From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Basic standards of civility will be enforced. Editors who are uncivil or who are deliberately provocative (i.e. trolling) will be warned, then banned from editing the case pages for escalating periods of time, enforceable by brief blocks. For the duration of the ban, banned editors may leave comments on the talk page of any non-recused clerk, provided this privilege is not abused. Rlevse 20:00, 01 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Rename the case 1.2 Template 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Template 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 3 Questions to the parties 3.1 Questions from Marskell for committee 3.2 Questions for SlimVirgin 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed principles 4.1.1 Decorum 4.1.2 Administrators 4.1.3 Assume good faith 4.1.4 Wikipedia is not a battleground 4.1.5 Responsibility 4.1.6 Template 4.1.7 Template 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 Zeraeph fails to assume good faith 4.2.2 Zeraeph makes personal attacks 4.2.3 Zeraeph games dispute resolution 4.2.4 Original locus of dispute 4.2.4.1 Asperger Syndrome 4.2.5 Allegations of stalking and harassment by Zeraeph against SandyGeorgia 4.2.6 User:A Kiwi 4.2.7 A Kiwi's editing 4.2.7.1 A Kiwi's editing 4.2.7.2 A Kiwi has made personal attacks 4.2.7.3 A Kiwi's article and article talk edits 4.2.8 Penbat and Radyx 4.2.9 Sam Vaknin 4.2.10 Anonymous attacks against Zeraeph 4.2.11 Personal attacks by Zeraeph 4.2.12 Zeraeph has edit-warred 4.2.13 SlimVirgin's unblock of Zeraeph 4.2.14 SandyGeorgia's comments to Mattisse 4.2.15 User:LessHeard vanU is uncivil 4.2.16 User:LessHeard vanU enters content disputes in Admin capacity 4.2.17 User:LessHeard vanU is biased and consistently favors certain editors over others 4.2.18 Individuals with Asperger's syndrome, autism or mental disorders are editors as much as everyone else 4.2.19 SandyGeorgia has not been the patient, welcoming, policy-abiding editor that some claim. 4.2.20 SandyGeorgia is recognised as an excellent contributor to en-Wikipedia 4.2.21 SandyGeorgia has allowed past harrasment to influence her conduct in cases regarding other matters 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 By Zeraeph 4.3.2 Zeraeph placed on no personal attack parole 4.3.3 Zeraeph Civility Restriction 4.3.4 Enforced Mentorship 4.3.5 Zeraeph banned 4.3.6 Zeraeph banned from editing autism and Asperger related articles and talk pages 4.3.7 Zeraeph placed on probation 4.3.8 User:LessHeard vanU avoid Admin involvement with Zeraeph 4.3.9 Template 4.3.10 Template 4.4 Proposed enforcement 4.4.1 Template 4.4.2 Template 4.4.3 Template 4.4.4 Template 4.4.5 Template 4.5 Analysis of evidence 4.5.1 Template 4.5.2 Template 4.5.3 Template 4.5.4 Template 4.5.5 Template 4.5.6 Template 4.5.7 Template 4.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Rename the case

1) The case is renamed to Zeraeph.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We don't think this is necessary at this point. Cases have been renamed in the past towards or at the conclusion of the proposed decision stage, and if at that time a change is warranted then it can certainly be made. --bainer (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

There are multiple conflicts centering on Zeraeph. SandyGeorgia is not central to this case and is suffering from undue attention created by adding her name to the title. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Zeraeph's incivility, refusal to discuss issues on article talk pages, personal attacks against me, and forum shopping to at least three admins on December 11 (see diffs under my section, (User:FayssalF, User:LessHeard vanU, SlimVirgin, and on AN/I) had nothing to do with SandyGeorgia. Mattisse 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. All parties to this ArbCom needs to have their actions reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I joined myself to this arbitration case because the editor who posted the original request wrote, in the very first sentence of their opening remarks, that "[t]his is a contentious dispute that has persisted for more than one year involving multiple parties" (my emphasis). I took this to mean that the case would not focus merely on Zeraeph's objectionable conduct towards SandyGeorgia, but towards several other editors, including myself. I was surprised, then, that the case was renamed to "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" upon its acceptance. I ask that either the case be renamed to "Zeraeph", or else I be removed as a party from this arbitration, since I have no involvement in Zeraeph's dispute with SandyGeorgia. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Like Psychonaut, the way this case was originally presented led me to believe it would examine all of Zeraeph's behaviors with all parties and all articles. There was so much evidence in every case, that I didn't even participate in the Statement phase, and was quite surprised to find my name added. Statements were made in the Statement phase that I can't rebut since the difs have been deleted. SlimVirgin said: Z asked to be unblocked, and in the course of looking at that, I saw that some anons had left personal attacks on her talk page e.g. these comments, which I removed. Mikkalai said he didn't mind if I reviewed the case and unblocked Zeraeph early [9] (she was two weeks into her block), so I did. At that point, I was unaware of Zeraeph's long dispute with SandyGeorgia. Since Z's talk page is deleted, I would like to have the diffs showing how many times SV came to Z's page to remove anon IP attacks, while leaving the attacks on me and others in clear evidence, specifially, my post that pointed out Z had made another personal attack on me on her page and that specifically included the previous community discussion ban, which certainly detailed the long history of problems, so that SlimVirgin should have been aware. I believe that post was right above her latest attack on me (where she called me a "madam"), and it's hard to imagine why SlimVirgin didn't see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Support. There are distinct issues in play, some of which Sandy is only tangential to. Marskell (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agree, SG is not the concern here. What ever role she played does not rise to the level of having the case partially in her name. R. Baley (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Supported with separate proposal; merged. Proposed per Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence#Rename --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Deny This arbcom has arisen directly from issues between SandyGeorgia and myself, the other parties were only brought in to try and create imbalance in her favor. I suggest that in trying to have her name removed she is trying to force an unequal resolution in order to have sanction to harass me further with impunity. I cannot show this tonight because I am too ill, and must be in the hospital early, but I can show it. I ask for 7 days to recover and do so before any renaming is considered --Zeraeph (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. - Sandy is a minor figure in this case, as is becoming increasingly clear as the evidence is being presented. Zeraeph has issues with multiple editors, there is the question of the inapproporiate unblock and admin involvement in an off wiki site, and above all, it seems clear from reading this arbitration that it is almost solely about Zeraeph's disruption and attakcs on other editors. To include Sandy's name when she is only tangentially related to the abritration as a whole unfairly besmirches her well deserved excellent reputation on this project. Jeffpw (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

case rename needs to be approved by the arbs. I will ask them about this on everyone's behalf. It may well be a motion they make on the Proposed decisions page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrators are aware of this motion now and will vote on a motion to rename the case if they consider it necessary. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• With respect, could bainer or someone else actually explain? Marskell (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of some of the issues now in evidence because of what I could find on Google, but I had never been able to sort out the Vaknin issues. The case has now moved well beyond the pieces I was involved in, yet my name is still on it; now that we're into narcisstic personality disorders, books, banned editors I've never dealt with and all matter of other unpleasant affairs, I really think we should get an explanation to why my name is still attached. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that ArbCom doesn't want to encourage pointless litigation over case names, so they generally don't change the title until the case ends. My filing this request was a case of WP:IAR, but I felt these were exceptional circumstances and I think SandyGeorgia deserves exceptional consideration because of her exceptional service to the project. Jehochman ^Talk 12:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrators who commented on this all agreed that there is little to be gained from adopting a practice of renaming cases part-way through, and we'd rather have parties putting their efforts into presenting evidence and contributing to the workshop, etc, rather than, as Jehochman observes, jostle over the naming of the pages. As I mentioned above, the Committee has renamed cases in the past to properly describe the scope of the decision made, so we'll see how the case moves forward and come back to this towards the end. --bainer (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The bainer, can you please clarify your remark; this case already was renamed part-way through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The clerks, in consultation with the arbitrators, assign a name to the case pages when the case is opened. This doesn't always correspond with the title the request was named under (eg, the current "IRC" case was initially filed as "Giano 2"). They do their best to accurately title the case to reflect the dispute, though subsequent developments may move the case in a different direction. --bainer (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Bainer. I'm not well versed in ArbCom, never having been near one before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Support per Sandy being a minor factor in the case and much of the evidence that may need to be considered relating to Zeraeph's interactions with other parties as well as with SG. Orderinchaos 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. This case is about Zeraeph, not SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia is a valuable member of the Wikipedia community and does not deserve to have her good name and reputation used in this manner. Based on the evidence offered, please consider removing Sandy's name and renaming this case. Please acknowledge the eight supporting votes in favor of renaming. —Viriditas | Talk 11:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, "votes" on Workshop pages rarely enter into the consideration of Committee members when they cast their votes (which are the ones that count). I have seen a number of motions which had the support of many participants rejected because the Committee disagreed, and even more remedies/principles etc. Nothing suggests that this is the case here, but it is worth noting. Daniel 11:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Who named this case and why was it allowed? —Viriditas | Talk 12:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See Bainer's comments at 12:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) and 23:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC) above. Daniel 14:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not explain why it was renamed in the first place and SandyGeorgia's name added. Mattisse 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Support renaming. The name of the victim of misconduct should not appear in the case name. Kablammo (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Questions from Marskell for committee

Two:

1. Are their previous statements of principle or findings of fact regarding launching attacks on WP editors off-site, such as at Wikipedia review? Is it cause for censure or is it ignored as beyond the ambit of adminstrators and the committee? (Note, I don't mean simply logging into WR—we're all free to do that—but using it as a forum for attacking editors.)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Remedies, the pertinent part of which is " links to (name removed by me) may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it."..."Users who are current or past editors of (name removed by me) are reminded of the vast policy differences between Wikipedia and (name removed by me) and admonished to wear their Wikipedia hats while here." — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Sandy has said in her evidence that she twice contacted the committee some time ago with concerns over Zeraeph but received no response. Will someone confirm that? I have no reason to disbelieve it, though missives may have since been deleted from inboxes. It contributed to a feeling of isolation, judging from her statements. Marskell (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sandy emailed me in September 2007. I forwarded the messages to Newyorkbrad but neglected to reply directly, for which I owe her an apology. (I was too busy at the time to get involved.) She makes reference to me being an Arbitration clerk, but that gives me no additional authority and is not the same as emailing Arbcom directly. If I had stepped in, it would have been as any other ordinary admin. Thatcher 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Correct; I did not say I e-mailed the committee. I understood I was e-mailing an independent admin/ArbCom clerk. I did feel confused and ignored, but no apology is needed. We're all volunteers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for SlimVirgin

Questions here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard stuff. Kirill 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed - uncontroversial, and relevant to this case. Orderinchaos 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Marskell (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators

2) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More standard stuff. Kirill 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Support; central to this case when the peripheral matters are removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed - uncontroversial and relevant to this case. Orderinchaos 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Marskell (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Jeffpw (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

3) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those with whom they have had conflicts in the past.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

More standard stuff. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Especially. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a battleground

4) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Editors who have had off-wiki conflicts with each other are expected to behave according to Wikipedia community standards while editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Agree with the principle, but with the proviso that on-wiki interation should be minimalised to reduce the possiblity of violating community standards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Orderinchaos 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibility

5) Editors are responsible not just for their intentions, but also for the effects of their actions. Mistakes may be made and forgiven in good faith, within reasonable limits. When a well-meaning editor consistently errs in a particular area, the sensible solution is for that editor to seek out a reliable advisor and to solicit feedback in advance of posting, and for that editor to assume proactive responsibility for correcting his or her own mistakes. This basic approach applies to any site policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Presumption that an editor can recognise where they are consistently in error; it is perhaps the communities responsibility to direct good faith editors into changing their bad habits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 05:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This finding itself probably is unnecessary. If used, the language goes too far. I suggest changing the second clause to read:

but also for the reasonably forseeable effects of their actions.

