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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

~~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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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.[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Good. If these proceedings shed light on your stalker and help remove that problem, I will be pleased. Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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