Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

  1. Blnguyen
  2. Deskana
  3. FloNight
  4. FT2
  5. Jdforrester
  6. Jpgordon
  7. Kirill Lokshin
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven)
  9. Sam Blacketer
  10. Thebainer
  11. UninvitedCompany

Recused

  1. FayssalF
  2. Newyorkbrad

Away/inactive:

  1. Charles Matthews
  2. Paul August


To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

[edit] FOF 2

Should "the editor accused by Zeraeph" say "any editor accused by Zeraeph" or does it only apply to one or other of SandyGeorgia and A Kiwi? A Kiwi seems to be the one that she most clearly and consistently accuses of harrassing her but SandyGeorgia is the one most linked to this case (e.g. in the naming of it) and has been accused of such by Zeraeph at times. 87.254.73.153 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like the way the finding doesn't specify a name. There's no need to drag the victim's name through the mud by saying that they were (falsely) accused of harassing Zeraeph. Repeated often enough, a lie starts to sound true. Jehochman Talk 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
YES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How about courtesy blanking as many of the case pages as possible once this closes? I think that would serve the interests of several parties and help them move beyond this unfortunate incident. Jehochman Talk 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No. The smears against me are all over the internet along with canvassing against Wiki; the answers are here that protect Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think courtesy blanking would be a good idea either. DurovaCharge! 07:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, but don't we need to make clear if we're talking about A Kiwi or Sandy? I read it and wasn't sure. Marskell (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't have a problem with not using names, for example if the finding said "both editors accused by Zeraeph" then that would seem to resove everything without naming names. However, the wording talks about "the editor accused by Zeraeph". Singular. Two of the parties to the case have been accused at times by Zeraeph of serious breaches of policy (to put it mildly). A finding that seems to say that one of them didn't do it, with the implication that maybe the other one did, without saying which is which, seems a bit odd. If it's meant to cover both then a minor word changing is enough to fix this. 87.254.73.153 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I need to make something clear, I don't care what Z said about me on other websites and maillists and in e-mails except to the extent that it encourages attacks on Wiki and damage to Wiki articles. Where the canvassing to attack Wiki articles has occurred, the point is to keep the articles safe. SandyGeorgia doesn't need to be kept safe, because there is no such person, and Z will never determine my identity. Anyone who follows for 5 minutes eventually figures out the truth, and in every single instance where Z defamed and besmirched me, others came to my defense. I don't care what language is used about me except to the extent that there is a clear record in relation to off-Wiki statements made about the integrity of the articles I edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that whoever this finding refers to should be explicitly named, because it uses the singular. If it says "all editors", that is obviously not true (how can we clear all editors of wrongdoing?), and even if it says "both editors", it is still unclear which two editors... if this finding is stated, it should be explicit in who it refers. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
FOF 2 follows FOF 1, and the context is clear. It does not need to be changed. Kablammo (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's not really too clear either, because FOF1 doesn't explicitly name the "fellow editor". However, given that this arbitration case is on Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia, I guess the assumption is that the "fellow editor" is SandyGeorgia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope it's understood by now that this is about Penbat, bullying, psychopathy, Goebbel's children, Sam Vaknin, Psychonaut, Mattisse, A Kiwi, and a whole host of issues I was never involved with. My involvement was that Zeraeph decided, for reasons unknown, I was someone I'm not, and harassed me for a year as a result. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case (and especially if they rename the case at its conclusion), FOF1 should probably be explicit, since Zeraeph has accused more than one editor, unless ALL those editors are 100% cleared of all of these allegations. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sorry to butt in but...

maybe some of the language is a little too frivolous. The use of 'egregious' and 'besmirch' in such close proximity (and the use of 'besmirch' at all, really) would possibly lead some editors to speculate that arbcom is failing to display the appropriate gravitas that should befit their position. (slight satire intended) 78.86.18.55 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Precise language leaves little room for ambiguity, whereas use of common (to whom?) phrases may be open to interpretation depending on circumstances - a bad editor can mean i. a poor editor, ii. an evil editor, or iii, very good editor deserving of respect!. The appropriate word must therefore be used - and if it appears a bit difficult to understand, please remember that this is an encyclopedia we are building; big words come with the territory (humour intended). LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
'Egregious' and 'besmirch' are perfectly fine English words. The only problem I can see is that 'egregious' is tending to be the archetypal word which few people know the meaning of (used in that context in Yes Minister episode "The Death List", where Jim Hacker is unfamiliar with it, and in the film "Quiz Show" where Al Freedman is similarly ignorant, among others). But that is not our fault and I don't see any reason to substitute other words. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that they're perfectly fine English words, and I have no wish to make an issue of the matter. I have no problem whatsoever with 'big words' and I can see your point about precision of language - however, I feel that the effect in these particular sentences is close to crossing the line where precision becomes comedy. I would suggest 'tarnish' instead of 'besmirch'; and 'gross' (or alternatively 'exceptionally' in the adverb form in the previous proposal) to replace 'egregious'. 'Egregious' is a word I generally don't like to use, principally for the reason above, but also taking into account that its English meaning and the Latin word from which it is derived are so different in nuance and usage. In any case, it's just a suggestion, I have no interest in this case whatsoever, and don't feel particularly strongly about it. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Egregious and besmirch are perfectly accurate in the present situation. Jehochman Talk 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting they're inaccurate, just awkward in tone. I'll leave it there, though. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with 78.86.18.55. --Iamunknown 19:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The use of "egregiously" is a little awkward. But Sam's use of "egregious" in his comment towards the end of the page is a perfect use of the word, indicating that which is exceptionally problematic. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Putative RTV

I would recommend that Arbcom takes the opportunity to make a ruling on whether there, in fact, exists a "right to vanish" for editors that are currently under a cloud and facing sanctions; there appears to be a recent tendency to invoke that "right" as a get out of jail free card.

It especially applies in the current case since the editor currently facing sanctions has invoked RTV, but has returned to comment anonymously on the case [1]. — Coren (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This case ought to close as soon as possible. The issue raised here may need to be addressed at some point, but not in any fashion that would delay the closing of this case. (I'm recused as an arbitrator in this case; commenting as an editor.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please just end it. Whatever else is going on off-Wiki between these women is secondary to clearing my name, which will never be the same anyway, which is secondary to the fears expressed by other parties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Brad, insofar as you have any ability to prod the other arbs, please encourage them to get on with the voting. It's hard to understand why this much time is needed. Having never been seriously involved in an arb case, I can say I've learned this much: open cases hang like an ugly cloud over one's editing. Marskell (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Open, closed, ugly cloud will be the same. Process needs fixing, should have been dealt with twice at WP:AN, reasonable measures held up by an extreme minority. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PFF2

May I suggest a modifier to help this proposal pass? Try "There is no convincing evidence...". SandyGeorgia deserves to be explicitly cleared. When enough mud is thrown, it starts to stick. Please help her. Jehochman Talk 07:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. Virtually every post I have read, that was made by SG, suggests that she deserves clearance with respect to this case. To leave it ambiguous in any way is wrong. Also, I hope the case name-change is forthcoming. R. Baley (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would put it this way: if her name remains on the case, she should be cleared. Though not as explicit, removing her name would amount to the same. Marskell (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Another suggestion to deal with this issue would be to add something indicating that the accusations have not been proved to second sentence of PFF1. It could read something like: "In particular, she has repeatedly and unapologetically made unsubstantiated allegations of harassment, stalking, and other egregiously inappropriate behavior; and has made such accusations not only on Wikipedia itself, but also in external forums.--Slp1 (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Thank you for the motion for a quick closing; I hope it will help all parties avoid further distress, I wish that no one (A Kiwi, Mattisse, Zeraeph included) would have had to go through this ArbCom, and I hope this case will inspire changes in dispute resolution procedures.[2] It will take me some time to recover from the agida and upset this caused, but I hope to be able to return to normal editing after my vacation break. Thank you to everyone who helped sort out the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As you said above, this problem should have been dealt with discreetly, but that was not possible because of the few who wanted to give endless chances. As a lesson to those who predicted this mess more than a year ago: do not leave problems to fester. Take care of pendant matters when you become aware of them. I think we need to modify the community banning process so that a small number of administrators cannot block a consensus to ban, (add) or preferably implement lesser remedies when possible. Jehochman Talk 09:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (added 09:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC))
A series of escalating blocks might have worked had it been put in place pre-escalation, but I've not time to have this discussion now. At any rate, the conclusion is the same; an extreme minority should not be able to prevent some sort of consensus to deal with disruptive behavior via WP:AN, avoiding ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)