Kablammo (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Zeraeph fails to assume good faith

1) Zeraeph habitually fails to assume good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is based on the evidence presented by Zeraeph, and the history references throughout the evidence page, in particular: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Evidence#Zeraeph's stalking accusations Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Evidence#Questions for User:Penbat. What evidence is there to suggest that these comments are made by User:Penbat? Penbat has been with the project since April 2006 and has a clear block log. Given Zeraeph's participation at Wikipedia Review, there are likely to be multiple trolls having fun at her expense. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I have chosen to ask penbat, on his honor, if he made those edits, (NOT accused him of it) rather than ask for a checkuser, because an anon from the same IP provider with the same geo-location has posted similar edits to Penbat over time such as [1]and[2] and has posted links to Penbat's admitted [3] personal website[4], all long before I ever posted to WR. Just how much good faith do you think I should be expected to show? --Zeraeph (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking if somebody has engaged in disruptive sock puppetry and personal attacks is equivalent to an accusation. You did not file a request for checkuser, nor suspected sock puppet report at the time of the incidents, and only raised the complaint after User:Penbat presented evidence against you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you call this [5] an example of "assuming good faith"? --Zeraeph (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If the allegations and evidence presented by Penbat are verifiable, which I have not checked yet, I certainly will propose a finding on that basis. That's why we are here, to evaluate the evidence and propose findings, principles and remedies. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - per evidence under headings:

Gratuitous sock puppet accusations by Zeraeph

Personal attacks that an editor is unbalanced, "unhinged" or "unwell" by Zeraeph

Zeraeph does not AGF submitted by me on the Evidence page. Mattisse 01:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. You can't give if you never receive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support per my own review of contribs and in broad agreement with the evidence provided by User:Marskell and User:Karanacs. Way too many accusations flying around, some of an entirely unsupportable nature. Orderinchaos 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. The evidence presented by multiple parties amply demonstrates this. Jeffpw (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeraeph makes personal attacks

2) Zeraeph habitually makes personal attacks against other users. e.g. [6], [7] [8]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe the evidence supports this finding. Irrespective of what others do to Zaraeph, there is no excuse for accusing other users of "not making any sense" because they are "unwell". Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Two diffs from a recent dispute, against an editor who will have been contributing for two years come Monday? I oppose in the absence of evidence of a pattern, or a whole lot more evidence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Zeraeph also called me "completely unhinged" on AN/I. [9]]. I have been contributing for almost two years. What does that have to do with it? I have 28,031 mainspace edits and a total of 36,556 edits.[10] Zeraeph has 2,362 mainspace edits and a total 5,238 edits.[11] Mattisse 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support if "...including unsubstantiated accusations of off-site stalking" is included. We could have a separate finding for that but can probably wrap it into here. Marskell (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support on same basis as Marskell. Orderinchaos 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Amply demonstrated in evidence presented by multiple parties. Jeffpw (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeraeph games dispute resolution

3) Zeraeph has a history of retiring or backing out of dispute resolution, and then returning to the style of editing that caused the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, I see no evidence at all for this claim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraeph (talk • contribs)

I see evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Evidence#Zeraeph has a history of "retiring" and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome. Jehochman ^Talk 05:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support the text, but not the title. Is there evidence that retirement claims are intentionally made to avoid consequences, or can it be supposed that these are good faith (if rather common) statements that are rescinded after some rest and a re-evaluation? Why not WP:AGF? LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. This is what happened in the current case. User:Fayssal dismissed the problem on AN/I in part because he thought Zereaph had retired because it said so on her user page. " I see at your userpage that you have already decided to retire which is unfortunate" [12]

Support. Her most recent "retirement", with a diatribe against Wikipedia and its editors, was on December 29, 2007, in the middle of the intense debate about her unblock. Jeffpw (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Marskell (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Orderinchaos 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support for all arbitration findings - WP:RTV is a courtesy and can be reversed [13]; unvanishing should be managed through the arbitration committee. To do otherwise gives the impression of trying to duck an arbitration verdict, which reflects badly on arbitration, Z and wikipedia. It may also sour a portion of dedicated editors towards the project and arbitration overall. WLU (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraph's conrtribs as of January 13th/08 - Z has apparently unvanished, meaning all time and energy dedicated towards this aspect of the arbitration was wasted, but this also means that the hearing can go head. Does this also mean that her talk page can be unprotected and I can view evidence from there as well? Deliberate or accidental, this still looks like gaming the dispute resolution process. WLU (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Support generally; title could be changed to state Zeraeph avoids dispute resolution. Kablammo (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original locus of dispute

4) Zeraeph first came into conflict with SandyGeorgia in July 2006 at Asperger Syndrome, which was undergoing Featured article review. Zeraeph accused SandyGeorgia of controlling the article and was repeatedly uncivil [14] and assumed bad faith [15] [16] [17].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Correct; I had never encountered Zeraeph anywhere else on Wiki or on the internet to my knowledge. Prior to the Asperger syndrome FAR, there was no overlap in our editing interests or areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger Syndrome

4.1) Other than a trivial edit in February 2006 [18] SandyGeorgia's first edit to Asperger Syndrome was during its Featured Article Review [19]. Zeraeph filed several complaints against SandyGeorgia; when pressed to provide evidence of her complaints against Sandy, Zeraeph offered this list of complaint reports. A review of the complaints and of Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive06 and Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive07 does not support the allegations against SandyGeorgia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This was ignited by the unblock of Zeraeph by SlimVirgin. Else why was I named as a party? I have not been in all of this until Zeraeph began complaining to LHvH about Psychopathy. LHvH and SlimVirgin agreed on December 29 to work together to help Zeraeph,{diffs posted elsewhere) LHvH allowed Zeraeph to make demeaning comments about me on his talk page, Zeraeph was blocked for personal attacks, Zeraeph continued the personal attacks while blocked, and SlimVirgin nonetheless unblocked her. Mattisse 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Proven satisfactorily. Jeffpw (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bit wordy, but if there is any evidence when this first blew up in 2006 that SG was abusive in any way, I haven't found it yet. Thatcher 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Had Sandy made no serious edits in '06 when she was active on the talk? Regardless, I support this. Having looked at some of the AS archives I see no cause for complaint. It was long-winded but ordinary debate in which Sandy did fine. So did Zeraeph, for the most part—until the sudden and spurious sock and stalk allegations. (It is a bit wordy though.) Marskell (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of stalking and harassment by Zeraeph against SandyGeorgia

5) Zeraeph accused SandyGeorgia and Keyne (talk · contribs) of being sockpuppets because they supported each other against Zereaph in the dispute at Asperger Syndrome (disproven by Checkuser). Zeraeph also accused SandyGeorgia of being "erotomanic stalker who attached herself to both myself and one other person since February 1999." [20] [21]. Although Zeraeph now acknowledges this was "a mistake that anyone could make" (Arbitration statement ) and "a very small mistkae [22]. (Question, was this admitted earlier?)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Z says she apologized and/or retracted earlier, but I don't recall ever seeing it or being aware of it. The first real retraction/apology I saw was on the recent AN thread. If this was admitted earlier, I don't know where to begin looking for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless whether Z retracted/apologized in the past, her current behavior has continued the personal attacks against Sandy and repetition of accusations going back years and having little relevance to the current situation. Sincere retractions/apologies end constant regurgitation of the past. Any retraction/ apology that was made is negated by Z's current behavior on Wikipedia and the off Wiki site. Mattisse 20:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 00:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. This was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and also proven that the accusations were totally unfounded. Jeffpw (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:A Kiwi

6) A Kiwi (talk · contribs) is the person whom Zeraeph accuses of a campaign of harassment and stalking (see [23], [24], [25] [26]. In 2006 A Kiwi sent multiple e-mails to SandyGeorgia regarding Zeraeph. [27] [28] [29]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A Kiwi appears to be no longer active on Wiki, is possibly unaware of these proceedings, and I do not have A Kiwi's permission to release e-mail that could clarify the relationship between Zeraeph and A Kiwi wrt the "stalking" allegations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be needed. Wikipedia is not a battleground. People who battle in real life are expected to behave themselves while editing here. The question is, was A Kiwi in any way abusive to Zeraeph in her on-wiki edits. Thatcher 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A Kiwi began editing late last night, and I assisted her in removing posts in spite of my previous agreement to disengage. I felt it was an emergency as she posted that she was on medication; I believe she trusts me and I was concerned she would divulge confidential information. Others have now stepped in, so I have left A Kiwi talk page messages explaining why I can't engage her in the future. I am not including diffs in this section, as they may become oversighted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher 00:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Noting that A Kiwi is aware of the case and has edited it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support only insofar as A Kiwi was accused, not that she was actually stalking Zeraeph. Evidence submitted privately and A Kiwi's statement here refute Zeraeph's accusation satisfactorily, in my view.

[edit] A Kiwi's editing

7) A Kiwi (talk · contribs), regardless of her real-life identity and past interactions with Zeraeph elsewhere, does not appear to have violated any community standards of behavior in her Wikipedia editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think A Kiwi (talk · contribs) needs to be prohibited from interacting with Zeraeph, per Marskell's diff, and evidence that I am about to add. Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear if posting a first name only (without last name) is a privacy violation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It was oversighted. Does that answer the question? This doesn't imply bad faith. It could have been a slip up, a mistake by an inexperienced editor, or well, it could be intentional. We can't know for sure. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Difficult to prove a negative, of course, and this can be retracted if there is evidence to the contrary. Thatcher 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In one of her very first edits, A Kiwi posted this to Zeraeph, which I would consider an attack. I don't believe A Kiwi can be considered blameless. Marskell (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that A Kiwi has involved herself in some of the dispute/dispute resolution processes (medcab, AN/I) involving Zeraeph. However, they have also co-edited some articles and there does not appear to be anything out of bounds in article and article talk space contribs. Thatcher 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to pull out some words from my above link: "You are really a very funny woman. Your beliefs are purely crazy (note, I said your stated beliefs are crazy, not you as a person). Do you belong to the Flat Earth Society, too? :D There is no way in the world a sane person can suggest such a thing. It is too paranoid for words." This is an attack from A Kiwi toward Zeraeph in one of her first edits (and first edits often indicate an agenda). Thus I cannot support above and agree with Jehochman that A Kiwi be prohibited from interacting with Zeraeph. Now, I've in no way fully audited A Kiwi's contrib's; if there's good edits, it can be noted that the editor has improved content. Ditto for Zeraeph. Marskell (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is from the Medcab case where Zeraeph accused SandyGeorgia and Keyne of being sockpuppets and her long-time stalker and harasser. When not actually responding to Zeraaph's accusations, A Kiwi's main space edits have been reasonable. Thatcher 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Strike in favor of 7.1 through 7.3. Thatcher 01:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Kiwi's editing

7.1) Prior to registering her first account, TRCourage (talk · contribs), A Kiwi sent emails to SandyGeorgia regarding a dispute between SandyGeorgia and Zeraeph. After joining Wikipedia, A Kiwi's initial edits were to insert herself into the dispute where she was, at best, an outsider with previous off-wiki involvement with Zeraeph. [30] [31] [32]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To avoid misunderstanding in the chronology, A Kiwi did not send me emails; TRCourage sent me e-mails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are the same person. Thatcher 07:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was revealed (to Wiki and to me at the same time) much much later; there was no sockpuppetry or abuse of both accounts. One account became the other, and for a time I thought they were two different people. This is just to keep the chronology clear and past posts in perspective. It's not that A Kiwi was deceptive, rather, because I wasn't responding to her e-mails, I never asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Clarified that A Kiwi is not just an editor who happened to know Zeraeph. Thatcher 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Kiwi has made personal attacks

7.2) A Kiwi has made personal attacks against Zeraeph [33] [34] and by revealing her real name (oversighted).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Clarifying that full name wasn't revealed, and that posts were immediately voluntarily reverted by A Kiwi when I pointed out they violated policy. A Kiwi is not an experienced user, and I believe she may have thought that because it was an ArbCom, she could speak freely of off-Wiki issues. Not excusing; just saying for the record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe A Kiwi did reveal Zeraeph's first and last name in an earlier edit, last summer. If I can find it I will mail it to Arbcom and then have it oversighted, but I may not be able to find it if it was already oversighted. And yes, lack of familiarity can be a mitigating factor. Thatcher 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gack. The edits giving Zeraeph's full name were by someone else. Thatcher 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct; I would not be defending A Kiwi if she had made that post (which was almost immediately oversighted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Kiwi's article and article talk edits

7.3) A review of A Kiwi's article and article talk contributions shows them not to violate Wikipedia's guidelines on civility or edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Added in Explanation. Spotted Owl aka TRCourage, aka A_Kiwi

I joined Wikipedia long ago back when I used to use TRCourage to register around the web. An advanced editor could, I am sure, verify the actual date. I joined as here A_Kiwi after I got bored editing at the Simple Wiki project. I never emailed SandyGeorgia until after I had witnessed -for some time- what was happening during her time in editing Asperger's in 2006. I wrote to her only to explain to her what was happening to her and why it was happening. As time when by, I advised her regarding dealing with interactions. I did not forward her any emails. There were zero conversations or dialogs. It was all one way. She never responded save for one initial post to the TRCourage page to ask me not to write again. After a brief period this past spring on topic pages and then last night on my talk page, she posted to me, but has once again expressed her desire to retreat from any further contact. I will respect that. She no longer needs assistance. The person who posted Z's entire name was her son. My slip last night was inadvertant, spotted immediately by SG, deleted within minutes. I later deleted both posts in response to SG's advice, which I trust. She suggested they be rewritten and emailed to ArbCom. She asked for an admin to help me tackle learning form and finesse. Hope I have posted this in the correct place and that I am allowed to clarify issues. Spotted Owl (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A Kiwi, please clarify "her son"; it reads as if it could be my son. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Better than clarifying, please stop posting snippets of personal information. We know various things about her from her own comments, we don't need to start adding first name, that she has a son, or anything else. This isn't an accusation of bad faith, just please stop adding anything about her that doesn't relate to Wikipedia. Feel free to delete this if you amend your original comment. 87.254.73.153 (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Penbat and Radyx

8) Penbat (talk · contribs) and Radyx (talk · contribs) have a history of editing topics related to Narcissism and Workplace bullying. They have accused Zeraeph of "destroying" the article Workplace bullying [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. Penbat edits from the same ISP and range as these anonymous comments [41] [42] [43] and these edits adding links to www.bullyeq.com [44] [45]. Radyx has previously been warned about linkspamming [46] the web site www.mobbing.ca, also about bullying.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Perhaps we can invite the editors to comment here. That may shed light on the situation, and provide more data for Blnguyen. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser run by Blnguyen at my request. Penbat does not have enough recent contributions to make it a slam dunk, but his contributions have been from the same ISP and /16 range as the cited anonymous edits. Thatcher 12:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Vaknin

9) Samvak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is Sam Vaknin, an author and media analyst. Vaknin has published a book on Narcissistic Personality Disorder and is held be some to be an expert on the topic. Zeraeph disputes this, and had heavily edited the (now deleted) article Sam Vaknin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Vaknin. Zeraeph was largely responsible for the indefinite banning of User:Samvak for sockpuppetry, although the block is out of proportion to the cited behavior. (See sockpuppetry investigations first, second, third, and fourth.) Zeraeph has made personal attacks against Sam Vaknin [47] [48]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sam Vaknin is an unqualified sometimes self styled "financial analyst" other times self styled journalist who cannot possibly be considered a WP:RS who chose to present himself as such. I am sure Fred Bauder can confirm that during the past year I approached him myself and asked if, at least, some aspect of this block could be reconsidered. As it did not seem fair. However, far from being "run off Wikipedia by Zeraeph" Sam Vaknin is the author of such articles as "The Six Sins of the Wikipedia" and made several public (and I am told, private) legal threats against Jim Wales and the Wikimedia foundation. I will forward one of these to arbcom now. --Zeraeph (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Sam Vaknin's alleged anti-social activites commence before or after the interactions with Zeraeph? Jehochman ^Talk 05:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And Vaknin blames Zeraeph, along with mention of class action lawsuits, and contact with Jimbo and General Counsel. "Another editor - Zeraeph - has been stalking me and members of my support groups for almost ten years now." http://samvak.tripod.com/wikipedia.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Looks like she ran him off. No other reason for the ban is logged or described on his talk page except for editing from IPs for self-promotion. Thatcher 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous attacks against Zeraeph

10) Zeraeph has been the target of anonymous attacks, most likely related to previous off-wiki disputes. Other than the comments noted above which may be linked to User:Penbat, no evidence ties these edits to any registered users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have been the target of unregistered users also. Many editors have. Is there evidence that Zeraeph has experienced an unusually high number of attacks from unregistered users, or that these attacks were left to stand with no intervention from Admin? Is there evidence that Zeraeph has been singled out by unregistered users for attacks, beyond those experienced by many editors? Mattisse 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't know how common or widespread these attacks have been, User talk:Zeraeph has only been semi-protected once. I'm sure this has negatively affected Zeraeph's editing, but it does not excuse her poor conduct. Thatcher 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Deny as gratuitous. As Mattisse has pointed out, every prolific editor receives attacking messages on their userpage from time to time. No evidence has been introduced that the messages on Zeraeph's page have been greater or worse than what many other editors receive. Further, even if there were substantially more attacks on Zeraeph's page than other editor's, you reap what you sow. Jeffpw (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by Zeraeph

11) Zeraeph has made multiple personal attacks against several Wikipedia editors. She has also confirmed that comments at Wikipedia Review critical of SandyGeorgia and Mattisse was made by her [49].

• Samvak (talk · contribs) [50] [51]
• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) [52] [53] [54] [55]
• Mattisse (talk · contribs) [56] [57] [58]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Orderinchaos 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as obvious. Jeffpw (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeraeph has edit-warred

12) Zeraeph has edited warred, see block log and evidence, another example, another block, more.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support - but it takes two to make an edit war. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher 04:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - uncontroversial. Orderinchaos 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as obvious. Jeffpw (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin's unblock of Zeraeph

13) Given that Zeraeph had posted recent and obvious personal attacks on her own user talk, SlimVirgin's unblock of Zeraph was unjustified. At a minimum, the unblocking admin should have investigated plainly visible indications of disruptive behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Zeraeph was blocked for article edit-warring by an admin who does not appear to have participated in any forum regarding Zeraeph's editing, with no sanction applied to the other party. As well as no warnings there was no notice of the block provided to Zeraeph. It was a poor block. SlimVirgin had no duty to consider the effect on a party who had brought up the matter in the first instance, in relation to the edit war. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think SlimVirgin acted in good faith and reasonable people can disagree about how to inerpret a situation. I suggest striking this. Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. SlimVirgin may have acted in good faith, but was negligent in not having researched the background of the block and of the user. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Can be phrased a few ways, but it's fairly straightforward. No diffs, tho they can be provided. Marskell (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support per evidence presented by multiple parties. Jeffpw (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a big "So what?" unless there is more. Admins make mistakes some times. Unless you want to argue that SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph knowing it was a bad idea and having some ulterior motive, or that she has a pattern of making similar bad judgments, then the unblock doesn't really enter in to it. Arbcom exists to settle disputes between admins, that's all. Thatcher 07:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as there is dispute over whether it was a mistake, arb should rule on it. It's come up repeatedly in evidence and is central to why we're here. Say nothing and it will just leave people wondering. (IRC, immediately in front of this case, faces a similar issue.)

As for ulterior motives, I'll plead no contest. Introducing SlimVirgin's history with SandyGeorgia would create too much of a tangent. Marskell (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several cases in which disputed community bans were heard by Arbcom and I do not recall any time when Arbcom has clearly stated that side was "wrong" to either block or unblock. It's sort of implicit in the final decision to ban or whatever. Thatcher 14:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph was blocked for disruption and showed no remorse in a discussion with the blocking admin. Instead, Zeraeph went offwiki to WR and continued attacking editors and making accusations, learning nothing from her block. SandyGeorgia noted the offwiki attacks at 02:52, 24 December 2007 on WP:AN. Incredibly, Zeraeph was unblocked four days later and launched immediately into disruptive editing and personal attacks. No administrator stepped forward to reblock Zeraeph for this behavior, while editors posted messages to AN asking why this was being allowed. The unblock and failure to reblock for overt, disruptive and abusive behavior is unprecedented. This is not a mistake, this is a complete failure to enforce the most basic policies, a function we entrust to administrators and expect them to uphold. As a result of this breakdown of command, valuable contributors like Mattisse and SandyGeorgia were harmed. Administrators are supposed to protect editors by enforcing policy, and they failed to act. This is not a "big so what", but a huge "how come"? Ask yourself, how did Zeraeph's unblock benefit the community? More importantly, how did it harm it? If the risk of an unblock outweighs the benefit, and if the outcome is not what one expected, why wasn't it reversed? What's the use of policies if they aren't going to be enforced? —Viriditas | Talk 15:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Oppose comment by LessHeard vanU: There is no way to confirm or independently verify the statement made by LessHeard vanU, as Zeraeph has exercised WP:RTV and her contributions have been recently deleted/oversighted. Even if Mikkalai responds, there is no way to provide diffs. It is unfortunate that this situation has arose, as it allows the parties under discussion to make claims that cannot be substantiated and to avoid scrutiny. Does Mikkalai think that Zeraeph's sanction was a "poor block"? LessHeard vanU's statement seems to be at odds with the evidence presented. Also, I cannot comprehend LessHeard vanU's statement regarding SlimVirgin, and I have asked him to clarify on his talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 07:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Mikkalai for their reasons and considerations in applying the block at their [talkpage]. I note that Mikkalai has not edited Wikipedia since 4th January, but hope for a response before this ArbCom closes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I do understand Thatcher's point: if the committee sanctions Zeraeph it will be tacitly suggesting that the unblock was made in error, so perhaps this isn't needed. By the same logic, my proposed below re Sandy would also be unneeded: any finding would be implicit in sanctions (or their absence). I thought Arb findings were more discursive, but I rarely wander this way. Marskell (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the question of whether the unblock was justified does not need to be specifically addressed. What should be addressed is whether SlimVirgin was correct in stepping in and not pulling out after being asked to do so by SandyGeorgia. I think it is fair to say that part of the dispute was over whether SV was an uninvolved admin, and that eyebrows were raised over whether SlimVirgin was able to fairly assign weight to the different sides of the conflict, given her prior conflict with SandyGeorgia. ArbCom routinely makes judgements on whether admins were sufficiently uninvolved to take the actions that they took. It is part of the feedback that the ArbCom provides to the administrator community. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SandyGeorgia's comments to Mattisse

13) SandyGeorgia's posts to Mattisse regarding Zeraeph on December 12 had a clear potential to create unnecessary drama. Regardless of previous frustrations, SandyGeorgia ought to have refrained from posting to third parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed.[59] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I am an editor and have written an enormous amount of very good editing on Wikipedia in a wide range of areas. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I believe editors who write should be supported, not denigrated at the expense of a problem editor who focuses contentiously on few articles over which she edit wars.

