothing but a personal vendetta thinly disguised under the pretext of public benefit. It would be a very sorry day for Wiki as a whole if it is permitted to be used for this type of vindictive attack, substantiated or not. LegalLuminary (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Going In Circles
First of all, you started of this discussion stating that you are "a victim of this man's crimes" referring to Dr. Abeyesundere. To date you have not provided any proof that you were such a victim nor have you had the courtesy of retracting that baseless allegation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.76.203 (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your following comment, “''I would counter that even if he was not seeking investment at present, as the CEO of a company, he is engaged in financial activity. I believe it would also benefit his customers, suppliers, and contractors to make this information easily available. Since his crime was a major financial event in his life, it belongs in his biography, just as would a bankruptcy''”, I think “LegalLuminary” has already addressed it quite adequately.

The underlying reasoning is flawed when you state “That he stole the money from a church does not, in my opinion, make it less likely that he would steal money from another kind of institution, or from individuals”. Statistical data as well as studies conducted clearly indicate the offenders are of different type and white collar crimes are very rarely if ever repeated thus negating the need for a public pronouncement. Also the moral lapse of an individual, if true, does not mean it is a recurrent trait of the individual. On the face of it, assuming it to be correct for the sake of argument, this appears to be a single lapse in an otherwise very distinguished and enviable career.

A white collar crime against a private organization does not make the perpetrator a public threat not by any stretch of the imagination. There have been many recorded instances of church pastors being guilty of dipping into the church coffers. We have no precedent of them being considered threats to society as you are trying to make out here.

Furthermore let us not forget that the US judicial system is so uniquely structured that many innocent people, faced with the prospect of a long prison term and the resulting expense to engage in litigation, prefer to take a plea (albeit being considered a guilty verdict) to avoid the threat of a greater term. That is why though the US has 5% of the world's population it has 24% of the total populous that is incarcerated.

You state that “''The edit is potentially libelous. I agree that at first blush it appears libelous, but libel is a false claim that gives an individual a negative image. The proposed edit contains a verifiable fact that gives an individual a negative image. Therefore, it is not libelous''.” I beg to differ. Even you concede it is “potentially libelous” then go onto turn it around; if so are you asking Wiki to condone such a post with the potential of a libel action?

You state that “''The objection that it costs a small fee to verify the fact by the primary source of the court record is irrelevant to the question of its factuality. Whether verification is free or not, if it can be verified, there is no cause for concern''”. On the contrary a free encyclopedia should have verifiable facts that are available to the public in toto, not just who can or are willing to pay a fee for accessing such verification. Both your citations are fee based information sources not readily available to the public. The newspaper provides an excerpt but one cannot judge the merits of its contents without viewing the entirety.

The repeat mention of a Zoom article has no bearing on the attempted edit. It just supposedly shows that either the party in question, or someone of similar name, has a business. If it is still functional, the nature of the business etc. is unknown. All it is supposed to substantiate is that the party is engaged in public activity; a fact that is not entirely proven by the link.

You mention “''First, you recall that I was a victim of his crime, and so I recognize his picture! Of course, that cannot be used as a source.''” a matter that “LegalLuminary” has very well addressed and which I quite agree with.

You go on to say that “ ''You state there are probably many people named Sunil Abeyesundere, and of course I agree. However, the name is rare in the USA. Besides sharing the same name, the two Sunils share these characteristics: same age, same employer (although the newspaper Sunil worked at Lockheed-Martin using the assumed name "Bill Benson"), same occupation, same hobby (amateur radio). Perhaps more striking is that the Wiki Sunil has a wife named Supipi, and children named Nilipi and Asanka. According to the full text of the newspaper article of April 14, 2001 (downloadable for a small fee) Sunil has a wife Supiti, and children Nilipi and Asanka.''”. Here we go again citing a pay-to-view citation. I think it has been stated ad nauseam that it is a trend we at Wiki should not set in asking readers to have to pay for verifying what we publish.

I personally feel that we are going in circles here and the consensus appears to be not in favor of such an edit. TruthInNews (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I Agree
"I personally feel that we are going in circles here and the consensus appears to be not in favor of such an edit. TruthInNews (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)"

I fully agree LegalLuminary (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Me Too
"I personally feel that we are going in circles here and the consensus appears to be not in favor of such an edit. TruthInNews (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)"

I fully agree LegalLuminary (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I am in complete agreement of above. LotusPetals (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I Concur
"I personally feel that we are going in circles here and the consensus appears to be not in favor of such an edit. TruthInNews (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)"

I concur with the sentiments expressed. Puhul Dosi (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nasty Smell
Your repeated claim of being a victim made me curious enough to get a copy of the judgment. It only mentions as plaintiffs a church (CBC) and a woman named Marie Matzek who on further research appears to have died in 2007 at age 92.

So you have been lying all along which makes me believe the other contributors that this was a vindictive self serving campaign to satisfy a personal unknown grudge.

Further searches shows a ZoomInfo entry for the party with a link at the bottom of the page to his web site. It shows him to be a very successful and wealthy international businessman who currently is holding, apart from business positions, a very prestigious post as a Senior Presidential Adviser to a country's President.

Also his strong Buddhist links as appears in his site make it an added mystery how, if at all, he supposedly wound up keeping books for a church.

The whole Wiki episode seems strange and has a very definite nasty "smell" to it. I think all it has done is lower Wiki standards ...pity! BrandyFumes (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)