Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Implied threats to invade privacy

ZAROVE has repeatedly insinuated that he might disclose personal information about Acharya S that would amount to an invasion of privacy. In particular now, he repeatedly brings up her son. Due to her circumstances which I alluded to, of which ZAROVE is clearly aware, this issue is particularly important. I will not present evidence on that here; if the Arbitration Committee would like more information, I can provide it by email.

ZAROVE created the Acharya S article in April 2005, but did not create an account until later, after the dispute was beginning to heighten. As he began debating with Acharya's supporters, he several times suggested that he could publish private information about her.

September 2005

• "I have evidence. I was a reporter. Idid a story on her. Trust me, I could have posted a lot mor personal informaiton, but only posted what was alreayd made known. IE, her real name." [2]
• "I also learned of her past lover who attemtoed to expose her past criminal record. I also learend of her Court huistory." "I also learned of her poor grades in school" "Do you rlelay want me to look furthe rinto Dorothy and her past?" "I am not trying to threaten here." "If you persist in your useless harrassment and stupid claism that the "Status Quo" ar eht only oens htat need to present evidence, I ll present mroe than she woudl hope for." "Need I also check her credit hisotry? Its posisble online." [3]
• "This isnot blackmail. The Article is abou her, not her work. All her information is public if you knwo where to look, and I do. S this sitn stalkign either." [4]

After ^^James^^ brings this to up on Talk:Acharya S for others to see [5], ZAROVE backs off:

• "Credit hisotur may be a bit extreme, but tis public record. I was not fully seriosu there hwoever." [6]

Subsequently, he focuses more on challenging her credentials as well as discussing the content of the article. This continues into October and then he edits as User:Zarove for a little while. Except for a brief reappearance with the original account in December, this is all until he returns in February 2006.

February 2006

At this point, the earlier edits having been called to my attention, I gave ZAROVE a warning about threats of this kind [7]. Apparently seeing this as an extension of a campaign against him, he dismissed the warning as a "farce" [8].

• He brings up her son again [9], then removes the edit [10].

March 2006

More about her child:

• "Yet she herself exposed it. Until I posted it on Wikipedia, she had the link added on her own website. Indeed, Wikipedia prompted this. She wanted Sympathy and used her son's Kidnappign to win it." [11]
• "She used her sons Kidnappign to garner sympathy for herself. On her website. Shen clale don it, she removed the link, which she still posted in hr mailing list. ( And claism this is my source for informaiton, her ex lover I didnt knwo abotu till she opened her own yap.)" [12]
• "THats why Im in arbitration, because Acharya can lie and fake begn a victim.SHe posted her own sons Kidnappign on her websiote to boost sympahty, and when it was shwon that this was the soruce for my infomaiton abiou it, removed it. She doesnt even love her own son enough to keep that out of public veiw if it means gatherign support." [13]
• "Yet she did use her sons abduction to win sympahty and show how Im mean and nasty.I son her mailign lit, and was on her website. Why else post it?" [14]

In response to the query, "How do you know that her posting that wasn't an effort to alert people to the fact that her son had been kidnapped like an Amber Alert?"

• "It was after the son had been returned to her. And she posted it to show how sick I was beause she sid this was Zarove/Holdings source. SHe insists Im in leuge with Holdign and we both have contact withher ex lover. On her website it was listed as a Heoine tale.Not a an amber alert." [15]

My observations

The point about the Amber Alert is correct, it's the reason the matter became public. The incident is not something Acharya S could have had a choice in, and regardless of her motives or ZAROVE's sources, frankly as a result her child is something nobody should have breathed a word of on Wikipedia at all, ever, anywhere. If nothing else, the Arbitration Committee should forbid him and anyone else from mentioning her son again, or else they should be banned. --Michael Snow 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats to Invade Privacy

In addition to the above:

• "This isnot blackmail.... All her information is public if you knwo where to look, and I do. S this sitn stalkign either....all I need do is send what I knwo to a colleuge of mine, get it published, and have it placed on their website. Out of respect for Acharya's wishes to lead a private lifethat is private, I have limited my article to her claims that make her noteworthy.... Thus peopel... do not learn of her dirty laundry." [16]

• [Zarove] "will not hesitate to post facts about Dorothy Milne Murdock if she insists on fair representaiton." [17]

Regarding her credit report he said he was 'only joking', yet in his response to this very arbitration he is apparently arguing that Acharyas credit history and school grades are fair game:

• "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." [18]

It is a federal crime to procure a credit report under false pretenses, and a state and federal crime to obtain someone's school records without authorization.

Beyond Threats

Even though he was warned on Feb 14th, on Feb 17th Zarove posted alleged details of Acharyas personal life:

• "Her grades where poor on a few courses and average in a few. She excelled in a few as well, but not as many as whee average." Later he says again "...she had poor grades."

He also alleges she has had "debt issues in her past", has had "known affiliation with other nefariosu sorts", and has had "minor criminal incedents". He then threatens to reveal more, saying he's "given enough berth". [19]

In additon, it was Zarove who first made Acharyas full name public. [20]

False, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous statements

Much if not all of what Zarove reveals above is false and so amounts to libel. Acharya does not have "kown affiliation with other nefariosu sorts." Acharya has no "minor criminal incedents." Achayra did not receive "poor grades".

He has also claimed Acharya lies about her credentials:

• "She also CLaims that she is a member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece, However, they have no record of her as n actual member." [21]

• "...Acharya is not turthful nor is she accurate." "She wants ot present herself as soemtgin othe rhtna she is.This is lying." [22]

'At various times Zarove/Cook deliberately disseminated false, defamatory, and malicious statements to the effect that Acharya S is arrogant, self-aggrandizing, petty, vicious, mean, cruel, rude, not credible, unreasonable, incompetent, vindictive, mean-spirited, slanderous, "cheap," duplicitous, uses "vile language," "likes to attack people," is engaged in criminal activity, is a "Clay footed Idol," a "hate-filled woman," a "flake," fraud, coward, liar, bully, hypocrite, poor researcher, a "mistress" and leader of "disciples," "cohorts" and "legions," an "Iconoclastic rebel whose distortions are her only claim to fame," and a "SOcialisted Psychopath."' Documented here.

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.