For perspective, this is only one post and it did not contain an untrue statement. It was overwhelmingly helpful to me in presenting the wider picture, of which I was totally unaware, yet turns out to be a major factor on Wikipedia. Again, I thank Sandy for righting my world as I was becoming hopeless. (I was not aware of this Wikipedia underside before this dispute opened up that world to me.) I do not understand the reasoning for accepting that Z can say "Mattisse (who is stark raving bonkers and no more a psychologist than I am a garden snail)", made a similar statement to LHvH that my edits were ridiculous and that I was ignorant, and who is known for making personal attacks on others, even on Admin talk pages, yet cannot withstand one post (of enormous help to me) by Sandy exactly when I needed it. Mattisse 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Again, no diffs, though they can be provided. I realize there's a bit of censure mixed in with the finding of fact (as above, with SlimVirgin's unblock). The arbs can decide how to phrase it. Clearly, Sandy herself realizes these posts were unwise. Marskell (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary for the decision. Kablammo (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Sandy's statement elsewhere in these proceedings. Further, even if intemperate, the statement was well within civility guidelines. Jeffpw (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LessHeard vanU is uncivil

14) LessHeard vanU has a history of being uncivil,[60][61] and was uncivil when Ceoil questioned SlimVirgin's unblock, telling Ceoil to "fuck off". [62]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I did not raise this during LHvU's RFA or oppose his adminship; he had apologized to me for the previous incident,[63] and I thought it was an isolated incident that I believed was behind us. The behavior has recurred, and contributed to unnecessary inflammation over the unblock. This is what caused Ceoil to post to my talk page about the whole affair. I'm not aware of LHvU apologizing, nor was I aware of previous disputes between LHvU and Mattisse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(I'm recused as an arbitrator in this case; commenting just as an editor.) I don't know that the ANI comments rise to the level of warranting an ArbCom sanction, but clearly no administrator should be addressing editors in this fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose both Ceoil and I can deal with being told to fuck off. This situation is impacting Mattisse. Please consider LHvU's interaction with Mattisse. Abusive and negligent admin actions cause great harm to the community welfare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline: On December 24, Zeraeph's WR attack on me was discussed at WP:AN; [64] that thread was just below another thread Ceoil was participating in. After SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph, Ceoil asked her for an explanation,[65] reminded SlimVirgin that "This editor needs to be monitored closely",[66] and posted a thread to WP:AN requesting that "close eyes are kept on this user".[67] He followed up with requests to SlimVirgin to explain the unblock. [68][69] Then LessHeard vanU also came to SlimVirgin's page to inquire about the unblock. [70] Mattisse was also inquiring in several places. Ceoil questioned why SV was asking LHvU for an explanation of the dispute, and saying that she was not aware of the background.[71] LHvU replied to Ceoil, "There is also the matter that I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms."[72]

I was busy with FAC work, when I saw a SlimVirgin, Zeraeph thread on my watchlist, and first posted to Ceoil here. Ceoil responded to LHvU here, and LHvU told him to fuck off.[73] The conversation moved to the AN thread,[74] with heated tempers, resulting in another Zeraeph "stalking" post, Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me. --Zeraeph (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Both Ceoil and LHvU lost their tempers; Ceoil apologized.[75] LHvU might have avoided early escalation and more "stalking" discussion if he had not told an editor inquring about a block to fuck off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)(

(moved comment to section about LessHeardvanU favoritism)

The following is the sequence of events, with diffs, that lead to my violation of several of Wikipedia's tenets referred to above; I wrote to SlimVirgin, as the unblocking admin, requesting help with the edit war, as I still thought of it, at Psychopathy[76]. Ceoil responded with this comment. I went to Ceoils talkpage and gave this very full, and mostly extremely civil (my last reference, which I now regret as I see the "humour" was lost, was in reply to the a child comment - 48 being quite old), explanation on why I had couched my query to SlimVirgin in such terms, and noted that writing in such a manner was also due to past practice. Ceoil replied to my talkpage, taking issue with the relevance of a couple of my points. I returned to Ceoils talkpage to reply, when I noticed these comments. My further explanation was subsequently delivered a little more sharply than might be considered seemly, but still within the bounds of civility. The last comment of mine engendered this reply; please note the final three words of Ceoil's message. This in turn lead to my regrettable post - although the fact that I was still explaining my original remarks to SlimVirgin, in an appropriate tone, earlier in the message has never formed any part of the later comments relating to it.

To sum up, I wrote a enquiring note to SlimVirgin regarding an edit war. Ceoil raised some question about the language used by me. I offered a civil explanation. Ceoil then questioned my explanation, and appeared to believe I was belittling him. I returned to Ceoil's talkpage to further explain my language choices, and noticed some other comments that did not sit too well with me. However I still politely addressed his concerns, and asked why he was concerned. Ceoil's response was to state that he was a friend of yours, that you had been hassled by Zeraeph, that he had been given "bullshit reasons" for the unblock, and repeated my commenting having previously dealt with the legal profession - concluding with the phrase "What the fuck?" I again offered an explanation for my choice of terminology, noted that I had had also interacted with you in the past, and signed off by saying "Now fuck off." That is the sordid history of that little event.

I did not tell Ceoil to fuck off because he was a friend of SandyGeorgia; I said it because I lost my temper with someone who seemed unable to accept my several explanations over a turn of phrase I had used with a third party, and why I wrote in that manner. It was extremely ill-considered and wrong for me to say those three words, and I am aware that I should have not responded in that manner, but I did and I cannot pretend otherwise; however, it had nothing to do with SandyGeorgia personally or the questioning of the unblock and I should really be grateful if people would stop implying that it did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment;See below (14b). More than 1 does not equal a pattern or habit.LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I was also amazed by LessHeardvanU's language and behavior regarding this incident, and actually went to his page, suggesting he strike through his remarks or modify them. He declined to do so, saying he meant them when he made them. I would hope that he would be at least admonished by the arbitration committee for this stance, as this behavior negatively affects the community as a whole, and set a negative example for other editors who see it and note an admin is allowed to behave this way while regular editors are quickly warned or blocked. Jeffpw (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

14)b) LessHeard vanU has been uncivil previously[77][78] and was uncivil when Ceoil repeatedly questioned LessHeard vanU's choice and use of (extremely polite) language when requesting SlimVirgin's assistance in the continuing edit war following Zeraephs unblock, telling Ceoil to "fuck off". [79]

In the interests of disclosure, I have been subject to User:LessHeard vanU's past incivility, in a situation where he threatened to use his administrative tools to block me while I was dealing with a disruptive editor who was making false statements and accusations on a talk page and who was removing valid citations from the article itself. Per previous arbitration decisions, this type of editorial behaviour is defined as disruptive and is unacceptable, but LessHeard vanU defended it because he was on a friendly basis with the editor in question. I will provide an explanation and the relevant diffs to any arbitrator that requests it via private e-mail, as this is obviously not the place, however I could not help but notice that LHvU has recently stated on Zeraephs talk page: "It doesn't matter if an editor has a differing POV or not, they should not remove good sources from an article." (20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC); no diff available as talk page history was deleted due to WP:RTV but this link shows the discussion. I'm afraid I must call LHvU on this here, as he is admittedly aware of the rules but fails to apply them in situations where his friends are involved. Again, I can prove this with diffs offwiki to whomever is interested. —Viriditas | Talk 09:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have requested these diffs, by email, at Viriditas' talkpage. I am always open to improve my application of the tools. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail sent with three diffs. For reasons made clear in the e-mail, I would prefer to keep this offwiki. —Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I hope I might be able to generally respond here, if required, but will let you know my suggestions before doing so.11:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the diffs provided, and would only comment that I see only standard admin interaction. If there is any Arb who wishes to see my detailed email response they should contact Viriditas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I confirm that I have told two editors, once very recently as an admin, on separate occasions to "fuck off". I'm not proud of either, and will take the consequences. I will happily supply the diffs to properly explain the sequence of events to the most recent incident, which is why I have amended the language of the suggestion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To Jeffpw; I cannot strike something later if I meant it at the time - I have to accept the consequences of it being on my record. It is a matter of principle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To LessHeardvanU - You blocked me for losing my temper after I had patiently withstood being abused in the mediation you set up and after asked you for help with the abuse. Without help, I lost my temper too (although without being obscene). I object to you constant implication that editors are not equal, that people who you allow to post personal attacks on your page about other editors will receive good treatment from you, and that others should be blocked for losing their tempers but not you. Mattisse 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LessHeard vanU enters content disputes in Admin capacity

After my first few edits to Psychopathy, LessHeard vanU warned me to stay away from the article. He said that Zereaph had made it into a stable, accurate article, that it had been stable for over a year, and that I had no business upsetting the article. He said he had investigated the article and its talk pages, and was basing his warning to me on that investigation. I was unaware that an Admin had the power to decide content issues on articles, so I did not follow his directions to avoid editing the article. Big mistake, as it turns out he does have that power. (See his content analysis under evidence presented by LessHeard vanU.) Please do take into account that the article is within the realm of psychology/psychiatry and does requires some expert knowledge. LHvU openly admitted he had no such knowledge but felt that his lack of knowledge in the area was no barrier to his making content judgments in editing disagreements, nor in taking Zeraeph's side in a content dispute. Mattisse 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This is a failure to understand context and a complete misrepresentation of what I have said; I have no knowledge of the validity of the disputed content. What I said was

"...the edit summaries indicate that there was a reasonably stable article..."

(my emphasis) indicating that I reviewed only the edit summaries, not the content, and the pattern of editing and the language used in the summaries did not show the rapid reverts and accusations/statements associated with edit wars and disputes, and nor were there any similar arguments indicated in the talkpage summaries. Sysops cannot be expected to be able to judge content, since it is unlikely they will be as familiar with the subject as the editors.

As for "warning" Mattisse, I can only refer to my comment made to Zeraeph regarding Mattisse's edits "...If she can supply sources for her contentions then it should be included..." This was a content dispute and I was dealing with it in that manner. I have suggested that Makkalai's block was inconsistent in that he blocked only Zeraeph for edit warring when the onus was on Mattisse to prove that the status quo needed changing and that her edits were appropriate - but that is a long way from stopping Mattisse from editing the article.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I did not know that edit summaries indicate that there was a reasonably stable article..." is a reason that I should be forbidden to edit an article. Many articles have edit summaries indicate that they are "a reasonably stable article" only because few "eyes" have examined the article, not because the article is factually accurate, well organized, and is not misleading in some ways. Unfortunately, I had quite the opposite belief, as you were the person that allowed a "reasonably stable article" (since I was the only editor of it) to be cut/pasted into another article without any discussion or merge, but merely a redirect. To me this is a contradiction in Admin behavior. Mattisse 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is an indication from the Arbitrators that they wish to pursue this matter I am not going to respond any further. If you and other parties wish to open a RfC or RfAr upon my conduct then that is your right. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Might there be an arb case coming regarding LessHeard? There might. In the meantime, I oppose this (and above) as beyond the scope of the current case. Marskell (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LessHeard vanU is biased and consistently favors certain editors over others

15):Example of LessHeardvanU's behavior to me which has been consistently harmful to me. In one incidence he allowed another editor to #REDIRECT and copy/paste an article I was working on. This was after he stated on An/N/I that discussion had to occur first and then a merge, Not a copy/paste. When I complained that not only had there been no discussion and no merge but the material and references were copy/pasted into the second article incorrectly, LHvD refused to uphold the policy he had stated on AN/I. He said my only option was to mediate. I entered mediation reluctantly, fulfilling all tasks and completing an outline that the mediator requested. However, the other editor produced no edits for the article and continually personally attacked me. Neither LHvD nor the mediator would stop the other editor's personal attacks. When I made an imprudent, angry (not profane) post to the mediator (as the personal attacks were severe and continued for a week), LHvD blocked me with no warning. LHvU has has also been involved with User:Cyborg Ninja who had tried to harm me with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2, and was a known stalker of me, which LHvD knew about, and he both interacted with her and took her advice on the cut/paste article, although she was not an editor of it and only knew about it because she had stalked me there. I was complaining about the personal attacks and Cyborg Ninja was encouraging both the other editor and LHvD against me. This is just one example of LHvU's consistently negative behavior toward me.

This behavior of LessHeardvanU contributed substantially to the current Arbitration by encouraging Zeraeph's wrongful behavior and showing bias against other editors. (See evidence provided by LessHeardvanH for examples) plus talk page evidence on both Zeraeph's and his talk pages. Mattisse 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I recommend striking out this and any other side-show issues. Reasonable people will take valuable feedback from this case. Should there be recurrences, a user conduct RfC would be possible at some time in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to respond to these baseless accusations, and the wildly inaccurate portrayal of my supposed motives. I do not want the above struck out, but still legible, and kept in the archives. If it should be removed then it should be removed completely, noted as being strongly contested. I also do not care to have attacks on my reputation regarded as a "side-show". I will return to this matter tomorrow.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

LHvU's response above indicates to me an unwillingness to listen to feedback, as Jehochman hoped in his statement above. It also strengthens my belief that, should this arbitration continue, the behavior of all parties, and not just Sandy and Zeraeph, should be scrutinized equally. Jeffpw (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Less, I've experienced a few recent attacks on my reputation.

What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, 1888

There is no absolute need to respond. When the arbitration closes and no remedies are proposed against you, this means something. Cheers, Jehochman ^Talk 01:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon consideration, I conclude you are correct. If Mattisse and/or Jeffpw want to open a RfC/RfAr on my (and others) conduct in this matter and any other matter then that is their right. If the Arbs hearing this case indicate they wish to pursue these incidents then this debate can be re-opened then. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. Most admins are biased in some way or other. It's whether they abuse the tools that matters, and LHvU, while highly uncivil in some interactions, has not used admin tools in any way in this dispute. Orderinchaos 03:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Individuals with Asperger's syndrome, autism or mental disorders are editors as much as everyone else

16) Editors who have Asperger's Syndrome, autism or mental disorders have to respect Wikipedia's rules and the five pillars. However, allowances should be made for their lack of understanding of social functioning on-wiki, as in some cases it may take years, if not weeks/months to learn social skills. However, they are as much editors and people as everyone else, and they should be treated with the same respect that all individuals should get. (The Golden Rule)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. As a father of an autistic boy I would comment that the inclusion of the term "and mental illness" might be considered insensitive; those on the autistic spectrum have a condition. I would prefer to replace and with or an. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot support this statement as worded, because it rolls together mental disorders (mental illness) and neurological differences (Asperger and autism). Asperger and autism are not mental disorders IMO, and the editing effects cannot be compared or lumped together. Wiki does not need to accommodate mean, nasty, personality-disordered, bullying edits that may be due to mental illness. Some people may have a mental illness along with a neurological difference, but poor editing cannot and should not be attributed to neurological differences such as autism spectrum conditions, which I don't consider to be mental disorders. I dont believe anyone will ever find any wording contradicting this stance from me. Wiki does need to be patient with people who have a unique way of interacting, socializing and viewing the world, and a review of the talk pages of Asperger syndrome and autism will reveal that this is the norm for all of the regular editors there. It is not right to roll mental disorders together with autism spectrum conditions. SandyGeorgia 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - from someone who works with individuals who have this disorder. --Solumeiras ^talk 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed per request. --Solumeiras ^talk 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary for the decision. While the sentiment is fine, its application is problematic. The second sentence appears to impose a duty, without stating on whom that duty imposed. Duties should not be imposed, nor should policies be adopted, in this proceeding. Kablammo (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SandyGeorgia has not been the patient, welcoming, policy-abiding editor that some claim.

I cannot speak to the allegation at hand, but in response to the earlier characterization of SandyGeorgia as “patient with difficult editors”, I feel compelled to offer up a bit of her own track record which shows quite clearly that, in fact, it is SandyGeorgia that is the difficult editor trying the patience of the larger community.

I refer to the Asperger Syndrome article. Sandy Georgia is indeedy quite happy to mentor an editor who submits to her 'mentorship'. She is, however, unwilling to tolerate the presence of civil disagreement. When challenged, she ignores the five pillars - she accuses others of bad faith, she makes threats, she engages in canvassing and gaming the system.

She also uses a technique that, I believe, has no terminology yet. She makes objections that are obviously untenable. When the editor corrects her, she makes no response to the correction. Rather, she expresses a new objection. The editor corrects her yet again, and she just keeps at it until a wall of text results that few have patience to read. Later, the matter is something “she has already patiently explained.” Usually the editor walks away in disgust.

I suggest anyone who wants to assess SandyGeorgia's behavior take about 5 hours, a 32 ounce mug of hot coffee and read thru the last year's Talk from Asperger's. There has been mention made here suggesting that those with Asperger's are prone to various 'difficult' or uncontrolled behavior. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this; in fact anyone who actually spends time engaged in discussion with “Aspies” will likely be struck by their intelligence, dispassion, willingness to admit error and strike compromise.

The destructive impact of all this on the wikipedia community has been enormous. A good many editors have simply left wikipedia altogether, unwilling to volunteer their time only to see it disappear in a cloud of spurious nay-saying.

Asperger's is a complex and controversial subject. There is much evidence to suggest that it is purely an pathological disorder of the brain; on the other hand, there is increasing evidence to the contrary : that asperger's is not necessarily a disability and often offers compensating areas of superior ability. The article as it now stands is purely of the pathology view. This is a direct result of SG's tenacious refusal to put policy before personalities.

I have left wikipedia permanently; I don't mind being wrong but I do mind having my time wasted. My confidence in this forum's ability to enforce its policies with any degree of efficiency is shattered. Others have left as well. The issue has been mentioned, several times now, on Autistic Rights websites. One thread on the issue was read by 15,000 viewers.

I was recently contacted by the Boston Globe regarding the presence of “harmful bias to autistics on wikipedia.” It's that bad. I should point out that I have and will continue to make public statements about this. Bias – when it applies to living persons – is a human rights issue, not just an editorial issue.

I do not believe SG is particularly biased against people on the autistic spectrum. I think she just didn't like to be disagreed with by “newbies”, and dug her heels in. Whatever the motivation, the result has been a disaster for wikipedia and for people on the autistic spectrum. It seems likely that this behavior played a significant role in any subsequent conflict with another (former) editor active in the Asperger article.

I will give some excerpts from the Talk page here, with brief commentary. I don't have time to provide diffs and such in accordance with requirements; I will just cut/paste with links. Sorry about that, but again I have committed my time away from wikipedia.

SG enters Talk:Asperger's in August of 2007, and begins to argue with editors over the lede. This article has a history of controversy, and editors have long since agreed to discuss major content changes first. Sandy makes direct edits to the article. Three editors including Zaraeph - agree to revert and discuss instead : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive12#Lead

SG reacts thus : “Your revert of ref cleanup was rude and inconsiderate ... ; I hope another editor returns to you someday the courtesy you've shown here.”

For two more days editors try to work with her and convince her to discuss edits first.

“Can I ask you all, no exceptions, to come here and discuss any changes you want to make here first? AND to come here and check any changes others want to discuss? That way we are a TEAM, and a really good one, IMHO.” -- Zaraeph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive13#Everybody_happy_now.3F

and again,

“I would like to express my strenuous conviction that changes should be introduced in Talk first” -- CeilingCrash

SG simply refuses, saying,

“That's rubbish, and you're displaying ownership issues. First, the article has not substantially changed (although it needs to). Second, I've detailed the POV, the factual inaccuracy (as has Eubulides), and problems with the lead several times (ad nauseum, in fact). Third, this is Wiki; articles change. Fourth, you can hardly say these issues aren't being discussed ...”Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Four minutes later she canvasses support from another editor, , “Hey, Tim. Can you cast your eyes over Talk:Asperger syndrome if you have a moment ? (Cover your eyes at the part where I deleted the scrolling ref box :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATimVickers&diff=152112501&oldid=152102820

He supports her refusal to discuss first.

Editors now suggest that a mediator come in so that discussion can commence.

“You're welcome to waste our time on that rather than working towards consensus to repair the article, which is demonstrably deficient. Mediation is not binding ...” -- SandyGeorgia

A mediator does appear, however, and some discussion does finally begin, over SandyGeorgia's objections. The discussion is long and in-depth. Sandy rapidly loses patience with it,

“I am opposed to making changes based on urgency alone. We do not have consensus that any sort of reversion is an improvement. We need to work through these issues and reach consensus. It is not easy and it is not quick. This issue is deeply complex, evolving, and controversial, as all the activity on this page indicates. To seek shortcuts is to underestimate our task and to attempt to subvert consensus. Let's keep working. CeilingCrash 02:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This article cannot stand in this condition. I'll tag it now.... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have a suggestion! Let's try civility! Poindexter Propellerhead 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

SG introduces a cluster of warning tags on the article. This triggers a FAR a couple of days later , the urgency of which SG uses to justify the hijacking of consensus.

The mediator suggests everybody work together, and take their time to go thru section at a time. Everyone agrees except Sandy, who wants things done NOW, and to set the agenda,

“The lead and the multiple problems in this article can't stand in this condition as an example of Wiki's finest work: I've tagged the article as the clear message is that editors here do not see the urgency to repair these issues, and aren't willing to compromise on interim fixes” -- SandyGeorgia

Will you work with us on this, one issue at a time, despite your dissenting view as to what we should be doing first ?

CeilingCrash 05:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)05:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, I don't think that's the best approach .... SandyGeorgia

This goes on and on and on, as one editor after another walks away. By december, the article belongs to SG. And now, amazingly she insists that changes should really be discussed first. She threatens admistrative action against 'disruptive editing'. Others respond to her, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive17#Discussion_of_the_NPOV_status_of_current_article

“Assuming good faith is another wiki principle.” --Fenke 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

“... But this needs to be said: ... SandyGeorgia's response is shockingly inappropriate. (See also "be welcoming" and "be civil," which would seem to preclude tossing around unfounded accusations.) The proposition that, based on his comments here, CC is angling to "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" is ludicrous. ... Does anyone dispute that CC is sincerely trying to address what he perceives as biases and omissions in the current revision of this article?

What is accomplished by threatening him, except perhaps intimidating someone who is clearly capable of contributing constructively to the article?

Re: whether the changes proposed by CC could be referenced, CC has repeatedly referred his critics to section 13 of the talk page, which contains nine sources on AS abilities (I count six primary, three secondary.) ... no one has responded to the substance of those articles, or given any reason for rejecting them, but somehow we've reached the point of threatening to call in the admins, which for reasons I've already explained should not even be on the table here.Species8471 02:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The interested reader can review the archives (note that SG is quick to archive any criticism off the main talk page) and find literally hundreds of examples of transgressions of policy, hostile and total refusal to respectfully discuss sources and policy.

I think SG means no harm. I think she has a true desire to do good work. It is also clear that she has a deep need to be right – especially when she's wrong. She also has a great deal of time on her hands with which to simply drive away those who come to volunteer a few hours of time per week. She has been succesful on all counts. And wikipedia has failed.

It is hard to imagine how this behavior could fail to make such a conflict more probable. Read the last year of talk in Asperger's.(updated) CeilingCrash (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 10:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage any interested reader to simply spend some time and read the whole thing for themselves. It's long, but aside from the matter at hand it may reward the reader as an interesting overview of the state of knowledge of Asperger's/High Functioning Autism. If what I allege has merit, it will be evident to the reader.

Especially this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive17

and also these -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive16

The interested reader does not require me, SG nor anyone else to read and think for them (updated) CeilingCrash (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Another editor has been through the talk page, and found it to be "a perfect example of SandyGeorgia's patient and careful attempts to draw out from a thoroughly confused thread, what change CC was actually asking for and on what grounds".[80][81][82] CC, I'm not sure you understand WP:CANVASS. Asking an admin familiar with the topic to review the talk page is not canvassing (joke included that he previously used scrolling ref boxes, which are no longer used).[83] Asking many editors with one POV to come to a FAR and express a certain opinion which you advocate, as you did during the FAR, is canvassing. [84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94] And ArbCom is already aware of the off-Wiki canvassing on autism rights websites; feel free to post the links if you think that will illuminate the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Ceiling Crash’s claims; I have never archived the talk page without consensus, and the talk archives are huge. Although this was all discussed in talk archives, and Ceiling Crash has refused to provide diffs for his claims above,[95][96] I will go over it again.

On May 28, 2007, I noticed the article had significantly deteriorated from the 2006 featured version, and I left messages detailing work that should be done to restore the article to featured status.[97][98][99][100][101][102][103] Others were interested, but Ceiling Crash’s response was to “screw” featured status,[104] so I didn’t return to the article for several months.

Beginning on August 8, and concurrent with the Asperger-related cleanup of the Alexithymia article, I revisited the Asperger syndrome article (alexithymia was an issue there as well[105]). Zeraeph and I discussed a large amount of unsourced text that was in the AS article.[106][107][108] I realized then there had been numerous unsourced additions to the text, and that text wasn't supported by citations given.

On August 13, I removed the scrolling ref box,[109] corrected the Asperger text to reflect updates from the alexithymia article,[110] and did some ref cleanup.[111]

This is the version of Asperger syndrome on August 14, before I began cleanup, after having sorted out the issues on Alexithymia. It was significantly deteriorated from the FAR a year earlier, so I undertook basic (non-textual) ref, MOS and copyediting cleanup. During August 15 and 16, I spent something like six to twelve hours cleaning up references, formatting, manual of style issues, and other tidying. Cleaning up references is extremely tedious and time consuming work and I work in sections, so there are too many diffs between August 15 and 16 to supply them all. I moved some text from the lead to the body, leaving the text intact, although it was incorrect and unsupported by the refs and I restored some text lost from the previously featured version. The text changes were minimal in comparison to the reference and MOS cleanup, which was substantial, tedious and time consuming. The changes to the lead were discussed on August 15.[112] Talk page archives show that Zeraeph was supporting my changes. On August 16, I again explained that text had not been changed, only moved, asking that if others disagreed, that the text merely be moved around rather than reverted, so the tedious ref and MOS cleanup work wouldn’t be lost.[113] All of my work was reverted (including the ref and MOS cleanup, although the text changes could have been accomplished by simply moving the text, without losing the ref cleanup),[114] necessitating that I spend another five or six hours a few days later in basic formatting, ref and MOS cleanup. After that, we moved to a system where all text changes were done in sandbox, and not moved into the article until several editors had reviewed and concurred. A review of the Asperger syndrome talk page archives will show that it is often necessary to patiently explain and re-explain over and over (note JzG's comments linked above[115]) to the extent of taking three weeks to patiently review one sentence.[116] The current situation is that, similar to Global warming and Intelligent design, the article is subject to POV edits because of Zeraeph's off-Wiki canvassing on advocacy message boards, and yet a review of the talk page will reveal consistently polite and patient dialogue towards resolving issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I have read the entire statement and the links to the pages, and find that CeilingCrash's complaint is not only irrelevant to this case, but also does not make any sort of case against Sandy as being impatient and violating policies. The diffs provided show a hard working editor doing her best to achieve consensus and keep this article at Featured status, and one who exercised a great deal of patience when confronted by editors who wanted to add unreliable sources and content in violation of policy. This section does nothing but prove that Sandy has incurred the wrath of many editors in autism related articles. CeilingCrash may be bitter because the article did not turn out as s/he may have hoped, but s'/he proves nothing regarding any violation of Wikipedia's core policies. Jeffpw (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As an individual who works with people who have autism and Asperger's Syndrome, I would say that I agree with Jeffpw's cause above.

As regards canvassing on autism-related websites, well, that is not a good idea anyway. I haven't actually participated in the talk page per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, assuming that because I work with people who have Asperger's, it would be a conflict of interest to do so. --Solumeiras ^talk 11:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Too long, so I skipped straight to where CC said, ". . .Especially this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive17 . . ."

and read every comment Sandy Georgia made, as well as many others. And I all I can say is that we are damn lucky to have someone like SG working on the pedia. I urge any arbitor with the time, to read through that. I can only come to the conclusion that every moment SG wastes having to defend herself against (once again) unfounded spurious charges is harmful to wikipedia. R. Baley (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was a participant in the October-November discussion on whether Asperger's syndrome (AS) grants 'benefits'. Given my analysis of the references then-extant in the pages, here and here, I couldn't see any references that supported Ceiling Crash's assertion that AS brings with it advantages. I had no idea SG's previous involvement in AS's FAR. Knowing it's there now, I'm surprised at her patience both then and now. I find CC's satements about SG troubling, if not downright offensive, and agree fully with Baley. I'm an obvious fan of hers, it's on my user page, but I'm a fan because of how she edits - like a well-oiled policy machine. WLU (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SandyGeorgia is recognised as an excellent contributor to en-Wikipedia

18) SandyGeorgia's contribution history speaks for itself. Nothing in this ArbCom should take away from the acknowledgement and appreciation of SandyGeorgia's efforts and successes in expanding the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The best way show appreciation of and to acknowledge SandyGeorgia's efforts and successes on behalf of Wikipedia would be to remove her name from this arbitration proceeding. For the rest, as her efforts are already widely acknowledged by the community at large, this section seems redundant. Jeffpw (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. SandyGeorgia was instrumental in my own effort to improve the civility of my own editing. In all my experiences with her, she has been fast, efficient, courteous, civil and sticks to policy for both editing and talk page interactions. WLU (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree Jeffpw. SG doesn't need a pat on the back from ArbCom for all her hard work. We already know what kind of contributor she is. It would be more meaningful for the committee to acknowledge these proceedings are not primarily about her by removing her name from the case.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SandyGeorgia has allowed past harrasment to influence her conduct in cases regarding other matters

19) SandyGeorgia's has inappropriately commented on perceptions of another editor which which she has previously been in conflict, to the detriment of a possible resolution of another matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean, after my attempts to resolve it discretely were snubbed, and after I felt I had no recourse on Wiki because the harrassment I had endured for a year was being ignored? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you acknowledging that you knowingly used a content dispute between an editor you felt had not been sanctioned for harrassing you previously, and a third party, as a means of precipitating the sanctions you felt appropriate? I am suggesting that you allowed your feelings toward Zeraeph to allow you to act rashly when in discussion with third parties regarding her. I think you ought to consider your answer very carefully. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean that I think you're spinning the situation to your point of view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you are refusing to contemplate the possibility that your comments to Mattisse and Makkalai in respect of Zeraeph were unhelpful in attempting to resolve a content dispute. I believe that you made these comments on the basis of Zeraeph's previous harrasment of you. That is most certainly the viewpoint I am addressing, because I consider it to be correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read enough of this <emotional rant on>. Less, you have been more than happy to assume certain things about me, but there's one thing you've never asked me. "SG, what the heck were you thinking when you made that post?" Well, you haven't asked, anyone who knows me could tell you, but I'll spell it out for you. I don't recall ever having refused to help another editor before. Ever, for any reason. Even alexithymia. I waded back in, knowing I'd probably get bitten. An editor came to my talk page, obviously distressed, obviously being treated unfairly, obviously in need of help, and I blew her off because I didn't want to get involved. I was only thinking of myself, of putting up my Christmas tree, of getting ready to have my family at home for the holidays. I went away to start putting up my tree, and I felt terrible. I had refused to help an editor in trouble for the first time ever, and I could not get in a holiday spirit knowing someone was being treated unfairly and I wasn't helping. That's me; Pollyanna. I came back a few hours later after trying to start my holiday decorations, saw that no one yet had helped her, and poured out Too Much Information on my talk page, in an effort to better explain why I didn't want to get involved. It was a mistake. Would you prefer that I would have put that kind of information in a private e-mail? Now, that just would have felt gossipy. So, if the fact that I feel too much, and try to help editors when they are in trouble is something you can't recognize and understand, then you'll never understand why I have so many friends on Wiki or what motivates me. I can't help 'ya with that. I care about people behind those editor names. As far as I can tell, SlimVirgin's opening statement against me amounts to "I have too many friends". Guilty. If caring too much is my crime, I am guilty as charged. And if after all this evidence, you still think it was only a content dispute and you don't see the full breadth of issues involved, good luck in your future administrative duties. The End. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Points taken. Thank you.LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now when this is over (is this ever going to be over?), I hope you and I can have an e-mail dialogue so I can understand how you got me so wrong, what I can do to fix it, and how we can repair relations. I don't enjoy having bad relations with anyone on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is usually futile to attempt to close an online debate when people start debating the debate. But maybe I am wrong. Could we please stop with the sideshow theatrics? This is not why we are here, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that ArbCom is going to endorse this proposal, in my humble opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That is twice now that you have referred to some of my contributions to this arbcom as a sideshow. Perhaps you might consider rephrasing your suggestion a little more civilly.

As far as I am aware, any and all participants with an active account may contribute to an ArbCom. It is for the committee members to weigh the arguments presented and decide whether they have any relevance, and for the clerk to remove that which is not germane, and not the participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. The one post that I can think of, as LHvU has provided no diffs to support his assertion, is that of an editor who has had her patience severely tried, been burned severely when attempting to help mediate a dispute on an article talk page, tell another editor that it is not in their best interest to continue in a dispute with Zeraeph. That was entirely to do with Zeraeph's proven history of tendentious editing, actively promoting strife and making baseless allegations against other editors. Even by the civility standards advocated by Wikipedia (which, I note, have been most unevenly enforced in this incident), Sandy stayed well within the bounds of policy. This section is nothing more than an attempt to establish some finding of fault with Sandy, since no evidence presented thus far has shown her to have violated either actual policies or the spirit of them. As such, it should be stricken in its entirety. Jeffpw (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. If this is about this comment on Sandy's own talk page, the only one I can think of, my interpretation is Sandy very civilly declining a request for assistance (unusual in my experience, Sandy's always been quick to help from what I've seen) due to a keen awareness of her own history and current circumstances. I also agree that the civility standards appear to be rather uneven. WLU (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, this follow-up comment contains a) a criticism of DR, and given this arb hearing, somewhat propos b) good advice to avoid breaking wikipedia's policies, c) less clear advice about avoiding Z to avoid conflict and d) a criticism of the unevenness of admin enforcement. Also somewhat warranted given then and extant circumstances. If this is the extent of SG's transgressions against wikipedia and policy, I wish all my conflicts were with Sandy. WLU (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Vague to the point of meaninglessness. This finding is probably true of me, you, and your brother. Further, this (exceptionally slow) arb case does not seem to be casting a wide net in terms of findings and this is clearly beyond its ambit. Marskell (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Not well-founded in fact, and it is unsupported speculation. Kablammo (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Simply, this isn't true at all. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed 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.

[edit] By Zeraeph

1) I hope this is the right place to, semi-formally, share some changes in my thinking that have resulted directly and indirectly from this arbitration to date, if not, I am sure someone, from arbcom, will do me the courtesy of copying or moving this as an whole, or in parts to the relevant places and appraising me of what they have done?.

I do not personally feel that it solves very much for SandyGeorgia and I to hurl accusations and refutations at each other, or for anyone else to do that on our behalfs. Surely that is the very thing that this arbitration is aimed ending? Unfortunately, as yet, nobody else has suggested or agreed to any solution that would be fair and effective from my point of view (and I am sure SandyGeorgia would make exactly the same claim).

As this unfolds I am beginning to see that even I, from entirely my own point of view, have yet to suggest a solution that is fair to the wider community of Wikipedia. Nobody has the right to stak a person as I have been stalked, and nobody has the right to use or hold that ongoing assault against me, but on the other hand, and there IS always at least one other hand, look what I just said myself [117] no matter how innocent and honest, and in this matter I truly am, I am beginning to see that there is no justification for me to knowingly be the cause of exposing others to such as well, which is an aspect that I realise I have previously ignored. So I would now like to offer a proposal for consideration that takes this into account.

• I propose that I be offered the opportunity for the identity of Zeraeph to leave Wikipedia for good, without prejudice, and with protected acknowledgement that this is a voluntary decision, made for the good of the community, exonerated from any claims based on undisclosed email correspondance or similar and with permission and welcome to return under any other username, but with the proviso that I understand that if I, in any way, allow that new identity to be recognised I will be subject to an immediate indefinate ban without further appeal. It is not my fault, in any way, that I am being stalked, but I see that I must now accept the I am responsible for ensuring that stalking does not adversely affect Wikipedia and other editors.

• I propose that the identities of User:TRCourage and User:A Kiwi be subject to an indefinate ban. Which will, in effect place then in much the same position as myself, and seems perfectly fair under the circumstances.

• I also propose that SandyGeorgia (and all parties involved) agree to refrain from any future mention of, or allusion to, me (including, but not limited to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Psychonaut/User_watchlist and similar) and that at least SandyGeorgia agree to be bound to a penalty of a one week block in the event of default, unless to show that I have allowed myself to be recognised under a new identity.

• It seems to me that these proposals offer the fairest possible solution for all concerned and for the general community of Wikipedia, and I specifically ask all to quietly consider, in your own minds, everything that you may take for granted, and I must resign, in order to accept this agreement, before making any decision upon it. --Zeraeph (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Editors normally have the right to vanish. See the talk page for comments on process. User:TRCourage and User:A Kiwi haven't even been named as parties, and ArbCom does not order community sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the word "community" to "indefinate" as this was already pointed out to me. The right to vanish is not exactly applicable, what I suggest is a modification of that. --Zeraeph (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Zeraeph will, under whatever name, likely gravitate toward articles within certain fields. Any remedy must be directed toward Zeraeph. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

SandyGeorgia has already agreed not to talk about Zeraeph [118] and has struck some comments from her talk page. Considering that Zeraeph has been repeatedly blocked for making unsubstantiated personal attacks (mainly against SG), and SG has never been blocked I don't believe that a one-week block would be warranted for SG if she just mentions Z's name. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding these proposals, I think Z could move on to a new username, but based on history I think z will still be identifiable. I have no comment on bans for the users that Z doesn't like. I don't agree that Sandy should have any sanction whatsoever. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already offered to move for a dismissal of this case. If Zaraeph decides to use the right to vanish then that would fit with dismissal. Durova^Charge! 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with dismissal at this time. There is no indication that the matter has been settled. Even if Zeraeph vanishes, which might be helpful, there should be findings of fact, and possibly remedies, that can be used to resolve any behavior problems under the new account. Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I believe I already covered that by offering to accept a lifetime ban in the event of letting the new account be identified. It doesn't get any heavier than that. In addition it is not my intention that the new account be disclosed to anyone, to ensure that if I ever reveal it myself there is no chance it could have been leaked, as such a penalty is at stake I believe I am entitled to that. In every other way the new account will be treated like any other editor, and if it doesn't seem wrong unless you know ity is me then it probably isn't wrong at all.

Karanacs, I do not see any reason for me to trust a personal agreement without sanction. As there is no conceivable excuse for SandyGeorgia to mention me at all, unless my new identity reveals itself (which is exempted), the sanctions are by way of a formality and a gesture of goodwill towards my willingness to abandon all the projects that really matter to me for good to resolve this.

Rocksanddirt, I take your point, but those two accounts are only one person, not two, and it isn't about "dislike" that person has not only engaged in stalking me, but also represents a risk to other users, (evidence has been offered for consideration, but only to arbcom - it cannot be publicly posted). My reasoning is this. If both IDs are blocked indefinately, she will, of course, be able to create a new ID, but like myself, she will be in a position where, if that ID identifies itself by trying to cause a problem she can be immediately blocked, if not, she can edit like anyone else. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a lifetime ban is excessive. Keep in mind that your editing style may unintentionally reveal your identity if you return with a new account, and that some other editor may make the connection. If that happens, you should not be banned. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's started, I would oppose any dismissal at this point. Zeraeph has repeatedly posted retirement notices and come back, so it wouldn't be a solid basis for dismissing. Lifetime ban if a second account is discovered with first inactive? That's a recepie for drama and is unfair to you, Zeraeph. The committee should ban or not ban right here, and leave it at that. And, unless, you move to totally different topic areas, any second account will almost certainly be deduced.

Some form of "do not refer to one another" will have to be included, though it can't be too rigid. A block injunction specific to Sandy makes no sense, as she has no block record. Marskell (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Marskell you have never show the slightest concern with being fair to me in the past, so I would ask that you do me the courtesy of not pretending it now. The indefinate ban if the first is discovered is not "unfair" it is my suggestion and choice to which I will agree voluntarily as a means of assurance that I am intending none of this can ever happen again, and that nothing of this nature can even happen once. I believe that without SandyGeorgia knowing who I am to cause trouble for me, there will be no trouble. However I am happy to agree to a mutual injunction with equal block penalties, because such is moot, if I am shown to be mentioning SandyGeorgia again I will be subject to a lifetime block anyway, which seems the quintenssence of the unequal penalties you are so keen to see imposed. --Zeraeph (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeraeph placed on no personal attack parole

2) Zeraeph is not to make personal attacks against other editors, and is abmonished particularly for unsubstantiated claims of off-site stalking. Should Zeraeph make such claims again she may be blocked in accordance with the enforcement description below. Sanction for other types of personal attacks should be handled in accordance with policy and Zeraeph's overall record. Should Zeraeph believe an editor on-site poses an off-site concern, she may privately contact an arbitrator or an administrator she trusts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose, as this is not justifed and will only be abused as a tool with which to continue harassing me

Oppose as insufficient. Zeraeph made personal attacks against me on several Admin talk pages recently as well as on AN/I and they did nothing. There is no reason that an "injunction" would change this behavior on the part of Admins. Further, Zeraeph was blocked by an uninvolved Admin, and an unblock was refused by an uninvolved Admin, yet she was unblocked, without warning or consultation with others by an Admin who knew her history. Blocks do not work when Admins do not respect them, as seems to be the case. Mattisse 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Minimum injunction necessary. Marskell (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Insufficient, one-week blocks won't work, blocks have already been show ineffective to change the behavior, future editors will be forced to defend themselves in dispute resolution as I have, tying up valuable editor time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "in accordance with the enforcement description below." As she has rung up to a month already, a week is probably too short. Marskell (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Blocks have been shown to be ineffective in changing Zeraeph's behavior in the past, and I do not think they will be of any use in the future. Additionally, we have seen how administrators have been willing to unblock her while personal attacks were still sitting on her talk page, directly above the unblocking admin's post. Jeffpw (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, echoing Jeff's comment above, ongoing and unsubstantiated attacks are allowed at the evidence talk page (diff). R. Baley (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Conveniently, now that Zeraeph's page has been deleted, the above diff has been lost. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, per Jeffpw's reasoning. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Off-site stalking accusations appear to be particularly problematic and should be addressed in some way - this should not be an accusation made casually and given the history, should bear consequences. WLU (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient. Zeraeph was warned in Sept 2006 continued attacks would result in a ban; it is time for that ban to be imposed. Kablammo (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeraeph Civility Restriction

3) Zeraeph (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard form civility restriction. The enforcement ruling can be provided later. We've already seen one month blocks which have been ineffective. I am not sure if this can be made to work. Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe too vague. In a sense, this is always true of everyone. Marskell (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I Oppose because I can show that there is no cause for such, and because I feel this would be abused by some as a tool with which to continue harassment --Zeraeph (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - for the same reason blocks and personal civility patrols will not work. Admins do not enforce them. Besides, if blocks are the remedy, then we are back where we are right now. Admins selectively unblock those they wish to, even when uncivil comments are still on the page, as happened in this case. Mattisse 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Would those who oppose this as too weak reconsider? This remedy combined with a topic ban or probation may be effective? Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I also oppose this. History has shown that blocks do not encourage this user to modify their behavior. Jeffpw (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient. The user should be banned. Kablammo (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enforced Mentorship

4) Zeraeph is required to undergo enforced mentorship, with edits approved in a designated userspace by their mentor before being implemented in articles, and restricted from using user talk with the exception of her designated mentor. Jeffpw (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It seems like mentorship was already tried. Mentors are a scarce commodity and should not be used repeatedly for the same editor. Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose because I will show that there is no cause for such--Zeraeph (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support an advocate, rather than a mentor. Zeraeph's mainspace edits seem good, at least the ones I've looked at, so I wouldn't see the point in forcing her to edit in userspace. But an advocate who would represent her interests if she got into bother would help with her feelings of being isolated. The difficulty is in finding one. I've approached two people, no luck so far. I'm reluctant to keep on searching until I know the outcome of this, because it involved quite a lot of work. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about the quality of Zeraeph's editing, SlimVirgin. There is evidence that Zeraeph goes on deletion sprees to remove sourced material that opposes her POV.^/Evidence She appears to be engaging in issue advocacy and canvassing.^[119] This is not compatible with Wikipedia's purpose. Jehochman ^Talk 11:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Slim, immediately after you unblocked Zeraeph, s/he went on a deletion/reversion spree at Psychopathy. Matisse messaged you about it (see evidence) but you did not respond to him/her or take any action regarding this, in spite of Marskell's message to you that the edits were not appropriate. That sort of tendentious editing, deleting and reverting without discussion, is problematic and one that needs mentoring rather than an advocate. Jeffpw (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as not feasible. She has had a mentor already. I doubt another mentor would be willing. She appears not to have benefited from prior mentoring. Did you read the personal attacks on her userpage, which she left there even as she was asking to be unblocked? Mattisse 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This seems rather excessive. Is there really a reason to restrict her editing to userspace? -Amarkov moo! 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive? Given Zeraeph's history of edit warring, and removing sourced material that doesn't coincide with his/her point of view, it seems like an appropriate remedy to me, if s/he is not banned completely. As to prohibiting Zeraeph from talk page edits, the evidence presented thus far of personal attacks on this user's talk page as well as article talk is clear and compelling. Jeffpw (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A user who accuses another editor of deviant criminality and shows no remorse or understanding of how inappropriate that is, and accuses others of mental illness in crude terms, should be banned. Kablammo (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeraeph banned

5) Given a history of disruptive editing and personal attack violations, Zeraeph is banned from editing Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

(Not my proposal) I had hoped to avoid this, but the lesser sanctions seem unacceptable to those who are close to the situation so it is unclear how to resolve this. Jehochman ^Talk 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph's disruptions today conclusively prove that this is the proper remedy. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. I do not see an alternative. I question that any editor would agree to enforced mentoring of Zeraeph. She was in constant communication with Admins during this episode and did not follow their advice. She will come back under another identity and will have a chance to start over with no past history dogging her. Mattisse 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, though not necessarily supported. I had thought a well rationalized series of paroles/restrictions might be enough, but everyone is opposing those presented (including my own) as too weak. Perhaps it's best to just lay this on the table for people to say yes or no. Marskell (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as the only viable alternative to enforced mentoring. Jeffpw (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support regardless of alternatives. The user was told in September 2006 that further attacks would result in a ban. It is past time to impose one. Kablammo (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeraeph banned from editing autism and Asperger related articles and talk pages

6) Based on confidential evidence submitted to ArbCom and her off-Wiki advocacy activities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The wording of this will need to be tweaked to precisely define the scope of these articles, accounting for comorbid conditions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The {{pervasive developmental disorders}} template might serve as a definition of the autism related articles, if Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome and History of Asperger syndrome are added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This wouldn't apply to Psychopathy or Workplace bullying? And has Zeraeph shown any interest in non-med articles? If she has gotten along amicably elsewhere, we needn't begrudge her that. Marskell (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Her May 30, 2007 3RR block doesn't specify an article, but I believe there were also problems at Goebbels children. I don't know how to locate a record of what caused the May 30 3RR block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support but expand to include the two articles Marskell mentioned, and any others which are proven during this case that Zeraeph disrupted with deletions or talk page attacks or rants. Jeffpw (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeraeph placed on probation

6.1) Zeraeph is placed on probation. She may be banned from editing any Wikipedia pages should they edit disruptively or fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility, either for a set period of time or indefinitely, by an uninvolved administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this version may work better than a topic ban because it will not unduly stifle Zeraeph's interests, yet administrators can act to prevent disruption wherever it may occur, including any article pages, talk pages, and project-space pages. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Wiki has already demonstrated it doesn't have effective means of monitoring Zeraeph, and the innocent are forced to lose time in beaurocratic processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, are we at the point of saying that she's a griefer, that more than enough efforts have been made toward correction, and that the only remaining option is a ban? Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not characterize that Wiki made adequate efforts toward correction; I said they don't have effective means of monitoring griefers. Wiki left this in the hands of one volunteer; when that volunteer was gone, Z resumed her ways, which were only strengthened and enabled by admin actions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, we seem close to the same position. If editing restrictions are placed, you will get much better enforcement than before. Enforcement provided by the crowd at WP:AE is generally more clueful, and most admins are loath to lift a block placed there. Will you give this a try? If not, the only other option I see is banning, and I really want to avoid that. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's up to ArbCom. If someone is going to monitor Z now, I hope they will really monitor her. I felt thrown to the wolves, left alone to deal with this, and as a result, I succumbed to the stress when this impinged upon my holiday season and I felt I had no recourse, and I have a talk page post that I am not proud of. No one should ever go through this again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. While I feel that Jehochman has the best of intentions, and my feeling extends to the Arbcom, I seriously doubt that Zeraeph will abide even by this sort of decision. After reading all of the evidence presented, I feel now that nothing short of a ban will effectively stop this situation from recurring. Wikipedia has historically been a very forgiving community, but late last year Jimbo himself said that this sort of disruption has to come to an end. I cannot find the quote right now, but I can dig for it if necessary. It is time for the community to heed those words. Further, I think a ban is in everybody's best interests; the editors affected by Zeraeph's actions, the community as a whole, and even Zeraeph herself, as participating here seems to bring out the worst in her. A ban seems the only way the majority of editors involved in this arbitration will gain any relief. respectfully, Jeffpw (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LessHeard vanU avoid Admin involvement with Zeraeph

7) Propose that User:LessHeard vanU avoid Admin involvement with Zeraeph and avoid entering content disputes in which she is involved on subjects about which he admits he has no knowledge, such as Psychopathy. He has shown his bias toward Zeraeph. (I believe that is not in question.) Therefore, he should not be involved in admin decisions involving her. Mattisse 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Sysops cannot be limited in who they are asked to help, and by whom. Failure to understand how adminship works is not grounds for limiting action in articles; any admin with a great deal of understanding in a subject may have to withdraw on adjudicating disputes on the basis of Conflict of Interest.LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary. It is our social norm that administrators should not intervene in situations where their impartiality may be called into question. LessHeard vanU is an administrator in good standing. I am confident that he will not engage in any controversial use of sysop tools. Jehochman ^Talk 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU is an Admin in good standing because he gets away with telling people to "fuck off" and other such behaviors. When you allow an Admin like LessHeard vanU to continue his ways without sanction, you are reducing the esteem that being an Admin should entail. It harms all Admins to have Admins like LessHeard vanU. Mattisse 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. LessHeard vanU has not shown himself to be neutral in the application of his duties here. His discussion with Zeraeph on the Wikipedia Review, his emailing her, and his advocacy here and in other venues (WP:AN and her talk page, to cite two examples) show that his treatment of her is biased, and he is seemingly incapable of viewing situations involving her in a neutral manner. If by some unlikely act of God Zeraeph is allowed to edit here again, LessHeard vanU should be advised to let other, uninvolved admins handle the situation without input from him. Jeffpw (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When an editor comes to my page and requests help that is what they are going to get, that is what Zeraeph got and that is what Zeraeph continues to get. Same with any person who asks for my help (including Mattisse when she requested help in formulating a 3RR report on Zeraeph, in this same dispute).That is what sysops are supposed to do.

Posting

"Oh, hullo Z - fancy meeting you here. I replied to your mail, but it seems that things have moved on for you."

at WikipediaReview (and that being the sum total of my posting to her there) is hardly the vicious attacks on Wikipedians that is the stuff of legends at that place.

You will note that I am commenting above that I am responding to her email... it is the reason why there is the "email this user" button on peoples userpages - some people prefer to discuss some things off-wiki; not my preferred method, but an option I honour when used by other parties. It is part of the sysop remit.

Posting evidence that does not portray Zeraeph solely as a troll and vandal, and showing diffs that indicate other parties have not acted in keeping with Wikipedia's rules, policies and guidelines is not a sign of bias - it is being neutral in its truest sense. I have acknowledged Zeraeph's poor conduct in this matter, but felt no need to join in the chorus - the argument has been already made. Presenting arguments and evidence on behalf of someone who has asked for help is extremely dangerous grounds for requesting that an admin should not be allowed to participate in attempting to resolve disputes that an unpopular editor may find themselves; this is the way of lynch mob justice, of creating and maintaining vendetta's. Neutrality is not the practice of simply following the mass mood, of only supporting the status quo, of allowing doubt to fester, of keeping quiet when the majority are shouting, and of only doing what is going to be greeted with approval, of seeking the easy way. Neutrality is the act of taking on the bad jobs, trying to help those who are not liked, finding the good in the swathes of bad, investigating the great and the good in case practice does not follow reputation, of taking the cases that nobody else wants and neutrality means being honest and forthright. I may not be all those things, and certainly not all the time, but that is why I asked for the singular honour of being an admin. It is what we, the administrators, do - for the encyclopedia. Failure to understand that is a failure to understand the role and requirements of adminship.

I request that you now give evidence of misuse of my admin tools; only then will I give credence to your assertions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your inappropriate interest in Psychopathy [120] when you know nothing about the subject matter. Why did you not just inform Z that it was a content dispute (if that was what you thought) after her September post to you.[121] Her lanugage in that post is verging on a personal attack on me. Why did you simply accept her opinion as fact? Why did you not, as an Admin, interfere in a constructive way if you thought things were going wrong? Others have posted on the Psychopathy talk page in the same vein as I did, as the article is confused and biased. Further, it was User:Salix Alba who kindly helped me with the 3-RRR. You disregarded my pleas for help with personal attacks. You allowed personal attacks by Zeraeph to remain on your user page with a reply (from my memory) of something like "Hum, not the reply I was hoping for." However, you did not warn her but, by continuing the unhealthy dialog with her (from my point of view) enabled her to continue her dysfunctional behavior until the point it has now reached Arbitration. Mattisse 23:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate? Have you understood anything of what I wrote? I was asked to assist (in December) by an editor regarding a content dispute - this is what admins do, try to help out (just like I did with you and another editor regarding "Caisson" - a subject of which I know even less than I do psychopathy) when asked. My response to Zeraeph was to suggest using third opinion as a means of dispute resolution, and to keep all cited material in the article and remove uncited text; with no comment as to which was the more appropriate. That is the constructive way. The fact that you and Zeraeph continued to revert each others contributions rests entirely upon the two of you, and Zeraeph was blocked before I could institute any further processes. When the block was lifted, and Zeraeph again started reverting, I chided her for returning to the edit war and went to seek the advice of the admins I believed involved in her unblock - SlimVirgin and Mikkalai. I also assisted you in trying to resolve the matter of the malformed 3RR report which you were trying to post against Zeraeph (so much for bias, huh?) For the avoidance of doubt, I consider my actions regarding the content dispute to be exemplary.

For the record, the comment which I thought was inappropriate in Septemeber was by NeantHumain[122] - right article talk, different editor... Mattisse, I am beginning to suspect that you do not comprehend the role of admins as regards content disputes; we do not make value judgements on the disputed content, but attempt to facilitate the processes by which the content can be evaluated and the dispute resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you make the comment to me (I will find the diffs if necessary) that the article has been reasonably stable for a while and the Zeraeph had a good grasp of the subject, indicating I had no business changing anything in the Psychopathy article? Mattisse 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can find the diffs for you, and all the rules, policies and guidelines that says that no-one can force their viewpoint onto an article - even if they are right. Changing an article, without the agreement of the existing editors is disruptive and is not permitted. The article was stable. You may argue that it was flawed, but that does not give you the right to change it without reference to the other contributors; that isn't the way a wiki works. The other editors were not challenging Zeraeph's contributions, and there were quite a few of those going back many months. Are you really so arrogant to believe that you are the only possessor of the definitive truth in regard to psychopathy and are thus immune to the process of consensus? Of course you are permitted to edit the article - once you had persuaded the other editors that your contributions (and the removal of other cited text) would improve it. Would you be happy if another editor - who had not previously been involved - suddenly rewrote the article tomorrow, removing your text, adding sources you are unfamiliar with, and refused to remove the edits or discuss the matter because they insisted that they were right? Would you? Since that is what you did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: