Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:34, 4 January 2008

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Rename the case

1) The case is renamed to Zeraeph.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We don't think this is necessary at this point. Cases have been renamed in the past towards or at the conclusion of the proposed decision stage, and if at that time a change is warranted then it can certainly be made. --bainer (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

There are multiple conflicts centering on Zeraeph. SandyGeorgia is not central to this case and is suffering from undue attention created by adding her name to the title. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. There are distinct issues in play, some of which Sandy is only tangential to. Marskell (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, SG is not the concern here. What ever role she played does not rise to the level of having the case partially in her name. R. Baley (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supported with separate proposal; merged. Proposed per Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence#Rename --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deny This arbcom has arisen directly from issues between SandyGeorgia and myself, the other parties were only brought in to try and create imbalance in her favor. 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. I ask for 7 days to recover and do so before any renaming is considered --Zeraeph (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Zeraeph's incivility, refusal to discuss issues on article talk pages, personal attacks against me, and forum shopping to at least three admins on December 11 (see diffs under my section, (User:FayssalF, User:LessHeard vanU, SlimVirgin, and on AN/I) had nothing to do with SandyGeorgia. Mattisse 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Sandy is a minor figure in this case, as is becoming increasingly clear as the evidence is being presented. Zeraeph has issues with multiple editors, there is the question of the inapproporiate unblock and admin involvement in an off wiki site, and above all, it seems clear from reading this arbitration that it is almost solely about Zeraeph's disruption and attakcs on other editors. To include Sandy's name when she is only tangentially related to the abritration as a whole unfairly besmirches her well deserved excellent reputation on this project. Jeffpw (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A case rename needs to be approved by the arbs. I will ask them about this on everyone's behalf. It may well be a motion they make on the Proposed decisions page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators are aware of this motion now and will vote on a motion to rename the case if they consider it necessary. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, could bainer or someone else actually explain? Marskell (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of some of the issues now in evidence because of what I could find on Google, but I had never been able to sort out the Vaknin issues. The case has now moved well beyond the pieces I was involved in, yet my name is still on it; now that we're into narcisstic personality disorders, books, banned editors I've never dealt with and all matter of other unpleasant affairs, I really think we should get an explanation to why my name is still attached. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Questions from Marskell for committee

Two:

1. Are their previous statements of principle or findings of fact regarding launching attacks on WP editors off-site, such as at Wikipedia review? Is it cause for censure or is it ignored as beyond the ambit of adminstrators and the committee? (Note, I don't mean simply logging into WR—we're all free to do that—but using it as a forum for attacking editors.)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Remedies, the pertinent part of which is " links to (name removed by me) may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it."..."Users who are current or past editors of Encyclopædia Dramatica are reminded of the vast policy differences between Wikipedia and (name removed by me) and admonished to wear their Wikipedia hats while here." — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Sandy has said in her evidence that she twice contacted the committee some time ago with concerns over Zeraeph but received no response. Will someone confirm that? I have no reason to disbelieve it, though missives may have since been deleted from inboxes. It contributed to a feeling of isolation, judging from her statements. Marskell (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy emailed me in September 2007. I forwarded the messages to Newyorkbrad but neglected to reply directly, for which I owe her an apology. (I was too busy at the time to get involved.) She makes reference to me being an Arbitration clerk, but that gives me no additional authority and is not the same as emailing Arbcom directly. If I had stepped in, it would have been as any other ordinary admin. Thatcher 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; I did not say I e-mailed the committee. I understood I was e-mailing an independent admin/ArbCom clerk. I did feel confused and ignored, but no apology is needed. We're all volunteers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard stuff. Kirill 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed - uncontroversial, and relevant to this case. Orderinchaos 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Marskell (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

2) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More standard stuff. Kirill 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed - uncontroversial and relevant to this case. Orderinchaos 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Marskell (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

3) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those with whom they have had conflicts in the past.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

More standard stuff. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

4) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Editors who have had off-wiki conflicts with each other are expected to behave according to Wikipedia community standards while editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility

5) Editors are responsible not just for their intentions, but also for the effects of their actions. Mistakes may be made and forgiven in good faith, within reasonable limits. When a well-meaning editor consistently errs in a particular area, the sensible solution is for that editor to seek out a reliable advisor and to solicit feedback in advance of posting, and for that editor to assume proactive responsibility for correcting his or her own mistakes. This basic approach applies to any site policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 05:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Zeraeph fails to assume good faith

1) Zeraeph habitually fails to assume good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is based on the evidence presented by Zeraeph, and the history references throughout the evidence page. In particular: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Evidence#Questions for User:Penbat. What evidence is there to suggest that these comments are made by User:Penbat? Penbat has been with the project since April 2006 and has a clear block log. Given Zeraeph's participation at Wikipedia Review, there are likely to be multiple trolls having fun at her expense. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I have chosen to ask penbat, on his honor, if he made those edits, (NOT accused him of it) rather than ask for a checkuser, because an anon from the same IP provider with the same geo-location has posted similar edits to Penbat over time such as [1]and[2] and has posted links to Penbat's admitted [3] personal website[4], all long before I ever posted to WR. Just how much good faith do you think I should be expected to show? --Zeraeph (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking if somebody has engaged in disruptive sock puppetry and personal attacks is equivalent to an accusation. You did not file a request for checkuser, nor suspected sock puppet report at the time of the incidents, and only raised the complaint after User:Penbat presented evidence against you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you call this [5] an example of "assuming good faith"? --Zeraeph (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the allegations and evidence presented by Penbat are verifiable, which I have not checked yet, I certainly will propose a finding on that basis. That's why we are here, to evaluate the evidence and propose findings, principles and remedies. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support - per evidence under headings:

Gratuitous sock puppet accusations by Zeraeph

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

Zeraeph does not AGF submitted by me on the Evidence page. Mattisse 01:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeraeph makes personal attacks

2) Zeraeph habitually makes personal attacks against other users. e.g. [6], [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe the evidence supports this finding. Irrespective of what others do to Zaraeph, there is no excuse for accusing other users of "not making any sense" because they are "unwell". Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support if "...including unsubstantiated accusations of off-site stalking" is included. We could have a separate finding for that but can probably wrap it into here. Marskell (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeraeph Games Dispute Resolution

3) Zeraeph has a history of retiring or backing out of dispute resolution, and then returning to the style of editing that caused the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I see no evidence at all for this claim

I see evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph/Evidence#Zeraeph has a history of "retiring" and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome. Jehochman ^Talk 05:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Original locus of dispute

4) Zeraeph first came into conflict with SandyGeorgia in July 2006 at Asperger Syndrome, which was undergoing Featured article review. Zeraeph accused SandyGeorgia of controlling the article and was repeatedly uncivil [8] and assumed bad faith [9] [10] [11].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger Syndrome

4.1) Other than a trivial edit in February 2006 [12] SandyGeorgia's first edit to Asperger Syndrome was during its Featured Article Review [13]. Zeraeph filed several complaints against SandyGeorgia; when pressed to provide evidence of her complaints against Sandy, Zeraeph offered this list of complaint reports. A review of the complaints and of Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive06 and Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive07 does not support the allegations against SandyGeorgia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bit wordy, but if there is any evidence when this first blew up in 2006 that SG was abusive in any way, I haven't found it yet. Thatcher 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of stalking and harassment by Zeraeph against SandyGeorgia

5) Zeraeph accused SandyGeorgia and Keyne (talk · contribs) of being sockpuppets because they supported each other against Zereaph in the dispute at Asperger Syndrome (disproven by Checkuser). Zeraeph also accused SandyGeorgia of being "erotomanic stalker who attached herself to both myself and one other person since February 1999." [14] [15]. Although Zeraeph now acknowledges this was "a mistake that anyone could make" (Arbitration statement ) and "a very small mistkae [16]. (Question, was this admitted earlier?)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Z says she apologized and/or retracted earlier, but I don't recall ever seeing it or being aware of it. The first real retraction/apology I saw was on the recent AN thread. If this was admitted earlier, I don't know where to begin looking for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 00:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Kiwi

6) A Kiwi (talk · contribs) apparently is the person whom Zeraeph accuses of a campaign of harassment and stalking (see [17], [18], [19] and other evidence that will be emailed to Arbcom). In 2006 Kiwi sent multiple e-mails to SandyGeorgia regarding Zeraeph. [20] [21] [22]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A Kiwi appears to be no longer active on Wiki, is possibly unaware of these proceedings, and I do not have A Kiwi's permission to release e-mail that could clarify the relationship between Zeraeph and A Kiwi wrt the "stalking" allegations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will be needed. Wikipedia is not a battleground. People who battle in real life are expected to behave themselves while editing here. The question is, was A Kiwi in any way abusive to Zeraeph in her on-wiki edits. Thatcher 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher 00:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Kiwi's editing

6.1) A Kiwi (talk · contribs), regardless of her real-life identity and past interactions with Zeraeph elsewhere, does not appear to have violated any community standards of behavior in her Wikipedia editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Difficult to prove a negative, of course, and this can be retracted if there is evidence to the contrary. Thatcher 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penbat and Radyx

7) Penbat (talk · contribs) and Radyx (talk · contribs) have a history of editing topics related to Narcissism and Workplace bullying. They have accused Zeraeph of "destroying" the article Workplace bullying [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. Penbat edits from the same ISP and range as these anonymous comments [29] [30] [31] and these edits adding links to www.bullyeq.com [32] [33]. Radyx has previously been warned about linkspamming [34] the web site www.mobbing.ca, also about bullying.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Vaknin

8) Samvak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Sam Vaknin, an author and media analyst. Vaknin has published a book on Narcissistic Personality Disorder and is held be some to be an expert on the topic. Zeraeph disputes this, and had heavily edited the (now deleted) article Sam Vaknin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Vaknin. Zeraeph was largely responsible for the indefinite banning of User:Samvak for sockpuppetry, although the block is out of proportion to the cited behavior. (See sockpuppetry investigations first, second, third, and fourth.) Zeraeph has made personal attacks against Sam Vaknin [35] [36]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sam Vaknin is an unqualified sometimes self styled "financial analyst" other times self styled journalist who cannot possibly be considered a WP:RS who chose to present himself as such. I am sure Fred Bauder can confirm that during the past year I approached him myself and asked if, at least, some aspect of this block could be reconsidered. As it did not seem fair. However, far from being "run off Wikipedia by Zeraeph" Sam Vaknin is the author of such articles as "The Six Sins of the Wikipedia" and made several public (and I am told, private) legal threats against Jim Wales and the Wikimedia foundation. I will forward one of these to arbcom now. --Zeraeph (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Sam Vaknin's alleged anti-social activites commence before or after the interactions with Zeraeph? Jehochman ^Talk 05:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Looks like she ran him off. No other reason for the ban is logged or described on his talk page except for editing from IPs for self-promotion. Thatcher 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous attacks against Zeraeph

9) Zeraeph has been the target of anonymous attacks, most likely related to previous off-wiki disputes. Other than the comments noted above which may be linked to User:Penbat, no evidence ties these edits to any registered users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't know how common or widespread these attacks have been, User talk:Zeraeph has only been semi-protected once. I'm sure this has negatively affected Zeraeph's editing, but it does not excuse her poor conduct. Thatcher 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by Zeraeph

10) Zeraeph has made multiple personal attacks against several Wikipedia editors. She has also confirmed that post at Wikipedia Review attacking SandyGeorgia and Mattisse was made by her [37].

Samvak (talk · contribs) [38] [39]
SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) [40] [41] [42] [43]
Mattisse (talk · contribs) [44] [45] [46]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeraeph has edit-warred

11) Zeraeph has edited warred, see block log and evidence, another example, another block, more.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher 04:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

By Zeraeph

1) I hope this is the right place to, semi-formally, share some changes in my thinking that have resulted directly and indirectly from this arbitration to date, if not, I am sure someone, from arbcom, will do me the courtesy of copying or moving this as an whole, or in parts to the relevant places and appraising me of what they have done?.

I do not personally feel that it solves very much for SandyGeorgia and I to hurl accusations and refutations at each other, or for anyone else to do that on our behalfs. Surely that is the very thing that this arbitration is aimed ending? Unfortunately, as yet, nobody else has suggested or agreed to any solution that would be fair and effective from my point of view (and I am sure SandyGeorgia would make exactly the same claim).

As this unfolds I am beginning to see that even I, from entirely my own point of view, have yet to suggest a solution that is fair to the wider community of Wikipedia. Nobody has the right to stak a person as I have been stalked, and nobody has the right to use or hold that ongoing assault against me, but on the other hand, and there IS always at least one other hand, look what I just said myself [47] no matter how innocent and honest, and in this matter I truly am, I am beginning to see that there is no justification for me to knowingly be the cause of exposing others to such as well, which is an aspect that I realise I have previously ignored. So I would now like to offer a proposal for consideration that takes this into account.

I propose that I be offered the opportunity for the identity of Zeraeph to leave Wikipedia for good, without prejudice, and with protected acknowledgement that this is a voluntary decision, made for the good of the community, exonerated from any claims based on undisclosed email correspondance or similar and with permission and welcome to return under any other username, but with the proviso that I understand that if I, in any way, allow that new identity to be recognised I will be subject to an immediate indefinate ban without further appeal. It is not my fault, in any way, that I am being stalked, but I see that I must now accept the I am responsible for ensuring that stalking does not adversely affect Wikipedia and other editors.

I propose that the identities of User:TRCourage and User:A Kiwi be subject to an indefinate ban. Which will, in effect place then in much the same position as myself, and seems perfectly fair under the circumstances.

I also propose that SandyGeorgia (and all parties involved) agree to refrain from any future mention of, or allusion to, me (including, but not limited to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Psychonaut/User_watchlist and similar) and that at least SandyGeorgia agree to be bound to a penalty of a one week block in the event of default, unless to show that I have allowed myself to be recognised under a new identity.

It seems to me that these proposals offer the fairest possible solution for all concerned and for the general community of Wikipedia, and I specifically ask all to quietly consider, in your own minds, everything that you may take for granted, and I must resign, in order to accept this agreement, before making any decision upon it. --Zeraeph (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Editors normally have the right to vanish. See the talk page for comments on process. User:TRCourage and User:A Kiwi haven't even been named as parties, and ArbCom does not order community sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the word "community" to "indefinate" as this was already pointed out to me. The right to vanish is not exactly applicable, what I suggest is a modification of that. --Zeraeph (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

SandyGeorgia has already agreed not to talk about Zeraeph [48] and has struck some comments from her talk page. Considering that Zeraeph has been repeatedly blocked for making unsubstantiated personal attacks (mainly against SG), and SG has never been blocked I don't believe that a one-week block would be warranted for SG if she just mentions Z's name. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these proposals, I think Z could move on to a new username, but based on history I think z will still be identifiable. I have no comment on bans for the users that Z doesn't like. I don't agree that Sandy should have any sanction whatsoever. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already offered to move for a dismissal of this case. If Zaraeph decides to use the right to vanish then that would fit with dismissal. Durova^Charge! 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with dismissal at this time. There is no indication that the matter has been settled. Even if Zeraeph vanishes, which might be helpful, there should be findings of fact, and possibly remedies, that can be used to resolve any behavior problems under the new account. Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I believe I already covered that by offering to accept a lifetime ban in the event of letting the new account be identified. It doesn't get any heavier than that. In addition it is not my intention that the new account be disclosed to anyone, to ensure that if I ever reveal it myself there is no chance it could have been leaked, as such a penalty is at stake I believe I am entitled to that. In every other way the new account will be treated like any other editor, and if it doesn't seem wrong unless you know ity is me then it probably isn't wrong at all.

Karanacs, I do not see any reason for me to trust a personal agreement without sanction. As there is no conceivable excuse for SandyGeorgia to mention me at all, unless my new identity reveals itself (which is exempted), the sanctions are by way of a formality and a gesture of goodwill towards my willingness to abandon all the projects that really matter to me for good to resolve this.

Rocksanddirt, I take your point, but those two accounts are only one person, not two, and it isn't about "dislike" that person has not only engaged in stalking me, but also represents a risk to other users, (evidence has been offered for consideration, but only to arbcom - it cannot be publicly posted). My reasoning is this. If both IDs are blocked indefinately, she will, of course, be able to create a new ID, but like myself, she will be in a position where, if that ID identifies itself by trying to cause a problem she can be immediately blocked, if not, she can edit like anyone else. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lifetime ban is excessive. Keep in mind that your editing style may unintentionally reveal your identity if you return with a new account, and that some other editor may make the connection. If that happens, you should not be banned. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's started, I would oppose any dismissal at this point. Zeraeph has repeatedly posted retirement notices and come back, so it wouldn't be a solid basis for dismissing. Lifetime ban if a second account is discovered with first inactive? That's a recepie for drama and is unfair to you, Zeraeph. The committee should ban or not ban right here, and leave it at that. And, unless, you move to totally different topic areas, any second account will almost certainly be deduced.

Some form of "do not refer to one another" will have to be included, though it can't be too rigid. A block injunction specific to Sandy makes no sense, as she has no block record. Marskell (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell you have never show the slightest concern with being fair to me in the past, so I would ask that you do me the courtesy of not pretending it now. The indefinate ban if the first is discovered is not "unfair" it is my suggestion and choice to which I will agree voluntarily as a means of assurance that I am intending none of this can ever happen again, and that nothing of this nature can even happen once. I believe that without SandyGeorgia knowing who I am to cause trouble for me, there will be no trouble. However I am happy to agree to a mutual injunction with equal block penalties, because such is moot, if I am shown to be mentioning SandyGeorgia again I will be subject to a lifetime block anyway, which seems the quintenssence of the unequal penalties you are so keen to see imposed. --Zeraeph (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeraeph placed on no personal attack parole

2) Zeraeph is not to make personal attacks against other editors, and is abmonished particularly for unsubstantiated claims of off-site stalking. Should Zeraeph make such claims again she may be blocked in accordance with the enforcement description below. Sanction for other types of personal attacks should be handled in accordance with policy and Zeraeph's overall record. Should Zeraeph believe an editor on-site poses an off-site concern, she may privately contact an arbitrator or an administrator she trusts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose, as this is not justifed and will only be abused as a tool with which to continue harassing me

Comment by others:

Proposed. Minimum injunction necessary. Marskell (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Insufficient, one-week blocks won't work, blocks have already been show ineffective to change the behavior, future editors will be forced to defend themselves in dispute resolution as I have, tying up valuable editor time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "in accordance with the enforcement description below." As she has rung up to a month already, a week is probably too short. Marskell (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Oppose as insufficient. Zeraeph made personal attacks against me on several Admin talk pages recently as well as on AN/I and they did nothing. There is no reason that an "injunction" would change this behavior on the part of Admins. Further, Zeraeph was blocked by an uninvolved Admin, and an unblock was refused by an uninvolved Admin, yet she was unblocked, without warning or consultation with others by an Admin who knew her history. Blocks do not work when Admins do not respect them, as seems to be the case. Mattisse 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Blocks have been shown to be ineffective in changing Zeraeph's behavior in the past, and I do not think they will be of any use in the f\uture. Additionally, we have seen how administrators have been willing to unblock her while personal attacks were still sitting on her talk page, directly above the unblocking admin's post. Jeffpw (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, echoing Jeff's comment above, ongoing and unsubstantiated attacks are allowed at the evidence talk page (diff). R. Baley (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeraeph Civility Restriction

3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard form civility restriction. The enforcement ruling can be provided later. We've already seen one month blocks which have been ineffective. I am not sure if this can be made to work. Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe too vague. In a sense, this is always true of everyone. Marskell (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose because I can show that there is no cause for such, and because I feel this would be abused by some as a tool with which to continue harassment --Zeraeph (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - for the same reason blocks and personal civility patrols will not work. Admins do not enforce them. Besides, if blocks are the remedy, then we are back where we are right now. Admins selectively unblock those they wish to, even when uncivil comments are still on the page, as happened in this case. Mattisse 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose this. History has shown that blocks do not encourage this user to modify their behavior. Jeffpw (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enforced Mentorship

4) Zeraeph is required to undergo enforced mentorship, with edits approved in a designated userspace by their mentor before being implemented in articles, and restricted from using user talk with the exception of her designated mentor. Jeffpw (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It seems like mentorship was already tried. Mentors are a scarce commodity and should not be used repeatedly for the same editor. Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because I will show that there is no cause for such--Zeraeph (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an advocate, rather than a mentor. Zeraeph's mainspace edits seem good, at least the ones I've looked at, so I wouldn't see the point in forcing her to edit in userspace. But an advocate who would represent her interests if she got into bother would help with her feelings of being isolated. The difficulty is in finding one. I've approached two people, no luck so far. I'm reluctant to keep on searching until I know the outcome of this, because it involved quite a lot of work. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This seems rather excessive. Is there really a reason to restrict her editing to userspace? -Amarkov moo! 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeraeph banned

5) Given a history of disruptive editing and personal attack violations, Zeraeph is banned from editing Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, though not necessarily supported. I had thought a well rationalized series of paroles/restrictions might be enough, but everyone is opposing those presented (including my own) as too weak. Perhaps it's best to just lay this on the table for people to say yes or no. Marskell (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 489: / Line 489: @@
 ::This seems rather excessive. Is there really a reason to restrict her editing to userspace? -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]]</small> 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-:'''Inadequacy & appropriateness of Mentorship in this case:'''
-::A woman whose publicly stated primary purpose in life being TO WIN, and who has a history of manipulativeness via her public-relations training in swaying public opinion, and who astutely uses subtle slipperiness in avoiding direct answers and who is well skilled in the many forms of "false logic" that SOUNDS sensible, but is baseless and unsupportable.   She has, indeed, solicited "mentors" on her own, to her own devices, USING THEM as puppets to join her in her bullying and victimizing.   They all eventually find their limits and draw the line in the sand that they will not step over - at which time she names them enemies for life and embarks on relentless years of character assassination and degrading their research based on vast amounts of verifiable citations - but who, like many non-academics, are not trained to create notecards as they read.  Mentorship has been repeatedly found to be of no help in changing a woman who has absolutely no intention of changing a thing, but only keeping you placated and flattered.  [[User:A Kiwi|Spotted Owl]] ([[User talk:A Kiwi|talk]]) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 ===Zeraeph banned===

Revision as of 08:34, 4 January 2008

Motions and requests by the parties

Rename the case

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Questions from Marskell for committee

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Decorum

Administrators

Assume good faith

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Responsibility

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Zeraeph fails to assume good faith

Zeraeph makes personal attacks

Zeraeph Games Dispute Resolution

Original locus of dispute

Asperger Syndrome

Allegations of stalking and harassment by Zeraeph against SandyGeorgia

User:A Kiwi

A Kiwi's editing

Penbat and Radyx

Sam Vaknin

Anonymous attacks against Zeraeph

Personal attacks by Zeraeph

Zeraeph has edit-warred

Template

Proposed remedies

By Zeraeph

Zeraeph placed on no personal attack parole

Zeraeph Civility Restriction

Enforced Mentorship

Zeraeph banned

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion