Case Opened on 00:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Actually I didnt deny using "Zarove", I denied beign "Zarove03."

To be factual.

And sorry, Im new to arbitration. Not sure where I was to post this.

ZAROVE 20:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Snow (talk · contribs)

ZAROVE (talk · contribs)

There also exists a now inactive account Zarove (talk · contribs). This shares some hallmarks with ZAROVE, like frequently severe dyslexic-type spelling problems, but he apparently denies having used that account.

This request involves ZAROVE's conduct in a long-running dispute over the Acharya S article.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Other than several people communicating directly with ZAROVE, and impromptu attempts at mediation on the talk page, no formal dispute resolution has been used. Given the circumstances, as I will explain, I do not think they would be suitable or appropriate, nor do I believe prior stages would be capable of resolving the situation. --Michael Snow 19:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Michael Snow

Acharya S is a pseudonymous New Age author who is highly critical of religion, especially Christianity. The importance of pseudonymity and privacy for her is partly related to her young son, and having been involved in a vicious custody battle that included a kidnapping allegedly organized by the boy's father. I have personally confirmed the relevant information and can provide additional details, but am not willing to do so publicly.

In this context, ZAROVE has threatened to publish material that would constitute a serious invasion of her privacy, such as obtaining her credit history [2]. I gave him a stern warning about this [3], which he simply dismissed [4]. Now more recently, he has directly suggested publishing information about her son [5] (a comment he wiped from the talk page after a few hours [6]). Acharya S has also complained directly about the situation via email.

ZAROVE, who claims to be dyslexic, has posted extensive arguments in this dispute, often barely readable, seeking to expose and discredit Acharya S. He is opposed by several supporters of Acharya S (how many, and whether she has edited herself, is difficult to determine). The article has been protected for a month and the talk page is overflowing with archives. The behavior of Acharya's suporters has not been exemplary either, frequently including personal attacks against ZAROVE. However, because of the implicit threats in ZAROVE's actions I think his conduct in particular needs to be addressed, and I ask the Arbitration Committee for an injunction that ZAROVE is banned from editing anywhere but the relevant arbitration pages (he does not seriously edit on topics outside the scope of this dispute) pending the resolution of this case. --Michael Snow 19:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZAROVE

With all due respect, if you read the dispute, you will find my actiosn are nto as damnign as you preent them.

1: Though Acharya S's disciples, who come form her malign list in droves to fight for her cause, have accused me of such, I did not write the initial article to be a hit piece against her. Im not Hostile to her. I am hostile to her attempts to Bias Wikipedia. I want a Neutral article. This neither Acharya S nor her legions will allow, while claiming this is what they want themselves. Rather, they endeavour to re-write the aritcle in her favour. To this end, any evidence you how them, any source that is not from a supporter of Acharya S, is rejected. They have removed links to relevant pages, because it doesn't support their desired end. They openly critise any source that is critical of her work. This is why I offered my article. I can put it on the web, and let this be a source.

Incedentlaly, ylou are mistaken. Her motivaiton to remain Annonymous has nohtign to do with her Young SOn.her Ex-Lover happens to alreayd know her PSeudonym. She has stated such herself on her mailign list.She may have told you, in an email exchange, that htis is her reasoning, btu then, her word is not known to be trusted.I say this not lightly.

Please also do not fall for her sympathy tactics.

Credit Hisotry and Grades in school are open on several persosn whom Wikipeida has already written artilces on,and is inclused in such articles. And the soruces for my informaiton are legal. I wrote an articl eon her a few years back. I was a reporter. I have the article on disk somwhere still. I am not obsessed with ehr and am not stalkign her. But if they will nto allow any other osuce, claimign it Bias if it critises her owrk, why not a newsarticle?

2: As to her son, they claim I gaiend this informaiton form her ex-lover, and this is evidenc eof inpropriety. I added the commetn abotu her son when she posted it on her website. Again, I did htis in acocrdance to Wikipedia Policy. As she posted ghe infrmaiton on her site herself, I do not see how this is a VIolation of her privacy.

3: All this said, don't you think acitosn agaisnt me is a bit silly? It only encoruages Acharya S and her follwoers ot further bully and harrass, by giving me a bad name. Notice how muhc of the tlak page centres aroudn her disiples makign personal attakc son me. They wan tot discredit me, and bannign me gives htem a vicotry. With it, they will be enheartened to further their sceheme, which is to bias WIkipeida in her facour. Im not makign this up. Ive fought alone here. I dotn have yes men, but Acharya S does. Look at what they posted on my talk page. Im also not "Zarpve03", and, as to the claim that disagreeign with me means I attack ytou, please look at my own detractors. Disagrre with them and their Guru, and they viciosuly atack you, and are likely to call you sick and Psychotic. ( They clal virually anyone this...CHeck her refutaitons.) Noentheless they felt compelled to vandalise my page to create a terribple ( And childish) rant abotu me. DOe this seem like I am a monster, andhtye the voice of reason?

I mean, coem on, I didnt make this personal. I also didnt make this about my personal beleifs, which I didnt brign up.

Think for a moment. If I include Neutral Informaiton, its considered Bias. if they post claism that ar euttelry unsubstamtiated except on her own website, abotu her, tis valid.

They simply want the reader to htink she is what she presents ehrself as, to elimiante all Critical cvoices againt her, and to make the pice a glowing advertisement for her. This is why they want rid of me, and wy they distort everyhtign I say. Im not stalkign her, I didnt get informaiton in an illegal way, and Im not obsessed with her. I even post in other arilces and have for a coupel of years now.

This is not rlelay abotu me, its baotuthem wantign to silenc soemone who doesnt give them their way.

Pleaw see through this and relaise whats gpign on. After all, this isnt rellay abotu me. They only seek to discrdit me personally so as to silence opposition to their agenda, which is to coopd the WIkipedia aritlce of their Guru, so that they can write a glowing review of her, and htis hasbeen noted by several others.

Oh, and I rellay am a Dyslexic.

ZAROVE 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

Accept. (I have edited the page in question, but see no reason to recuse myself on this.) Charles Matthews 19:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I agree that this is ready for arbitration. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Libel

1) The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point-of-view style of prose, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. See Wikipedia:Libel.

Passed 6-0

Disruption

2) Editors may be blocked at the discretion of administrators for disruptive editing. Repeated disruptive behavior may lead to bans or other restrictions.

Passed 6-0

Verifiability

3) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Passed 6-0

Findings of fact

ZAROVE and Acharya S

1) ZAROVE (talk · contribs) has persisted in posting negative, possibly libellous remarks regarding Acharya S (e.g. [7] and User:^^James^^/evidence). He has made frequent threats to reveal personal information about Acharya S and her son which is not widely known or published: [8] [9] [10], etc.

Passed 6-0

Disruptive editing

2) ZAROVE has made disruptive edits to Acharya S, including edit warring ([11]), posting personal information ([12]), and controversial insertions of original research ([13]).

Passed 6-0

Obsessiveness

3) The majority of ZAROVE's edit have been to Acharya S, Talk:Acharya S, and related pages.

Passed 6-0

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Topical ban

1) ZAROVE is banned from making edits to Acharya S and related articles and talk pages.

Passed 6-0

Prohibition from Acharya S-related comments

2) For threatening to introduce and introducing personal information and potential libel to Wikipedia, ZAROVE is prohibited from making any comments related to Acharya S or her son. Such edits may be reverted on sight.

Passed 6-0

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

19:03, 4 June 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked ZAROVE with an expiry time of 48 hours (Knowing and deliberate breach of ban under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE) [14]