Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:16, 8 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.

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. Because I was not able to contribute in the Statement phase, this section is a combination of my statement and evidence; I apologize for the length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In August/September 2006, following the community ban discussion of Zeraeph's multiple complaints against me on several forums, mediations which Zeraeph refused to participate in, a checkuser, legal threats, and accusations that I was an erotomanic stalker who had attached myself to Zeraeph, she entered into mentorship with Deathphoenix (talk · contribs). I agreed with the mentorship plan. To this day, I am unaware of what caused her to level the original accusations against me, which began before she became convinced that I was someone she refers to as her "stalker" and before the person she accuses of being her "stalker" began to edit Wiki. While she was under mentorship, I had no issues with her. I hoped that the mentorship had been successful.

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 dysfunctional 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, WR 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 personal 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. 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. 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, and my attempts at seeking assistance sooner were inadvertently ignored because of a miscommunication.

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 an admin (with a history of being uncivil ) told someone who questioned the unblock 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). There should 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. In addition, 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)

A Kiwi

A Kiwi contributed collaboratively to Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Replies to other evidence

• Zeraeph states that "my attitude to SandyGeorgia consists entirely in trying to co-exist with her." The timeline of events, including the August Alexithymia edits and the September off-Wiki evidence of the stance she took towards me, my edits, and Wiki within weeks of my assistance on that article (submitted confidentially to ArbCom), demonstrates otherwise. The on-again, off-again characteristic of interaction with others appears to be typical of the relationships she has with what she calls her "stalkers". This issue involves an off-Wiki situation and many other players that I'm not involved with, yet my name remains on this case, causing me significant upset. In spite of my break notice, people continue to seek editing assistance on my talk page. There has been no evidence presented against me, yet my name is on a case that extends into issues far beyond me. I made regrettable posts on my talk page in response to Mattisse, and that won't happen again. It appears that a premature unwise unblock was made by an admin who does not appear to have studied the history or the severity of the issues involved in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Zeraeph continues to say that I have called for her banning since September 2006; both AN discussions of her ban show this to be untrue. Zeraeph should present diffs to back her statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• None of the evidence I submitted confidentially to ArbCom depends upon e-mails sent to me; I am not in the habit of trusting e-mail information from people I don't know. All of the evidence I submitted is information independently ascertained by me based on Zeraeph's own statements on Wiki. Because I will not divulge confidential e-mail, my evidence did not rely on the e-mails I received. Nonetheless, I have also been able to independently verify that everything sent to me in e-mail was accurate, based on Zeraeph's own writing. I have submitted no evidence that doesn't come from Z's own hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum; the evidence indicates Z's campaign against me and Wiki began very shortly after my assistance to her on Alexithymia, well before she announced one of her retirements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum2, adding for the record; although the evidence I submitted to ArbCom is publicly available, I submitted it confidentially because it leads to Zeraeph's real name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to LessHeard vanU evidence and claims

LHvU has introduced evidence and claims I can barely make heads nor tails of, particularly in the absence of diffs, so I'm not sure how to go about responding. It appears to be a discussion that makes characterizations of content in a topic that, to my knowledge, LHvU is not familiar with; an article being stable before a knowledgeable editor attempts to improve it isn't useful information. How much someone has contributed before a knowledgeable editor comes to the article isn't relevant either. It looks like the evidence about a content issue that can't be substantiated by someone who doesn't know the field.

The timeline shows how many times SV came to Zeraeph's page to remove attacks by the anon IPs, yet she let the attacks on me, Sam Vaknin and several others stand. If she was concerned with reverting the anon IP attacks, she didn't address all of the attacks on Zeraeph's page. The attack on Sam Vaknin and Penbat weren't removed, and there are no diffs showing SlimVirgin requested that Zeraeph remove the personal attacks made against me.

At a quick glance, LHvU's evidence has several statements that aren't backed by diffs or are misleading.

• With the blocking admins permission SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph and set about resolving the matter which had prompted the block - the editing of the Psychopathy article. No diff provided. As soon as Z was unblocked she began a content dispute, and I don't recall seeing evidence that SV was doing anything about it.
• SandyGeorgia and her colleagues, however, decided to treat the unblock as a question of permitting an editor responsible for personal attacks to continue that behaviour, and started a discussion at WP:ANI decrying the block and attempting to start the process of a community ban. I did not start a thread at AN/I, and I don't know what is meant by "Sandy Georgia and her colleagues"; no diff provided. I believe someone else has already presented evidence about the time lag before I was even aware of the thread.
• At 15.33 of the 12th December the previously uninvolved Psychonaut ... Psychonaut has possibly a longer history with Z than I do, and is not previously uninvolved.
• Zeraeph is a long time and consistent contributor to the Psychopathy article, with a good editing record there. These are content qualifications from someone not familiar with the topic, unsubstantiated by someone knowledgeable in the field that they are actually good edits.
• The inflammation of a content dispute into a continuation or reactivation of long standing animosity between Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia is therefore entirely the responsibility of SandyGeorgia, although Zeraeph is not blameless by immediately responding to the personal attacks made. There are no diffs showing personal attacks.
• SlimVirgin became aware of the vandalism of Zeraeph's page, and became interested in the case. If SV's purpose of being there was to revert personal attacks, she did not revert all of them or request that Zeraeph do so. Standing attacks on me, Penbat, Sam Vaknin, and the blocking admin were left on the page. (No diffs, Zeraeph's talk page is gone, but standing attacks were left.)

Perhaps if LHvU can sort this down to a discussion not related to content judgments and provide diffs, it will be easier to understand and reply. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for SlimVirgin

Questions for SlimVirgin on talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kablammo

Prior evidence

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

• 2006-09-07: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive58#User:Zeraeph (first community ban discussion)

Prior history is contained here:

• Mediations and mediation requests
  • Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome
  • Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-23 User:Zeraeph
  • Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-29 Talk:Asperger Syndrome
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rejected/13#Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rejected/26#User:Psychonaut/User watchlist
• Administrators' discussions
  • 2006-07-19: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121#User:SandyGeorgia
  • 2006-07-23: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive122#User:SandyGeorgia - out of control?
  • 2006-09-05: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive134#Talk:Asperger syndrome#SandyGeorgia
  • 2006-09-06: User talk:Zeraeph/Archive1#Blocked (notice of block and appeal)
  • 2007-05-30: User talk:Zeraeph/Archive2#Goebbels diaries (notice of block and appeal)
  • 2007-07-01: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive266#Excessive forum shopping/harassment
  • 2007-07-01: User talk:Zeraeph/Archive3#Block (notice of block and appeal)
  • 2007-09-21: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive301#Concerned about personal commentary from User:A Kiwi
  • 2007-12-09: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Soulgany101
  • 2007-12-11: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#Psychopathy article and User:Mattisse
  • 2007-12-12: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#User:Mattisse again, I'm sorry (resulted in 1 month block)
  • 2007-12-12: User talk:Zeraeph/Archive3#Block 2 (notice of block and appeal)
  • 2007-12-28: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive118#Unblock_of_Zeraeph (second community ban discussion) (updated link as it is now archived from the AN board)

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 took to be an attack on her mental health.

Zeraeph has stated elsewhere that allegations of mental illness can be defamatory. She now states below that her repeated questioning of Mattisse’s health was a sincere and courteous inquiry. But the same day Zeraeph made the repeated (and unjustified) claims that Mattisse was not making any sense and asking Mattisse if she was unwell, Zeraeph published elsewhere a pejorative characterization of Mattisse’s mental health, as shown in the following section. This panel can consider that action in inferring what Zeraeph’s intent was on 12 December.

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 (with some comments since 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

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

SlimVirgin posted to Zeraeph’s talk page on 27 December, which contained a number of attacks on SandyGeorge and Mikkalai. On December 28 prior to the unblock, the page included these posts: , 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 these comments Zeraeph was unblocked 28 December.

Zeraeph had previously asked to be unblocked, which was declined:

Decline reason: "Your past history of blocks for similar problems and a demonstrated unwillingness to not seek out conflict make me doubt that you'll act in an appropriate manner were this block to be lifted. — Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In an unrelated case SlimVirgin stated “people need to acknowledge the harm done, apologize, and stop the sources of the toxicity from causing that harm ever again.” SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph without “know the background and without taking into account Zeraeph’s toxic comments on her talk page. After being unblocked, Zeraeph (who does not acknowledge the harm caused by her comments), resumed her attacks.

Continued criticism

After the unblock Zeraeph used her talk page to criticise 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…"

SandyGeorgia's role in the present dispute

After the unblock Ceoil expressed concern about it in several places. There is no evidence SandyGeorgia had anything to do with this. Her edit history shows that she was engaged in her tasks as Assistant FA director, reviewing, commenting on, and upgrading featured article candidates. Not until over 14 hours after the unblock, and after a debate over it had taken place for over 8 hours with many of posts on various talk pages, and on AN/I did SandyGeorgia make her first substantive edit (at (02:54 UTC 2007-12-29). Yet she has been accused of stirring up this dispute. As recently as 3 January a post which claimed that SandyGeorgia chose to “kick. . . up a public storm”. If this post refers to the present dispute, it is incorrect. This dispute was the result of the unblock and the concerns others expressed over it.

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", (see also ) which she now states 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 unblock, 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.

Post unblock drama

LessHeard and SlimVirgin have suggested that Sandy is somehow to blame for the drama that ensued after the unblock. This is illogical and unfair. Key moments in the timeline:

• Zeraeph was unblocked at 11:29, 28 December 2007.
• Within an hour, at 12:15, 28 December 2007, Zeraeph edited. She reengaged in her content dispute on Psycopathy by 17:27, 28 December 2007.
• At 18:03, 28 December 2007 complaints about the unblock began on SlimVirgin's talk page. First was Ceoil. Others followed (including myself).
• The AN/I thread was started by Ceoil at 18:33, 28 December 2007.
• At 22:11, 28 December 2007 complaints about Zeraeph's post unblock behaviour arrived on LessHeard vanU's talk, beginning with Mattisse.
• Sandy's first brief comment arrived at Ceoil's talk at 00:36, 29 December 2007.
• At 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC) LessHeard told Ceoil to fuck off. At this point, Ceoil was rapidly and aggressively cross-posting on this issue.
• Only AFTER all of this drama occurred did Sandy post any substantial comment, first on her talk at 02:54, 29 December 2007 after prompting from Ceoil and then at AN/I.
• By the time Sandy commented on AN/I there were 20+ posts to the thread from nine editors.

I have no idea why Slim and LessHeard are insisting Sandy was to blame for the post unblock drama. The evidence simply does not support the assertion. The unblock itself was the cause of the drama. Marskell (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Zeraeph

Request Regarding proposed Final decisions

I have already requested that arbcom refrain from making any decisions until I am physically well enough to present my evidence, and received no reply. I have COPD, my current bout of bronchitis could cause permanent damage if I do not take tremendous care. I did not suggest an unreasonable timeframe, I suggested giving me until this coming Wednesday, can I have an answer to that request please?--Zeraeph (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

As the above is a simple affirmation of the sincerity behind my query, which, existing only in my own mind, must be accepted, or discarded, on my word alone, the diff originally provided was a totally unintentional typo I cannot even explain, and should not be considered to have relevance (which seems pretty obvious if it is checked ). --Zeraeph (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Because this seems important, my attitude to SandyGeorgia consists entirely in trying to co-exist with her. I asked her to overlook that Alexithymia article as a deliberate gesture of conciliation because it needed the citations paying close attention to and I believed that was an area in which her judgement would be sufficient to solve any potential problem, and I felt a gesture of conciliation was needed after she intervened in this . I took her at her word, and assumed that she was only commenting because she felt uncomfortable in the ways she expressed, and it seemed to me that a gesture of respect might reassure her and open sufficient dialogue for us both to become comfortable and put the past behind us. I admit, after the things I read here it cost me all I had inside to make that gesture, but it seemed the only way to put it all to rest before she caused me more trouble. At that time I did still try to retain some respect for SandyGeorgia. My attitude now is that I honestly hope I never have to deal with her again in any capacity, and though I acknowledge it is not her fault that it was given to her, I would rather she did not know my offline identity than anyone she might give it to. I do not feel it will ever be possible for me to participate here as Zeraeph because of her. I believe I am fully entitled to feel that way and say so. It has been my nature for my whole life to either like and feel comfortable with someone, or to have nothing to do with them. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:10, 3 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)

Questions for User:Penbat

• Are you familiar with WP:NPA?

• On your honor, are you responsible for these recent anon edits

?

• On your honor, are you responsible for this series of anon edits

?

• Is this the Radyx to whom you refer

?

• Are these your edits

• Are these your edits

• Is this the JustDignity you refer to

• Have you ever asked people from outside Wikipdia to edit certain articles in accord with your expressed opinions of me?

Though it is specified not to post links to lists of histories I would ask the arbcom's indulgance for suggesting and examination of this editor's. They are not, by any means, all personal attacks, but as many of them consist in zeaulous, ostensibly good faith posting of personal opinions, WP:OR, WP:COI and promotional links without the slightest attention to either WP:NOTE or WP:RS and ask that the latter be taken into account when considering Penbat's assertations about me --Zeraeph (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The other party referred to by Penbat

Not sure where this stands vis a vis oversight and identifying editors. Technically as the editor in question was almost entirely concerned with posting links to his site it SHOULDn't matter, but that isn't my decision to make. --Zeraeph (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re A Kiwi

I have said pretty much all that I feel needs to be said about this individual, except to point out that my civility to her "on-Wiki" extended to civility when approached from the email she used for the Misplaced Pages interface. I did this simply because I was under the impression that anything less could be used against me to generate a community ban. I have done many things over the past 9 years, in desperation, to limit this person's malign influence in my life, with no success whatsoever. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reposted here --Zeraeph (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mattisse and recent issues

(As it seems I am not to be granted a couple of days to recover from bronchitis and present my evidence, I'll do my best for as long as I can - this was prepared offline yesterday and today ) When I retired on 24 September 2007 because of issues, primarily with the editing of User:SandyGeorgia but also involving User:A Kiwi I did so because I saw no way that I could realistically continue to edit here, and had no intention of doing so.

Let me take this opportunity to explain to all of you exactly how Asperger syndrome affects my editing here (though I cannot speak for anyone else). I like to think that with, or without, AS I would be pretty much the same person, with the same belief system, the same ethics, and a similar way of expressing myself. Of course, growing up watching the world "from the outside looking in" has given me an unique perspective that I might not otherwise have, and the disadvantage of my having AS has probably sent my life in different direction to those in which it might otherwise have gone. The only aspect of AS that I feel has a significant impact on my editing is that sustained interaction is absolutely exhausting, less so on the internet than in "life", but still significantly so. Bluntly, to be endlessly bogged down in trying to hold my own against SandyGeorgia's technique of dominating article content through prevarication (which I will attempt to show later, with diffs) as well as A Kiwi was never going to be worth the toll it was taking on my real life ability to function.

However, at 3:19pm on 9 October User:Penbat posted to a mailing list of over 1500 people that I was gone and, after expressing negative views of my editing, not unlike those he has expressed here encouraged people to come here and alter the article, which, on previous experience, tends to involve a lot of POV pushing and LINKSPAM that needs limiting if the article is to retain integrity at all. Sadly one of these articles (Bullying I think) has needed to be semi protected because of totally random vandalism too, so there was no option but to log in to do this .

Evidence presented by Durova

Zeraeph's diffs do not support her assertions

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

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. Zeraeph'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 Zeraeph, yet are fearful of inadvertently prompting further unjustified accusations against their own hard-earned reputations. Durova 22:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Per this edit, user TRCourage/A Kiwi identifies herself as a person whom Zeraeph has accused of harassment. Per this and this (and note the page moves), the user acknowledges being the sender of certain e-mails, which rules out that this account was registered by an imposter of TRCourage for the purpose of winding Zeraeph up. Thatcher 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A clarification

Zeraeph is correct that A Kiwi self-identified as TRCourage; I didn't mention that because it really isn't relevant. What is germane Zeraeph'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 Zeraeph 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 Zeraeph 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. Zeraeph 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 Zeraeph to present better evidence before any rebuttal becomes necessary. Durova 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph's diffs do not support her assertions, II

Zeraeph 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: Zeraeph actually accused SandyGeorgia of being stalker.

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

In Zeraeph'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)

Zeraeph 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 Zeraeph who demanded this case on 29 December. Then when SandyGeorgia objected to arbitration, Zeraeph immediately blanked SandyGeorgia's post in order to repeat the demand for arbitration. Surely Zeraeph 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 Zeraeph supposes accuses and condemns her is nothing more than a diff that Zeraeph herself introduced to this case - a mention of e-mail between two other people for which there is neither reason to believe Zeraeph 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by karanacs (talk • contribs)

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., not realizing that Mattisse had already done so (prompting SG's comments).

SG later advised Mattisse to avoid working with Z, and questioned Mattisse on her tactics in their dispute as well. This makes it appear that SG was trying to be fair to both sides.

Z also repeatedly accussed Mattisse of being unwell on the Psychopathy talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by karanacs (talk • contribs)

Zeraeph's stalking allegations

On September 23, Z. claiming to User:A Kiwi that Z did not bring up any "off wiki history" AT ALL, at any stage.. This came after she first accused SG of being an off-wiki stalker , after she was blocked for continuing her accusations against SG , and after she filed a checkuser to see if SG was the same person as A Kiwi, whom she claimed to be stalking her offline. On the same day that she made these comments, she changed her userpage to make off-wiki stalking allegations Karanacs (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph has a history of "retiring"

Zeraeph appears to have a history of "retiring" from Misplaced Pages when things are not going her way.

• On September 1, 2006 at a Mediation Cabal case over the Asperger Syndrome talk page, specifically Z's personal attacks against SG, Z maintained that she was signing out of Misplaced Pages for good after this post.
• A second "retirement" (accompanied by a personal attack) came on Sept 23, 2007.
• A week ago (December 29, 2007), in the midst of an AN/I discussion on whether her unblocking was wise, she "retired" again after implying yet another user was stalking her Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Penbat

My experiences with Zeraeph

About two years ago myself and User:Justdignity made an effort to help improve the Wiki Bullying and Workplace bullying entries. We devoted a lot of time and effort but was amazed that big chunks of new material was immediately deleted without any discussion by Zeraeph. Since that time i have seen this pattern of behaviour many other times with many other contributors having well meaning contributions deleted by Zeraeph. I sometimes put a new paragraph of text in place with the intention of developing the text later with cited references etc, hoping that others would assist with the development. But Zeraeph would often just delete the text without any explanation or justifying deletion with overzealous appilciation of a wiki rule. User:Justdignity gave up in exasperation and threw in the towel.

Negative Impact of Zeraeph

She rarely ever seems to contribute original material. The Wiki Bullying, Workplace bullying and Narcissistic Personality Disorder Wiki articles, for example, are woefully inadequate and have hardly developed at all over the last two years or so since Zeraeph has been in control. So many contributors have given up and thrown in the towel. User:Parriswolfe is an other example of a user who gave up out of frustration. User User:Radyx is yet another example of a contributor who found Zeraeph's heavy handedness to be exasperating.

Zeraeph mainly seems to like to operate in the psychology, workplace bullying, bullying, personality disorder articles but she delights in trying to belittle contributors who often know much more about the subject that she does. There is no evidence that Zeraeph has any relevant academic qualifications in the areas of Misplaced Pages that she administers.

Covering Up Criticism of Herself

Zeraeph has a habit of archiving old discussion text with negative comments about her at the soonest opportunity so it gets quietly forgotten about. She alse frequently deletes text from others on discussion pages using the excuse that it is a personal attack when it may well be a valid and articulate comment.

The experiences of Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl

See where an academic and expert in the field of Narcissistic Personality Disorder was belittled by Zeraeph and like so many people, threw in the towel and gave up. --Penbat (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mattisse

Note: Zeraeph has stated on the workshop page: "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." If my evidence presented below is irrelevant please disregard.

Gratuitous sock puppet accusations by Zeraeph

Zeraeph makes misleading posts to smear editors' reputations in edit summaries and in posts, attempts to smear an editor's name rather than address content issues. In posting on AN/I, Zeraeph suggests that I am a well known sock puppet . (This incident refers to an incident over 1 1/2 years ago and had no relevance to the current situation.) It is the "scarlet letter" of that sock puppet accusation that User:Salix alba specifically refers to in Question 3.A. of Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Salix alba.

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

Sample diffs by Zaraeph suggesting I have a mental problem. , plus diff of Personal Attack warning given to Zaraeph to prevent her from continuing these types of comments: I can add more of these if needed.

• My requesto to Zeraeph to stop the personal attacks
• Diff suggesting that I am "completely unhinged" on AN/I
• December 12 - on AN/I - Bolding added User:Mattisse is well known (sockpuppet) there is even .... User:Mattisse's behavior on the talk page has escalated to the point of being completely unhinged. There is no point in waiting for Third Opinion, because Mattisse is so well known that no one wants to get involved.

Zeraeph does not AGF

Samples:

• Dec 11 removes cited material with edit summary: "removing comment with no relevance to the topic"
• Dec 11 - edit summary: "removing uncited speculation" (it was cited)
• Dec 11 - ":Mattisse, your editing is purely disruptive, you are not making points at this stage you are inventing them."
• Dec 11 - on AN/I "User:Mattisse is on a rampage on the Psychopathy Says I am "disrupting the entire article" and "has a recent block history for similar. HELP!"
• Dec 11 - to User talk:LessHeard vanU - - Says she posted to WP:AN/I] because I started a "rampage of disruptive editing" on the Psychopathy; Z says I am "making up" my claims and "verge on the ridiculous".
• Dec 11 - to User talk:LessHeard vanU - Says I have tagged citations for citation and also commented them out etc.
• Dec 11 - to User talk:LessHeard vanU - Says I have WP:COI because I gave an opinion on talk and I claim to work in the field plus many other complaints.
• Dec 11 - to User:Fayssal - Says the issues I raise on the talk page are "fictions or fantasies, they aren't even POV". Says my responses are "a new fiction...(and) are seriously disruptive AND misrepresentative of the topic and sources."
• Dec 11 Edit summary: "(reverting disruptive editing)"
• Dec 11 - Says I have an "investment in being inaccurate..."
• Dec 11 - "I really must insist on this because you have such a clearly expressed POV yourself". Says I am very close to WP:COI because of this comment made in Sept. on the article talk page.
• Dec 12 - ":You are not making any sense now, are you unwell?"

• Dec 12 I ask her to stop the personal attacks. "User:Zeraeph, please no Personal Attacks"
• Dec 12 User:Mattisse is well known (sockpuppet)... User:Mattisse's behavior on the talk page has escalated to the point of being completely unhinged. There is no point in waiting for Third Opinion, because Mattisse is so well known that no one wants to get involved.

SandyGeorgia has helped me greatly

SandyGeorgia is the only person who helped me as admins usually will not. She was direct and explicit and asked me about the sock puppet situation up front and insisted on an explanation. and actually apologized to me: SandyGeorgia was rigorous in seeking information about me and said she would not stand by me if I had sock puppets, edit warred, or was uncivil. She took the time to investigate my edit history, something no Admin ever does. Although SandyGeorgia's post to me has been called unwise, it saved me. It was extremely giving of her to share a painful personal experience that I could relate to. I know of no policy or rule on Misplaced Pages against anything said in that post.

SlimVirgin should never have unblocked Zeraeph

I listed 19 reverts within 2 hours to SlimVirgin starting within minutes of the unblock. She unblocked Zeraeph although Zereaph refused to answer "yes" to a request that she stop being uncivil if unblocked. and she ignored the concerns of other editors.

Admin does not protect editors equally

Constant personal attacks and postings on AN/I by Z and before her by User:Cyborg Ninja and before that the Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ekajati who posted almost daily attacks on me on AN/I for six months is the reason that I am treated as a joke and disparaged by Admin (as by User:FayssalF whose reaction is typical). In his answer to 3.A in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Salix alba, he elequently express the toll on me of the Scarlet Letter. I have complained repeatedly about personal attacks with no response by Admin. Or else I am treated as the equivalent of Zeraeph. This is why I only write articles for my self now. I no longer copy edit as I used to profusely, or wikify or other tasks as I will be vulnerable to attack with no defense. The only reason Zeraeph's behavior to me is even an issue, is because SandyGeorgia got involved. As you can tell by User:FayssalF's reaction, I would have been hung out to dry otherwise.

Further, LHuV played favorites by acting as if he was helping me while protecting the person attacking me. He has done this previously by condoning the illegal behavior of others toward me e.g. the zaojing #REDIRECT he allowed with no discussion, then blocked me when I finally got angry after a series of personal attacks that he would not intervene and protect me. Editors like LessHeard vanU have been rude and profane to others and are not held to same level of conduct as a regular editor. For example, LessHeard vanU has told others to "fuck off" multiple times recently with no consequences -- easy to keep a clean block record under those conditions. Apparently, for LHuV , apologies are allowed to avoid blocks. However, he blocks people like me with no warning and no chance for an apology over an intemperate response.

Evidence presented by Deathphoenix

I apologise for being slow in acting in this case. I'm fairly busy with other things, so while I have been looking at this case, I have been slow in compiling information to present to /Evidence. I'll simply put this in for now and note that this is a work in progress.

My first interaction with Zeraeph

I am a former mentor of Zeraeph. I say former because I am now relatively inactive on Misplaced Pages, mostly doing minor edits on articles that I read.

I first encountered Zeraeph on unblock-en-l, where she posted an appeal of her block at the time ( ). I examined the block, which appeared to be a routine one-week block for making incivil comments and personal attacks, and suggested that she take this as an opportunity to cool down (). She replied back and explained about her frustrations with other editors, and her belief that she was being cyberstalked in an off-wiki case that stemmed from many years ago. She thought a few editors, such as TRCourage and SandyGeorgia, were sockpuppets of this alleged cyberstalker. While TRCourage, at the time, didn't have enough edits to really show me anything, I looked at SandyGeorgia's edit history and figured she was a very productive editor with an edit history spanning to before Zeraeph started editing, not at all the sockpuppet that Zeraeph thought she was.

In our conversations, I noticed that Zeraeph was polite and civil, and it was this that made me think that she could be a productive and civil member of Misplaced Pages. When I saw that other editors were getting fed up and wanted to issue a community ban, I decided to try and "mentor" her way back into Misplaced Pages. I said that I would not endorse the community ban, noting that Zeraeph was already blocked for a month (the block having been increased from one week to one month due to her making comments on her talk page) and that I could use this month to try and mentor her back into Misplaced Pages. A few people (SandyGeorgia among them, I remember) were willing to give my mentoring proposal a try, so they made no further attempts to issue a community ban at that time.

--Deathphoenix ʕ 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jehochman

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

A Kiwi has in fact violated Zeraeph's privacy

A Kiwi had posted personal information about Zeraeph. In response to a request for help, I showed Zeraeph how to request oversight, and the material has now been oversighted. Jehochman 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by LessHeard vanU

Psychopathy: History, Edit Conflicts and subsequent events

Zeraeph's contributions to article

The first edit to the article Psychopathy recorded in the log is dated 30th January 2003, there being a total of 1205 edits since then and the current (as at writing) version. From a brief review of the edit history User:Zeraeph first edited the article on 07 January 2006 (48 edits later). Zeraeph has 236 edits on record before the article was edited by User:Mattisse, and the edit summaries indicate that there was a reasonably stable article which, although attacked by vandals and spammers, was not subject to edit wars casting Zeraeph as acting against consensus. The article talkpage has 469 entries as at time of writing, and Zeraeph first commented there on the 8th January 2006, and a further 83 times until December 2007.

Mattisse's contributions to article

Mattisse's first edit to the article was on 5th November 2007 and her second was 11th December 2007. The first edit to the talkpage by Mattisse is dated 28th September 2007 with the edit summary "Why does this article exist?", and then again on the 11th December 2007.

Contrary to some suggestions, Zeraeph had an established history of editing the Psychology article and of working with other editors to form a consensus in developing the piece - and has contributed around 20% of all edits to both article and user space before the edit war. Mattisse has no such record regarding the article.

Mattisse and Zeraeph's editing from 11th December 2007

Discussion on the editing of the article was initiated by Mattisse at 17:10 on the 11th December, following a number of edits - commencing at 15:41 by Mattisse, followed by Zeraeph at 16:41 - where cites were edited out and then reverted, a pov template added and removed. Much of the discussion was initially by edit summary. When the discussion moved to the talkpage it began civilly enough, but soon deteriorated. It would perhaps be best if the article diffs and the talkpage debate were reviewed by interested parties from the earliest times provided above, at the article and talkpage themselves, rather than click a slew of diffs here.

Zeraeph initiated a WP:AN/I discussion at 18:23, to which also Mattisse contributed, which closed at 20:19 having failed to gain traction, as being a content dispute.

Involvement of other parties

I have created a timeline relating to posts by and to Zeraeph, Mattisse, SandyGeorgia, LessHeard vanU and SlimVirgin here, from which I will be drawing the diffs supporting my evidence, regarding the escalation of the situation following the start of the edit war at Psychopathy. I will refer to specific diffs on that page by number and period in parenthesis (x.), with a direct link to diffs which I believe to be particularly germane.

Zeraeph contacted me at 18:42 on the 11th December 2007 regarding a content dispute at the above article(1.). Almost an hour and a half later (88 minutes) Mattisse contacted SandyGeorgia with the same complaint(2.). SandyGeorgia quickly responded at 20:13, expressing dismay in being referred to a matter involving Zeraeph and asking anyone watching her (SG's) page to help Mattisse - explaining that she was busy both on and off Wiki(3.) SandyGeorgia responded further at 20:44, expressing her opinion that Mattisse should disengage from editing the article with the reason that, in her experience, "...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." and a repeated suggestion to avoid 3RR(5.). In the meantime I had responded to Zeraeph requesting further details on the matter, commenting that cited material should be retained and uncited removed with a request for sources, that the matter be referred to third party opinion, and Zeraeph to continue to comply with wiki standards of civility, etc.(4.). Zeraeph responded by advising that there was a request for third party opinion, and detailing the type and manner of Mattisse's edits, including the addition of a POV template(6.)(7.)(8.)(9.), to which I requested further detail relating to the dispute and suggesting that other article contributors be engaged in the discussion(10)(11.). Zeraeph responded further(12.), and discussion continued.

At 00:32 12.12.07 on SandyGeorgia responded further in the matter(16.), with a brief suggestion of Mattisse withdrawing from the article together with a long list of perceived problems with Zeraeph's editing, on wiki behaviour, the mention of a previous attempt of a community ban for Zeraeph, and her (SG's) opinion on the worth of pursuing dispute resolution in dealing with the situation - finishing with a further comment that she was unwilling to spend time and effort in resolving the matter. This drew an extremely civil, under the circumstances, response from Zeraeph(17.) at 00:40. Zeraeph expanded on the complaint, less civilly(21.), at 01:29, commenting on a referral to WP:AN/I.

Mattisse issued a WP:NPA warning to Zeraeph at 01:03(18.), in respect of comments at talk:Psychopathy, where Mattisse was the only other correspondent. Zeraeph refuted(22.) the attack allegation, and commented on the matter being again raised at WP:ANI. Zeraeph removed the warning at 01:42(25.)

Zeraeph again tried to initiate some community input at WP:ANI at 01:21, with even less success than previously. Again Mattisse gave her side of events at that forum.

SandyGeorgia requested Mattisse twice, at 01:46(26.) and 01:57(27.), to explain an old sockpuppet case that had been resolved a year earlier, and again at 03:30(30.) Mattisse responded at 03:37(33.) and again at 04:04(36.), which seemed to satisfy SandyGeorgia(41.)(49.).

At 02:39 Mikkalai blocked Zeraeph citing "Edit warring: multiply blocked for 3RR; already been blocked for 1month".

post block to pre unblock events

At 03:07, 12th December, Zeraeph succesfully posted an unblock request - despite having no Block notice (with template/instructions on how to make such a request) placed on her talkpage. At 04:05 Mikkalai commented to Zeraeph that she was continuing to use unsuitable language to another wikipedian and had not sought dispute resolution(38.)(39.) and (43.) Zeraeph pleaded her case, that she had not violated 3RR and that she was the initial target of personal abuse in this matter, and Mikkalai responded with a conditional unblock suggestion; that the content dispute was resolved before Zeraeph edited the article again, which Zeraeph refused outright(46.) As late as 15:42 Mikkalai was requiring that Zeraeph should agree to dispute resolution as a condition of unblocking(60.)

At 05:28 SandyGeorgia posted on Zeraeph's talkpage in her, Z's, "defense"(45.), which drew an angry response from Zeraph refuting the contents(48.), which she expanded upon(50.)(51.) with accusations of bullying and tracking edits. In a post of 06:18 Zeraeph called SandyGeorgia a "poisonous little Madam..."(54.)

At 15.33 of the 12th December the previously uninvolved Psychonaut commented on Zeraeph's talkpage, supporting SandyGeorgia's evaluation of Zeraeph's conduct and editing contributions, adding their own opinions regarding Zeraeph's alleged "persecution complex" and gaming of the various forums, concluding with a plea that Zeraeph be banned(58.) As a late addition to his comments regarding Zeraeph's responses to SandyGeorgia, Mikkalai indicated that his requests to stop inflaming the situation were also directed at Psychonaut(63.), who responded negatively(64.) Mikkalai's response was to format Psychonauts comments on Zeraeph's talkpage(66).

Early on the 14th December Zeraeph's unblock request was declined.

During the time since the block, Mattisse made several edits to the Psychopathy article, reinstating her preferred contributions and removing or commenting out those that were supported by Zeraeph.

Between the 21st and 25th December there were a number of ip posts to Zeraeph's talkpage, consisting of requests for a permanent ban and personal attacks on the character and contributions of Zeraeph(.73)(.75 to .80). Mikkalai reverted the first(.74), which was subsequently reverted itself. Psychonaut partly reverted the edits at 16:43 on Christmas Day(.81).

On the 27th December Zeraeph responded to the various ip's, suggesting that they were Misplaced Pages account holders posting unsigned in(.84)(.85). At 10:09 SlimVirgin posted on Zeraephs talkpage noting the content of the ip comments and finding them unsuitable(.87), and then commenced removing them.(.88)(.89) After one of the ip's part reverted her, added content, self reverted and added back more text, SlimVirgin protected Zeraeph's talkpage(.94) Zeraeph then reverted her own responses and the remaining ip edit.

At 07:01 on the 28th December Mikkalai responded to SlimVirgin at talk:Zeraeph, commenting they were no longer prepared to act in the matter and that SlimVirgin was invited to act - including unblocking the account - as she saw fit(.91)

Unblock and consequences

On 28th December 11:29 SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph. I contacted Zeraeph at 21:58, offering my continued services if they were required(.100), swiftly followed by an admonishment for returning to the Psychopathy article and continuing the revert war(.102) Between times Mattisse contacted me to note that she had reported Zeraeph to 3RR in respect of the Psychopathy edits, requested my help, and informed me that her report had been rejected as malformed(.101)(.104)(.105)(.107)(.108). I gave what assistance I was able to. Mattisse also requested the help of SlimVirgin(.106) I then also contacted SlimVirgin - a wikipedian with whom I have frequently disagreed with over several policy interpretation matters - suggesting, in an extremely courteous manner, that the article be protected in a bid to end the edit war(.106), which she responded to on 29th December at 00:03(.109)

Later at 00:49 SlimVirgin contacted Zeraeph commenting she hoped that the matter could be resolved as a content dispute, not a behavioural matter(.113) Zeraeph responded with a complaint regarding the validity of Mattisse's edits. There followed some discussion between SlimVirgin and Zeraeph regarding the article.

At 02:54 of that day SandyGeorgia posted a response to a message from Ceoil on her talkpage, commenting on my actions in the matter and "...telling Ceoil to fuck off for defending me...".127, which SlimVirgin replied commenting that she was looking to de-escalate the situation(.128) to which SandyGeorgia responded(.129)(.130)(.133)

Zeraeph announced another retirement from Misplaced Pages, including some personal attacks against SandyGeorgia, at 04:42(.132). Jeffpw redacted the personal attacks, Zeraeph reverted, and SlimVirgin again removed the comments(.136)(.137)(.140) I requested Zeraeph to allow the RfAr process to continue in a post of 13:54(.141), which got an unenthusiastic reply(.142)

LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary and Commentary

This matter began as a content dispute.

Zeraeph is a long time and consistent contributor to the Psychopathy article, with a good editing record there. Mattisse had not previously edited the article when she made a number of major changes on 11th December 2007. This behaviour is encouraged under WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, with the express provision that any reversion of the new content determined that consensus should be sought at the talkpage. Consensus is a major principle of Misplaced Pages, and all editors are encouraged and requested to apply it to existing articles

The content was reverted but such consensus was not sought, and an edit war began. Belatedly the two parties began (civilly) discussing the changes and the reasons why they were believed necessary, but it soon devolved into a stale argument where neither side was prepared to compromise, despite a few comments by previously involved editors supporting the status quo.

Zeraeph initiated discussion at WP:ANI, and both parties referred the matter to outside editors in the hope of some help in resolving the matter. Thus dispute resolution was put in place. The effort at WP:ANI quickly failed as the forum is not applicable for content dispute.

SandyGeorgia and LessHeard vanU responded differently to the requests for assistance. LessHeard vanU requested better details from Zeraeph and made general comments about the validity of editing against consensus, and the necessity of getting third party opinions on the edits. SandyGeorgia suggested Mattisse withdraw from editing the article - giving as reasons her interpretation of Zeraeph past behaviour and editing styles.

The inflammation of a content dispute into a continuation or reactivation of long standing animosity between Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia is therefore entirely the responsibility of SandyGeorgia, although Zeraeph is not blameless by immediately responding to the personal attacks made.

Notwithstanding the unfortunate comments between SandyGeorgia and Zeraeph, the content dispute was still open and may have yet been resolved by the parties (and/or others) involved. However Mikkalai, an admin with previous editing and mentoring experience of Zeraeph, quickly blocked her for edit warring - despite not appearing to have had any input in any prior discussion in the previous 24 hours, there being no warning, and Zeraeph not being the only party to the edit war (but the only editor blocked). Since Zeraeph was reverting content that was disputed, did not have consensus, and edits that was not being discussed initially, it could be considered that she was reverting vandalism, to which 3RR does not apply. The onus should have been on Mattisse to supply the criteria for including her contributions and removing long standing edits, but she was not contacted by the blocking admin. Mikkalai also seemed unaware, long after the block as well, that dispute resolution had been initiated. Zeraeph's block was therefore incorrectly applied.

The consequences of the block were many. Zeraeph was upset and angry, especially with SandyGeorgia who had appeared to have turned a content dispute into a personal matter, and responded uncivilly at her talkpage. Mattisse was able to continue to change the Psychopathy article according to her personal inclinations. Various characters from Zeraeph's past took the opportunity to taunt her at her talkpage, demand indefinite bans, and were substantially permitted to launch their personal attacks.

SlimVirgin became aware of the vandalism of Zeraeph's page, and became interested in the case. From an initial review it appeared to her to be an particularly uncivil content dispute. With the blocking admins permission SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph and set about resolving the matter which had prompted the block - the editing of the Psychopathy article.

SandyGeorgia and her colleagues, however, decided to treat the unblock as a question of permitting an editor responsible for personal attacks to continue that behaviour, and started a discussion at WP:ANI decrying the block and attempting to start the process of a community ban. The actions of the two admins who had acted in the interests of Zeraeph had their motives, principles, abilities (and even how they conducted their conversations in one instance) questioned repeatedly. The matter took on its own dynamics until a ArbCom was requested and granted to investigate the history of a matter between two parties.

This is a long way from what started as a content dispute.

Zeraeph has been treated badly, being the only recipient of a sanction for an edit war when it may be argued that it was the other party was that was violating policy. Zeraeph's past was bought up by SandyGeorgia in a manner totally irrelevent to the situation at hand, yet it is that past that is being investigated by the ArbCom. Parties are expressing surprise that SandyGeorgia is being required to submit to an ArbCom which is the result of her decision to comment negatively on Zeraeph, mainly because of her standing as a fantastic contributor to the encyclopedia. Zeraeph has consistently argued that she is not treated equally in regard to any dispute with SandyGeorgia, and this viewpoint I feel has been exemplified by the commentary found at this ArbCom.

The evidence I have supplied gives few grounds for the application of sanction against Zeraeph, and raises concerns in the actions of SandyGeorgia. I have misgivings that it will be so applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Radyx

Zeraeph's Bullying is a Longstanding Negative Influence

Zeraeph seems to have claimed several articles related to bullying and psychology as her personal stalking grounds. Any attempt by anyone to make a contribution is thwarted. The all too familiar pattern is stereotypical bullying. Contributions are simply deleted on the whim of Zeraeph not so much, I believe, to improve an article but to antagonize the individual naively attempting to make a contribution on one of Zeraeph's pages. This pattern has repeated itself time and time again. Apparently she has already been banned in the past for exactly this kind of behavior. It would seem that nothing has changed.

Zeraeph likes to engage in bullying behavior, often citing Wiki rules chapter and verse. As with all rules it is easy to always find some way of skewing the debate so that anyone in disagreement with Zeraeph is wrong. Reasoning won't help. Trying to explain how you believe a particular rule applies won't help. Requesting that Zeraeph not make unilateral edit without consensus on the talk page won't help. Zeraeph does not seem interested in doing anything other than demeaning and demoralizing other members of the Wiki community.

Zeraeph provokes people and drives them to utter frustration. If anyone dares say anything she immediately cries "peronal attack". Zeraeph asked if I was the user Radyx to which Penbat referred. Yes. She then cites comments I made referring to her as a bully as if this should negate anything Penbat or I should have to say. I stand by those remarks. Zeraeph is a bully as has been demonstrated time and time again.

My main experience came during the episode descibed above by Penbat. We had put together what was starting to look like a very good article. Then Zeraeph swooped in. As one of those involved described it - Zeraeph went through it like a combine harvester through an alpine wildflower meadow.

Most of us quit working on it or any other Wiki project in disgust. I checked back recently to see if it was safe to try to contribute again. I found the Workplace Bullying Talk page littered with examples of Zeraeph's ongoing editing wars. Nothing had changed with Zeraeph still belittling interested and qualified editors and driving people off Wiki. Sadly, the best way to learn about the topic of bullying on Wiki is not to read an article but to dare to edit a page on the subject and experience it first hand.

On and on and on Zeraeph goes. Hopefully, this time sensible people will finally say - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Radyx (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

• Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mattisse