Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Evidence: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Zeraeph Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:08, 3 January 2008 view sourceZeraeph (talk | contribs)5,776 edits →Re: Marskell Disclosure of emails: comment Marskell← Previous edit Revision as of 08:24, 3 January 2008 view source Zeraeph (talk | contribs)5,776 edits →Evidence presented by Zeraeph: Request, regarding undisclosed emailsNext edit →
Line 130: Line 130:


==Evidence presented by Zeraeph== ==Evidence presented by Zeraeph==

===Request Regarding Undisclosed Emails===
I have over time, been made privy to some of the contents of, what might well be, similar emails, which would seem to have been circulated quite widely not only amongst WP editors but elsewhere. In the course of those emails certain editors are claimed, insistently (and to my mind rather plausibly), to be my sockpuppets. All of them are people I have never even heard of, but, as there is no way of knowing how widely these allegations were circulated it seems to me that it might be wise and fair to disclose these names and run a "checkuser" to establish that these editors are in no way connected with me, so that no stigma attaching to me can attach to them, or vice versa. This may seem alarmist, but one of the names given to me is of an editor who was recently involved in ongoing conflict with an involved party in a way that might have influenced events under discussion here significantly had this party been privy to the claims of sockpuppetry. --] (]) 08:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


===Re:SandyGeorgia "Off-Wiki canvassing"=== ===Re:SandyGeorgia "Off-Wiki canvassing"===

Revision as of 08:24, 3 January 2008

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Case Study: SandyGeorgia offers patient, competent and ongoing mentorship to difficult editors

Much of my experience with Sandy has centered around the formerly problematic editor User:AnnieTigerChucky. ATC's early contributions consisted of singularly unhelpful, poorly written and POV/OR-heavy edits to Autism- and Nickelodeon-related articles. Her seeming obliviousness to the project's policies and to attempts to communicate were so pronounced that I was convinced she was a sockpuppet of MascotGuy. ATC ignored comments and warnings from well-meaning users, didn't use edit summaries, uploaded copyrighted material and was generally such a nuisance that she was eventually and repeatedly blocked, after which time she employed abusive sockpuppets to continue making poor quality edits.

Though many (myself included) believed that there was no hope for this editor, SandyGeorgia (who suspected ATC may suffer from some of the neurological ailments described in the articles she chose to edit) took ATC under her wing once her month-long block expired. SG spent over a month showing ATC how to use a talk page, how use an edit summary, how to edit transcluded templates, how to create footnotes, how to identify reliable sources, and carefully answered every question ATC posed. Please review the history of ATC's talk page to get a sense of the extraordinary time and effort Sandy spent, successfully molding an apparent lost cause into a productive editor. ATC's contributions now more closely resemble those of a seasoned editor.

Though I cannot specifically speak to Zeraeph's and SV's accusations of ill treatment (I am wholly unfamiliar with the dispute), I must reject any suggestion that SandyGeorgia is even slightly impatient, unkind or unsympathetic toward difficult editors--particularly those with neurological/psychological conditions. In my experience, she's the most generous, helpful and cooperative figure to be found upon the English wiki.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

My unblock of Zeraeph

My involvement in this began on December 27 when I noticed that anon IPs were leaving abuse on Zeraeph's talk page. This was two weeks into a one-month block of Zeraeph by Mikkalai over a content dispute with Mattisse (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) at Psychopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), during which Zeraeph had reverted a lot. The anons were speculating on Zeraeph's mental health and asking that she be blocked indefinitely. There were comments from 91.84.121.239, 71.117.13.253, and 91.84.106.115.

I was concerned to see what appeared to be harassment, and I posted on the talk page that I didn't want to interfere, because Mikka was dealing with the issue, but that I felt the anon comments were inappropriate. I blanked the anons' posts. One of the anons responded by posting a link to another website discussing Zeraeph, and protested the blanking of the posts. I removed one of the posts again and semi-protected the page.

Mikka posted that he had finished dealing with the issue, and that I was welcome to jump in and consider unblocking. I thanked him at 07:16 on Dec 28, and unblocked Zeraeph four hours later at 11:29 Dec 28, having spent some of that time looking at the background to the block (about which more later). SlimVirgin 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:SandyGeorgia

Because of family holiday and other commitments through January, I am uncertain how much I will be able to contribute, but I will add pieces as I'm able.

Zeraeph blanking spree and my interaction with her at Alexithymia

On August 10, 2007, Zeraeph asked me to mediate a dispute at Alexithymia. Zeraeph had told User:Soulgany101 she would "get a couple of editors who are as impartial as fate, and VERY fond of verifiable facts, and NPOV to keep an eye on your POV pushing antics"; I did not observe POV issues during the time I edited. I observed that the other party, Soulgany101, was civil and cooperative. Zeraeph’s talk page commentary was less civil and not always helpful. I cleaned up the article sourcing, copyediting and manual of style issues, leaving it almost fully cited on August 14, this version. Three days later, after awarding me a barnstar for cleaning up the article, Zeraeph went on a two-hour blanking spree, deleting fully cited text. She wasn’t blocked, and Soulgany's polite attempts at talk page dialogue were met with sarcasm. After the article was protected, Soulgany101’s polite talk page commentary was met with Zeraeph’s rejoinders to heed civility. In that environment, here are some of my responses: I eventually located journal articles to resolve the remaining issues, removing the final citation needed tag. Soulgany101 and Zeraeph both awarded me barnstars. I haven't investigated all the edits, but User:Mattisse requested my help with a similar edit warring problem with Zeraeph at the psychopathy article a few months later.

Off-Wiki canvassing

During the third Asperger syndrome featured article review (AS FAR), I first became aware on September 4th of off-Wiki canvassing against me and the article by Zeraeph; this evidence will be submitted confidentially to ArbCom, but in addition to canvassing against the article, Zeraeph has made off-Wiki statements about me and other Wiki editors similar to what was written on WikiReview. On September 24, Zeraeph posted an attack to her user page. Zeraeph has repeatedly and consistently referred to other Wiki editors as stalkers, but has never presented any evidence of such and I have no e-mails indicating a stalker relationship exists between them. Although she doesn’t name me in her user page post (which stood for several months), the off-Wiki evidence confirms she is referring to me.

When Zeraeph posted the talk page attack, I twice e-mailed an ArbCom clerk. I requested information and advice as to how and where I could preserve and present sensitive confidential off-Wiki evidence. The Community Sanction Noticeboard was either defunct or in the process of being closed at that time, so I wasn’t sure where to take this issue. I was not given the courtesy of a response to my two e-mails. Some of my subsequent impertinent responses to this matter, which I am not proud of, should be viewed in light of this snub. Zeraeph has emphasized on other websites, WikipediaReview and Misplaced Pages that she either has, or perceives that she has, support at Wiki's highest levels. Of note, she edit wars without being blocked and her egregious pesonal attacks on me were allowed to stand, even when brought to admin attention.

The Mattisse incident

In December, User:Mattisse approached me for help in dealing with Zeraeph on psychopathy. The holiday season was upon us, and again, a Z issue appearing out of nowhere on my talk page. Mattisse had approached me on prior occasions when needing help, but was unaware of the history with Zeraeph. When investigating this incident, the first thing I discovered was yet another admin (soon to become ArbCom member) appearing to take sides with Zeraeph and against Mattisse in the dispute between them, when I knew this to be similar to other incidents involving Zeraeph. I took this as yet another indication that Zeraeph had achieved support for her behavior on Wiki at the highest levels.

The WR incident

Then SlimVirgin, an admin of some standing on Wiki, suddenly involved herself in unblocking Zeraeph in spite of standing attacks against me on Z’s talk page and in spite of discussion at WP:AN of Zeraeph’s attacks on me on WikiReview—a situation I would think SV would understand and empathize with. The WikiReview attack on me was posted on December 12, and it was discussed on WP:AN on December 24—all several days before SV involved herself in unblocking Zeraeph on December 28. SlimVirgin has taken difference with me in the past, so I do not consider her uninvolved. Throughout the AN discussion of the matter, SV says she wasn’t aware of the history (although she reviewed Z’s talk page which included an attack on me) and that she wasn’t aware of the WikiReview incident. She would not remove herself from the situation although several others requested she do so.

My talk page remarks

There are impertinent remarks currently standing on my talk page and that I made during the Mattisse incident. I am not proud of those posts, and they are not characteristic of me. I am sorry for them, and I will be more than happy to never mention Z again anywhere. Those posts are in the context that Z enjoys support at the highest levels of Wiki, while my attempts to seek recourse were snubbed. This highlights what I believe to be the issues before ArbCom in this case.

1. Why has this situation been allowed to fester and reach this level in spite of NewYorkBrad’s wise and eloquent post in the first community ban discussion? Why were my attempts at seeking assistance sooner ignored?

2. I have been on the receiving end of abusive comments on Wiki by admins several times. Those incidents are not within the scope of this ArbCom, so I don’t present them, but I wonder why any admin should ever tell someone who is questioning a block to “fuck off”?

3. There is considerable cross-pollination in this incident between Misplaced Pages and WikiReview. Admins defending Zeraeph on Misplaced Pages welcome her to WikiReview, and after her unblock, Z redacts her comments about SlimVirgin from WikiReview (noting with irony that WikiReview had to redact Z’s attack on me). Should there be some kind of clarification regarding this cross pollination between Wiki admin actions and participation in WikiReview?

I have significant other evidence about Zeraeph which I have chosen not to present. I simply will have no part, ever, in presenting evidence that includes the real name of any person. There has been much discussion of the e-mails I have received. I have never responded to e-mails from either Zeraeph or her on-again, off-again friends, or forwarded those e-mails to anyone, and I never will. I have never divulged Z’s real name to anyone on or off-Wiki, and I never will. If that means I will be judged more harshly by ArbCom because I can’t present full evidence, so be it.

It is unfortunate that the wisest voice in this entire matter—NewYorkBrad—has had to recuse himself from this case. I hope Misplaced Pages finds it somewhere within this nasty incident to consider the words of NYB a year ago and adopt dispute resolution procedures that will minimize future incidents of this nature.

Happy New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kablammo

Prior evidence

The most important background for this matter can be found in the disussion here:

Prior history is contained here:

Recent edit warring and attacks from Zeraeph on Psychopathy

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 three posts in less than an hour in identical language, accusing Matisse of not making sense and questioning her health, , , and , which Mattisse understandably took to be an attack on her mental health.

Serious off-wiki attacks by Zeraeph

Zeraeph was blocked, and then took her complaints to Misplaced Pages 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).

Unblocking of unrepentant user

On 28 December Zeraeph’s talk page read as shown here: , with pejorative comments about SandyGeorgia starting here: , including this statement directed at SandyGeorgia: "you just politic a little clique of people into providing consensus (largely either as a quid pro quo, or because they are too scared of your malice to refuse you). You are a poisonous little Madam...and I have needed to say that for a very long time" (emphasis added). Despite this and other comments on Zeraeph's talk page, she was unblocked.

Zeraeph had attacked Mikkalai, the blocking administrator, , who, having had "wrath" "call down on head", then withdrew, which did not satisfy Zeraeph.

Continued attacks

After the unblock Zeraeph used her talk page to attack SandyGeorgia again; when this was removed she reverted. Zeraeph also used the ANI thread for that attack, claiming that SandyGeorgia "will find ways to harass, stalk and discredit me" and claiming that SandyGeorgia "behaves just, uncannily, like "; accusing her of "a flood of calculated vitriol"; and calling her "an unscrupulous, controlling bully" and (again) of "choosing to behave exactly like ". And yet Zeraeph says she has "never harassed User:SandyGeorgia on-Wiki, let alone off-Wiki…"

Failure to grasp inappropriateness of conduct

In September 2006 Zeraeph called SandyGeorgia an "erotomanic stalker who attached herself to both myself and one other person since February 1999", which she now claims is no more than a “sincere mistake”, a “very small thing”. The arbitrators should consider whether there is a place in Misplaced Pages for a user who believes that publication of such a pejorative and false statement of fact about another living person is "a very small thing", particularly in light of the user's other history. And in making that determination, the panel should keep in mind not only the interests of Zeraeph and users such as Mattisse and SandyGeorgia, but also the interests and principles of Misplaced Pages and the foundation. Kablammo (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Marskell

Zeraeph's stalking accusations

Zeraeph has a habit of accusing editors she's disputing with of stalking:

  • After long-winded but relatively ordinary debate on Talk:Asperger's syndrome in mid-'06 (see archives) Zeraeph first accused Sandy and others of sockpuppeting here, which was dismissed. This escalated to real world stalking accusations against Sandy. They were spread across a few talk pages, including Asperger's and AN. This thread on AN/I, immediately prior to Zeraeph's one month block in September '06, can serve to illustrate, see e.g. "What I will be doing is approaching the authorities in her locality with a view to getting her the help and restraint she needs. I have ample evidence against her real identity to ensure that. When that happens she will vanish. Problem solved. Though I doubt if anyone will bother to apologise to me for their error." This is sixteeen months ago, of course, but it's essential this be in evidence so that the scope of her previous accusations is understood. IMO, an indefinite block at the moment she posted the paragraph quoted above would have been justified, based on the legal threat and, depending on how you read it, the physical threat. She has since called it a small mistake that could happen to anyone, as documented by Kablammo above me. I would disagree on both counts. It's been noted that Zeraeph apologized to Sandy; I haven't seen that.
  • Zeraeph's user page contained similar accusations for months, although editors were not named. Prior to blanking a few days ago on 29 December, it read in part: " I am tired of trying to find ways to be co-operative and diplomatic with one editor, who has stalked me, "off-wiki" quite ruthlessly since 1999 (and frankly, is only here to continue the job), while also finding ways to be co-operative and diplomatic with another who seems to be making a life's work of WP:GAMEing the system to try and find ways to ensure that I am forced to submit to a double standard where other people have rights but I must submit to her control and micromanagement." Is a person who has been stalking Zeraeph since 1999 on Misplaced Pages? I don't know; I would not venture a definitive answer on that, although clearly people Zeraeph has interacted with on-line are here as evidenced by anon IPs in her user talk history.
  • It's hard to make sense of whether Zeraeph still believes Sandy constitutes a real world stalker. In her recent retirement notice (her third, I believe) she notes: "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." It was a mistake but she still knows it? Or is this meant to say: "even if she is not my stalker, she still reminds me of her"? In any case, it continues to be a NPA violation.
  • After her latest unblock she made insinuations that Ceoil posed a physical threat. First: "...he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me." 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." She has since noted that this was mistake. I continue to find her logic disconcerting, however: "Obviously my alarm was unwarranted, but I had no way of knowing that at the time." This seems to suggest that it's fair to assume a real world threat and say as much, until more evidence becomes available.

The unblock was poorly considered

Given the serious attacks from Zeraeph sitting on her user talk at the time of the unblock (documented by Kablammo) and the attack against unnamed editors on her user page, noted above, the unblock should not have been undertaken without better research. SlimVirgin has said "I come to this dispute without knowing the background." The block policy does not demand knowledge of every detail. But with so many troubling words from Zeraeph in plain view, SV should have better engaged to understand things. She posted to Zeraeph's user talk prior to the unblock immediately below this post from Zeraeph, which called for Mikka's desysopping, slandered Sandy at length, and also attacked User:Mattisse and User:Psychonaut. At a minimum, I would've expected an unblocking admin to ask about it.

LessHeard vanU and Ceoil lost their cool

In discussing the unblcok, User:LessHeard vanU and User:Ceoil were both agitated and lost their cool. LessHeard told Ceoil to fuck off. Ceoil was angry and cursed repeatedly, seen by glancing through the AN thread and one on LessHeard's talk. Ceoil has clearly apologized in his statement here. LessHeard can point me to a similar statement, if he's made one.

SandyGeorgia's comments to Mattisse on December 12 were unwise

On December 12, SandyGeorgia posted to Mattisse on her talk lengthy descriptions of her interactions with Zeraeph and the resulting frustration. Given the likelihood Zeraeph would find the posts and become enflamed, this was unwise. Sandy had been generally engaged with Zeraeph on med articles, but not the specific dispute on Psychopathy Mattisse was concerned about. There are no NPA violations there—I think Sandy's summary accurate—but posting to a third party was clearly liable to do more harm than good. Sandy has since struck the summary, suggesting she realizes it was an error.

Struck, in part. As pointed out by Karanacs and admitted by Zeraeph, Zeraeph actually suggested that Mattisse contact Sandy. Marskell (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No rebuttal regarding or disclosure of e-mails is required from Sandy

Durova says it well below, so I won't repeat it at too great length. One thing does bear further emphasis: "I will, however, state that SandyGeorgia has already revealed this person's identity on-Wiki" is false and should be struck Zeraeph. In fact I don't even understand how it can be construed that way: by posting to TRCourage, the person's identity was revealed? TRCourage is an internet handle, not an identity, and all Sandy was saying was "leave me alone." Indeed, the link suggests exactly the opposite with regards to Sandy's propriety: she had no desire to engage in gossip or to disclose anyone's information. She has quite emphatically stated on this evidence page that she will disclose nothing personal, even if it harms her stance in the case. No doubt Sandy passively received information regarding Zeraeph as sometimes happens when you walk into a hornet's nest on-line. She's under no obligation to post it. If it's not clear Zeraeph, she's suggesting she will continue to withold it partly to save you further distress. Good for her.

Evidence presented by Zeraeph

Request Regarding Undisclosed Emails

I have over time, been made privy to some of the contents of, what might well be, similar emails, which would seem to have been circulated quite widely not only amongst WP editors but elsewhere. In the course of those emails certain editors are claimed, insistently (and to my mind rather plausibly), to be my sockpuppets. All of them are people I have never even heard of, but, as there is no way of knowing how widely these allegations were circulated it seems to me that it might be wise and fair to disclose these names and run a "checkuser" to establish that these editors are in no way connected with me, so that no stigma attaching to me can attach to them, or vice versa. This may seem alarmist, but one of the names given to me is of an editor who was recently involved in ongoing conflict with an involved party in a way that might have influenced events under discussion here significantly had this party been privy to the claims of sockpuppetry. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:SandyGeorgia "Off-Wiki canvassing"

I would ask that no statement of this kind attributed to me be considered as evidence until it has been submitted to me for confirmation that I authored it and if I did, so that I can discuss it if necessary, before being considered evidence. Otherwise anything could be mis-attributed to me. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:SandyGeorgia - claims of undisclosed email evidence

I would ask that this "email evidence" either be disclosed fully so that I know what I am being accused of, whether there is evidence for it, and whether I need, or wish, to defend myself, or that all reference to it, or conjecture upon it, be oversighted, once and for all.

It is not reasonable for me to stand accused, and at least once in the past, condemned, for actions that cannot be specified, based on evidence that cannot be disclosed, provided by people who cannot be named.

I will, however, state that SandyGeorgia has already revealed this person's identity on-Wiki , who was later admitted to be A Kiwi which is the same stalker that I, so unfortunately, mistook SandyGeorgia for in September 2006, and that, though I made the effort necessary to edit co-cooperatively with her on-Wiki under her ID User:A Kiwi to avoid the community ban I felt was constantly hanging over me, this person has never been anything but remorselessly malicious to and about me, and that SandyGeorgia has been, at least, partly aware of this for some time . --Zeraeph (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Durova "Zaraeph's diffs do not support her assertions"

My apologies if my wording was misleading, I have added a few words for clarity.

  • SandyGeorgia already identified the sender of the mails as User:TRCourage
  • TRCourage also identified herself (Keyne, tried to email you, but you don't accept emails. Just wanted to say, "Listen to Sandy and keep your chin up!" - the AOL subscriber who previously wrote Sandy) as the sender of emails
  • User:A Kiwi identified herself as TRCourage .
  • In an earlier edit to a now deleted article (aren't they accessible to admins?), TRCourage also posted an aol email addy as her own that I would associate with the person who has stalked me for since April 1999 and often calls herself TRCourage.

It seems that my diffs support my assertions to me.

However, you do raise an important point, which is that, unless SandyGeorgia reveals these mysterious emails there is no way to know if they are the same mails she received from A Kiwi/TRCourage, just as there is no way to determine who sent them, or what they say, or whether what they say is true, which adds to my conviction this "email evidence" should either be disclosed fully so that I know what I am being accused of, whether there is evidence for it, and whether I need, or wish, to defend myself, or that all reference to it, or conjecture upon it, be oversighted, once and for all.--Zeraeph (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Durova "Zaraeph's diffs do not support her assertions II"

You misunderstood me, I was also alluding to this bit Anyway, Z went on a massive blanking spree last August, removing referenced text from another editor in an hours-long revert war, and she wasn't blocked then, so I don't hold out much hope now. it's very misleading. But the evidence will have to wait for later. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that stray diff: In Zaraeph's later diff I find no text suggesting that Matisse might be unwell. I do see a wholly unsubstantiated accusation that SandyGeorgia and Matisse supposedly colluded to violate WP:OWN at an article. I must have "copied" instead of "cutting", it was just a typo, I've removed it now.

The claim that Zaraeph immediately blanked SandyGeorgia's post in order to repeat the demand for arbitration. concerns accidental blanking due to edit conflict, explained minutes later and totally accepted as such here followed by the claim Surely Zaraeph was aware that the Committee sometimes accepts evidence privately when she did that (and was lucky not to get blocked for it) which I had answered fully in the same dialogue (which explanation seems to be supported in part by SandyGeorgia's own claims to have twice mailed the arbcom about me without receiving any reply) would suggest that it might be far less misleading and time consuming if Durova examined the context of the diffs she presents fully before making any further claims based upon them? --Zeraeph (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The claims being made that my diffs do not support my assertions seem to be becoming largely subjective in nature, being, for the most part, matters of opinion. I feel that by continuing to address them individually I will only serve to distract from the core issues here. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Durova clarification

Though it is true that millions of people use AOL, it is also true that they never assign the same email to two different subscribers, and TRCourage actually posted an AOL *contact addy* familiar to me in a, now deleted, article. A very strong and sensible principle of law that might serve well here is that of the "reasonable man", I contend that, based on the evidence I have show, a reasonable man would tend towards the view that "TRCourage" who has stalked, and maligned me, so volubly, for so many years, is more likely than anyone else to be the sender of the derogatory emails alluded to by SandyGeorgia, in which case, producing these mails would go a long way towards proving my claim and clearing my name of the damage done to it.

It is not reasonable for me to stand accused, and at least once in the past, condemned, for actions that cannot be specified, based on evidence that cannot be disclosed, provided by people who cannot be named. A stigma constantly applied to me, and my editing, to this day.--Zeraeph (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Karanacs: Zeraeph is too quick to believe she is being persecuted

I will show justification for the comments cited, later, it is complex, too late at night, and I have bronchitis...

Re Karanacs: Mattisse incident

I did indeed suggest that User:Mattisse contact SG over the article Psychopathy for a perfectly legitimate reason, but I suggested that more than two hours after Mattisse had already posted there and well over an hours after SandyGeorgia made a misleading personal attack on me, so your claim that my suggestion prompted these things is mistaken.

I asked (a very different thing to "accusing") if Mattisse were unwell, for the very simple reason that I believed she might be , where I live that would be considered a common courtesy.--Zeraeph (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Marskell - Disclosure of emails

Though I find your assertion of SandyGeorgia's newfound aversion to causing me distress hopeful in terms of establishing a real and lasting resolution to these issues, let me reassure you that, at this stage, the clear revelation of precisely what I have actually stood accused of and condemned for, without an opportunity to defend myself, since September 2006 will only be a relief to me. --Zeraeph (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Marskell - Zeraeph's stalking accusations

You state that Zeraeph has a habit of accusing editors she's disputing with of stalking and yet the only people you claim I have accused of stalking are SandyGeorgia, and the pre-existing stalker I, regretfully, mistook her for. Is your statement incomplete at this time, and if so, could I ask you to state that?

In the matter of Ceoil, I have already made it plain that I found such a sudden and ferocious attack, made by an editor I have never even heard of before, frightening and very hard to understand, when I realised that he might well actually live so close to me, and in the place where I do most of my shopping and socialising I felt that I should say so. As Ceoil has been kind enough to apologise for the alarming aspects of this and I now feel reassurred, I do not even understand the relevance of this. Feeling alarmed by the actions of another is not usually presented as a behavior warranting censure. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Durova

Zaraeph's diffs do not support her assertions

Zaraeph asserts SandyGeorgia has already revealed this person's identity on-Wiki and attaches two diffs. Neither affirm that claim. One was not even posted by SandyGeorgia, but by A Kiwi. The other is of SandyGeorgia requesting an end to e-mail contact from TRCourage. I see no improper disclosure in this statement:

Please stop e-mailing me. You have not told me anything I couldn't and didn't figure out on my own, from day one, and I am not interested in the drama. I've encountered similar situations and people many times in my ten years on the internet, and there is nothing to be gained by engaging. I am well aware of the issues, and do not welcome any more e-mail on the topic. Thank you, Sandy 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If I parse Zaraeph's statement correctly, she is making a very serious accusation that A Kiwi is a stalker. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What Zaraeph presents in support of this is inadequate. This is a little tangled so I'll use bullet points:

  • Zaraeph claims to have been stalked since 1999.
  • SandyGeorgia supposes Zaraeph might actually have a stalker. SandyGeorgia states that she received some questionable e-mails from unnamed AOL editors. She does not speculate as to who those AOL editors might be or whether these are the same person as the alleged stalker.

From this evidence Zaraeph draws unsupported conclusions:

  • Zaraeph supposes that A Kiwi is the same individual as the AOL user(s).
  • Zaraeph extends this A Kiwi-AOL connection to the 1999 stalker.
  • Zaraeph accuses A Kiwi of being remorselessly malicious.

In good faith, I'm willing to suppose that this is the outgrowth of an actual stalking problem that predates Misplaced Pages. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone and I extend my sympathies to Zaraeph. She appears to be sincere.

Also in good faith, I can affirm from personal experience that an administrator may receive unrelated e-mails that are basically unwelcome from more than one source. Mere proximity in time is insufficient to establish a connection between two such events. Zaraeph's admitted misidentification of SandyGeorgia as the 1999 stalker and the tenuous evidence upon which she accuses A Kiwi inclines me to suppose she is too apt to assume the worst. Occam's razor suggests that habitual conduct of this sort would generate good faith correspondence between people who want to find productive ways to collaborate with Zaraeph, yet are fearful of inadvertently prompting further unjustified accusations against their own hard-earned reputations. Durova 22:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A clarification

Zaraeph is correct that A Kiwi self-identified as TRCourage; I didn't mention that because it really isn't relevant. What is germane Zaraeph's phrasing the sender of the mails which presumes that SandyGeorgia received a single set of objectionable e-mails. What is also relevant is the statement TRCourage also posted an aol email addy as her own that I would associate with the person who has stalked me for since April 1999 and often calls herself TRCourage. Millions of people use AOL and the service does not assign unique IP addresses.

Also, the following assertion by Zaraeph doesn't parse well:

unless SandyGeorgia reveals these mysterious emails there is no way to know if they are the same mails she received from A Kiwi/TRCourage, just as there is no way to determine who sent them, or what they say, or whether what they say is true, which adds to my conviction this "email evidence" should either be disclosed fully so that I know what I am being accused of, whether there is evidence for it, and whether I need, or wish, to defend myself.

It's Zaraeph who raises the topic of these particular e-mails at this arbitration, not SandyGeorgia. There's no reason to suppose they've been submitted as evidence. At nearly a year and a half old, they might not even be in SandyGeorgia's computer anymore. Zaraeph has located an oblique reference, supposed the worst, and when I demonstrated the weakness of her assertions she issued a challenge to prove them openly and absolutely wrong. That's the reverse of the real burden of evidence and runs into a Catch-22: messages without headers could be faked, and messages with headers run afoul of Foundation privacy policy. It's up to Zaraeph to present better evidence before any rebuttal becomes necessary. Durova 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Zaraeph's diffs do not support her assertions, II

Zaraeph refers to this diff as a misleading personal attack. The worst I can find in it is the following: The only thing I can say is that when Z was after me, at least conscientous and involved admins took the time to study the issue before opining, and really came to see how bad it was. Not well spoken, perhaps, but not a personal attack in the context of what had happened: Zaraeph actually accused SandyGeorgia of being stalker.

Striking through and revising per Zaraeph's clarification above. The material Zaraeph objects to was not a personal attack at all, but a description of conduct. Neither Sandy's statement nor Zaraeph's evidence provide the diffs that would verify whether Sandy's characterization is accurate or not. Durova 04:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In Zaraeph's later diff I find no text suggesting that Matisse might be unwell. I do see a wholly unsubstantiated accusation that SandyGeorgia and Matisse supposedly colluded to violate WP:OWN at an article. Durova 00:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Zaraeph states It is not reasonable for me to stand accused, and at least once in the past, condemned, for actions that cannot be specified, based on evidence that cannot be disclosed, provided by people who cannot be named. Yet it was Zaraeph who demanded this case on 29 December. Then when SandyGeorgia objected to arbitration, Zaraeph immediately blanked SandyGeorgia's post in order to repeat the demand for arbitration. Surely Zaraeph was aware that the Committee sometimes accepts evidence privately when she did that (and was lucky not to get blocked for it), yet the particular "evidence" that Zaraeph supposes accuses and condemns her is nothing more than a diff that Zaraeph herself introduced to this case - a mention of e-mail between two other people for which there is neither reason to believe Zaraeph was ever discussed nor that it has any bearing on this case. Durova 07:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Karanacs

Zeraeph is too quick to believe she is being persecuted

On the Asperger syndrome talk page on August 31, Zeraeph accused one editor of having an agenda after he disagreed with her. The following day, she said she had been diagnosed with AS and spoke about the difficulties that people with AS have only-being-accepted-or-assisted-as-long-as-you-accept-and-embrace-the-role-of-a demented-child. Less than an hour later, she posted "I do not believe I have ever written about 'how difficult it is' for me in terms of AS".

When SandyGeorgia asked Z to post updates to the sandbox, as SG was doing during the FA Review, Z's immediate response was I am obviously making you very uncomfortable by editing here at all. SG seemed a little agitated (yet still polite in my opinion) in one of her posts, where she asked Z to assume good faith, requested that Z provide specific examples of problems with the article, and suggested Z read the WP:Etiquette page Z ignored the article issue and instead complained about haranguing on this personal level. On Sep 4, another editor told her that Calling people Aspergic is not going to produce a better article, to which she responded I realise that you honestly do not feel we Aspies have any real ability.

Mattisse incident

Z was also the one who suggested that User:Mattisse contact SG over the article Psychopathy, which prompted SG's comments about her history with Z. Z also repeatedly accussed Mattisse of being unwell on the Psychopathy talk page.


Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.