Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Evidence

Re: Evidence presented by The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

I move to dismiss. This is not an evidence to the case. This is an eulogy. I am yet to see a so good a man not to do something not very good. Anyway, what we need is evidence how good was SandGeorgia with respect to Zeraeph. Also I find it disturbing that SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) did not find time to even briefly comment on their position/involvement. (reasons explained by SG) `'Míkka>t 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mikka. One of the causes of this situation has been the attitude that one user can do no wrong, and the other no right. What we need now are diffs showing the interaction, and also some quiet consideration about how and whether Zeraeph can continue to edit in peace. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, this is rationalisation on a grand scale. There are multiple diffs in multiple rooms. Ceoil (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are, yes. But they need to be on the evidence page too. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I see plenty of evidence on the main request page. It just all needs to be moved over to the Evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that will be of most use to the Arbitrators is evidence showing the interactions between SandyGeorgia and Zeraeph, or interactions between each of them and other editors in discussions related to this dispute. Praise of SandyGeorgia's actions in unrelated matters, while nice, is not really relevant here. Thatcher 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that a unblocking admin in a harrasment case would say "What we need now are diffs". Ceoil (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"one user can do no wrong, and the other no right" Huh? Ceoil (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the lot of you will manage to compose a denunciation--complete with diffs--to complement and balance out my "eulogy." I'll be anxious to read it. In any case, the reasoning for composing my evidence was thus: I have observed that the "finding of facts" in these ArbCom cases make reference to they way the case participants have behaved in the past--whether they have engaged in a certain type of behavior even before the events in question. If my evidence helps lend credence to the notion that Sandy has a strong history of helping--not harassing or bullying--problematic editors, then I believe ArbCom will see this as very relevant.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Well, I'm sure the lot of you". You the lot of who? Us? Who are we, or us? Editors? "compose a denunciation--complete with diffs" You don't compose harassment, you point it out with actual diffs, and ask the community for help. I stopped reading after that. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"these ArbCom cases"...substance? Ceoil (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil, you're misunderstanding me; I wasn't addressing you at all (though I did place my comments at the bottom of the section, below yours)--I was responding to those who felt my praise of Sandy Georgia was irrelevant to the case and (somewhat facetiously) encouraging them to add diff-heavy evidence of their own that shows what a mean ogre/bully SG is. I guess that's a side of her I have yet to see.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FM, sorry about this. That comment wasn't visible on my screen -- all I saw was the sig next to the header, which is what I was removing. Must have been some kind of edit conflict. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FM, I also apologise. There are so many attacking from so many fronts, I'm on the defensive. Ceoil (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and while we're all apologizing, I am sorry for implying that some of you are out to demonize SandyGeorgia. I'll strike my sarcastic comments. I don't, for the record, believe SandyGeorgia "can do no wrong," and I find that characterization unfair. I do, however, want the community to be aware that thee deeds of which Zaraeph are accusing her are absolutely inconsistent with the qualities I've observed during every casual and close interaction with her. I would hope my evidence would, to a modest degree, speak to a possible finding of fact that SandyGeorgia's has a strong reputation and has interacted with even disruptive editors in a consistently positive, courteous and helpful manner. It does seem appropriate to contrast this perception (which, I know is shared by many other editors) with the sorts of complaints that are being leveled against her in this case. I know several of you disagree, but editors' past history--especially the recent past--can be significant when weighing possible solutions. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well put fat man, but we are now in the realm where "the causes of this situation has been one user can do no wrong, and the other no right". And then diffs are demanded, again. The first contradicts the second. Scary or what. Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fat man, I, personally, have no interest in "denouncing" anybody here, I just want a solution, so that we can both edit comfortably and productively in future. I do not see any way that can be achieved without challenging the ongoing denigration and misrepresentation of myself, that probably should not be happening at all.

I remember the situation with ATC, and even commented on it in support of SandyGeorgia's interest and suggestions [1]. However, we all react to different people in very different ways, and ATC and I are vastly different people. For instance ATC seems very young, unfortunately I am not. To use your own words 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[2], after which time she employed abusive sockpuppets to continue making poor quality edits[3][4].. I have never done any of those things, and never would, I do not think it is a fair comparison at all. ATC, seems to welcome direction from SandyGeorgia [5], in matters upon which I do not need or require direction, I have already said that I feel SandyGeorgia has a driving need to control that focuses on me, and that makes a considerable contribution to the problems between us. Totally different people, and totally different interpersonal dynamics, one works, one does not, seems like normal life to me, and absolutely irrelevant to this arbitration, unless I so far forget myself as to try and resolve this issue by trying to present SandyGeorgia as bad and wrong in every way, which she certainly is not.

Just one last point, I am not comfortable with such statements as "who suspected ATC may suffer from some of the neurological ailments described in the articles she chose to edit" and "difficult editors--particularly those with neurological/psychological conditions" [6]especially in an environment where I am condemned for impugning another editors mental health simply for asking if they are unwell [7], either it is acceptable for us all to diagnose each other, or it is not. --Zeraeph (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Diagnose you? I was under the impression that you self-identified (onwiki) as suffering from sort of condition. My point was simply that SG has demonstrated a strong sympathy for editors with autism and Asperger's--if that has not been your experience, then I'm sure you'll produce diffs to the contrary. And yes, I would have to be extraordinarily stupid not to realize that you and ATC are different people, in terms of maturity and editorial objectives. I'm not a party to whatever sort of unpleasantness ensued between you and SG, nor do I wsh to be; I will, however, reiterate that any editor's past behavior and tendencies are germane when asking ArbCom to determine whether that user should be sanctioned/limited/cautioned/exonerated etc. If an editor has truly been as terrible to you as you perceive, is her terrorizing you a unique case or part of a pattern? These are the sort of questions that I believe arbitrators will ask. If my evidence does not help answer these questions, so be it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fat man, I "self-identify" as having Asperger Syndrome, not "suffering from" "neurological ailments" and/or "neurological/psychological conditions", and it wasn't me being diagnosed there, it was ATC. Whatever "strong sympathy" SandyGeorgia may feel for editors with Autism and Aspergers, I do not know, but I can honestly say that I have never personally seen her demonstrate any. However, she does not have to, she only need treat others (including me) as she expects to be treated herself. --Zeraeph (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• "also some quiet consideration about how and whether Zeraeph can continue to edit in peace." Slim, in what capacity are you acting here? you do not seem to be impartial in my reading of this page. I would like to hear clearly from you if you are participating here as Zeraeph's advocate or as an impartial admin who got caught up in this situation, as you have stated in your evidence. given your statements on this page I have real concerns about the fairness of this process. Also, I need to add that I do not see that Zaraeph has peacefully edited here. In her time on Wikipedia she has been at the center of one conflict after another. Surely not every interaction that ended badly is the fault of the other party? Jeffpw (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki attacks

Wikipedia:Attack sites has been rejected by the community. Zeraeph's posts on Wikipedia Review are considered evidence. If we are not allowed to link to them, these posts should be copied over verbatim to a sub-page of this case, and verified for accuracy. —Viriditas | Talk 12:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that BADSITES was rejected by the community. You are allowed to link to the alleged off-wiki attacks in circumstances such as this. Cla68 (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The links were added by another editor during the initial request and removed by an administrator. I notice that that they have not been added back in as diffs in the relevant section on the evidence page. I predict that if I add them back in they will be removed again. Therefore, I propose that a new sub-page be created for the purpose of adding the text itself. —Viriditas | Talk 13:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best to note that the thread exists but email the link to the Arbitration committee. I don't personally have a problem with the link as evidence, however others might and it would be best to avoid creating an unnecessary sideshow. Thatcher 14:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that using the links as evidence in an arb case is okay. A sideshow should definitely be avoided. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Rlevse, with the clarification that any editor who persists in removing any links legitimately added as evidence in an arbitration case is the one causing the "sideshow", and is guilty of disruption. Mike R (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would request that links not be added in evidence, but that the material be forwarded to the ArbCom. I've been told that the thread includes attacks on me (though I've not read it myself), and speculation about SandyGeorgia's mental health which, if posted here, will be cached by Google. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Links not posted leave people like me who, it is said have been attacked on those sites by the person in question, further in the dark. I have no idea what or where these sites are. This lack of openness here further perpetuates the feeling of "in group" and "out group" so strong on Wikipedia and increases the "paranoia" of those of us permanently "out group" people who are either ignored or ridiculed by most Admin. Mattisse 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not "in group", if that's what this insinuates. It happens that the website in question has a pretty good search function. And in general, Wayback Machine links would be far more reliable (where they can be found). Durova^Charge! 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I will email you a link. Thatcher 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Thatcher. As a non-arbitrator who really cares, I have not been successful in running a search to locate it, so I appreciate any solid information (rather than vague or distorted descriptions) about what is happening here. Mattisse 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher's solution is sensible. A basic description on-wiki should be enough for any non-arbitrator who really cares to see the original to run a search and locate it. Since other websites may alter material, such links are not necessarily reliable as evidence. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas, who was it that removed the links? Perhaps that admin isn't aware that BADSITES was rejected as a policy and just needs to be informed. Cla68 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[8] —Viriditas | Talk 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave a note on Crum375's talk page. I'm sure he just wasn't aware that his action was unnecessary. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, you might ask him why he deleted my dif to Zaraeph's on wiki attack of Sandy in that same edit redaction. It did not give me any confidence in this process when I witnessed that. Jeffpw (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just readd it. I'm sure he deleted it by mistake. He has done that before, such as when he admin deleted almost the entire page history for SlimVirgin's talk page. As in that case, I'm sure this one was also a mistake. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that there is a guideline Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. `'Míkka>t 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Linking to off-site evidence for an arbcom case isn't against any policy unless it reveals an editor's real name or other personal information. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment says: "Wikipedia strongly discourages any links to web sites that routinely harass, due to potential of the material on the site, taken as a whole, to cause distress." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Which websites "routinely harass"? I can think of only a couple that might, arguably, fit that description, and neither one is Wikipedia Review. Cla68 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph, please e-mail it to the ArbCom, in case no one else has, but it's best not to post it onwiki. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How would I do that? --Zeraeph (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Send it to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting for now...do you mean to mail them the link that I posted here? Sorry, I am a bit slow tonight. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)t slow tonight.

Please email it yourself. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of evidence for WP:DISRUPT needed

Disruption by Wikipedians often involves behavior that consists of a campaign to drive away productive contributors. If an editor is repeatedly blocked for violations of civility, personal attacks, and tendentious editing, then isn't unblocking that editor - in the face of good evidence against such action - and in the absence of discussion, and more importantly consensus by the community to lift such a block, also a form of disruption? Is there such a thing as a disruptive unblock? —Viriditas | Talk 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As one of the original contributors to that guideline, I can say that particular angle wasn't discussed (the archives should verify this). Either way, a single action would rarely be covered. The guideline covers low level problems that WP:POINT missed. If an administrator habitually unblocked disruptive editors without adequate research or discussion, then that would be different. Durova^Charge! 06:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It appears that disruption on Wikipedia is interpreted in terms of tendentious editing, edit warring, and incivility, while poor judgment and misuse of administrative tools is treated as a violation of administrative policies themselves, for example blocking and protecting. That makes sense. —Viriditas | Talk 10:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To Zaraeph

It's pretty simple: when a diff is presented as a personal attack I expect to see a personal attack, and when a diff is presented to substantiate a statement that you speculated about someone's mental state I expect to see some speculation about that person's mental state. As you can see, I'm quite willing to strikethrough if I've misread something. And if you've accidentally selected the wrong diff you can replace it with the right one and I'll withdraw criticism as soon as I see that your evidence holds. What I'd like to see in return is some judicious strikethroughs of your own when I make a point that's valid. Durova^Charge! 07:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that your interpretation of the diffs I present are your opinions, and that it will serve no purpose and only delay the progress of this arbitration unduly if I continue to be bogged down in refuting your opinions with my own, but I did not want anyone to think I was just ignoring you, I may make further comments in summary form as we go along. I also feel that the members of arbcom may have opinions of their own that will not be unduly influenced by any opinion that you express or I refute.

On the subject of the typo diff you still refer to as though it were intentional [9]. I think that you have misunderstood me. I have absolutely no idea how any diff got there (I use Firefox and it can get a little eccentric with forms). I had no intention of providing a diff for the sincerity of my expressed query that Mattisse might be unwell I am afraid that the diffs to show that I genuinely mean queries I express in the terms I express them only in my head in a format incompatible with copy/paste. I can only affirm them, just like anyone else.

I do, of course intend to read your remarks, and as soon as I see cause to strike in them I will be only too happy to return your courtesy in so doing. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a good idea to proofread your evidence if you think your browser may have a glitch. All I can see is what you've actually posted. In general you would help yourself if you refrained from making serious accusations unless you back them up with really compelling evidence. For example, it would be a very good idea to withdraw the statement about the AOL e-mail address temporarily until you've checked with an administrator and made sure whether those addresses match. If they do then you'd have a substantial piece of evidence, but if that can't be verified then the assertion doesn't help your credibility. You have a mentor; I suggest you double check that kind of thing before posting. Durova^Charge! 18:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be best for me to decide whether my statements are unsubstantiated or not, and how to present my evidence and let the arbcom decide whether they agree? It's very kind of you to offer me so much advice but my gut feeling is that, as a general rule, the opposition are unlikely to have my best interests as much at heart as I do. I'm still working on that AOL addy...I may even have a copy on HD, or a reference to it...but I have bronchitis right now and have to sleep a lot and go to hospital in the morning so there may be a little delay. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately it's going to be the arbitrators' decision. And I'm not sure what you mean by "the opposition". Frankly I've been thinking of proposing a motion to dismiss this case. Durova^Charge! 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you could have fooled me last night, I got the feeling that if I posted a full confession to being a mad axe murderer, and showed diffs you would have challenged it as an unsupported personal attack made upon myself...but if I am misjudging you in that, honestly, please forgive me? Between this and bronchitis I confess to feeling just a little "got at" in every way right now. If you, or Thatcher go over "Inverted narcissism" talk and cannot find it at all (just to save me driving myself nuts looking for it in other ways) I'll strike the addy, there is other evidence to support that identity being presented. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and I do think you're sincere. As I know from experience, sometimes stress or strong feelings affects the way well-meaning people read evidence (people were much harsher on me when I got one wrong). Take care of your health. And if you decide you'd like that motion to dismiss, please let me know. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Durova, I have to admit your post above was a bit of a wakeup call that I really should probably stand back a bit until the antibiotics kick in. I don't like misjudging people, and I am not in the best state to judge well right now, but it is so hard to lie in bed and forget that people you don't even know are discussing you. But I will remember in future that you just speak your mind, and I will think about that motion to dismiss. It's actually tempting...if I only knew a way to be sure it would not all come up again, and again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraeph (talk • contribs) 19:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, your workshop post touches on the right to vanish. That would dovetail really nicely with a motion to dismiss. Durova^Charge! 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that if Zeraeph disappears, she may reappear in another guise and the dispute will resume. I think this case needs to include full scrutiny of the situation along with appropriate findings and remedies. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, Jehochman. Cases have been dismissed before when an editor went inactive. Really, it makes no sense to force people through the mill when neither of the principal parties want this and they're willing to settle things peaceably. If problems resume then a new case can open. Durova^Charge! 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I now want the case to continue. I didn't want it started for reasons given long ago by NewYorkBrad. But now that my name has been smeared all over Wiki again, I want this case to be seen through to its conclusion. I don't want yet another unresolved Z incident in archives. But my name should not be on this case; I've been smeared enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Would a courtesy blanking satisfy you? Durova^Charge! 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Durova, I don't follow the question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for arbitration cases to get courtesy blanked when they're closed. The archive would still be open but it wouldn't get indexed on Google or draw much attention. I was wondering whether that would be acceptable to you. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The things that Zeraeph has written about me are already all over the internet, and will be forever more. My editing is forever tainted. It's not only WikiReview. This case needs a clear, transparent, open conclusion. The time to have solved this otherwise was lost because others wouldn't listen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish my name would be removed from the case; what I have put up with for over a year because Z confused me with someone else is extremely upsetting. The other reason this case needs to be seen through is that WIKI needs to figure out how to avoid this ever happening again, and I'll be very surprised if NewYorkBrad doesn't do something to address that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that can't be allowed to stand. The time to have solved this was lost because you wouldn't listen, but preferred to kick up a public storm rather than try to find a way to allow others to negotiate closure. This case is the direct result. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Slim, would you please provide a diff to back up your assertion that Sandy "kicked up a public storm"? I was involved in the unblock discusison on AN, and I distinctly remember Sandy not joining in there until late in the debate. I also remember her stating she did not want an arbitration. Sandy's only objection was to sanctions that would put her behavior on par with that of Zeraeph's, a multiply blocked user with a history of incivility and personal attacks. Given that Sandy is one of the best, and most professional contributers to this project, I cannot blame her for that. If my memory of events is somehow faulty, I would like a diff from you to clarify this. Until then, I am forced to think you are making statements that are prejudicial to this case. Jeffpw (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Zareaph, you mention that TRCourage disclosed his email address in a deleted article. TRCourage has no edits that have been deleted, although A Kiwi does. Admins can see deleted edits but we need to know where to look. What is the article, please? Thatcher 18:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Thatcher, it's definately not A Kiwi, it predated that account, but that is helpful...I wonder of she posted it from an aol IP? My feeling is that it was posted as a signature...just, as above, bear with me. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was posted from an IP but signed TR it will be difficult to find unless you remember the name of the deleted article. Thatcher 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would almost stake my life it was Inverted narcissism, and that was NOT a very long talk page, could I trouble you to go over it just to save me driving myself nuts looking for it on other articles?--Zeraeph (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is an edit on the talk page of Inverted narcissism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made by an AOL IP address that gives an email address for TRCourage. You can use this link which should work for any admin. Thatcher 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, somebody using an AOL account did post an address that looks like it belongs to TRCourage. However, this could easily have been a Joe job. I do not see what this diff shows us. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not. Regarding Durova's evidence section Zaraeph.27s_diffs_do_not_support_her_assertions I believe I can state with some confidence that User:TRCourage/User:A Kiwi is the person whom Zeraeph has accused of a long history of stalking. The evidence all came from Wikipedia and Google, but I would rather email it than post it publicly, because of course there is no way of knowing whether the allegations are true. Thatcher 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Thatcher. Please advise which specific parts of my evidence should be struck through. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At this stage Jehochman, it just shows ME that I can stop systematically searching wikipedia a talk page at a time to prove to myself I did not imagine it. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. If these proceedings shed light on your alleged stalker and help resolve that problem, I will be pleased. Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (modified 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Please refrain from any posts that may insinuate or imply that A Kiwi/TR Courage is a "stalker". Alleged is in order all round here. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Penbat, please provide diffs

Penbat, could you please substantiate the claims you're making about Zeraeph with diffs, if possible? For example, you should probably provide diffs that demonstrate disruptive editing or unwelcoming behavior on the bullying article, etc.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all here, providing an example of talk page interaction with Zeraeph. I'm not sure if those archives comply with WP:BLP; I haven't looked closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To SandyGeorgia

If you insist that this continue, it can. You may feel that you have been smeared, but you do not have a tenth of the cause to feel smeared by all of this that I have. Do not mistake concern for the greater general good for weakness, my reasons for the proposal I have made are the honest ones. If you refuse this proposal I will have no choice but continue to demonstrate the problems that I have seen and had with you over the last 18 months, since before I ever mistook you for anyone. A part of me feels I should anyway, for the sake of the next editor you feel negatively towards. Personally I have always understood the word "arbitration" to denote striving to resolve a problem, rather than striving to perpetuate a war of attrition. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, with respect, this arbitration is about resolving the problems you and I have with each other, and we certainly have problems. I feel many of those problems are totally unconnected to any other situation except through the mistake I made about your identity and the extent to which that has been used, by you, for over a year to place me at such a disadvantage that, in the end, I could no longer, realistically participate here at all since late September. Thus far I have cleared my name of many serious, long standing, imputations upon my sanity and integrity, some of which have been perpetuated by you, by establishing that I was not deluded or deceitful in claiming that I was being stalked, as had been previously claimed, I was only mistaken in assuming you to be a new manifestation of the same individual.

In the course of that I have seen evidence to suggest that much like a typhoid carrier, however innocent I may be in that stalking, my known presence on-Wiki brings that, and and problem it may pose to other editors here. That concerns me. So we have two ways to go here, my proposal, which solves all our problems by getting me out of your life forever, and you out of mine, or, we can go on resolving our problems here first for as long as it takes, and then I will STILL have to "vanish" anyway...personally, SO many people are putting so much time in here that it seems realistic to take my proposal as a short cut and let them off, but if you want iut otherwise, then so be it. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, then you'll have no problem removing all the things you've said about me throughout the internet after I helped you on the alexithymia article by editing those posts to remove the smears on me. Thanks for extending the courtesy, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence page

Could people please note that the evidence page is for evidence, not for discussion? At least two people, SandyGeorgia included, are using it to make polemical points, or to ask question, rather than providing evidence, e.g. here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The clerks should move such discussion to this page. Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I apologise for the errors I have made, I am actually very ill and, as some of you have seen, capable of some bizarre typos, particularly with diffs, which do NOT help. I have so far confined myself to responding and not yet attempted to produce my evidence for this reason, but if this must go further can you bare with me until the antibiotics kick in properly when I will be able to produce my evidence properly? Right now, I am off to my bed. Thank You --Zeraeph (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The diff listed by SlimVirin has a diff by SandyGeorgia, that I feel is germane to the case. There is nothing on the evidence where I'm thinking "what is this person trying to get at", it all seems germane to me, so I am not moving anything at this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that that diff doesn't belong is bizarre. Marskell (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the "wow" for in your edit summary, Marksell? The diff was just an example. Read Sandy's evidence section and you'll see material that isn't evidence, but simply opinion, or even questions. This is fine in small doses, but Durova's section is the same, and possibly others I've not looked at. It should be moved to the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow that you would choose that diff to single out. Seems a perfectly acceptable observation to me. Marskell (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I chose that one because it was the last one I saw that she posted. And "wow" is a provocative observation, as you know. Please don't do anything to increase the drama. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understand right, SlimVirgin doesn't approve of some of the evidence presented in a case that she is a party to so she asks that it be removed? Do I understand this right? Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, Cla. Whatever I don't like should be removed from the page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unless someone wants to argue that SlimVirgin's unblock was such a error in judgement that she should also be sanctioned, then the unblock is more or less irrelevant. Admins disagree, that's why Arbcom took the case. Thatcher 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cla would never argue that against me. He is secretly very fond of me. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thatcher, the unblock is relevant because SV has been engaged in a previous dispute with SandyGeorgia over the FAR process, and the unblock allowed Zeraeph to continue attacking SandyGeorgia. Furthermore, Zeraeph had been informed of the dispute between SV and SandyGeorgia before SV unblocked her. Did Zeraeph contact SlimVirgin by e-mail, and did this lead to the unblock? From what I understand, some form of communication did occur prior to the block, so this would contradict SV's claim that she was uninvolved and unaware of the dispute before unblocking Zeraeph. —Viriditas | Talk 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

First, that's a tremendous assumption of bad faith. The dispute that caused Zeraeph's block had nothing to with SandyGeorgia, and that's what I focused on before unblocking. Zeraeph did say she'd had a run-in with Sandy, but I was completely unaware of the extent of this dispute between them, and if you think I'm the kind of admin who would unblock someone so that they could continue to attack another editor, then ... seriously, I'm speechless. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I appreciate your efforts to get the /Evidence page on topic. May I add a little suggestion? On the /Evidence page the section you started ends currently on "[...] having spent some of that time looking at the background to the block (about which more later)". Since then you've contributed more to this talk page than to the expansion of the evidence you seem to be wanting to add. And then, in your last post above you start to add things here that would be better off on the /Evidence page. For example: "The dispute that caused Zeraeph's block had nothing to [do] with SandyGeorgia, and that's what I focused on before unblocking". If that's what you found out before the unblock, maybe illustrate that with some evidence on the /Evidence page. I'm convinced it might help the case. Just a suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of Thatcher's finding

I'll trust Thatcher's word that he did find something substantial to partially vindicate Zaraeph's concerns. If we proceed from the assumption that he's correct, then that shines a different light on some important aspects of this case.

The closest parallel to this case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. I recommend reading that link in depth, but the Reader's Digest version is some things that came out during that case partially vindicated Chrisjnelson. Jmfangio turned out to be a sockpuppet of a community banned editor, and a third party - a sneaky IP vandal who hadn't been named in the case - tried to discredit Chrisjnelson with some dirty tricks. So Jmfangio got indeffed, I banned the IP editor and named him the "Notre Dame vandal" in a long term vandalism report, and Chris got some milder remedies with a chance to rebuild his reputation. He did have some serious conduct issues.

Obviously that case is an imperfect analogy for this one. So I'll offer this suggestion:

• Zaraeph withdraws her accusations against other editors. This would include revisions to other websites and doing strikethroughs in archived Wikipedia files. And perhaps if Zaraeph posted a clear unambiguous retraction as evidence to this case, it would be suitable for citing if questions ever arise again.
• Zaraeph restarts under a new username.
• Zaraeph and the people she's come into conflict with pledge to let sleeping dogs lie and do their best to avoid each other. Naturally this agreement gets voided if a new conflict emerges on Zaraeph's new account. No specific santions apply to this agreement, other than the knowledge that a second arbitration case would probably open lickety split and would probably end with sanctions.

How does this sound? Durova^Charge! 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will always support an agreement approved by the main parties. However, Zeraeph has had civility problems with a variety of editors, so settling with SandyGeorgia is only a partial solution, if SandyGeorgia would even accept those terms. I would add as a condition that Zeraeph accepts the standard civility restriction: "Zeraeph (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

It is entirely possible that Zeraeph has been stalked and harassed by editors not party to this case. If that is so, I think we should add the party or parties and deal with the problem here and now. Jehochman ^Talk 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should slow down until the person who knows Z best (Deathphoenix) finishes presenting his evidence. And everyone opining here should realize that I've shared private evidence with ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone—including Sandy and Deathphoenix, who would know best—deny that TRCourage/AKiwi were troublesome, sockpuppeting, and badgered Zeraeph. The question is whether Zeraeph's legitimate concern over that person allows leeway for her "small mistakes" regarding other editors who are innocent. Will withdrawing old accusations ensure that new ones never occur? And what about the general pattern of disruption, 3RR etc.? (One reason this is now poorly named—it's only partly about her interactions with Sandy.) Marskell (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate everything said above and (as observed earlier) all the time people are taking to advise me and participate, but, unfortunately, I have also had some quite seperate problems with the other editors named, as well as primarily with SandyGeorgia, which may very well have been exacerbated by the stigma of the stalking, but that is not for me to say, and I cannot possibly be expected to bear false witness against myself.

At this time I do not feel that SandyGeorgia will let me edit Wikipedia in peace even without any special restrictions, let alone with them, so, at this point I must regretfully submit to her refusal to agree to my proposal and proceed with the arbitration as before...after all, it was only a proposal. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If you, Zeraeph, were civil to other editors, did not question their mental health or call them "unhinged" and "sock puppets" just because you don't instantly get your way over an article, and if you did not forum shop and misuse AN/I and article talk pages, there would not have been an occasion for SandyGeorgia to be involved in this. You were blocked over your behavior regarding Psychopathy which has nothing to do with SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia did the decent thing and gave me some verbal advice, none of it untrue, which showed tremendous compassion for me, unfortunately at considerable risk to herself. A giving, helpful, honest editor should not be punished for doing good. Mattisse 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's important to look at this from the Wikipedia perspective. First, we don't know if the allegations of harassment are true, only that the person who edited here as TRCourage is the same person whom Zeraeph alleges has been harassing her in other ways. Someone should look at the edits of TRCourage and A Kiwi to see if the alleged harassment continued here or if A Kiwi was reasonably behaved. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and even if Zeraeph and TRCourage have battled elsewhere, they are not entitled to battle here, and Zeraeph especially is not entitled to continue her battle with TRCourage here if TRCourage's behavior here is acceptable. Second, why did SandyGeorgia get dragged into this at all? By opposing Zeraeph on Asperger's topics, leading Zeraeph to assume SG was TRCourage. But, having accepted that SandyGeorgia is not the same person, Zeraeph still accuses SG of harassing her. Are there diffs showing that SandyGeorgia has been uncivil, harassed or edit warred with Zaraeph? Thatcher 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thatcher, would you like to reconsider the use of the words "opposing Zeraeph" above? It strikes me as a word that draws a conclusion prejudiced against me. I don't oppose editors; I support reliably sourced neutral edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Thatcher meant badly there. Lack of better words and all that. And s/he's right: we have no idea whether TRCourage harassed Zeraeph in the true sense of the word (or vica versa). Marskell (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

---

To clarify, I'm basically asking Zaraeph to withdraw and strikethrough negative statements toward several editors (anyone other than A Kiwi/TRCourage) upon request. Zaraeph, I hope you can understand that some things you may have really believed at the time were mistaken. You were being harassed, but not by these other people. If they wrote a few things that hurt your feelings it's probably because their own feelings were hurt by the accusations. I'm not calling these mistakes minor. Chrisjnelson's mistakes weren't minor either. What I am saying is it now looks like Zaraeph was indeed getting harassed for a long time, and we haven't seen how she would behave without that stress.

Maybe those of you who've been involved in this situation for a long time have formed opinions that aren't compatible with this proposed solution. I understand that I come to this late in the game and without all the information at my disposal. Yet if people object to statements Zaraeph has made offsite, the best way of resolving that is if Zaraeph removes those statements herself. See if you can use this as a starting point for something amicable. If not, then thank you for your time. Durova^Charge! 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with Thatcher's clarification) Read harassed as in conflict with in the above statement until the A Kiwi/TRCourage issue gets clarified. Durova^Charge! 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is it now looks like Zaraeph was indeed getting harassed for a long time, and we haven't seen how she would behave without that stress. I don't agree with this characterization at all. On the bullying topics, it appears that there is one issue going on with one set of people and some sort of connection to Sam Vaknin, and there may indeed be harassment there. In every other situation (alexithymia, asperger, psychopathy, Goebbel's children), Zeraeph has similar disputes in spite of no harassment. I suggest a read of Talk:Alexithymia to decide who is doing most of the bullying, and we have seen at Alexithymia how she behaves in editing an article where she enjoyed more support than Soulgany101. Soulgany was polite and civil; read the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that the stress of harassment can affect a person's judgement in a broad sense. Chrisjnelson was snapping at a lot of people while a banned user's sockpuppet and a sneaky IP vandal were dogging him. After those unusual stresses were removed he behaved more like a normal editor. It's less clear to me now than when it seemed when I wrote the above exactly what Thatcher found and what its importance is. Durova^Charge! 08:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The stress of harassment can affect a person's judgment ... After those unusual stresses were removed he behaved more like a normal editor. Yes, my talk page posts to Mattisse provide another example of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I do not understand this deference to Zeraeph. I had sock puppets Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati stalking me for six months, sometimes 37 reverts in one day, numberous AN/I reports on me, with no Admins willing to help me at all, and I am not accorded any deference for having undergone this experience. And I have contributed over 35,000+ edits to Wikipedia, numerous DKY's, copy edited FAC's etc. Why is everyone so concerned about Zeraeph when she is so clearly out of line, but considering punishing editors that actually contribute is condoned? I don't get it. FAC would grind to a halt if SandyGeorgia didn't do triple over time work on it, besides helping people like me. This is all backwards. Mattisse 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Can this be named back to simply Zeraeph? I quizzed the clerk on why it was changed in the first place after no one suggested it, but received no real answer. The dispute with Mattisse is distinct, to begin with. And if we're going to broaden the naming it ought also to include SlimVirgin, as her unblock is at issue. Let's just shorten it to the principal player. Marskell (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, the only real "principle player" here is SandyGeorgia. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

She isn't central to your dispute with Mattisse, the unblock decision, or even the TRCourage/A Kiwi concerns. Marskell (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A Kiwi, Penbat, Psychonaut, Mattisse, SlimVirgin, and a whole host of issues. Why was my name added ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, proposed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop#Proposed temporary injunctions --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See the section above where I also proposed it as a motion. Jehochman ^Talk 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for doubling. Was writing slowly in order to choose words right (even if it were only a few). Any suggestion for merge, or just leave it in both places for the time being? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I merged them. Marskell (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:From my point of view, the only real "principle player" here is SandyGeorgia. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Another alarming indication that Z doesn't see the breadth of issues here, doesn't understand I'm unrelated to the others, and may not be prepared to let go and move on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, of her own free will, SandyGeorgia chose to involve herself in and exacerbate issues with Mattisse, Psychonaut and TRCourage/A Kiwi and has been harassing me since September 2006, to the extent of effectively driving me off Wikipedia, which caused this arbcom to be called in the first place and I suggest that in trying to have her name removed she is trying to force an unequal resolution in order to have sanction to harass me further with impunity. I cannot show this tonight because I am too ill, and must be in the hospital early, but I can show it. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph, there will quite probably be an injunction that you not refer to one another, which you both seem to desire. Marskell (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would hope so. Now I am really not going to allow myself to be provoked into risking my health, by losing essential sleep, I have COPD and bronchitis could become very serious for me. --Zeraeph (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Was I just accused of harassment again, although we've yet to see a supporting diff ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just drop this. Evidence (or its lack) is becoming clear. Marskell (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Please change the name of this Arbitration as requested. So far there is no evidence against SandyGeorgia that in any way justifies the name change of this Arbitration to include her name. Whoever changed the name was wrong. SandyGeorgia has done much to help people who have been trapped like me. She had the guts to actually look at my contributions to Wikipedia using Kate's tool and, acknowledging the amount and quality of my edits on Wikipedia, apologize to me for suggesting that I earn my way back into Wikipedia's good graces by doing scut work. (unfortunately I cannot find the diff). No admin ever bothers to do that, or even bothers to look at the quality of an editor's contributions before making harsh judgments and sarcastic remarks. I completely understand how she feels unvalued here, and it is only right to remove her name from this. Mattisse 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear

The rename proposal consolidated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop#Rename_the_case. I cut duplicates from Sandy and R Bailey. Marskell (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A case rename must be approved by the arbs. I have brought this issue to their attention. See entry on workshop page.23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedural question regarding evidence not submitted

Am I allowed to ask Zeraeph a question here about her relationship with A Kiwi, considering that I'm not prepared to release the evidence I have that addresses that question, since I don't have permission to release A Kiwi's e-mail? Or would that be seen as unfairly prejucial to Z ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind.[10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring

Would anyone be interesting in guiding A Kiwi (talk · contribs) through this? She posted tonight, and she's not an experienced editor. I helped her through a potentially difficult patch tonight, but it's a bit conflictive for me to be in that position, as my participation with her could inflame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If it meets with everybody's approval, I would be happy to do this. Jeffpw (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd offer; I can't think of a better person :-) Maybe if you drop a note on her talk page now? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jeffpw (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much; it's best that I not assume that role. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to help can, but User:Rlevse is the Arbitration clerk for this case. Thatcher 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have questions, and yes, others can help too as Thatcher stated. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin should never have unblocked Zeraeph - moved from Evidence page

To SlimVirgin from me [11] - Changes made to Psychopathy today, minutes after (Zeraeph) unblocked:

• first revert [12] 17.20 December 28
• second revert [13]-Revision as of 17:41, 28 December 2007
• third revert [14]- Revision as of 17:43, 28 December 2007
• fourth revert [15] -Revision as of 17:46, 28 December 2007
• fifth revert [16] - Revision as of 17:47, 28 December 2007
• sixth revert [17] -Revision as of 17:55, 28 December 2007
• seventh revert [18] - Revision as of 17:56, 28 December 2007
• eighth refert [19] - Revision as of 17:58, 28 December 2007
• ninth revert [20] - Revision as of 17:59, 28 December 2007
• 10th revert [21] - Revision as of 18:00, 28 December 2007
• 11th revert [22] - Revision as of 18:07, 28 December 2007
• 12th revert [23] - Revision as of 18:12, 28 December 2007
• 13th revert [24] - Revision as of 18:14, 28 December 2007
• 14 revert [25] - Revision as of 18:16, 28 December 2007
• 15 revert [26] -Revision as of 18:17, 28 December 2007
• 16th revert [27] - Revision as of 18:22, 28 December 2007
• 17th revert [28] - Revision as of 19:17, 28 December 2007
• 18th revert [29] - Revision as of 19:26, 28 December 2007
• 19th revert [30] - Current revision (19:43, 28 December 2007)

Mattisse 22:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia stood up for me against an Admin's poor judgment - moved from Evidence page

User:FayssalF dismissed my concerns on AN/I.[31] SandyGeorgia posted Oppose to User:FayssalF's RFC [32] (Vote #59) citing specifically his treatment of me on the December 11 AN/I. I cannot express how much it means to me to have someone to have the courage to stand up for me on the basis of Wikipedia philosophy and ideals. She opposed in an election because she felt strongly about certain postings. this and this which she said was uncalled for, uninformed, unhelpful, judgmental, and turned the black pot of frequent forum shoppers and 3RR editors onto the kettle. She stated ArbCom members should be well informed before passing judgment on an editor seeking help in a difficult situation, and when they opine on an issue, they should strive to remember what it's like "out there" dealing with difficult editors and to be very well informed before lodging opinions. SandyGeorgia also detailed my position. Please read, as it describes how editors like me are regularly sacrificed. [33] Without SandyGeorgia, I would have no one in my corner pointing out Admin abuse in a situation like this.

Please read the answer Fayssa1F to my question on December 12 [34] where Fayssa1F lectures me for not doing what I had already done. This is an example of how Admin fails to help editors like me while expending energy on time consuming editors like Zereaph. At the same time Fayssa1F was making fun of me, Zereaph was dialoging on Fayssa1F's talk page, where Fayssa1F starts his/her reply to Zereaph with "Mattisse again!" [35] He says his bad opinion of me is because of my name frequently coming up on AN/I but does not consider that it is editors like the Starwood sock puppets and editors like Zereaph.

The effect of editors like Zeraeph and the sock puppets related to the Starwood Arbitration is that editors like User:FayssalF make comments like "Mattisse, it is not that i have a 'poor opinion' of you. I just see your name being mentioned at the ANI quite often lately. Different users have been bringing their differences with you here. I have no idea whatsoever if your edits are wrong." User:FayssalF did not take my complaint seriously on December 11, thus contributing to the subsequent events of that day, leading to this Arbitration.

I challenge User:FayssalF to provide evidence of frequent complaints about me on AN/I (or whatever he/she is talking about) that are not from Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati (also an Admin who had his edits wiped out and vanished but I can provide his name) or editors like Zereaph.

Please note that at the same time Zeraeph was also dialoging with User talk:LessHeard vanU, for example: [36], [37], [38], [39],

This exceptional lack of awareness and help from Admins is why someone like SandyGeorgia is such an incredibly positive force on Wikipedia, and deserves to be cherished. I would not be able to survive on Wikipedia without the unusual kindness of SandyGeorgia, who took time to give well written replies to the casual responses of Admin. I probably would not have been able to last through this Zereaph episode without SandyGeorgia.

I will not be able to continue on Wikipedia if this pattern of Admins allowing harassment of me and their outright dismissal of my concerns continues. Admins protect editors like Zereaph, as is evident by Fayssa1F failing still to understand the precariousness of my situation. [40] Therefore, there is no hope for me without SandyGeorgia. Mattisse 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Users tagged with a Scarlet Letter

These types of "scarlet letter" postings, such as those of Zeraeph, prompted User:FayssalF to disparage me on AN/I although all he knew about me was through postings by sock puppets from the Starwood articles (resulting in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse and ultimately Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood). The Starwood sock puppets Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati posted so many complaints about me that, although unfounded, nonetheless served the purpose to smear my name (even to User:FayssalF [41] who mades disparaging remarks about me although I did not know him and had no previous contact with him) and to give editor's like Zeraeph a way to use the original issue (for which I was punished with a block of 48 hours in September of 2006) as a gratuitous means to discredit me. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_2. This has resulted in admins refusing to help me or actually underming me. Mattisse 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unequal protection for editors

The last block I received was after a DYK article I wrote was #REDIRECT to another article with no discussion and cut/paste into another article. User:LessHeard vanU, on User:Cyborg Ninja's interference (who had nothing to do with the article but was stalking me), said I had no recourse but to go into mediation as the cut/paste into the new article was incorrect and I was the only one that cared about the incorrect cut/paste which compromised accuracy. I was constantly personally attacked in the mediation by the editor of the other article even though I was the only one contributing to it.

No one would protect me after my repeated begging for protection, so I said unfortunate, angry things (not profane and the obvious result of frustration) to the mediator who refused to protect me. So, of course I was blocked by LHvU without warning, even though I had begged him for protection. Since I stopped working on the other article, no one has improved that article. So the article that I wrote, now redirected, no longer exists and no one cares enough about the other article enought to improve it. And SandyGeorgia refused to have anything to do with me after she found that post.

That is justice here. I do not expect anything more for me. I am not allowed human feeling of frustration in intolerable situations, while LHvU can repeatedly tell people to "fuck off" with no consequence.

I know this is unwise for me to say. But no good will come for me out of this anyway. I have given up hope of that. I am not a valued member of Wikipedia. That is clear. Mattisse 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand wiki can be frustrating, but please continue to edit. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a talk page message for Mattisse, but I haven't heard from her. There is some misunderstanding here. I wasn't aware of LHvU's involvement in this, and I'm not even sure of the full details on what Mattisse is referring to. Is there another LHvU issue involved in this, besides the Ceoil incident ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:LessHeard vanU evidence request

RE your 140 diff request. Users are asked to limit their input to 1000 word and 100 diffs, see the top of the main evidence page for why. The biggest reason is the shorter and more to the point you can make your presentation, the better, without of course, sacrificing what you must say. Please try to focus on the matter and see if you can trim it down some. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am intending to use only some of the diffs on the main page, but I need to establish a timeline that indicates my point that this was a content dispute that could have been resolved between consenting parties, why possibly this did not happen, and how external factors may have caused the matter to derail so explosively. I have the same information on a subpage of mine (I copied it over) but I don't fancy a page of mine becoming part of an ArbCom archive. I note that Zeraeph requested and was permitted a subpage. Cheers. I await your response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think whatever you feel is essential to the case should be presented, even if the guidelines are bent, we certainly don't want to stifle valid evidence. The choice to use a subpage is up to you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard, this case has a complex background, so the more information you can supply, the better, and a timeline is a very good idea. What I did once when I needed to supply a timeline in another case, was I put the most relevant information in my evidence, and then I created a timeline on a usersubpage, and referred the ArbCom to it in my evidence. I've seen evidence presented that was much longer that 1,000 words and 100 diffs, so I don't think that rule is enforced, though probably the more succinct it is, the more likely ArbCom is to read it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

LH, sorry, I just saw that you don't want to use a user subpage. I don't see that anyone would mind if you created an ArbCom subpage, or you could put it on a subpage of one of the article talk pages, if it's mostly relevant to one particular article. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep it on the ArbCom subpage - if it proves too unwieldy, or the mainpage evidence only suffices then it is just a sweep of the mop to remove it. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to invoke the "Right to Vanish"

I am obviously not going to be given a chance to recover from bronchitis and present my evidence, with COPD if bronchitis turns to pneumomia it does irreversible damage. The bronchitis is no coincidence, it's the end result of sitting up around the clock last weekend with all the lies and mindgames and a bottle of Jameson, trying to get some kind of fairness.

Let's get to the bottom line...there is a complex, squalid mess, not of my doing, following me around for the past 9 years. SandyGeorgia is just one of a chain of bullies who jumped on that bandwagon...she won't be the last. I don't know if I could have proved it, but I do know I am innocent, I would never bsay anything bad about anyone unless I was 100% sure it was true. I haven't been given a fair chance to even present evidence, and I obviously won't be...let's face the facts, bottom line is - right or wrong, Wikipedia, as a whole doesn't want me around any more, and after this, the truth is, I don't even want to be here.

I just got a phone call from somebody I thought I would never hear from again, and he is on his way over and, frankly, I can't seem to care what happens here any more. That's real life, this isn't. This project is honestly eating my life alive fruitlessly now, and suddenly my life became far too valuable.

So with my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has put so much time into helping me here, not all of whom began as friends, not all of whom even agree with me, I am invoking the right to vanish and logging out now for good. For the last time. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things. I do believe Z is ill, because I know her pulmonary status. I want this case continued. I want a clear resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Zeraeph is ill or not, but I do know this decision to disappear from this arbitration is just the latest in a string of walkouts during dispute resolution. Whether the case is continued or not, I think enough evidence has been presented to demonstrate that SandyGeorgia is unquestionably the wronged party in this dispute. If Zeraeph does leave, I would hope the arbitration would base its decision on the evidence presented by all parties thus far. It is clear and compelling, and points to the inescapable conclusion that one suer has caused continuing disruption on this project for a very long time, and should not be allowed to continue, should she decide to return again under the name of Zeraeph or any other name. Jeffpw (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I do not question Z's sincerity in intending to leave, but intentions can and do change; given the user's past history of retiring and then returning, I think ArbCom still needs to decide to what extent she's welcome to return.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that all parties should be given the opportunity to give their evidence, whether one of the parties removes themselves or not - all information needs to be considered for ArbCom to come to a proper decision and to provide remedy on all concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph just posted another attack against SandyGeoria, above. Did anybody notice the clerks warning on all the pages? I think Zeraeph has been going around for a long time accusing SandyGeorgia, yet the evidence is nowhere to be found in the record. The inescapable conclusion is that the evidence doesn't exist. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While Zeraeph certainly may be ill, she has continued to unrepentantly argue and attack, yet she still has not posted any diffs to support her claims. Her defenders have also posted no evidence to substatiate Zeraephs apparently false accusations. Zeraeph has left, again. Let's take her word as sincere and wrap up this case. Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I also move that the arbitration be closed, and that no further evidence be presented. As Zeraeph's talk page and userpage history have now been oversighted, it is impossible to access her talk page comments to prove remarks and other attacks she may have made. It would thus place an unfair burden on those responding to evidence presented by other editors, or needing to produce evidence of their own. Jeffpw (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was still intending to put up evidence. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Without Zeraeph's talk page and userpage, I think it might be hard for others to respond to evidence you may present. Any chance of having Z's pages restored until this arbitration is completed? Jeffpw (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom can see it, and very little of my evidence would rely on her talk page anyway. I wouldn't want to restore it, Jeff, as I believe Fred deleted it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But that misses my point, which is that others might need those pages in order to respond to evidence you present. Thus the case becomes unfairly weighted to the advantage of Zeraeph. She left. Her pages are history, and so, presumably, is she. I see nothing to be gained by continuing this process, except more aggravation and ill will. Jeffpw (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole business has been a study in ill will and bad faith, but it has started, and certain allegations have been made, so they should probably be responded to. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than feeding the conflict, wouldn't it be better to show restraint? I have asked for various workshop proposals to be struck. Reasonable people will take heed of the results here. There is no need for the side show accusations against User:SlimVirgin and User:LessHeard vanU. Jehochman ^Talk 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the end goal should be to examine whatever needs to be examined to address any factor that undermines Wiki articles or Wiki's reputation. If off-wiki canvassing and harassment affects articles, we should look at anything we need to do to prevent this from happening again. Last September, I wanted this to be handled with discretion. Because of a communication mixup, that didn't happen. Without getting into confidential info, I all but begged during the AN that this be settled without ArbCom, even putting myself almost on equal footing with Z to try to reach an agreement. My efforts to resolve this in the least damaging way to Wiki were thwarted at every turn. SlimVirgin, I have one question only. When you saw the attack on me on Z's talk page, why didn't you drop me a line, asking for more info? Did *you* assume something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You had every chance to allow this to be handled discreetly by me, LessHeard VanU and DeathPhoenix, but instead you created a firestorm on AN, which led to this.

As for why I didn't e-mail you, why would I e-mail you before contacting the mentor, Sandy? Why didn't you e-mail me? When people have an objection to an unblock, the first thing to do is contact the unblocking admin, not take immediately to AN, especially when you know there are mental health issues involved.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue it out on talk. What has happened here has been the worst of Wikipedia. Instant assumptions of bad faith, conspiracy theories, and mobs, and this is the result. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. I didn't say why didn't you e-mail me. If you had made *any* inquiry at all, I would have referred you to Deathphoenix, so that whatever action you would have taken would have been an informed action. Please stop saying I created a firestorm on AN after many people have pointed out the fallacy in that statement. And how could I e-mail you when I found out about this after you did it and after the disruptive editing and personal attacks resumed ? I didn't take this to AN. I didn't create the firestorm. Please don't confuse issues by introducing statements that aren't true. You still haven't answered the question. When you saw the attack on me on Z's talk page, why didn't you make an effort to find out what that was about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Slim, you are completely distorting the facts, and I can't imagine why. Far from Sandy creating a firestorm on AN, she did not even post to the discussion until 9 hours had passed, and tempers had already gotten out of control. She was one of the few voices of restraint on that discussion, and stated quite clearly that she did not want arbitration, as she knew it would not come out well for Zeraeph. From your first interaction with Zeraeph you have been acting as what looks like an advocate. Now, even after she has disappeared, you want to continue presenting evidence and dragging this out even further. It makes no sense. What do you hope to accomplish? I ask the same of LessHeardvanU, as well, as he seems equally determined to continue this drama. And if this continues, I strongly feel both you and LessHeard's relationship with Zeraeph should be examined. LessHeard, at the very least, seems to have an offwiki relationship with her, if his post to her at Wikipedia review is any indication, so conceivably has a stake in this working out in a better way for her than is currently happening. Jeffpw (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I also knew the potential for unpleasant information to be revealed by anon posters, for A Kiwi to be drug back in by someone e-mailing her (and this is very hard on her), and for Z to walk out as soon as she saw it wasn't going her way. I did not want arbitration; I wanted a settlement, with someone actually monitoring Z this time. Read the AN thread to see who thwarted and misrepresented my efforts. After I announced I was going to be busy with my family for a few hours, the AN thread was closed. Arbitration was initiated against my wishes. I have always agreed with what NYB said last year; that an ArbCom in this situation would be a horror show, and we need to find another way of dealing with sensitive situations. The first part of that is that admins should be aware when they are dealing with complex situations. Is there not some way we can add info to User contribs or Block log, indicating editors who are under mentorship, so that other admins will know who to contact before taking action? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to argue this out on talk. Sandy, you refused several requests from me to stop posting and just to leave Zeraeph alone so that LessHeard, DeathPhoenix, and I could sort it out. Instead, you posted over 50 times to that discussion on AN and various talk pages, and your friends dozens of times (Ceoil alone was almost 40 posts, amid fucktard this and that, with your support) and not once -- not once -- did you e-mail me.

As for your "admins should be aware when they are dealing with complex situations." Please. This is so patronizing. I am not stupid. If you had stayed out of it, it would have been settled in the interests of all concerned, as far as possible, and discreetly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I made this very clear in the evidence phase, but I'll try again. At no time, ever, have I or will I divulge confidential info. The only information I sent to ArbCom is information anyone can find publicly based on Z's own on-Wiki posts. Had you contacted me or I contacted you, at most, I would have referred you to Deathphoenix. When people have an objection to an unblock, the first thing to do is contact the unblocking admin, not take immediately to AN, especially when you know there are mental health issues involved. I may be forgetting something, but where have I discussed mental health issues involved? Where are you getting this information? This has been a long haul, so perhaps I've posted something I don't recall posting. Can you please provide a diff, because as far as I know, I've divulged nothing about diagnoses? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason, this situation got out of control and created a spectacle that was disrupting Wikipedia. For the future, everyone must remember that Wikipedia is not therapy. We don't deal with mental health issues here. Either an editor learns to participate in the community according to our norms, or else we must ask them to leave. A serious conflict was going on for some time, and the administrators who were attempting to handle it were unable to resolve the situation. That is why I brought this matter to arbitration, and that is why the Arbitration Committee accepted the case. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (underline added 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Agreed, Wiki is not therapy, which is why I don't believe you'll find any post where I ever brought diagnoses into this, although others did in their initial statements. I could be wrong, and I may have forgotten something, diff? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am trying not to single people out. I am making a general remark, not directed specifically to you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Agreed. Unless Wiki is willing to open up a mental health clinic, I do not think people should be slinging around diagnoses, whether for themselves or others. I'm quite sure there are many people on wiki dealing with mental issues, just as there are in society in general. This in not the place to "help" self-diagnosed or other-diagnosed individuals. Personal mental health issues, in my opinion, should not be brought up, just as I am not going to discuss my latest surgery scar. Wiki is not Dear Abby. Mattisse 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor can claim whatever conditions they like and try to use them as excuses for special treatment. If somebody has an issue, they can make a generic request like, "I need to take a wikibreak for some amount of time" or "I am feeling wikistress, can you please let me be." If such requests are not abused, we should accommodate them. In the present case, Zeraeph has a history of using retirements to dodge dispute resolution. See The boy who cried wolf. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Support move to close for reasons presented above. The only person who may be able to add new information is Zeraeph's former mentor, Deathphoenix, and since he has not added to his opening remarks, I doubt that he has the time to search through quantities of information and assemble further evidence for this arbitration . Mattisse 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I wasn't aware (or rather, I wasn't thinking enough to be aware) of the conversation going in in Talk/Evidence, so I pretty much missed out on most of the conversation here. First things first, I wanted to point out that there are still edits in Zeraeph's deleted user and user talk histories, so at the very least, Fred didn't perform a blanket oversight (though likely that any public details on her user and user talk pages have been oversighted)...

Now, given that Zeraeph has vanished, I might as well stop compiling my evidence, but really, the only things that I had to do were to identify some of the pages that TRCourage/A Kiwi and Zeraeph edited together, and to get diffs out of those pages... I probably wasn't going to post additional evidence beyond Zeraeph's allegations of cyberstalking, her suspicions of A Kiwi as being a sockpuppet of TRCourage, and how she and A Kiwi were generally able to edit on-wiki, if not without some conflict, then at least without a lot of the malice that people generally attribute to Zeraeph, even while she was suspicious of A Kiwi being TRCourage.

I have talked to other people off-wiki during this arbitration case, so rest assured, my contribution to this case hasn't been solely limited to my one brief statement in /Evidence. I don't know if this case will close with Zeraeph invoking her right to vanish, but regardless of whether it continues or is closed, I remain available for contact for any questions you may have (I still respond to posts on my talk page, or via the email link). --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Open advice to Zeraeph

Like you, I saw an arbitration case proceed to voting phase about me before I was able to present adequate evidence. The remedies that were proposed then weren't nearly as serious, but I understand something about how that feels.

You do have legitimate options and I want to tell you what they are, because I've seen people in similar positions to yours head to places where they got the wrong advice.

• Take care of your health. That comes first, always.
• Once you're back on your feet you can request a case review. If you're banned at that time, make the request by e-mail.
• The responsibility is on you to demonstrate why a review is necessary. So prepare the very best evidence you can.
• A lot of banned editors try to come back on sockpuppets. That's one of the main reasons they stay banned.
• A more effective approach, used by far fewer people, is to become a productive contributor on another WikiMedia project. The smaller projects are usually laid back and friendly, compared to this one. And if you earn a good reputation on one of the other WMF projects, that could help open the door for a legitimate return here.

Durova^Charge! 20:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, while your motives are unquestionably sincere, I am not sure that last point is the best advice to give, and I speak out of recent experience. Please see this thread for an illustration of my reasoning. I recently gave that exact advice, with disastrous results. Respectfully, Jeffpw (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You know what usually happens, though. The editor doesn't realize the ban applies to only one project and one language. So instead of choosing a legitimate route that might actually rebuild a reputation, he or she contacts other banned editors and learns how to evade blocks, etc. Most of their edits don't stick, the bans gets extended, and it's a huge waste of time for everyone involved. They tell each other they can never return to good standing. And then they do things that guarantee they stay banned. Durova^Charge! 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the hypothetical situation is that Zeraeph returns to another project under another name, this would actually be much easier (and legitimate!) than returning to Wikipedia under a new identity... since her new identity would likely be spotted very soon if she were to edit under her topics of interest. These topics might not be as available under other projects as they are here, and they're also not as visible. Durova's advice on starting in a smaller project is legitimate enough. It's a lot harder to start off on en-Wikipedia now than it was back when I started (which wasn't that long ago!)... I'm sure if I wanted to have the same starting experience that I had back then, I'd have to start off in one of the smaller projects now. All this is moot if she doesn't want to contribute to a Wikipedia project in the first place... --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood: if she really has soured for good, then these are wasted words. A lot of editors in her position do prefer to return, though, and they tend to attempt it in self-defeating ways. Which is a shame, because the legitimate paths remain underutilized. Durova^Charge! 05:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's request for clarification of parts of my evidence

Should any response be provided on this page, or another, or on the evidence page (under my evidence)? There is only one matter that the removal of Zeraeph's pages inflicts upon - everything else is recorded elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia continues to use the evidence page to ask questions. Sandy, please remove all the discussion from your evidence and place it here instead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We have clerks to make decisions of this sort. LessHeard has posted a number of inaccuracies on the evidence page; they can be rebutted on same. Marskell (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

They should be rebutted with evidence. A question is not evidence. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Marksell and SlimVirgin are correct. Rebuttals go on the evidence, but in your own section, such as a subsection called "Rebuttal to XYZ on topic ABC". Questions should go here. I have contacted Sandy about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't do this much, but had assumed rebuttals were fine. The evidence in her section is the observation that LessHeard lacks evidence... He's made a variety of assertions without diffs. Marskell (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody provide a diff where Sandy has posted other than in her own section? I cannot find one anywhere on the evidence page. Sandy has a properly titled section regarding LHvU's evidence. The only questions I see there are requests for diffs, which are actually statements in the form of a question. I see no problem in that section. If Slim means that Sandy's rebuttal should be stricken entirely as discussion, then the logical followup question is who will be doing that for Zeraeph, who has exited the arbitration with an evidence section filled with reams of discussion of evidence. If Zeraeph's evidence section is to be allowed to stand without challenge, I see no reason why Sandy's shouldn't be allowed to, as well. Otherwise it would give the appearance of partiality towards one of the parties. If Slim means that Sandy should provide a diff for each assertion, then that should also be asked of LHvU, who has not provided several crucial diffs, and I would ask where Sandy should find many of her diffs, since Zerapeh's talk page history has most inconveniently disappeared. Jeffpw (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of what happened to Zeraeph's talk and user pages and its affect on the case. I'm working on this issue. Everyone please limit the evidence page to evidence, not discussion. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Rlevse; I'm not completely clear on what I need to change, especially in the absence of diffs. I've always posted in my own section, and I've asked for diffs where they weren't provided. I have never followed an ArbCom before; if I have to change something, do I just change it to leave it neat, or do I have to have the messiness created by striking and rewriting? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement that you posted outside of your section was just misunderstanding by whomever. If you need a question answered, post it on this page. I know some diffs can't be found and I'm checking to see if what may be done about it--I have good guess, but I'm checking more before I post a response on it. I am working on some other issues in this thread too but I need more time. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope some leeway is given in how I can present evidence considering that 1) I can't link to WikiReview, 2) I can't link to Zeraeph diffs that are now gone, and 3) I can't link to off-Wiki evidence that includes her real name. All of that combines to put me in a difficult spot. Can you tell me if the edit I just made is the right way to proceed before I continue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me if what I've done so far is correct, or if I should revert and start over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what else to do. I will check back in later today. If what I did was wrong, please revert it all and I will start over tonight.[42] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a simple procedure question; if the questions remain on SandyGeorgia's evidence, then fine. My response will be under my evidence, suitably sub-sectioned, so where SG's queries are posted are a matter for other parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for SlimVirgin

I believe questions can be posted on the talk page.

1. SV, were you aware that Zeraeph had a mentor? Consider my earlier suggestion that we find a way to add something to an editor's log when they are under mentorship, so other admins will know who to contact.
2. SV, did you contact Deathphoenix before unblocking Zeraeph. If so, did he advise that course of action? Deathphoenix's previous approach to Zeraeph was to leave blocks in place while dialogue ensued, for her own protection. I believe that was in her best interest. (See first community ban discussion.)
3. Did you monitor Zeraeph's re-engagement in a content dispute after you unblocked her?
4. Did you monitor the personal attacks she made after your unblock?
5. Why did you not request that she remove the standing attacks from her talk page and user page on me, Penbat, SamVaknin, others (I think, I can't access her talk page now) and the previous blocking administrator either after you became aware of them or as a condition of unblocking? As I recall (no diffs), the first person to remove those attacks was another editor.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these sorts of questions should be on the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jeffpw

1. How did you come across Zeraeph's talk page to see the harassment? From looking at your contribution log, I cannot see any areas of overlap with her or any previous interaction.
2. Did you see the Wikipedia Review thread, which mentioned you and your past history with Sandy before you made the unblock?
3. Before this case, have you ever mentored a blocked user, or advocated for one in an Arbcom case?
4. After reviewing your blocklogs, I note you very rarely unblock users, and then usually after extracting a promise from them to change their behavior. Why was this block an exception to your usual practice?
5. Have you and LessHeard vanU exchanged any emails regarding this situation, either before or after the unblocking? Jeffpw (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Once you became aware of the off-Wiki attacks against Sandy (and you, though those were removed by Zeraeph after you unblocked her), did you not think it necessary to review your block or investigate if Zeraeph had perhaps engaged in more off-wiki attacks or attempts to influence the encyclopedia? A simple google search gave me 3 potential Zeraeph threads relating to Sandy and the contested article. Jeffpw (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[43] [44] [[45]] [[46]]

Zeraeph's user and talk pages seem to have been oversighted as I can't even look at them with my admin tools. All I can say at this point is if you need to refer to it, say something like "Z's page was oversighted, so I can't provide a diff, but as I recall about (date) she said something like (stmt)". — Rlevse • Talk • 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears for me: Special:Undelete/User:Zeraeph. Unless there are specific diff. links that aren't appearing, even there? If so, perhaps the Clerk for this case (Rlevse, I presume?) could email oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org for information? Anthøny 20:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on getting more info on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I'm not an admin and I can't see anything, I'm not clear on where this stands. Are the level of attacks that were standing on Zeraeph's page at the point that she was unblocked, and at each point when anon IP attacks were removed, available to all members of ArbCom? Do all ArbCom members have Oversight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all arbs have oversight, but the pages weren't oversighted (I was mistaken, was looking at the wrong page), but they are all admins AFAIK so they can look at the deleted pages. If you know the perm ID of the page, you can still link to it and any admin can call them up. Keep in mind the case has had some voting start. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no use of oversight on Zeraeph's user/user talk pages; they were merely deleted. Kirill 13:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

per KirillWith regard to the above statement by Kirill, I would further comment that non admins may request the assistance of a sysop to provide the text of any diff. A request to the admin's noticeboard may get the appropriate help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I can respond to q.5 by Jeffpw. SlimVirgin and I have not exchanged emails regarding this matter, or communicated in any way other than the messages to each others talkpage immediately following Zeraeph's unblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RTV deletions involving admins

I am concerned with the deletion of Zeraeph's edits (per RTV) during an active arbcom case. Two of the involved non-admins, SandyGeorgia and Mattisse, are at a disadvantage due to these deletions, as the diffs may only be viewed by administrators, two of which are involved in this case. Courtesy deletions for RTV should be made after closing to avoid this problem in future cases. The present situation gives the appearance of a conflict of interest, favoring administrator access to evidence in a case involving poor judgment and behavior by administrators. —Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I echo these concerns, and have said as much since Zeraeph's pages were so precipitously deleted. The fact that two administrators who are pressing on with both their advocacy for Zerapeh and their contention that responsibility for this dispute sits squarely on the shoulders of SandyGeorgia can access all areas of Wikipedia, including crucial deleted pages, while virtually all others with a differing view have no such access not only gives an appearance of conflict of interest, but actually favors the involved administrators and handicaps the other interested parties. This is why I suggested the submission of evidence be halted from the time Zeraeph left Wikipedia. This request was met with silence by everybody in a position to action that request, except for the involved administrators, who replied that they wished to continue presenting their evidence. This, to me, signals a lack of concern for what the crippling nature of the removal of Zeraeph's pages means to the opposing parties. I therefore repeat my request now. I move that the presentation of evidence be rolled back to 20:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC), the time that Zeraeph left Wikipedia. If this is not granted, I request in the strongest terms that a member of the arbitration committee give reason why this should not be granted, and include the fact that this motion was made in the final decision. Jeffpw (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Arbitration is not a court of law.
2. Given the nature of the decision as proposed, this fight over further evidence—or lack thereof—strikes me as entirely pointless. But that's just me, I suppose.

Kirill 13:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict}

I agree with Viriditas and Jeffpw, especially in view of LHuV contacting SlimVirgin regarding getting together to help Zeraeph on Dec 29 .[47] and their dual involvement in content dispute on Psychopathy, (LHuV on his talk page by Dec. 11 in which Zeraeph accuses me of COI among other things) [48] and both LHuV and Slim Virgin involved on Psychopathy talk page by Dec 29. I am unable to access Zeraeph's talk page, but I remember LHuV posted to her on the subject there also. To me this seems like two admins colluding against less privileged editors. That, combined with LHuV unusually minute analysis of all edits on Psychopathy over the last year, makes the involvement of the LHuV seem biased. Why is he so involved in the content analysis of a subject he admits he knows nothing about? That LHuV was involved in his talk page comments with Zeraeph in her view of the content dispute as early as December 11 seems out of place. Why were Zeraeph's edited wiped out, since the original issue was her talk page, especially in view of the (to me) questionable unblock by SV while personal attacks and other uncivility was still in full view on Zeraeph's talk page? I don't get it. Mattisse 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

LHvU states above that Kirill says I may ask to access Zeraepth's talk page entries. I would like to request this access, please. Mattisse 14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does Kirill say this? I don't see it. If an arb says it's okay, I can help find the diff. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

LHvH says Kirill says this, see above on this page: "per Kirill, non admins may request the assistance of a sysop to provide the text of any diff. A request to the admin's noticeboard may get the appropriate help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)" Mattisse 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's where LH says Kirill said it. Where does Kirill himself say that? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill does not say it - I say it; the term "per Kirill" means, "In regard to the matter commented upon by Kirill" implying that I am commenting on further rather than responding to Kirill. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, LessHeardvanU is still saying that "non admins may request the assistance of a sysop to provide the text of any diff." What would his reason be for saying this if it were not true? Mattisse 21:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Arbitrators have already proposed a decision banning Zeraeph that does not touch on other matters. I think that, in addition to Kirill's comments above, suggests that they are not interested in hearing other matters. If you really want to pursue these additional matters I think you should contact some Arbitrators who have not voted yet to see if they are interested in expanding the decision. If so, they can undelete the pages or instruct the clerks to help non-admins find diffs to link to. If they are not interested in expanding the case, then consider either dropping it and moving on, or else file a new request. Thatcher 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• These are the diffs I need introduced, and I'm not contacting arbitrators who have not voted; I would think they'd be looking at the evidence independently of people making pleas to their talk pages or in e-mail. Regardless of what the committee is voting on, I need those diffs to clear the smear made on my name by the opening statements, which will stand on Wiki unrebutted by evidence with diffs. Alternately, SlimVirgin could strike from her initial case statement the statements that she would have known to be untrue if she had reviewed the page at the time of the unblock, and she should certainly recognize to be unfounded now that she has seen more evidence. The smear on my name is complete: my name was attached to the ArbCom case that extended into issues well beyond my involvement, SlimVirgin's opening statement about me stands unrebutted by diffs that regular editors can see, and most of the diffs showing the longevity, viciousness and severity of Zeraeph's attacks on me, and what I have been dealing with for a year, are gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, please post specific info, dates, who said what, etc, that you would like from talk page. Centralize it here please. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible to post specific info, dates, who said what, etc. without the ability to review the pages in question that everyone else has access to? How could someone remember all that specific info, not knowing the pages and diffs were going to instantly disappear? Mattisse 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just need enough to find the right entry, ie, narrow it down, most talk pages have hundreds, if not thousands of entries. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all I can remember. The last entry from me on Z's talk page was a statement to the effect that even in her request for an unblock, she was continuing to lodge personal attacks on me, that nothing had changed since the whole issue started a year before, and it included a link to the previous community ban discussion on AN, that gave all the history. I believe that was right above the post where she called me a "madam". Since it included a link to the entire previous history, I'm surprised that SlimVirgin says she wasn't aware of the history. It was all in that one link, preceded by and followed by multiple attacks on me by Zereaph. It should be the last line entry on her talk page from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• These diffs will do for a start. I presume that since the url is preserved, even though it returns an error message, an admin can find them? I want to stress that this is an extreme burden to place upon Sandy and others who have evidence to present about Zeraeph's behavior to present. I am beginning to understand why so many are skeptical about the arbcom process here. Jeffpw (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Calling other's comments excrement and projective.

Accusing Sandy of bullying and harassing. Another accusation of harassment Accusing Sandy of Stalking and slander Another accusation of stalking

• I don't know if those are them are not, because I can't see them. I need the text above my last statement on Z's talk page, my statement and the link, and the attack right after that. It is no burden; the holiday I lost is already gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Google cache still has a lot of the pages: here is an archive with the poisonous Madam phrase, for example.[49] Maybe these can help the non-admins track down some aspects of this? Slp1 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

SG: this is your last diff on her page, I think this is it [50]. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Text showing standing attacks and links to past history

Thanks, Slp1 and Rlevse; I can't see the diffs, but I can see the text in google cache which shows the attacks on me before Z's unblock request, my response (that included a link to the full history which SlimVirgin says she never saw), and the attacks on me after my response. I don't know how or where to add this, since I can't see the diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin who has access please add diffs to each of the components below??? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

BEGINQUOTE

Block

I really used to believe in Wikipedia, and I still believe in the intention. It was great that there was a place where it was possible to exclude the self appointed experts who drown out the rest of the web with their self promotion, and actually get support to do so, but when it gets to the stage where I can be blocked for 28 days without breaking a single rule or policy in trying to prevent an editor (User:Mattisse from mischievously destroying a well made, fully cited medical article (Psychopathy). Then I know that there is nothing left worth participating in.

It has been hard for me to participate, because, since September 2006, I have had an hostile editor User:SandyGeorgia tracking my every move and jumping in to fan any flame that occurred near me. The reason for this is simple. Somebody who has stalked me for many years followed me to Wikipedia, and I mistook User:SandyGeorgia for another sockpuppet of this person. I only made the mistake because she behaved like her, in very neutral ways, as well as negative ones, that was a coincidence and in no way my fault.

But ever since the mistake was made User:SandyGeorgia has misrepresented and twisted facts to slander me with impunity. So that, on Wikipedia I have never been given a chance to be judged by who I am, or how I edit, but rather by a vindictive smear campaign. I have tried avoiding her, but she followed me any time she had a chance to exacerbate a problem, I have tried to heal that breach (though after everything she has done to me it honestly stuck in my craw - I gave it a very sincere try), but it was pointless.

Like everything I guess Wikipedia is getting to a point where "who bullies rules". That is terribly sad...Jimbo isn't like that AT ALL...a lot of admins aren't like that either...but still it's happening, and what was once a great project, that just for a little while, almost in defiance of every law of nature and anthropology, actually WORKED is crumbling into yet another bear pit where only the unscrupulous ever triumph.

For what it is worth I am a person to whom decency, honesty and honor are very important, my participation here was always 100% sincere, and 100% by the book. My only motivation here has always been to produce the most accurate, balanced articles possible. I have never schemed behind the scenes, nor have I ever acted from malice at any other editor, including the stalker who followed me here A Kiwi. For many months I edited with her as civilly and co operatively as if she were a stranger, and no-one will ever know what it cost me to do that after everything she has done to me, and members of my family over years, but those were the rules, so I stuck to them. A lot of good it did me. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are still using disrespectful language towards another wikipedian. You are not acknowledging my advice about using proper ways of wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you two strongly disagree about article content, you must engage other persons. However the discussion must be about article content, not about how bad another person is or was. `'Míkka>t 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to engage "other persons" and was banned for it. I only discussed content on Talk:Psychopathy but not so User:Mattisse and CERTAINLY not so User:SandyGeorgia here [16] (just for example). You choose to ignore (and, arguably, even facilitate) that far more "disrespectful language" used of me first, and far more frequently by "another Wikipedian" so what does anything you say, without even the most basic sense of justice or fairness, mean to me? Whatever I do you have shown me you will never treat or regard me equally with others. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is first of all about writing articles, not about seeking justice. Once again, please discuss article content. Please seek for resolution for the content dispute, not your personal dispute. `'Míkka>t 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is no excuse for your blatant disregard for both facts and fairness in banning me. User:Mattisse was skillfully and systematically disrupting a well cited medical article, and blatantly abusing the talk page. User:SandyGeorgia was interfering by posting blatant and thoroughly dishonest personal attacks on me 17 to exacerbate the situation, and you ban me, who spent hours responding civilly to abuse insanity and nonsense on Talk:Psychopathy and who responded to User:SandyGeorgia's personal attack (and a year of bullying and harassment) with a single, civil line [18]. Seeing you show that kind of blatant partiality and disregard for both facts and policy, I don't honestly think you should be a syssop, and if you want to sanction me further for being honest about that, you will only reinforce that impression. --Zeraeph (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you continue your aggressive behavior, you will be blocked from editing this page as well. You were blocked for apparent disruption of editing in the article Psychopathy. Now, I am asking the last time: are you willing to cool down and discuss disagreements about article content? `'Míkka>t 15:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked. You may request another review, frequently up to a maximum of two per year per block, by adding another unblock request.

Request reason: "I haven't actually done anything to warrant any kind of block, there was no 3RR, I was incredibly careful to avoid any incivility despite constant provocation, a 28 day block is unbelievable"

---

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)

Considering I didn't have to act "inappropriately" to get blocked in the FIRST place, isn't that just one, long, convoluted oxymoron when you get right down to it? Anyone worthy of being an Admin would check the "history" and recognise that it is ALWAYS the same people involved, and, wonder, just wonder, if I might be the only one telling the truth here after all. --Zeraeph (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)" }}

Just in her "defense" here and unblock request, Zeraeph has called A Kiwi a stalker who has caused damage to her (Zeraeph's) family, accused me incorrectly of tracking all her moves and slandering her, and she has still has a message on her userpage accusing both of us (unnamed, but clear) of same, which has been there for about three months. The issues continue, as they have, unchanged, since this first started a year ago.[51] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, you DO track my moves and you do slander me...as a regular way of life as you did here [20]. I do not make personal attacks like that on you. Frankly, you only got me the ban last year by slandering me, as well you know, and I am sick of pretending otherwise. If there is the slightest hint of any disagreement or animosity you jump in to fan the flames. If I try to seek other opinions you jump in to stir things and accuse me of "forum shopping" and try your best to get me banned, as you did here earlier in the week [21] You are also fully aware that what I say of User:A Kiwi is true. I think I have have as much right to be open about it as any other editor (eg User:Psychonaut). I have repeatedly asked you to bring these issues to arbcom, and get them properly resolved, but you refuse to do so. The days when I would swallow all this abuse and bullying from you in silence are over. I now know that I never should have done that at all. But back then I still thought you had I conscience, but I know different now...and BTW...posting here to stir things up might not have been the wisest way to "show" that you never track me or try to make problems for me.--Zeraeph (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally Sandy, you are misreading me badly, because now I know that whatever I do, as long as you can identify me on Wikipedia you will go on bullying me and scheming to ensure that I never get to participate here on equal terms, and that nobody can stop you doing that, there in no point in me caring what happens now...there are some people you cannot impose your abusive control on no matter HOW much time and effort you put into bullying and undermining them - I am one of them.

I know exactly why you will never let anyone put you up as Admin, because if you did ALL the people you have been covertly bullying would have no option but come out of the woodwork to oppose it, just to stop you making their lives hell.

I had good reason to mistake you for "A Kiwi"...you are just like her...the same kind of bully, the same unscrupulousness, the same egomania, the same malice, even the same capacity for obsession (the effort you have put into your hate campaign against me alone is sick obsession enough), and I see other people are starting to notice that too.

If you think I will retract and apologise for telling that truth in return for the dubious pleasure of being hounded by you for another few months (which is all that will happen) you are out of your mind.

To cap it all, as I found out this year, your apparently impeccable content isn't so good at all if one looks closely, 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...--Zeraeph (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

ENDQUOTE SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No longer know what the issues are -- behind scenes stuff at wikipedia is scary

I am completely lost. I do not know if I am being blamed for something or not. I do not have access to most of the information that LHvD and SV have, but they seem to be accusing me of something. (Maybe not. I don't know.) I am not sure what my role is here, if any. I realize that I know nothing about all the "behind the scenes" stuff that goes on at Wikipedia and it is more than a little scary. Mattisse 21:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is, Mattisse, but please rest easy. It appears is not about you or all of Z's behaviors with other editors across other articles. Please don't be troubled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)