all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Libel[edit]

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.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruption[edit]

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

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Verifiability[edit]

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.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like those removing to contemplate 'due diligence', though. Charles Matthews 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

ZAROVE and Acharya S[edit]

1) ZAROVE (talk · contribs) has persisted in posting negative, possibly libellous remarks regarding Acharya S (e.g. [1] 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: [2] [3] [4], etc.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruptive editing[edit]

2) ZAROVE has made disruptive edits to Acharya S, including edit warring ([5]), posting personal information ([6]), and controversial insertions of original research ([7]).

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Obsessiveness[edit]

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

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

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

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Prohibition from Acharya S-related comments[edit]

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.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) If ZAROVE violates either of the remedies in this decision, he may be briefly banned for up to two weeks for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks the maximum block length shall be extended to one year.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

All passed. Close. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. James F. (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Charles Matthews 19:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]