Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 1 January 2008 (momving uninvolved parties). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statement by Durova

SandyGeorgia is a longstanding Wikipedian with a stellar record. Zaraeph - however sincere she might be - has a history that is extremely spotty and has been unable to substantiate her repeated and extreme accusations with anything resembling adequate evidence. This is not the kind of situation that ought to need arbitration, and Sandy has stated repeatedly that this proposal is the opposite of her desires. Most poignantly, Enough. I lost all evening at FAC and tomorrow I'll be behind. This is nothing but an insult, and worse, from someone who should know what it feels like. I urge the Committee to reject this request and likewise urge certain Wikipedians to withdraw from a situation where their interference is counterproductive and unwelcome. Durova 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to LessHeardvanU's statement, it is a straw man argument to insinuate that my statement refers to block records only. Read the above: I never mention either party's block history. SandyGeorgia is one of this Misplaced Pages's 100 most prolific contributors with a long and honorable history of congenial service to the project. Zaraeph has come into conflict with multiple people and has a consistent history of personal attacks and edit warring. Attempts to construe this as some sort of two sided dispute are based upon two factors:

• Zaraeph makes personal attacks so habitually that some people appear to have become inured and fail to block for it.
• Sandy finds this situation frustrating, since she is the principal target of the personal attacks, and occasionally expresses her frustration in polite terms.

Durova 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mikkalai

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Marskell

The committee has a difficult choice on this one. On the one hand, Durova is correct that an arb case shouldn't be necessary. A clear cease-and-desist order to Zeraeph with an escalating block structure developed at AN ought to be enough. But that's failed thus far. Numerous mediation attempts and previous ban discussions have not improved Zeraeph's behaviour. Two critical issues, as I see them, both on display after the latest unblock:

1. Zeraeph appears to remain convinced that Sandy is a stalker she encountered nine years ago. "In September 2006 I sincerely mistook her for a sockpuppet of a woman who has stalked me since 1999. I made this mistake for the very simple reason that User:SandyGeorgia behaves just, uncannily, like her. I knew that then, and it is proved to me many times over since." (My emphasis).
2. More general persecution fantasies are at work. Regarding User:Ceoil: "...he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me" and then "I just feel genuinely scared to see so much completely groundless vitriol, from a total (I hope) stranger emanate from such a nearby geographical location." That is, a completely unsubstantiated insinuation that another editor poses a physical threat, fresh from her unblock.

This editor needs correction and, on balance, I suggest arb take the case. I am totally sympathetic to the fact that she may have faced off-Wiki problems that have created paranoia here, but other editors should not have to bear the brunt of it. Marskell (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I'd suggest delayed acceptance. There is still discussion at AN. If that has some success, this may not be necessary. Marskell (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2: SlimVirgin notes that Sandy's friends have rallied around her; I should add that I'm seen as one. Sandy has friends because of the enormous amount of work she does here. That " also didn't want to agree to any disengagement arrangement that implied parity between her and Zeraeph" is not true. She offered this. Zeraeph also offered one. Zeraeph would like any censure/remedy to be totally equal; it was pointed out to her that that's not fully possible, as she has a block record and Sandy does not. Marskell (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)