Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Rlevse (talk | contribs)
93,195 edits
close stamp
Rlevse (talk | contribs)
93,195 edits
(No difference)

Revision as of 14:13, 14 January 2008

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

Case Closed on 14:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


Involved parties

Statement by Jehochman

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

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

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

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

Statement by Zeraeph

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

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

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

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

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

  • In response to Kaypoh if I may, and also correcting a mistaken impression Marskell has expressed.
I did genuinely mistake SandyGeorgia for a person who has stalked me online for many years Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi. It was a mistake that anyone could make. I have neither thought, nor said, that SandyGeorgia is the same person as that stalker since then. Kaypoh, you are quite right "SandyGeorgia talks about Zeraeph makes her more scared.". Every time there is the slightest conflict in my editing (just in the normal way that affects anyone else), SandyGeorgia attaches herself to that conflict and strives to exacerbate it. See full text User:Zeraeph/arbcom#Kaypoh and Marskell
  • Comment for JzG, Asperger syndrome is not a mental illness, but a form of Autism, which, while leaving the individual especially vulnerable to teasing and baiting also predisposes the individual to literal and impartial thinking. --Zeraeph (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that *being there* for SandyGeorgia to attack [1] and [2] actually constitutes any form of harassment? Though I feel it of no relevance to resolving this problem, I do also have some doubts about the value of her contribution [3]--Zeraeph (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC) See full text User:Zeraeph/arbcom#JzG[reply]
JzG, do you want to include the question of whether people with Asperger Syndrome should be excluded from participation in Wikipedia because of their specific difference in this request for arbitration? --Zeraeph (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Marskell. The solution offered by SandyGeorgia [4] was unworkable because it asked that I agree to submit my future choices to SandyGeorgia's control (in the last two clauses), and the penalties were so unequal. Agreeing to this would resolve nothing and actually place me in a worse position than at present and my present position is intolerable. My solution is absolutely equal in every respect [5] and only makes us equal in terms of our dealings (or, hopefully, lack of them) with each other, in any other matter the usual policies apply independently anyway and if either of us needs censure that badly there are plenty of other editors to do it.--Zeraeph (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC) See full text User:Zeraeph/arbcom#Marskell[reply]
  • Jeffpw, I am sorry, you are correct, Jimbo did not personally overturn the block but left it to the blocking admin to do so after stating "I think Zeraeph has a very good point here and should not have been blocked for this. Even the so-called "direct appeal to Jimbo" is being misrepresented here as being part of "forum shopping" when it specifically declines to ask for my support, and is just asking me for my advice." [6]. I too encourage close scrutiny of all the evidence with an open mind, because it is only through such that my name will finally be cleared --Zeraeph (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merkinsmum, technically I suppose I should have no problem with SandyGeorgia "airing her opinions" of me, as long as she takes scrupulous care to adhere to the full facts as known to her, and expresses opinion as opinion and as long as I have an equal right to air my opinions of her at will, without censure, however, I do not think that trying to invoke such a right equally will ever resolve this problem, nor do I think it is necessary or advisable to the development of Wikipedia as a whole. I think we both need to stop talking about, and forget the existence of, each other, and that might not be a bad general rule, either? --Zeraeph (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durova, I believe that we have never come across each other before, would you agree with that? Might I ask you to produce some diffs to support your statement "Zaraeph makes personal attacks so habitually that some people appear to have become inured and fail to block for it.", half a dozen or so should be enough at this stage.--Zeraeph (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, I appreciate your apology, more than I can say, too few people have the the grace and guts to just apologise like that. Obviously my alarm was unwarranted, but I had no way of knowing that at the time. I do feel alarmed when someone who does not know me loses their temper and says things to others that are not true about me, (even if they believe them to be) without even trying to ask me about them first. I feel even more alarmed when I realise that person may be in the same place where I shop and socialise. But I am glad to know that my first impressions of you were so wrong. --Zeraeph (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important for me to point out that, as far as I can tell (and if you know differently, please show me), except as related to the editing of articles during August and September of this year I did not initiate a single mention of SandyGeorgia on-Wiki at all, let alone make a personal attack, only responding to attacks made on me, between the end of the related ban in early September 2006, and 12 December [7] and even that was in response to finding myself blocked for 28 days after this [8]. I cannot see how anyone could accuse me of "harassing" SandyGeorgia, and I would like to ask that all such accusations made against me be justified (with diffs), or struck out. Thank You. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by LessHeard vanU

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

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

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

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

Statement by SlimVirgin

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

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

My involvement: Zeraeph was recently blocked for a month by Mikkalai over behavior during a content dispute with Matisse at Psychopathy. Z asked to be unblocked, and in the course of looking at that, I saw that some anons had left personal attacks on her talk page e.g. these comments, which I removed. Mikkalai said he didn't mind if I reviewed the case and unblocked Zeraeph early [9] (she was two weeks into her block), so I did. At that point, I was unaware of Zeraeph's long dispute with SandyGeorgia.

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

Several people have tried to intervene to sort things out. Jimbo intervened on Zeraeph's behalf some weeks ago, [10] when she was blocked in part for "forum shopping," after asking Jimbo for advice about a dispute. LessHeard vanU was also helping out. Yesterday, I asked SandyGeorgia to disengage from Zeraeph and allow others to decide how to proceed. Her response was to accuse me of being an "involved" admin, for reasons that remain unexplained. She also didn't want to agree to any disengagement arrangement that implied parity between her and Zeraeph. Sandy also criticized LessHeard VanU's impartiality. Given this animosity and the complex dynamics, it seems that an ArbCom case is the only way to hear all sides fairly. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to Marskell's point above that talks are continuing at AN, there has been no resolution and the discussion has been archived. [11] SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mikkalai

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Ceoil

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

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

Statement by SandyGeorgia

As discussed in the September 2006 community ban proposal of Zeraeph, evidence will show a long history of accusations of stalking by Zeraeph towards several parties, off-Wiki disputes in which I'm not involved that were carried over to Wiki, that my contact with her was only because of a featured article review of Asperger syndrome, that she walked out of three mediations, that a checkuser failed to substantiate her claims, that she has had the full benefit of a mentor and support at the highest levels of Wiki while my situation was ignored and I had to deal with the year-long harassment alone, that evidence of her attacks on me and the long-standing history was in plain view on her talk page when SlimVirgin unblocked, that she has had multiple issues with multiple users on multiple articles, that she forum shops, that she only edits articles in which she has an off-Wiki advocacy stance while I edit many articles across the breadth Wiki has to offer, that I have no emotional investment in the articles edited rather came to them via featured article review and stayed after I became aware of Zeraeph's off-Wiki canvassing against the articles, and that even after Zeraeph realized I was not the person she calls her "stalker", she continued to harass both me and that user on and off-Wiki, on Wikipedia Review, on maillists, and on other websites. Evidence will show I have never done anything to warrant her behavior towards me, and that in spite of me responding to her request for assistance on articles she edits and editing collaboratively with her, she was attacking me offsite within weeks of my assistance. Evidence will show that my attempts to remedy this situation with discretion, by supporting mentorship or editing restrictions and refusing to call for a ban at WP:AN, have not been successful, and the unsubstantiated attacks on me continued throughout. Evidence will show that my editing with Zeraeph has been cooperative and according to policy, while she has engaged in personal attacks, harassment, assumption of bad faith and off-Wiki attacks and canvassing against Wiki. The premature unblock of Zeraeph, with standing attacks against me and evidence of a long history of disruptive behavior on her talk page and user page at the time of the unblock,[12] was unwise and did not appear to consider the severity and long history of issues involved. Evidence will show that SlimVirgin was not an uninvolved admin, and did not disengage when several suggested she do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/2/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Passed 9 to 0 at 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

External conduct

2) While users' conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, the Committee may choose to consider off-wiki activities which are egregiously disruptive to the project in determining findings and sanctions.

Passed 9 to 0 at 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

3) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums, if at all.

Passed 9 to 0 at 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Zeraeph

1) Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith. In particular, she has repeatedly and unapologetically accused a fellow editor of harassment, stalking, and other egregiously inappropriate behavior; and has made such accusations not only on Wikipedia itself, but also in external forums.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Remedies

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

Zeraeph banned

1) Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Enforcement

Log of blocks and bans

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph&oldid=184253882"