Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:50, 4 January 2008 editA Kiwi (talk | contribs)1,189 edits →Statement by User:A_Kiwi: deleting inappropriate personal reference - my apologies Zeraeph← Previous edit Revision as of 09:17, 4 January 2008 edit undoA Kiwi (talk | contribs)1,189 edits was advised that private email communication to ArbCom more appropriate, but will rewrite it tomorrow if things remain unresolved.Next edit →
Line 111: Line 111:
As with regards to the specifics; edit, made within 3 hrs of unblock, worries me deeply. ] (]) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC) As with regards to the specifics; edit, made within 3 hrs of unblock, worries me deeply. ] (]) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


====Statement by ]====


I write with some haste, quite confused with all the pages involved, request for Arbitration, Request for Evidence, and a Workshop. I have been without computer access for more than less than 10 hours total in the past more than 2 months, limited to a quick 30-minute limited log-on to email at libraries, a couple of times at an acquaintance. I finally got online yesterday and found emails to me, telling me that I was the topic of Z's discussions again, and I was disheartened to find a situation where I am forced to say something. I just took 10 mg of some Valium I dug up from a bottle buried in my sewing basket, but if it doesn't hit hard enough in another 10 minutes, I will have to take more. When SandyGeorgia says that the only way to deal with Zeraeph is to keep out of her way, to avoid the topics she considers her own, that is truly excellent, the best available, advice. How do I know? Because someone introduced the two of us in late February or early March of 1999. And thus have 9 years - 8 more years of experience with her than SG has had to date, plus mine never had the restrictions of comportment and behavioral standards Misplaced Pages imposes, - for all the good it does, as SG well knows. But I won't get into what all the doctors have had to say about what the experience did to me.

Let me try to briefly point out a few things I will deal with in more detail on the workshop and evidence pages, if I can figure out what goes where. Please, any admin, feel free to give me a quick introduction to this process, but keep it simple if you will.

1) Concerning the issue of who is stalked. I know now at up towards 40 persons who have been stalked for varying periods of time by Ms. Zeraeph. I know at least 20 (since I got to know them better) who were adversely emotionally affected by the experience and who needed validation and support to help them get a grip on what had happened to them. Most of them have retreated from editing and public contributions where they might be found again. Some of them have totally retreated from any public contributions on the web. She calls me a stalker, but I have years of emails, including a large collection since I first bumped into her when I drifted onto WP March of 2006, just after the Sam Vaknin thing. In these emails, she asks me to ask Sam to please rejoin WP under a new pseudonym so the three of us can have "fun editing." There is graphic evidence existing on WP of what happened when I refused to do any such thing. Any Admin wishing access to these emails forwarded as file attachments, you may contact me on my user pages or simply post to my talk page and ask for an email address so that you can write me from a "just for the purpose" email address rather than your usual one. That way, I will also have no idea which admin I am corresponding with. I have proof not only of her initiating contacts, but also of our mutual admiration for on another... Tho I have to LAUGH when I discovered this summer, via a friend who wrote me, that she was sweet-talking me in private as she tore me apart on WP... (laughing) My grandmother called that speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

2) I have proof of her dragging meat puppets here for the Sam debacle, knowing one of the women particularly well. I also found her chat bulletin board this past summer, a group for those with Asperger's. She both owned it and was the main poster, under an alternate name, but it soon became evident to all that one was both. She did make a great effort to get her members to go to WP and make a fuss about how awful SG was.... Unfortunately, not a single person agreed with her, some going to some length to support SG. It is POSSIBLE that I still retain the link to that now (undoubtedly) deleted group or that I may have mentioned the intent and content to one of our common friends, but that WILL take a bit of time to go thru many many emails.

3) Also, regarding "Sam Vaknin", during a period of time when she was writing him avidly, she created a topic page for him -- ] do that well, so let's try to get it right --- {{http://en.wikipedia.org/Egomania_%28UK_TV_Documentary%29}} . She was, as she has since 1998, once again trying to curry favor and get him to engage with her again. It always ends up badly when she becomes enraged that she cannot control him, but that is another story that he may, hopefully, novelize someday. It would make great reading since he has saved every last email she ever sent him and he may have even taped her phone calls to him as she taped them (without his prior knowledge). For everytime she has torn him down, she has sung his praises and defended him to all.

4) It is TRUE that not everyone who posts something on WP does it correctly, and they do not always have the book or magazine open on their lap while they extract the essence of the facts they seek to impart. Instead, they rely on memory and ofttimes, a good soul with a great study library will look it up for them and add it as a proper citation. It is also true that there are some (many?) who have exceptionally good intentions, but who do not understand the strict construction of WP's that seek to create an eventual uniformly quality resource of knowledge. Just because someone has links or material summarily deleted by Ms Zeraeph does not mean she is doing wrong in form --- but she is almost uniformly wrong in HOW she does this. Her intent is not to educate, guide, support, encourage and develop a possible quality editor. Her intent is to frustrate, humiliate, baffle and engender the shame of childhood. Some (with more strong sense of self and great courage) react with more strength, some in appropriate and some in inappropriate ways, to my way of looking at it. One can easily access my strong and prolonged support of her against what I felt to be unjust (and clueless) methods by ] You see, I have sincerely hoped that WP might give her a "safe" place to be a woman of influence again, but I was ignorant of how Admins come and go, and how the system is not perfect in sifting out the truth.

I just wrote here tonight so that people will not close up the other two pages too quickly before I can present the "evidence" of her own private words, even of her terror threats to me by attacking my family's peace of mind - and they ill and in their 80's. There are SO MANY people who I have leant a shoulder to someone in private, not caring to create confusion, dissension and avid attacks on WP, but I will sort thru the emails and addresses and see what I can find. You have to understand that many afflicted are so terrified of her that they will not testify in person, but perhaps I can get written permission to quote from their emails.

It may sound peculiar for a former victim, but I have great empathy and sense of her pain, her frustrations of frustrated brilliance. I truly hoped that WP could be a forum where she could shine like a lighthouse beacon and achieve a great regard and reputation. Those, however, were my hopes and dreams for her. The reality has been the exact opposite. It emotionally traumatizes me and emotionally drains me to go thru all this over again, but there are few people who have known her most of a decade, had her harassing me in any way she could think of... In my own way, I love the little girl inside Z - but I cannot undo all tha has been done to her, same as I cannot undo what has been done to me. We can only take what is given us and make the best of it, to benefit ourselves and others.

Just don't shut down the other pages yet - give me thru this weekend to sort thru the past 2 years of correspondence and sort thru actions perpetrated on Misplaced Pages that were detrimental to the cause of WP.

Thank you sincerely for listening,
Cricket ] (]) 07:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


==Preliminary decisions== ==Preliminary decisions==

Revision as of 09:17, 4 January 2008

Case Opened on 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.


Involved parties

Statement by Jehochman

This is a contentious dispute that has persisted for more than one year involving multiple parties. We've had a disputed unblock already, and two community ban discussions that failed to reach consensus. It is my belief that this dispute cannot be resolved without arbitration.

Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia each feel that they have been attacked by the other. Zeraeph has a history of making unsupported accusations of stalking. After a recent one month block of Zeraeph by Mikkalai, SlimVirgin became involved and granted an unblock, against the wishes of several parties. Zeraeph continues to make accusations and hostile remarks to SandyGeorgia in spite of my offer to mediate a settlement, and Zeraeph refuses to accept any agreement that does not treat the parties equally. Given that SandyGeorgia has a clear block log, and Zeraeph has an extensive block history, I do not feel that further negotiations will be fruitful. Additionally, SandyGeorgia says that she is not the only party in conflict with Zeraeph.

I request that the Arbitration Committee investigate the behavior of all parties concerned. The list of involved parties may need to be expanded. Jehochman 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes! Look at all the bandwidth wasted on prior discussions. Disputes should not be allowed to fester like this. This one is long past due for arbitration. Jehochman 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to join the case may submit a statement. Zeraeph, if you want to respond to what somebody else has said, do so in your own section, as I am doing here. Jehochman 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Zeraeph

I feel strongly that SandyGeorgia's continuing to make unsubstantiated and unprovoked personal attacks on me to other editors and on a variety of talk pages, whilst also jumping in to exacerbate any conflict which touches me does, in fact, constitute stalking and harassment, which has, effectively, and for the most part, over time, driven me off Misplaced Pages.

I want this situation to end so that we can both edit comfortably and productively.

I am prepared to voluntarily undertake any equal agreement with SandyGeorgia that involves both us undertaking to refrain from discussing or mentioning each other, with identical conditions and sanctions. I will neither request, nor submit to, any unequal agreement as I feel certain, on past experience, such would only serve to exacerbate the situation.

I don't know whether this is the right place to respond to Jehochman above but there is at least one party who wishes to be added as "involved", also, I thoroughly agree, there will obviously not be any resolution by agreement now, so why can't we stop all the circular discussion and let matters take their course? --Zeraeph (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Summarising, and linking full comments to keep the size reasonable with permission from David Mestel.

  • In response to Kaypoh if I may, and also correcting a mistaken impression Marskell has expressed.
I did genuinely mistake SandyGeorgia for a person who has stalked me online for many years Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi. It was a mistake that anyone could make. I have neither thought, nor said, that SandyGeorgia is the same person as that stalker since then. Kaypoh, you are quite right "SandyGeorgia talks about Zeraeph makes her more scared.". Every time there is the slightest conflict in my editing (just in the normal way that affects anyone else), SandyGeorgia attaches herself to that conflict and strives to exacerbate it. See full text User:Zeraeph/arbcom#Kaypoh and Marskell
  • Comment for JzG, Asperger syndrome is not a mental illness, but a form of Autism, which, while leaving the individual especially vulnerable to teasing and baiting also predisposes the individual to literal and impartial thinking. --Zeraeph (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that *being there* for SandyGeorgia to attack and actually constitutes any form of harassment? Though I feel it of no relevance to resolving this problem, I do also have some doubts about the value of her contribution --Zeraeph (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC) See full text User:Zeraeph/arbcom#JzG
JzG, do you want to include the question of whether people with Asperger Syndrome should be excluded from participation in Misplaced Pages because of their specific difference in this request for arbitration? --Zeraeph (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment for Marskell. The solution offered by SandyGeorgia was unworkable because it asked that I agree to submit my future choices to SandyGeorgia's control (in the last two clauses), and the penalties were so unequal. Agreeing to this would resolve nothing and actually place me in a worse position than at present and my present position is intolerable. My solution is absolutely equal in every respect and only makes us equal in terms of our dealings (or, hopefully, lack of them) with each other, in any other matter the usual policies apply independently anyway and if either of us needs censure that badly there are plenty of other editors to do it.--Zeraeph (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC) See full text User:Zeraeph/arbcom#Marskell
  • Jeffpw, I am sorry, you are correct, Jimbo did not personally overturn the block but left it to the blocking admin to do so after stating "I think Zeraeph has a very good point here and should not have been blocked for this. Even the so-called "direct appeal to Jimbo" is being misrepresented here as being part of "forum shopping" when it specifically declines to ask for my support, and is just asking me for my advice." . I too encourage close scrutiny of all the evidence with an open mind, because it is only through such that my name will finally be cleared --Zeraeph (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merkinsmum, technically I suppose I should have no problem with SandyGeorgia "airing her opinions" of me, as long as she takes scrupulous care to adhere to the full facts as known to her, and expresses opinion as opinion and as long as I have an equal right to air my opinions of her at will, without censure, however, I do not think that trying to invoke such a right equally will ever resolve this problem, nor do I think it is necessary or advisable to the development of Misplaced Pages as a whole. I think we both need to stop talking about, and forget the existence of, each other, and that might not be a bad general rule, either? --Zeraeph (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Durova, I believe that we have never come across each other before, would you agree with that? Might I ask you to produce some diffs to support your statement "Zaraeph makes personal attacks so habitually that some people appear to have become inured and fail to block for it.", half a dozen or so should be enough at this stage.--Zeraeph (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ceoil, I appreciate your apology, more than I can say, too few people have the the grace and guts to just apologise like that. Obviously my alarm was unwarranted, but I had no way of knowing that at the time. I do feel alarmed when someone who does not know me loses their temper and says things to others that are not true about me, (even if they believe them to be) without even trying to ask me about them first. I feel even more alarmed when I realise that person may be in the same place where I shop and socialise. But I am glad to know that my first impressions of you were so wrong. --Zeraeph (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important for me to point out that, as far as I can tell (and if you know differently, please show me), except as related to the editing of articles during August and September of this year I did not initiate a single mention of SandyGeorgia on-Wiki at all, let alone make a personal attack, only responding to attacks made on me, between the end of the related ban in early September 2006, and 12 December and even that was in response to finding myself blocked for 28 days after this . I cannot see how anyone could accuse me of "harassing" SandyGeorgia, and I would like to ask that all such accusations made against me be justified (with diffs), or struck out. Thank You. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I believe that ArbCom is now the only venue by which all the parties are able to put forward their views on these matters, where they are not distracted by input of other parties, will be able to review and answer specifically points raised regarding their and other peoples statements, and possibly have the opportunity to fully comprehend the other parties concerns and viewpoints. Other attempts at dispute resolution (noting that disputes within particular articles often do not include parties that have or had influenced that particular matter) have not been able to encompass all of the parties and viewpoints in a formal manner. In short, no other procedure is available to all concerned which can evaluate and address all of the problems arising, and I feel that only decisions at this level is going to be acceptable and recognised by all of the individuals.

With respect to Durova, a clean block record vs. one filled with entries is no basis on which to consider the validity of a request. My block log is also clear, and I deservedly received my first proper warning yesterday over this matter. Our actions alone will condone or condemn us.

(response to Maskell) As commented above to Durova (which I confirm is an innocent misrepresentation of what she said) is that unequal application of the same remedies is no basis of an agreement. To change the type of remedies discussed, what would be the point of limiting SG to 2RR and Z to 1RR? It resolves nothing since there is an advantage which penalises one party and gives no reason for the other party to disengage. Equal application of remedy may work, since SG has no desire to spoil her record and Z's blocklog will mean that the determined tariff will be more severe consequences.LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(response to Guy) The fact of Asbergers is unimportant, except where WP:CSB is concerned. We invite contributions from the entire community - including those who are not neuro-typical.LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I agree that the situation needs to be dealt with by the ArbCom. An ugly dynamic has developed, in which one block of Zeraeph is triggering other blocks, with the blocks sometimes based at least as much on reputation as on actual behavior e.g. this comment by a blocking admin. This has led to an inevitable downward spiral, with few willing to step back to look at the whole picture.

It's worth noting that Zeraeph has Asperger's (and has told people about this onwiki), which can make it hard for her to deal with other people's emotions, especially when they're flying thick and fast at her as they have been in this situation.

My involvement: Zeraeph was recently blocked for a month by Mikkalai over behavior during a content dispute with Matisse at Psychopathy. Z asked to be unblocked, and in the course of looking at that, I saw that some anons had left personal attacks on her talk page e.g. these comments, which I removed. Mikkalai said he didn't mind if I reviewed the case and unblocked Zeraeph early (she was two weeks into her block), so I did. At that point, I was unaware of Zeraeph's long dispute with SandyGeorgia.

Looking at the background now, it seems there has been fault on both sides. Rightly or wrongly, Zeraeph feels bullied by SandyGeorgia. This has caused her to overreact to Sandy's criticism of her, and the overreaction has triggered more criticism. It has led to Zeraeph commenting on SandyGeorgia's mental health and accusing her of stalking, and Sandy and her friends, as well as various anon IPs, commenting on Zeraeph's mental health, with blocks of increasing length handed out to Zeraeph who was identified as the culprit. Both women have been editing in areas in which they have emotional investment, and that has contributed to the strength of feeling and the personality clash. The result is two very upset women, one of whom has wikifriends who rally round to support her, the other of whom doesn't. The disparity strengthens Zeraeph's sense of isolation and feeling that she's being bullied.

Several people have tried to intervene to sort things out. Jimbo intervened on Zeraeph's behalf some weeks ago, when she was blocked in part for "forum shopping," after asking Jimbo for advice about a dispute. LessHeard vanU was also helping out. Yesterday, I asked SandyGeorgia to disengage from Zeraeph and allow others to decide how to proceed. Her response was to accuse me of being an "involved" admin, for reasons that remain unexplained. She also didn't want to agree to any disengagement arrangement that implied parity between her and Zeraeph. Sandy also criticized LessHeard VanU's impartiality. Given this animosity and the complex dynamics, it seems that an ArbCom case is the only way to hear all sides fairly. SlimVirgin 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to Marskell's point above that talks are continuing at AN, there has been no resolution and the discussion has been archived. SlimVirgin 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mikkalai

I support the opinion of Durova that this case is not for ArbCom. The issue is clean and simple and covered by the corresponding policy, which may be invoked by any admin. Both sides must state clearly that they will refrain from attacks on each other in article talk pages and discuss article content only. I blocked user:Zeraeph for longer time for their aggressive behavior in "Psychopathy" and Talk:Psychopathy and strongly warned user:Mattisse to stop waging the chaotic war however justified it may me. I also told user:Zeraeph that I will unblock them if Seraeph promises to discuss article content only, rather than editor's personality. This was met with flat refusal. Later user:SlimVirgin unblocked user:Zeraeph and I see a rather normal pattern of editing in Psychopathy. I would advice both parties to "forgive and forget", remember that people are not ideal, give each other some slack, and limit themselves to discussing content rather than each other. If there is no agreement as to content, the proper way is to involve other wikipedians rather than beat each other on heads.

The nominator wrote: "Zeraeph refuses to accept any agreement that does not treat the parties equally." I fail to see what's wrong with this. I may only guess that Zeraeph was angry that I blocked ony Zeraeph but not Mattisse. I have no idea what's the deal with SandyGeorgia.

Since SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph, it is her responsibility to make an attempt to coach Zeraeph into acceptable behavior. If this fails, than the block must be reinstated, clean and simple.

On the other hand, all other editors must correspondingly take a break and stop any accusations towards Zeraeph, even if provoked, and discuss article content only.

The statement of Zeraeph is in agreement with this proposal and IMO this is enough to defuse the situation. `'Míkka>t 19:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ceoil

My behavour when this erupted was regrettable, to say the least. I lost my temper, and I apologise with no excuses. It was suggested that I not speak like that again to other editors, and I take that to heart.

As with regards to the specifics; this edit, made within 3 hrs of unblock, worries me deeply. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Category: