Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration

1 Additional opening statements

[edit] Additional opening statements

[edit] Statement by Durova

SandyGeorgia is a longstanding Wikipedian with a stellar record. Zaraeph - however sincere she might be - has a history that is extremely spotty and has been unable to substantiate her repeated and extreme accusations with anything resembling adequate evidence. This is not the kind of situation that ought to need arbitration, and Sandy has stated repeatedly that this proposal is the opposite of her desires.[1][2][3] Most poignantly, Enough. I lost all evening at FAC and tomorrow I'll be behind. This is nothing but an insult, and worse, from someone who should know what it feels like.[4] I urge the Committee to reject this request and likewise urge certain Wikipedians to withdraw from a situation where their interference is counterproductive and unwelcome. Durova^Charge! 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to LessHeardvanU's statement, it is a straw man argument to insinuate that my statement refers to block records only. Read the above: I never mention either party's block history. SandyGeorgia is one of this Wikipedia's 100 most prolific contributors with a long and honorable history of congenial service to the project. Zaraeph has come into conflict with multiple people and has a consistent history of personal attacks and edit warring. Attempts to construe this as some sort of two sided dispute are based upon two factors:

Zaraeph makes personal attacks so habitually that some people appear to have become inured and fail to block for it.
Sandy finds this situation frustrating, since she is the principal target of the personal attacks, and occasionally expresses her frustration in polite terms.

Durova^Charge! 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Marskell

The committee has a difficult choice on this one. On the one hand, Durova is correct that an arb case shouldn't be necessary. A clear cease-and-desist order to Zeraeph with an escalating block structure developed at AN ought to be enough. But that's failed thus far. Numerous mediation attempts and previous ban discussions have not improved Zeraeph's behaviour. Two critical issues, as I see them, both on display after the latest unblock:

Zeraeph appears to remain convinced that Sandy is a stalker she encountered nine years ago. "In September 2006 I sincerely mistook her for a sockpuppet of a woman who has stalked me since 1999. I made this mistake for the very simple reason that User:SandyGeorgia behaves just, uncannily, like her. I knew that then, and it is proved to me many times over since." (My emphasis).[5]
More general persecution fantasies are at work. Regarding User:Ceoil: "...he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me"[6] and then "I just feel genuinely scared to see so much completely groundless vitriol, from a total (I hope) stranger emanate from such a nearby geographical location."[7] That is, a completely unsubstantiated insinuation that another editor poses a physical threat, fresh from her unblock.

This editor needs correction and, on balance, I suggest arb take the case. I am totally sympathetic to the fact that she may have faced off-Wiki problems that have created paranoia here, but other editors should not have to bear the brunt of it. Marskell (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I'd suggest delayed acceptance. There is still discussion at AN. If that has some success, this may not be necessary. Marskell (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2: SlimVirgin notes that Sandy's friends have rallied around her; I should add that I'm seen as one. Sandy has friends because of the enormous amount of work she does here. That "[Sandy] also didn't want to agree to any disengagement arrangement that implied parity between her and Zeraeph" is not true. She offered this. Zeraeph also offered one. Zeraeph would like any censure/remedy to be totally equal; it was pointed out to her that that's not fully possible, as she has a block record and Sandy does not. Marskell (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by JzG

Picking a fight with SandyGeorgia is... special. I have come across a lot of people on Wikipedia, and SandyGeorgia is one of the most energetic and excellent builders of content ad consensus I know. I've had nothing to do with the dispute, but I feel strongly enough about SandyGeorgia's commitment to the encyclopaedia that I can't let this pass without a testimonial, for what it's worth (i.e. not a lot).

