Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 19:17, 1 January 2008 (more comments). 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)

Statement by JzG

Picking a fight with SandyGeorgia is... special. I have come across a lot of people on Misplaced Pages, and SandyGeorgia is one of the most energetic and excellent builders of content ad consensus I know. I've had nothing to do with the dispute, but I feel strongly enough about SandyGeorgia's commitment to the encyclopaedia that I can't let this pass without a testimonial, for what it's worth (i.e. not a lot).

I understand Zeraeph has aspergers. Interesting but ultimately not an excuse: Misplaced Pages is not therapy. We can't fix a real-world problem with one editor's mental health by damaging the reputation of another, especially one as good as SandyGeorgia. Putting up with harassment of one of Misplaced Pages's best, most prolific and most respected editors in the name of "countering systemic bias" does not wash; aspies are not, to my knowledge, victims of systemic bias in Misplaced Pages. If they were, SandyGeorgia would be high on the list of people to fix that, given her reputation for great content. Aspies do not get a free pass to be obsessive and disruptive if it damages the project. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum: I checked out the dispute referenced by CeilingCrash below. it is a perfect example of SandyGeorgia's patient and careful attempts to draw out from a thoroughly confused thread, what change CC was actually asking for and on what grounds. As an example of SandyGeorgia's thoughtful approach is is good; I am at a loss to see why it is considered a problem by CeilingCrash, unless it is because his arguments were unpersuasive and he seeks to blame Sandy for that. As an example of aspie obsession with detail and inability to see the bigger picture even when pointed out, I guess it maybe has some relevance to Zeraeph's conduct, but in my opinion as a complaint against SandyGeorgia it lacks merit - it reads more as a polemic against WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, coupled with resentment against those who patiently argue for editors to demonstrate compliance with those policies in their proposed changes. If only all complaints against editors were on the basis of their patiently, politely, neutrally, calmly but firmly enforcing policy! Guy (Help!) 13:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jeffpw

I have known SandyGeorgia since my start on Misplaced Pages. She has been unfailingly helpful to me, and in fact, undertook to help me improve the referencing of a Featured Article I wrote which she felt had been promoted while not ready. Though frustrated by what had occurred, she gave hours of her time to help someone when she had no reason to other than a desire to improve Misplaced Pages.

Since that time I have had her talk page watchlisted, and am astonished at the number of people she helps, and the hours she logs to move this project forward. She has a well deserved reputation for excellence and collegiality on this site.

That Sandy has been unfairly maligned by Zeraeph is beyond question to me. What is a question is why Zeraeph has been allowed to continue her attacks and paranoid assertions of stalking to this day without being banned from further disruption of this project.

Zeraeph has not only attacked SandyGeorgia here, but on <ext link removed by user:Crum375>Misplaced Pages review, an attack site targeting Wikipedian editors. That s/he has been allowed to continue these attacks, which would earn most other editors a block, is baffling. Baffling, too, is the presence of a Misplaced Pages Administrator, LessHeard vanU, on the Review site, engaged in discussion with Zeraeph and also involved in this arbitration proceeding. This seems a clear conflict of interest to me.

I urge rejection of this arbitration and nothing less than a total block of Zeraeph. This disruption of the project has gone on far too long and runs the risk of driving away contributers who form the very backbone of our mission. Jeffpw (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also concerned that this arbitration will provide Zeraeph a platform to continue her unfounded claims against SandyGeorgia, and other claims which s/he cannot substantiate. She is a prolific writer, apparently, and I am afraid if each claim s/he makes is not checked, a distorted picture will be allowed to emerge unchallenged. In the less than 24 hours this arbcom proceeding has been opened, Zeraeph has already falsely claimed that Jimbo overtuerned her block. That is simply not true. He weighed in on her talk page, but I can find no evidence that he did more than that. Her claims that he did give the impression that the project founder supports her actions, which I sincerely doubt. This sort of misrepresentation is typical from what I have seen of this editor. Jeffpw (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this arbitration has been opened, I would like to amplify my remarks about Zeraeph's actions on Misplaced Pages review. S/he not only attacked Sandy there, but included in the attack assertions which were libelous and defamatory; so much so that a forum moderator had to remove them from the post. Specifically, Zeraeph claimed that Sandy suffers from OCD and Tourette's syndrome. Given that there is no evidence for these assertions and Sandy has categorically denied them, if they cannot be proven, it is libel, plain and simple. Given also that there is precedent for sanctioning editors on Misplaced Pages for their actions on other sites (specifically the Misplaced Pages Review), I would request the strongest form of sanction for this egregious attack on Sandy's good name.

Further regarding the Misplaced Pages Review posts, it troubles me deeply that the discussion thread there discusses SandyGeorgia in context of her previous dispute with SlimVirgin. The thread there began on December 12, giving anybody interested in the site ample time to read the thread before the unblock on December 28. The thread included posts from involved editor LessHeard vanU, in which he stated that he emailed Zeraeph. LessHeard later went to SlimVirgin and suggested they work together on this arbitration. This gives the appearance, to me, in any event, of collusion between involved parties here. LessHeard's message to SlimVirgin even acknowledges that their motives could well be questioned. I would post links to the WR site, but the last time I did they were removed by an admin. I do have the pages downloaded, so the arbitrators are welcome to message me if they cannot find them. Jeffpw (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)