Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE/Evidence

Evidence

^^James^^ 11:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James and Lobo are little better

I will probably regret getting involved, but Zarove asked me to take a look at this, and I feel like someone needs to point out the bad faith behavior of two of his accusers as well. I was originally drawn to the acharya page at the request of James' complaints that she was being endangered by the publication of her name. This was the first of many downright dishonest claims he has made, including the claim of no relationship with her, and the twisting of criticism into threats. Lobo specialized in misrepresentation of the actions of a series of administrators who tried to mediate or settle the dispute. Both have displayed such a dogged mindless aggressiveness against any criticism of her preposterous website and books as to convince me beyond any doubt that they have some sort of close relationship with her that they will not reveal. In the first month of the dispute Zarove's postings were open and honest in terms of perspective and motivations compared to theirs.

My criticisms were entirely of the silly claims of the website and ridiculous contrast between acharya's combative stance and empty puffery ("greatest religious philosopher of the age") and the dishonest claims that she needed to be "protected" by anonymity from Christians trying to do her harm. I lost interest as it became clear that neither James nor Lobo possessed any trace of ability to engage in reasoned debate despite James' hysterical expressions of fear for her safety or Lobo's pretensions that her derivative compendia published by a press that specialized in UFO and nazi mystical looniness constitute serious academic research despite being completely ignored by all serious academic scholars of religious history.

I had no interest in her private life beyond the already public name behind the pseudonym, and do not defend any threats of publication of personal information. These apparently happened after I dropped out.

The problem is that I stopped reading the numbingly repetitive drivel months ago and I'd rather undergo a root canal than dig back through the muck looking for specific diffs in the history to illustrate what I described here. So write me off if you need to, but notice that neither James nor el Lobo will permit the article to describe her website and books in a way that actually reflects the flavor of what you will see if you go look at it or them. Do not take their allegations at face value. alteripse 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Alteripse

The whole idea of including diffs is to prevent people from muddying the water with baseless accusations as you have done above. For example, I have never denied being in contact with Acharya S.

I still maintain that publishing Acharyas name against her wishes is wrong. I think controversial writers on religion have a legitimate reason to be concerned for their saftey. The recent muslim cartoon controversy should make this abundantly clear. She also has personal reasons to be concerned for her privacy. As you know, Acharyas full name was private information until Zarove made it public, here on wikipedia. Where do you think he got her full name?

Pointing out how Zarove threatened to publish a persons credit history, grades and court records is hardly "twisting criticism into threats". Suggesting so is a twist in itself.

^^James^^ 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Alteripse 2

-

I certainly hope you regret it... if for no other reason than that of conscience, speaking of bad faith behavior, of course.

You were drawn to it at the request of James???? I quoted you and crazyeddie... what can possibly a misrepresentation of that?

Mine is not a mindless aggressiveness... it is simple, debate club methodology. I quoted Zarove's first and subsequent entries and there is no way it was not slanted to deny the books while trying to make the author appear as some amateur and "Since I think we're both of the "Acharya S is a quack" POV" who didn't know what they were talking about... How about this from your own talk page?

"I say we oughta take off and nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure. Any ideas how? crazyeddie 06:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I share your opinion. I'd be happy to have it simply vaporized, but then one of her disciples would create a new article and start the whole mess over. Will you support the last version I posted on the talk page if zarove and I can get a couple of other people to do so? I am sorry to ask you to go looking for it amid all the word fog. alteripse 02:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking more about the contributors than the actual article. We'd be vaporized as well, but at this point, I'd be willing to write that off as acceptable losses. I was actually thinking about starting up a fork as a subpage off of my userpage, work with you to hash out a compromise between us on it, then sit the principles down one by one and see if we can work out a compromise with each of them in turn - with us two having complete veto, at least initially (as long as its a subpage off of my userpage, then by convention, I own it...). The idea here is to deal with one maniac at a time. Right now, they're feeding off each other. Eventually, we'd have to open it up to the community as a whole, but this might be a way to proceed at first.

Since I think we're both of the "Acharya S is a quack" POV, then I think it makes sense to sit down with ^^James^^ first (since he is of the opposition), then move on to Zarove after that. We can work on 216 after we've dealt with those two. Hopefully, 216 will get bored and wander off... It might be the word fog, but James seems more-or-less reasonable, at least as out-and-out POV warriors go. crazyeddie 06:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Show me what you have in mind. Anything different than this. alteripse 10:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)"

Now you can decry your part in this all you want, but it amply clear that your opinions are prejudiced and the attempt to soft peddle them can only be seen as shear, unadulterated CYA.

Looniness aside, there is one sure thing about one's opinion... it begins by being sacrosanct. Serious scholars indeed, such as yourself and crazyeddie?... What branch of religious history concerns itself with mythology? The fact that they have not read a thing and made comment on it proves only that they have not done something... it doesn't mean that what they have not read lacks merit or that any one has ignored anything no matter how hard you may desire that agree with your own assessments and beliefs. Same goes for her publisher...

Repetitive drivel is a fair assessment. To argue with Zarove is worse than a root canal. I not only will allow, but I encourage, that all detractors and those who favor the books be given a url so that the reader can check out for themselves that which suites their fancy. My point is that if you publish a negative you should publish its refutation... Do not take my or anyone else's allegations at face value... check them out for yourself.

69.19.14.20 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 10:10 PM EST[reply]

This person Zarove has made constant derogatory remarks and personal attacks on the subject, as outlined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%5E%5EJames%5E%5E/evidence

Why hasn't he been banned when other users have been for far less egregious behavior? There is extreme bias being displayed here.