I understand Zeraeph has aspergers. Interesting but ultimately not an excuse: Wikipedia is not therapy. We can't fix a real-world problem with one editor's mental health by damaging the reputation of another, especially one as good as SandyGeorgia. Putting up with harassment of one of Wikipedia's best, most prolific and most respected editors in the name of "countering systemic bias" does not wash; aspies are not, to my knowledge, victims of systemic bias in Wikipedia. If they were, SandyGeorgia would be high on the list of people to fix that, given her reputation for great content. Aspies do not get a free pass to be obsessive and disruptive if it damages the project. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I checked out the dispute referenced by CeilingCrash below. it is 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. As an example of SandyGeorgia's thoughtful approach is is good; I am at a loss to see why it is considered a problem by CeilingCrash, unless it is because his arguments were unpersuasive and he seeks to blame Sandy for that. As an example of aspie obsession with detail and inability to see the bigger picture even when pointed out, I guess it maybe has some relevance to Zeraeph's conduct, but in my opinion as a complaint against SandyGeorgia it lacks merit - it reads more as a polemic against WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, coupled with resentment against those who patiently argue for editors to demonstrate compliance with those policies in their proposed changes. If only all complaints against editors were on the basis of their patiently, politely, neutrally, calmly but firmly enforcing policy! Guy (Help!) 13:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jeffpw

I have known SandyGeorgia since my start on Wikipedia. She has been unfailingly helpful to me, and in fact, undertook to help me improve the referencing of a Featured Article I wrote which she felt had been promoted while not ready. Though frustrated by what had occurred, she gave hours of her time to help someone when she had no reason to other than a desire to improve Wikipedia.

Since that time I have had her talk page watchlisted, and am astonished at the number of people she helps, and the hours she logs to move this project forward. She has a well deserved reputation for excellence and collegiality on this site.

That Sandy has been unfairly maligned by Zeraeph is beyond question to me. What is a question is why Zeraeph has been allowed to continue her attacks and paranoid assertions of stalking to this day without being banned from further disruption of this project.

Zeraeph has not only attacked SandyGeorgia here, but on <ext link removed by user:Crum375>Wikipedia review, an attack site targeting Wikipedian editors. That s/he has been allowed to continue these attacks, which would earn most other editors a block, is baffling. Baffling, too, is the presence of a Wikipedia Administrator, LessHeard vanU, on the Review site, engaged in discussion with Zeraeph and also involved in this arbitration proceeding. This seems a clear conflict of interest to me.

I urge rejection of this arbitration and nothing less than a total block of Zeraeph. This disruption of the project has gone on far too long and runs the risk of driving away contributers who form the very backbone of our mission. Jeffpw (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also concerned that this arbitration will provide Zeraeph a platform to continue her unfounded claims against SandyGeorgia, and other claims which s/he cannot substantiate. She is a prolific writer, apparently, and I am afraid if each claim s/he makes is not checked, a distorted picture will be allowed to emerge unchallenged. In the less than 24 hours this arbcom proceeding has been opened, Zeraeph has already falsely claimed that Jimbo overtuerned her block. That is simply not true. He weighed in on her talk page, but I can find no evidence that he did more than that. Her claims that he did give the impression that the project founder supports her actions, which I sincerely doubt. This sort of misrepresentation is typical from what I have seen of this editor. Jeffpw (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this arbitration has been opened, I would like to amplify my remarks about Zeraeph's actions on Wikipedia review. S/he not only attacked Sandy there, but included in the attack assertions which were libelous and defamatory; so much so that a forum moderator had to remove them from the post. Specifically, Zeraeph claimed that Sandy suffers from OCD and Tourette's syndrome. Given that there is no evidence for these assertions and Sandy has categorically denied them, if they cannot be proven, it is libel, plain and simple. Given also that there is precedent for sanctioning editors on Wikipedia for their actions on other sites (specifically the Wikipedia Review), I would request the strongest form of sanction for this egregious attack on Sandy's good name.

Further regarding the Wikipedia Review posts, it troubles me deeply that the discussion thread there discusses SandyGeorgia in context of her previous dispute with SlimVirgin. The thread there began on December 12, giving anybody interested in the site ample time to read the thread before the unblock on December 28. The thread included posts from involved editor LessHeard vanU, in which he stated that he emailed Zeraeph. LessHeard later went to SlimVirgin and suggested they work together on this arbitration. This gives the appearance, to me, in any event, of collusion between involved parties here. LessHeard's message to SlimVirgin even acknowledges that their motives could well be questioned. I would post links to the WR site, but the last time I did they were removed by an admin. I do have the pages downloaded, so the arbitrators are welcome to message me if they cannot find them. Jeffpw (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Casliber

I too agree that the situation needs to be dealt with by the ArbCom. The AN debate became (has become?) a malignant juggernaut of text drawing further people and bad will into it. I only came across the aftermath late yesterday and was highly dismayed by what I saw. The whole debate needs to be structured and investigated systematically due to the amount of evidence needed to be sifted through. As someone who works in mental health I have seen what Zeraeph has contributed to psychopathy and Asperger syndrome, there has been some valuable input in both cases. However that is combined with an at times explosive difficulty to negotiate with others for various reasons. Therefore the value of her contributions has to be weighed against the other issues systematically. I haven't the inclination to wade through the mountain of evidence to determine the proportion of blame though I am concerned about ongoing conflicts and fear they will recur. Over to you arbcom. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Orderinchaos

I am largely seconding points made by Casliber, Jeffpw, Durova and Marskell here. In my experience, SandyGeorgia is a stellar contributor and one of the most approachable people on standards for FAC. Given my first interaction with her was a potential conflict, and was resolved very amicably at least in part due to her approach to the situation (was a situation where I mistakenly called her out for something on which she turned out to be right). At a recent dispute on Talk:South Australian general election, 2006, she handled an irrationally hostile editor who took exception to some of her article improvement suggestions by backing away and giving it time (you can see some of the conversation between me and her on this on her talk page). While I have no specific knowledge of the particular conflict here, I have no reason to believe she would be so markedly different from the person I have come to know, and the other named statements and those of others appear to support this analysis. On reading some of the diffs and evidence, I don't believe SlimVirgin's undoing of the ban was either warranted or particularly wise - while not done in a way which breached policy, in general undoing the actions of others, especially when one does not appear to be in possession of all of the facts, is ill-advised and has been warned against by the Committee in previous judgements. Orderinchaos 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by kaypoh

What I think is that someone (not SandyGeorgia) stalked Zeraeph but she thought SandyGeorgia is the stalker, and the way SandyGeorgia talks about Zeraeph makes her more scared. ArbCom needs to handle this. I suggest that you ban SandyGeorgia from talking about Zeraeph and ban Zeraeph from talking about SandyGeorgia, so they will leave each other alone and contribute to Wikipedia without worrying about stalking. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by CeilingCrash

I think Arbcom should look at this issue. While SG has no shortage of glimmering testimonials to produce here, it is behavior and not reputation that should be considered. I, for one, have encountered SandyGeorgia in the Asperger's article and found her to be a highly unwelcoming bully who is not willing to form consensus nor to regard the five pillars. I explicitly made this complaint against her - with specific examples - in the Talk section, which SG was quick to archive off the main talk page and away from view. You may view it here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive17#The_smoking_gun_:_Baron-Cohen.2C_POV_Bias

One can also peruse back through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive16, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive15, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive14, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive13.

An exemplary and (to me) particularly poignant example of baseless truculence can be seen in her words here. She is responding to a reference by Hans Asperger where he states that people with AS "often have highly successful careers" ...

Where is a quote that says AS characteristics "often" lead to fulfilling careers? That statement implies that most people with AS have fulfilling careers; where's the evidence? -- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 18 August 2007 (excerpt - not a live comment)

There are now a handful of editors who grew tired of endlessly arguing with SandyGeorgia over the right of RS to exist and simply left wikipedia altogether. Not to speak for others, but PropellorPoindexter left, as did AlexJackl, and as for me - I decided that my time is valuable, and best reserved for non-wikipedia forums which welcome quality contributions.

You can also see other editors chiding SandyGeorgia for being threatening in response to a discussion of placing a POV tag on the Asperger's article

tagging the article could be viewed as pointy and disruptive by admins or ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC) P.S., by the way, in the diff above, who is "we"? I hope there is still not on- and off-Wiki canvassing to disrupt this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I know little of the conflict between Z and SG. But if you read the Asperger Talk archives, you can only conclude that SandyGeorgia's behavior has played a part in any resulting conflict.

To say nothing of the people who - rather than complain, simply walked away.

(updated w/ corrections) CeilingCrash (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Merkinsmum

I've not been much involved in this dispute but when Mattisse and Zeraeph were rowing, User:SandyGeorgia was airing her opinion to Mattisse and others on her talk page about Zeraeph's personality etc, based on her previously established prejudices, when it was a dispute between Z and M in which she wasn't remotely involved. It reminded me a little of behaviour I've seen a certain user demonstrate against Matisse (not Z, someone else)- whenever Matisse is in an argument this user has to tell everyonne what a rotter Mattisse is. We also shouldn't judge people unequally based on their number of edits, but try and look at this particular case. Personally I have not had a good impression of User:SandyGeorgia, she thinks 'she knows best' and is revert-happy rather than talking to other editors, which is rude. Merkinsmum 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by LuciferMorgan

In SlimVirgin's statement, she said the following: "Yesterday, I asked SandyGeorgia to disengage from Zeraeph and allow others to decide how to proceed. Her response was to accuse me of being an "involved" admin, for reasons that remain unexplained." I would personally like to explain these reasons, dating back to the Featured Article Review (FAR) of Intelligent Design (which I will use as an example of SlimVirgin's ongoing dislike of SandyGeorgia). It was a volatile review, and during its initial two weeks many declared "Keep". This was against FAR regulations. On 7 July, the day after the FAR was opened, SandyGeorgia clearly stated the following: "Please read WP:FAR instructions; Keep, Remove, Delist etc. are not declared in the Review phase. The review phase is for identifying and addressing issues; Keep or Remove is declared if the article moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)". Despite this, and being an editor since November 2004, SlimVirgin passionately declared that the article should keep FA status. Per sufficient reasoning, SandyGeorgia explained why she felt that Intelligent design failed to meet FA requirements and made a frank critique of said article. SlimVirgin then tried to falsely claim that this was an attack, a claim I feel has no shred of credibility to it whatsoever. In it, SlimVirgin says the following: "Secondly, people have confidence in Raul as FA director and in the way he chooses to involve himself. In fact, he's the one person who keeps the entire process from falling apart. This discussion shouldn't be turned into an excuse to attack him." I must say I find SlimVirgin's absurd claim that SandyGeorgia wished to turn the discussion into an attack on Raul654 incredibly ironic, given the fact that Raul654 has expressed so much confidence in SandyGeorgia's abilities that she now assists him in the Featured Article Candidates process. This is a great example of the way in which SlimVirgin distorts situations, a quality I found rather unwanted within an administrator. SlimVirgin then went on to claim that a post by SandyGeorgia at an AN/I thread was a personal attack on her. Also, SlimVirgin made the comment "how small-minded" in her edit summary. BozMo, an uninvolved admin at this FAR, then closed the FAR as a keep. This was wrong, since at that time it was known that only Marskell or Joelito closed FARs. For this reason, SandyGeorgia rightly re-opened the FAR and requested that BozMo discuss the issue with Raul654. SlimVirgin, who had clearly declared for the article to retain its FA status, then closed the FAR yet again. This was was despite having a conflict of interest, something which SlimVirgin didn't care about.

The above was how the seeds were sown, and why SlimVirgin holds a vendetta against SandyGeorgia to this day. This vendetta has continued since those months, leading up to SlimVirgin's unblocking of Zeraeph. For these reasons, I question SlimVirgin's true motives for unblocking Zeraeph and believe it to be part of her vendetta against SandyGeorgia. Therefore, I feel SlimVirgin's testimony is flawed, deliberately inaccurate, and should be discounted by the Committee when they come to make their decisions (whatever they may be). Thanks very much for your time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Merkinsmum

A quick response- I agree there was no reason for Z not to serve her time in this one month block, however if it allows for the situ to change when as Slim said something along the lines of 'the block wouldn't have changed anything' (it still seems a bit random to undo the action of other admins, who blocked for 28 days) maybe its a good thing in a way. There was certainly no reason for SG to have been given power to influence the unblocking, what with the most recent problems on 'psychopathy' not being to do with her whatsoever. Z has apologised I believe for mistaking SD for someone else, if she wasn't too be given an honest chance to move on from her honest mistake (mistaking SD for someone else she's had serious problems with on other sites- an unfortunate case of mistaken identity, but a mistake and Z has not, I believe, really hastled SD since, it is SD and chums who keep bringing up something is prolonging something that isn't really an issue now), she should have been indef blocked at the time. This of course is really an aside from her conduct on 'psychopathy.' Merkinsmum 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Kablammo

Less than a month ago, Zeraeph and Mattisse were editing Psychopathy at the same time. Mattisse attempted to resolve disputes at Talk:Psychopathy. In response to those efforts Zeraeph made these three posts in less than an hour: [8], [9], and [10], which Mattisse understandably took to be an attack on her mental health. [11]

In the meantime Mattisse turned to SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia’s response and advice to Mattisse is archived here: [12]

Zeraeph was blocked, and then took her complaints to Wikipedia Review, where she made attacks on Mattisse (whom Zeraeph called "stark raving bonkers"), SandyGeorgia (since apparently redacted in part by the site) and SlimVirgin (that Zeraeph later redacted herself, but which are still quoted in later posts of other WR contributors).

On 28 December Slim Virgin unblocked Z. At that time Zeraeph’s talk page read as shown here: [13], with pejorative comments about SandyGeorgia starting here: [14].

In September 2006 Zeraeph called SandyGeorgia an erotomanic stalker who attached herself to both myself and one other person since February 1999,[15] which she now claims is no more than a “sincere mistake”, a “very small thing”.[16][17] The arbitrators should consider whether there is a place in Wikipedia for a user who believes that publication of such a pejorative and false statement of fact about another living person[18] is "a very small thing", particularly in light of the user's other history. Kablammo (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That was in September 2006 and clearly shows that Z mistook SG for someone else who she'd had repeated problems with. As for WR, that is another site, we're not the police lol to sanction people for what they say on other sites, which are not under our jurisdiction. Unless they reveal contact details of other editors, or something like that, which Z didn't. She was expressing her opinion, which is her right enshrined in the US constitution (where wikipedia's servers are).Merkinsmum 14:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merkinsmum, I'm new to this process but it may be that your comments should be posted in your section- I am indifferent on that. As for freedom of speech, please read WP:BLP. The comments were not merely expressions of opinion; they were false statements of fact which disparage another person or cast that person into disrepute. That is not protected speech. And for Z to say that she thought SG was a stalker because she acted like one is itself problematic, as it accuses SG of stalker-like conduct. Kablammo (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ling.Nut

I count SG among my most trusted and respected friends here.

I suspect this particular case lies a bit outside the norm, and the unease and lack of concensus regarding it is perhaps the most telling evidence. That is, it would be a (relatively) straightforward task for the Wikipedia community to reject editors if they were deliberately, consciously disruptive. That does not seem to be what is happening here, though.

In this particular case what we seem to have is a very disruptive body of ongoing (if evolving, somewhat) misperceptions on the part of at least one editor regarding another. These false impressions persist even though the evidence supporting them could charitably be described as thin and weak. The first party then acts and reacts according to those misperceptions, causing significant distress.

The situation is chronic and above all exceedingly harmful. Assumptions of good faith break down here, not because either editor is acting in bad faith, but because usual rules and procedures do not seem to apply.

Although Zeraeph's behavior does not seem to spring from the same motivations as the usual malignant trolling or edit-warring, the history of this conflict is evidence that limited remedies have not (and presumably will not) permanently ameliorate the situation.

I suggest that the severity and intractable nature of the situation warrants considering a remedy significantly stronger than any previously implemented. Ling.Nut (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)