User:Mattisse/other7


 * Diff
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive118#Unblock_of_Zeraeph

Unblock of Zeraeph
The unblock of Zeraeph I view as magnificently unwise, given her onsite and offsite stalking and multiple attacks on SandyGeorgia. I ask that close eyes are kept on this user. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For reference - . Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that my questioning on the unblock of an account that has harrassed SandyGeorgia and a number of others on site and off site has decended to (ahem) ''Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)'' Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Ceoil (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving from LessHeard vanU's talk:

'I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms'

Please, am I supposed to be impressed this; I dont brush streets myself, and not that it matters or is anyway relevant. And I impressed that you are 48? My mother is 63. So what, actions speak louder than years. Please take regard of the substance, and the background. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you must think I am a fool. Mattisse  00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please clarify who you are talking to Mattisse. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am talking to User:LessHeard vanU.  Mattisse  00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties?
 * Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. What the fuck? Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was explaining why I was using the terminology that I did. Simple. That is how I wrote to members of the legal profession back in the day. That is my personal style in these circumstances. If you don't recognise that you were getting an explanation, in much the same manner in which I was conversing, then I doubt there is any point in continuing this conversation. Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with"; Now fuck off? Oh boy, it gets interesting now. So I can cut to the chase now right?? Because I know whats going on here. I was just too much of a gentelman to say it out loud. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember this: . watch your lip. So you won't mind if I reply in kind; "Fuck off until you learn not to piss on your neighbours lawn!" LessHeard vanU 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) ??????? Funny how history repeats. Oh boy. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I always believed that consistency was a good thing in an sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You told her once to fuck herself, you were not sactioned; so now you can do it at your pleasure? My god, man, thats fairly corrupt. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicts)I said, "Fuck off" (for which I later apologised - which was accepted) which means go away in rather violent terms, per your own example above, whereas "fuck (her/your)self" means... something different altogether. Please try to be accurate in your comments, it really does help the reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, I don't know what your interest is in this. I've not seen your name on any of the articles in question, though I've not looked at everything, so maybe I've missed it. Regardless, the situation seems to be that there are allegations from a number of sides about harassment. It's hard to work out where the blame lies, so the best thing is to move on, if at all possible. If we find more harassment (coming from anyone) in future, we can deal with it then. In the meantime, let's try to get the protracted content dispute at the heart of this sorted out. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here. She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. But whatever. Out. Enjoy. You wake up with the fleas you sleep with. Enjoy. Out Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never harassed User:SandyGeorgia on-Wiki, let alone off-Wiki...and as she is not saying anything herself that is all I need to say right now. (Except maybe to ask that the language be toned down a little?)--Zeraeph (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me. --Zeraeph (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LHU, did you write "fuck off" at the end of your legal memos? It was in response to the rather mild comment "..don't do it again," . I respect your work, and i recognize that you have been the target of abuse from time to time, but if you use that kind language again here, i will block you, if anyone is willing to support me. DGG (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's an awful lot of cross-posting about this issue, so that it's getting hard to see who said what and where. I hope everyone can just forget about previous allegations and focus on sorting out the content dispute. Anyone who wants to help is very welcome at Talk:Psychopathy. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice deflection SV; pity you are talking to adults and not children. This IS NOT about content. This is about stalking, and harrasment on WR. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern, I really do. I'm on record as strongly opposing harassment. But this is your 39th post about this issue in four hours. You've made your point, and it's well taken, but please leave it now so that we can move on. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict - reply to DGG) Well, let's see... 10th February 2007... 29 December 2007... Hmmm, you might have to warm up the old banhammer mid October 2008. Oh, and don't worry about any others, you just do what you feel is right - it works for me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thwack!, Trout is best served 10 months old. --Hu12 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved party, I hope I'm not the only person who finds Zeraeph's ".. he also seems to live within 30 miles of me" comment somewhat grave. Is Zeraeph implying Ceoil is a stalker? That's quite a serious accusation, so I hope others refrain from making such hyperbolic comments. We need to remain firmly rooted in reality here, and not make such off the wall comments. Such comments can be deemed personal attacks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting anything, 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. Forgive me if I find this unnerving, with a potential to be seriously so. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You say you're not suggesting anything, yet make the comment "..from a total (I hope) stranger". Please feel free to expand upon why you used the words "I hope" in brackets. Do you need to hope? This is a clear cut personal attack in my opinion, and I will repeat again that you should refrain from such personal attacks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little troubled at SV's questioning about how Ceoil came to this matter, when the order of events is plainly visible on WP:AN, where the unfair block of Ceoil is discussed directly above discussion of an off-Wiki attack on me on a site that is less than friendly to SlimVirgin, for which apparently the next step was SV's premature unblock of Zeraeph. My response is on my talk page; I want nothing to do with another circus.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your post, Sandy. I come to this dispute without knowing the background. I've advised Zeraeph to stay away from you, and not to respond to, or comment on, any post you make about her. My advice to you is to do the same. Everyone needs to turn down the heat here. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For those who want more background, you may wish to review this thread from last year, the diff noted by Newyorkbrad several paragraphs down, the discussion linked by that diff, and the additional links in that discussion. Z mistook a stalker for SandyGeorgia, made scurrilous and false accusations against Sandy which were proven wrong, yet Z inexplicably continues her mistaken vendetta against Sandy.  Look at Z’s first contributions on 27 December after she was unblocked:  Everyone else is at fault; she is the victim.
 * This situation should have been firmly and finally dealt with a year ago. It was not; it has recurred; and it will continue to recur until it is properly ended. Kablammo (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So this confirms Zeraeph has a history of insinuating that certain editors are stalkers then? She has done the same above as concerns Ceoil; "Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me." Such accusations need to be frowned upon, unless cold, hard evidence can be given to prove such allegations. Otherwise, accusing others of being stalkers is a very serious personal attack. Can Zeraeph please refrain from calling others stalkers per the reasons I have given? Thanks very much. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The background that I can see is that Zeraeph was being stalked off wiki. She then ran into SandyGeorgia, who she feels was pursuing her around Wikipedia. She put two and two together, came up with five, and assumed SandyGeorgia might be the user name of her offline stalker. She was wrong. Since then, so far as I can see, she has not engaged with Sandy, and indeed has tried to avoid her. Sandy, however, continues to post long comments about Zeraeph, while saying she doesn't want to get involved. I can understand Sandy being very upset at being accused of stalking, and this is why she continues to post about it. But the very act of continuing to post about it is a large part of what's causing the problem to persist. I've therefore asked Sandy not to mention Zeraeph again, and I've asked Zeraeph not to respond to any of Sandy's comments about her. This situation was combined with anon IPs leaving insulting posts on Zeraeph's talk page while she was blocked. The toxicity needs to be allowed to drain out of this situation, and if people would stop posting about it, there'd be a better chance of that happening. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The background that I can see is that Zeraeph was being stalked off wiki. Wrong from the first sentence; actually, there's not a sentence in your analysis that's correct, but let's not worry about the facts. Z claims a lot of stalkers; I've seen the "evidence" and it's bogus. SV, you might have done the homework before you unblocked an editor whose history you clearly haven't followed and don't know. It could have prevented a lof of speculation at a time that you say you want to turn down the heat.  I don't think adding speculation on top of speculation ever serves to turn down the heat.  Please, inform yourself of the facts beforehand next time.  This looks like a COI unblock because of the clear chain of events on WP:AN and the off-Wiki attacks on me on WR. I suggest you let uninvolved admins step in; mentorship of Z has already been tried.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, precisely what ARE you doing, on this thread, right now, misrepresenting and slandering me if not trying to stalk me off Wiki? I want no more of your false insinuations in the hope that nobody will check the facts. You actually confirmed YOURSELF that I was being stalked and then refused to turn that evidence over to me or anyone supporting me. Since tat time you have mercilessly tracked, harassed and misrepresented me. You refuse to bring this to mediation, you refuse to enter dispute resolution but you persistently jump in and lie to discredit me at the smallest opportunity. This is just wrong. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Zeraeph, I have repeatedly told you not to accuse people of stalking. Zeraeph has repeatedly accused people of stalking now, yet nobody has intervened. Can an administrator please tell Zeraeph that repeatedly accusing others of stalking her will not be tolerated? These are serious personal attacks, and shouldn't be allowed. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no COI, I have no idea what the clear chain of events was (obviously not as clear as you think), and I am an uninvolved admin -- so uninvolved that you say I don't have a clue what I'm doing. You may be right, but I'm going to keep a close eye on the situation from now on, and time will tell. In the meantime, please AGF. I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting here about this, unless someone raises a fresh issue. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the language and attitude of user:Ceoil shocking, frankly. I don't agree with NPA blocks, but this user is behaving viciously.  LuciferMorgan, who has a long history of getting in trouble for uncivil language and attitudes, is meanwhile lecturing both LessHeard and SlimVirgin on how to be a good administrator.  SandyGeorgia, who I have seen nibble at a person until they say something bonkers, is the only one whose statements sound like old times, as she's being the victim.  Poor, pitiful SandyGeorgia, who is utterly powerless against a lone editor....  What we need is for SandyGeorgia to document the "real life" harassment, and there would be an instant ban for Zeraeph.  Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that actually people are back to their scripts, that LuciferMorgan is not the dispassionate, friendly user of legend, that SandyGeorgia has a grudge (and I should know about that), and that Ceoil is on the verge of being blockable for disrupting conversation with excessive rudeness.  Geogre (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you possibly misread Ceoil's statements? Gimmetrow 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hard to keep up with all these posts; I missed that one. Yes, the day we accept that regular editors can't question an involved admin's unblock and are told to fuck off by an admin because they questioned is the day we should all give up here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not say again that I'm an involved admin without saying exactly how I'm involved. I had no background knowledge of this situation at all, as I've told you repeatedly, and which I think is obvious. So please explain what you mean or else stop posting conspiracy theories.


 * You know, all that's needed here from you, Sandy, is a bit of empathy, and an agreement to disengage, which you say you anyway want to do. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am retiring
I see no other option, because whatever I do User:SandyGeorgia will find ways to harass, stalk and discredit me, and to attack anyone who shows any support for me. 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.

I am proud of the way that I have behaved on Wikipedia, in spite of all the abuse thrown at me by a (sadly powerful) handful of people who are ruining this project for everybody else. It is not easily to be civil when constantly subjected to a constant double standard imposed by the efforts of a bully like User:SandyGeorgia. It is not easy to pick you way around a constant stream of slander and insult, day after day, and KNOW that even though you are the only one telling the truth you cannot win.

I stayed with this so long simply because Jimbo showed me that he is one of those very rare people who is exactly who he says he is, and abides by his own stated principles. That meant something to me, something worthy of respect and acknowledgement in the form of staying with the project against all odds and against all malice, without breaking the rulesw MYSELF, however bad it got. I also want to thank User:DeathPhoenix for his "cowardly lioning", User:LessHeard vanU, for staying up so late with this, and most especially User:SlimVirgin who, in spite of a normal run in or two (and a tiny bit of unjustified maligning on my part that I never did apologise for) deciding to treat me as the equal of anyone else on the project and actually LOOK at the facts, instead of complying with the volumious insinuations.

All I have to say to User:SandyGeorgia is that, at least, when you are plotting, scheming and bullying me you are leaving some other poor sod alone. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Zeraeph, you have just made serious accusations against SandyGeorgia without evidence. You've had multiple chances, as evidenced by your block log.  You've received warnings.  Be careful. I suspect that any further incidents of this nature will result in a lengthy block.  Now go in peace, and feel free to return in peace. Jehochman  Talk 05:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that comment. I'm a close wikifriend of Sandy's, and have respect for SV's role on WP. Forgive my cynicism: Zeraeph's track-record strongly suggests that the turbulence she has been associated with will re-emerge. I'm sick of having to deal with it, either directly or as a bystander. I have no reason to disbelieve Sandy's claims on this matter. And since Sandy has taken on a critical job at WP, in assisting Raul654 in directing the FAC page, we cannot afford to distract her from this task. I trust that SV's warnings to Zeraeph, if Z returns, will be heeded. I'm watching this matter closely, as are a number of other key people at policy and guideline pages. Tony   (talk)  05:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aren't we taking this to personal? SV is an established administrator in this project and I trust that if Zeraeph ever makes a wrong turn she will be watching closely and will know what to do, even users that have a disruptive past have a chance of becoming good, if not great contributors lets just give Zeraeph a chance to prove that her intentions are good if she decides to come out of retirement. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you aren't following closely, Caribbean H.Q. This is Z's third "retirement" in about two months, and she's got others before that.  Each time, she departs leaving a personal attack on me in her wake.  She "retires" as regularly as she accuses people of being stalkers.  And, the post above pales in comparison to what was standing on her talk page about me at the point that SV unblocked her.  SV prematurely unblocked someone she supposedly knew nothing about and had had no previous interaction with because she just happened across her, apparently without reviewing the standing attacks on her talk page at the time she unblocked, including referring to me as a "madam". When mentorship has already been tried, you're asking that we extend yet another chance and trust that SV is going to be "watching closely" when she doesn't appear to have been watching closely the first time, and when Z began a content dispute within hours of being unblocked ? The question is still, why was Z unblocked to begin with, and how long is this going to be allowed to continue?  Mentorship has already been tried; Z has never stopped being involved in content disputes, and when she shows up on AN/I again and again, she claims it's somehow my fault, even when I don't even edit those articles or usually know the editors she wars with.  Z has never stopped this pattern, in over a year.  She has already demonstrated she is not able to do otherwise.  Why did SV happen across Z and happen to decide to unblock her just after an attack against me was lodged at WR and highlighted here at WP:AN? It would be helpful if editors unfamiliar with the history here would stop speculating. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if the editors involved calm down and let the community dicuss the topic as well, both of you are quite upset and that is never good when trying to find resolution. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Community ban
I know you dislike bans, SandyGeorgia, but is there any reason not to community ban this editor? We can discuss a ban right now. Jehochman Talk 07:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support community ban. Or at least beginning the discussion of one. "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." Right, and my postman looks like my dad so maybe my dad's come back from the grave. The serious disruption that Zeraeph's editing brings—especially the persecution complex—needs to be put an end to. Marskell (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not need to give additional chances to editors who repeatedly cause trouble and then make bad faith remarks: "To cap it all, as I found out this year, your apparently impeccable content isn't so good at all if one looks closely, you just politic a little clique of people into providing consensus (largely either as a quid pro quo, or because they are too scared of your malice to refuse you). You are a poisonous little Madam...and I have needed to say that for a very long time..."  (emphasis added)Jehochman  Talk 07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's a reason not to community ban her, Jonathan, and that's that she's just been unblocked, and I'm going to watch the situation. There were some appalling attacks on her talk page when I came across it, which is why I looked at her case. Whatever has happened in the past, when I saw her page, she was clearly being bullied. This is a situation where a number of strong-willed people with strong views about their subjects have had personalities clashes, and the whole thing has escalated to the point of people feeling harassed and stalked. It's time to calm it right down. From what I can see of Zeraeph's editing, it is good, and so I hope her energy can be channeled into producing good material without the accompanying hullabaloo. Perhaps she needs to learn more about collaborative editing or something, but I don't see huge problems beyond that. I've also not had a chance to speak to her mentor about the situation, which I intend to do tomorrow if he's around. In the meantime, two admins are dealing with it (LessHeard VanU and myself), and hopefully between us we'll come up with a way forward. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec reply to JE) You and I discussed this before, when I was unhappy about how fast and how unfairly community bans were being imposed at the now defunct Community Sanction Noticeboard.  I believe that discussions of bans should proceed as they did in the discussion of a community ban on Z.  That discussion was brought by uninvolved admins, unbeknownst to me, while I was traveling and had limited internet access, but because the discussion was civil and occurred over a long period of time, I was able to weigh in even though I was traveling.  The mentorship ultimately failed, but we can all say we tried our best.  I agreed to the mentorship even when others admins were insisting that they were sick of seeing Z show up at An/I after walking out on 3 mediations and that they would take her to ArbCom if I wouldn't.  During and since her mentorship, Z has continued the same attacks, the same content disputes, and the same edit warring, going on blanking sprees, and making incoherent, unfounded charges against me and any one else who happens to cross her path.  The situation now is worse, as she has canvassed against me off Wiki and against Wiki articles, in addition to the WR attack.  Yet, she has made it clear in many places that she operates with Jimbo's blessing, so I don't see the point in having a community ban discussion when the conclusion is apparently foregone.  If Wiki can't deal with Zeraeph, something is wrong.  But I suppose people can just keep telling me and anyone who defends me to fuck off no matter how hard we work to turn out featured content. Thanks for asking, Je, but methinks this decision has already been made, and Z will be allowed to continue as she wishes.  Mentorship failed. I have edited articles Z edits, and I have never seen a valuable contribution she has made or a good article she has written (in contrast to the last person she has disputed with, Mattisse, who has numerous GAs and DYKs).  For SV to claim this is a clash with two stong-willed people is patently insulting, because Z has never gotten along with anyone long term, has had disputes with numerous editors, and the IPs "bullying" her on her talk page are evidence of that from off-Wiki sites.  Her editing is not amenable to Wiki, but she is being protected here. I'm quite sure this is a done deal, for reasons that will not see the light of day. Nothing "escalated" to the point of accusations of stalking and harassing; that has been Z's standard fare on and off Wiki for as long as I've been aware of her presence here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You talk about Z making unfounded allegations, but you are doing it too. E.g. "I'm quite sure this is a done deal, for reasons that will not see the light of day." There is no "done deal," and I can't even imagine why there would be, or who it would be with. What happened is very simple: I saw her being attacked, I felt bad for her, I wanted to help, and Mikka said I should feel free to unblock if I wanted to. I looked at her contribs, and saw a good editor dragged down by having difficulty collaborating, which is a common problem on Wikipedia. I've advised her by e-mail that she needs to try to care less about the topics she edits, because I think that's what's at the root of this situation.


 * I'm one of the last people on Wikipedia who would condone harassment, having been a target of it, so the idea that I wouldn't take that seriously is far-fetched, and if I see any such thing in future, I assure you that I'll deal with it firmly. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 08:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. It is a done deal; it only takes one person to overturn a community ban, so it was  a done deal by the time I weighed in.  Curious; why is it that you think you'll be successful when Deathphoenix wasn't?  You're saying all the same things he said, only he was aware of the issues he was wading into, and wasn't making opinions based on partial knowledge.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, since you say Zeraeph is a valuable contributor, would you humor me by providing a selection of diffs to demonstrate that assertion. Also, could you ask her to strike all recent insults and unsupported accusations. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 08:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at her edits today, they looked good to me. She seems to be keen on using good sources and sticking closely to what they say, which is the essence of good editing here.


 * Sandy, I don't know that I'll succeed where Deathphoenix didn't, and I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, because what happens is up to Z and the people around her, not any admin or mentor.


 * What happens a lot on Wikipedia is that people get pushed into bad behavior by getting into conflicts in areas they care too much about. What you have to do as an admin is look at that behavior and try to make a judgment about the extent to which it's context-dependent. In other words, is this someone behaving badly who would have behaved well in other circumstances? Or is this someone who's likely to behave badly no matter what's happening around him? The former deserves second (and third, and fourth) chances; and with the latter, there's no point.


 * Having looked at Z's contribs, I see an editor of the former type. What needs to happen now is for people to turn the heat down, so that we can see how she manages without being the focus of this vitriol. Sandy, she would like you to stay away from her. That is her request and I hope you'll respect it. And you would like her to stay away from you. So you both agree on that one thing, and it's easy enough to arrange it given the size of Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm asking you again to stop posting about her, and if she posts about you, ignore it. My guess is that, if everyone backs off, things will turn out very differently this time. And if I turn out to be wrong, I'll deal with the situation. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 08:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is "I'll deal with the situation" from SlimVirgin supposed to be an acceptable answer for Sandy? I've already unpacked it on your talk, so I won't do so again, Slim. I hope you've read the previous community ban discussion that Sandy's linked to. Marskell (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What I'm asking is to be allowed to do my "job," as it were. I've made a judgment that Z is a good editor and will make a good Wikipedian if given another chance (a real chance, with no sniping from the sidelines, which she obviously finds highly distressing). If I turn out to be wrong, I will deal with it. I won't cut and run and leave others to pick up the pieces. That's all I meant. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * SV, you are still commenting in a partial way and based on no factual understanding of the situation. " ... she would like you to stay away from her".  Are you reading your words?  Do you realize she brings her issues to me, not vice-versa?  Do you realize her major issues are not with me, but with others?  Do you realize your solution has nothing to do with the problem?  Do you realize all of her recent disputes are on articles I don't edit, or because she asked me to mediate her disputes?  Do you realize Z only edits articles she is strongly vested in, and there is no such thing for her as editing an article just for the sake of editing, without having a strong emotional investment?  Do you not see she immediately returned from a block to go on an editing deletion spree?  You "think" her edits looked good?  I've seen her editing on topics I know and where I carefully had to read the sources to remove the inaccuracies.  Are you going to read every source when she disagrees with Mattisse, a credentialed professional?   I have seen her edits; I'm not guessing like you are.  No, you've given me no reason to think you even understand the situation, much less can deal with it when a very competent editor fully aware of the issues couldn't contain Z's tendencies even with the best intent and effort.  You seem unable to recognize that Z has harassed me for well over a year, and that you've offered no proposal whatsoever for how you intend to change that in any way that Deathphoenix couldn't, nor any reason to want to be in this position yet AGAIN another year from now, still dealing with Z's fantasies, when I have work to do.  I lost all evening of reading FAC articles.  Are you willing to agree that you will community ban Z the first time she goes on another editing deletion spree, edit warring, or engages in a personal attack against anyone?  And are you *really* going to be watching, because so far, you haven't even caught up on the basic facts of the case.  The situation now is that you unblocked her, you're willing to take responsibility, fine; agree that you'll support a ban as soon as she re-engages in the same behavior she has engaged in for years.  And since she has canvassed against the autism-related articles off-Wiki, get her to agree to stay away from them, because the last time I left them alone to avoid her, Asperger syndrome ended up back at FAR in worse shape than ever.  Produce one good article she's written.  Then review the entire talk page and edit history of alexithymia, the article she asked me to mediate just before she went on a blanking spree. Please, inform yourself before saddling all of us with a premature decision, again. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that she seems to edit in areas she's emotionally invested in, which is not a good thing. I also agree that she's made inappropriate allegations against you, and you're rightly angered by them. But I also saw you continue to post long comments about her when she was blocked and wasn't responding, and hadn't been editing any articles you were interested in. So you've inadvertently prolonged the situation, and made her feel she was being victimized. That's why I think this may just be an ugly dynamic that has somehow gotten out of control.
 * Untrue. I had a long conversation with Mattisse before Z was blocked, and when Z was blocked, I told Mattisse that I expected her to show good faith by leaving those articles alone while Z was blocked, and then I took Mattisse to task for her own block record. That was the long conversation.  And I took an admin to task for siding against Mattisse without knowing the facts.  My long conversation with Mattisse was about Mattisse's behavior.  Please take care with the idea that something is true because you say it is.  It's not. Z stirs these issues up, Mattisse came to me totally by chance because I've encountered her elsewhere, she didn't even know I knew Z, and then Z posts to WR that I planted Mattisse?  Honestly, do you realize how off that is and what it's like to live with that kind of paranoid ideation?   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a first gesture of goodwill, Z has removed some material critical of you from her user page. I hope you'll respond by, at least, toning down your comments about her, and preferably not commenting any further. After that, I hope Z will consider striking some other comments she's made about you. And bit by bit, maybe relations will thaw.
 * Excuse me, in a community ban discussion about Z, you want me to stop commenting, while you fill the page with half facts? How does that work?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please take one point seriously -- rightly or wrongly (and I'm stressing this: rightly or wrongly), she feels you are bullying her, and she is very upset about it. Therefore I'm asking you, please, to disengage. Please show that you're not bullying her by just stepping back. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * SV, you are being naive. DO you not know that bullying is Z's main topic, on and off-Wiki?  She thinks everyone is bullying her.  No one is responsible for her fantasies.  Relations will thaw?  SV, please catch up with the facts.  Relations did thaw; Z asked me to mediate her disputes with others.  That's the only reason I got drug back into her sphere.  This is how it goes with her. Please, SV, get up on the case before you make opininions and judgments.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Z has done some legit anti-vandalism work, but is  a recurring center of drama. If she's serious about "backing off", she should start by removing the comment on her user page about "one editor" stalking her. Otherwise, it's a standing personal attack. Gimmetrow 08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Five hours ago Zaraeph announced her retirement from Wikipedia, but instead of following through on that promise four hours later the same editor announced she wanted to initiate an arbitration case openly. Another hour has passed, yet this editor has made no attempt to initiate such a request. A previous consensus already agreed to community ban. This editor can barely make a post without adding to the volume of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against SandyGeorgia. I strongly support a community ban (first choice), or (second choice) if no ban is forthcoming at this time I request the intervention of a different mentor other than SlimVirgin. Durova Charge! 09:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked for that hours ago, and now we are way past the point where someone needs to tell SV to back out of a situation that has all the appearance of a COI on her part, and she is clearly worsening an already bad situation. She unblocked Z after Z attacked me on WikiReview and after that was highlighted here on WP:AN.  Her unwillingness to see and understand the most basic facts of this case is, again, prejudicing me and dragging me through having to defend myself now against SV's misstatements.  Someone please get SV to back out of this.  Z has already refused to strike her attacks on me; what else need be said?  It's clear, and to those of us who have followed this for a long time, it's always been clear.  SV enabled more of the same by unblocking and empowering Z, evidenced by Z immedately returning to the last article she left and edit warring. 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether COI is the word for it, but it's clear that this is someone whose strengths lie elsewhere. Good intentions don't necessarily generate positive results.  Slim, please bow out gracefully.  This site has many excellent mentors.  You've tried your best.  Durova Charge! 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't even started trying yet. I've spent all my time on this answering these posts, unfortunately. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're serious about mentoring Z and containing this situation, you'll have to be prepared to spend your time this way. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And why would you request that? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously your influence doesn't curb the problematic behavior. Durova Charge! 09:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's hardly surprising given this pile-on. If people would just disengage, and allow me, first of all, time to read the history thoroughly, and more importantly Z time to calm down, there might be a different outcome. Could you show me please where a community ban was decided? I can find no such discussion. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The normal course of action is to do such research before unblocking. My advice is that you withdraw; I will not complicate that with anything that might appear to contradict it.  I now withdraw myself.  Best wishes,  Durova Charge! 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it's hardly reasonable to expect her to file an RfAr within a couple of hours. It'll likely take her days to get that together. The other thing that confuses me, Durova, is if a community ban was already agreed, why didn't it go ahead? Mikka only blocked her for a month, I believe, and said he didn't mind her being unblocked. Where is the discussion agreeing to a community ban? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with a community ban. Do we have any reason to believe that the user interacts poorly with other users (I mean other than those going to tell her how evil she is to SandyGeorgia)?  Do we have patterns of bad action throughout, or do we have a user who really can't stand another (Sandy really not being able to stand Zeraeph) and one who gets pushed over the edge by the other?  A community ban should be for someone who is bad in the community.  (By the way, I don't count LuciferMorgan in this.  I've never seen that user disagree with Sandy, and I've seen him go to be virulent where Sandy is merely aggrieved, so Z being miserable with LM is not evidence of bad action in the community.)  Finally, let me remind everyone involved here that community bans take place, like prod, only if there is no dissent.  SlimVirgin dissents.  I do, too.  If we want a solution, we tell SandyGeorgia to go to an uninvolved administrator when she has an issue with Z to take up, and we tell Z to leave off talking about or to SandyGeorgia.  There: community served.  As for Ceoil, I'd caution him to never be so insulting, angry, and inflammatory when dealing with a person who believes herself injured, and never talk to the rest of the community the way he did, above.  Geogre (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all very wrong
I deserve a fair shot at clearing my name against all these false accusations. So far I have never had one. Let's take it to arbcom, once and for all. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Filing at ArbCom is easy. Getting them to accept the case is a bit harder.  I suggest you bear with this discussion  and see whether a consensus forms or not.  You may be satisfied with the result here.  Would you be willing to strike out any of the remarks you've made to help de-escalate the conflict? Jehochman  Talk 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not fair to ask me to bear false witness against myself without a gesture of goodwill. In the event that SandyGeorgia is prepared to strike all her personal attack against me, leave me in peace for good, and desist from all personal attacks in future, I am happy for the whole thing to be deleted and a fresh start made - but not without a gesture of goodwill. I did that before and got it all thrown back in my face, with interest, as it is now. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be completely satisfied with Z striking her accusations from her user page, from her talk page, and agreeing to sanctions if she ever lodges those kinds of attacks again against me or any other editor, or if she ever goes on an edit warring/blanking rampage again. Of course, SV now has agreed to police that, and since Z has never gone more than a few months without edit warring, that will be a chore.  If Z agrees to cease these activities, I'm happy. The other things SlimV is suggesting (that I stay away from Z); well, SV hasn't caught up on the facts yet.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you offering to do about the far more numerous, dishonest and unprovoked attacks you have made on me in a variety of places, including in the above comment?--Zeraeph (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See soapbox. I'd worry about an arb case. I think more passers-by can comment on the community ban idea, and we'll take it from there. Marskell (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the previous ban discussion for all the reasons this shouldn't go to ArbCom, and then factor in the time that Z already lost by walking out on 3 mediations, and ask me how I'm going to invest the time to see her walk out again. The community either deals with this ... or it doesn't. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 08:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What you forget to mention is that I walked out on those mediations in the sincere belief that you were a person who has (to your certain knowledge) stalked me for 9 years, and if that were so I would have been very ill advised to engage in mediation indeed as her sole motive is to hijack my attention for as long as possible.
 * What I know with certainty is nothing, because you're all a bunch of screenames to me. What I've seen in e-mail is very friendly correspondence between you and your alleged "stalker" who isn't a "stalker" at all, but a friend that you accuse of stalking whenever she disagrees with you.  Don't presume to say what I know when all I know of all of you is the strangest e-mails I've ever seen (and never responded to).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If I am as terrible as you repeatedly claim all over Wikipedia (with impunity) the arbcom would just be a small formality and a rubber stamp, so why would you have a problem with that? --Zeraeph (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Already answered; if Wiki wants to allow you continue to harass me, and can't find a means of stopping it, it's not up to me to invest any more time into resolving this when you've already walked out 3 times. Wiki needs to deal with this; not me. You are SV's responsibility now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I deserve a fair shot at clearing my name against all these false accusations. So far I have never had one. Let's take it to arbcom, once and for all.--Zeraeph (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Z, why did you delete my previous post and replace it with yours? I will restore it now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * S that was a sincere and unintentional edit conflict, I have no idea how it blanked...as you ask, indeed, why would I delete any single one of your posts, after all they are all equally dishonest and abusive of me, why pick just one? --Zeraeph (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood; I've seen it happen before. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Zeraeph, you're more than welcome to file an RfAr. If there have been failed RfMs, the ArbCom will almost certainly hear the case. Or you could consider filing a formal request for mediation between you and SandyGeorgia. Or you could both just agree to stay away from each other. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * At this stage I do not think it is fair to ask anyone to mediate. It certainly isn't realistic to "agree to stay away from each other", that was tried before, I stayed away, but at the slightest hint of any trouble anyone wanted to make, or even a content issue I needed to bring to WP:AN/I User:SandyGeorgia popped up like something on a wire to exacerbate it. I was truly sorry for mistaking her for the person I did, it was a genuine mistake, but when I see her behave exactly like her, lying about me, and making trouble for me, month after month, I cannot go on feeling sorry, I don't have that kind of masochism in me. (signing late for clarity) --Zeraeph (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may think you were truly sorry, but you never retracted it and you never apologized to me, and you continue to make false statements about me off-Wiki and to advocate that my edits are overturned. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * AS a matter of fact I did apologise to you recently (you cannot read my mind, you do not know what I am, and am't sorry for...you just know the lengths you have gonme to to "make me sorry"), but I am happy to do so again, I am extremelly sorry that I mistook you for a person who has stalked me since April 1999. However that was a sincere mistake, apart from which I have never made any false claims about you on, or off Wiki...though you have cold bloodedly and deliberately made many about me, even today. Also, I do believe many of your edits should be overturned. The reasons why are various and have validity...but what editor here could not say the same about any other editor? THe one exceptional reason why I think some should be overturned is that you consitently prioritise "personal control" over "validity", but there are other reason. I do not think I should need to become your meatpuppet to be allowed to edit here in peace and on equal terms. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is Zeraeph allowed to continue attacking SandyGeorgia? Can someone please put a stop to this? How many times does this editor need to be warned? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Usually, these days, I get blocked so that I cannot publicly request an arbcom hearing, that is why I am requesting it now. I dread it, but it is better than the alternatives, certainly better than trying to go on subject to a double standard, where people can lie and abuse me to their heart's content without censure, but I cannot even defend myself honestly without being threatened with a community ban. That is just terrorism, and it is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not investing time in ArbCom to see you walk out halfway through all that work just like you did in mediation, where you even had the nerve to close the cases yourself (including cases I opened, and then come here and say I've never allowed mediation, which is a bold lie). I will not be dragged through my time being wasted again, with someone who has a long and established history of walking out midstream. There is nothing to arbitrate; you either cease this kind of behavior or you don't. You have never ever not once produced a diff showing any issue with or from me; why should I invest the time?  Produce a diff showing something I've done to deserve this, and then we can talk about something to arbitrate.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What you forget to mention is that I walked out on those mediations in the sincere belief that you were a person who has (to your certain knowledge) stalked me for 9 years, and if that were so I would have been very ill advised to engage in mediation indeed as her sole motive is to hijack my attention for as long as possible.--Zeraeph (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Even when blocked you can email ArbCom to request help or file an appeal.  I strongly urge you to back away from the conflict by striking your hostile remarks directed at SandyGeorgia.  If you do that, I will ask her to reciprocate. That will be the fastest and least stressful way to resolve this conflict. Jehochman  Talk 08:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that not everything needs to happen tonight. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * there is no permanent record of emails to arbcom, there is of public appeals. Jehochman, this may seem very strange to you but I have an aversion to lying that makes striking any of the remarks I have made with a sincere effort to be scrupulously truthful (no more, no less, whether it suits you or not) absolutely impossible. That would be tantamount to pretending I lied when I have only told the honest truth. I should not be asked to bear such false witness against myself. I got myself into this position by following the rules and letting the truth be pushed aside. I will not do that again.


 * I also find it very strange that, as her remarks preface mine by some time, you do not ask SandyGeorgia to do this first rather than me (surely not a "double standard" at play?)? If I am all the terrible things you personally claim, an arbcom hearing should be no more than a small formality, a rubberstamp, I fail to see why you would have any resistance to that. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Z, if you want an ArbCom case, the only people who can stop you are the ArbCom themselves. So that is always an option for you, and they will examine everyone's behavior in this.


 * In the meantime, I do advise you to strike through any negative comments you've recently made about Sandy, as a gesture of goodwill. Then hopefully she will do the same. One of you has to make the first move toward more peaceful relations. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stike? As far as I recall, the conversation on my talk page is not about Z but about your premature removal of her block without being informed of the issues, and LHvU's telling Ceoil to fuck off.  Honestly, it's really not all about Z all the time.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, before the unblock. You posted at least one long very critical comment about her, but I forget where I saw it.


 * The bottom line is that both parties feel harassed. Z, what upsets Sandy is that, feeling she has been harassed by you, she sees the unblock as an insult. I understand that. I've had people who were harassing me be unblocked, and it feels like a kick in the stomach.


 * The other side is that Z feels harassed too, and every time Sandy posts about her, or anyone else posts in support of Sandy, she feels that kick in the stomach too. The result is two very upset women. I hope both will try to respect the other's feelings, even if each feels they're not based on facts -- because regardless of the facts, the feelings are obviously very real. Sandy, it would go a long way to making Z feel better if you could locate any recent negative comments you've made about her, particularly before the unblock, and strike them. It's late where I am, BTW, so I'm going to have to resume this tomorrow.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well this (taken at random) apparently was about me. I am sure there plenty more since, shall I post them all or can people read for themselves with an open mind?

Slimvirgin, I would love to comply, but I cannot bear false witness against myself by striking remarks that I ensured were only scrupulously honest, and there are no others. After all the months of lies and abuse from SandyGeorgia, I am capable of being neutral, but without apology and amends from her I am honestly incapable of feeling goodwill...would it not only be revolting and ridicluous of me to pretend it? --Zeraeph (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have to pretend. You can strike the comments as a gesture of goodwill, even if you don't feel it. That's not dishonest; it's just a sign that you're willing to do whatever it takes to mend fences. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot, the only honest answers to the lies and attempts at sophistry still being thrown at me here exist in even stronger terms...it would be idiotic to strike as I defend myself. And what about the NEXT person she bullies? When they go through edit histories frantic for ways to defend themselves against a flood of calculated vitriol and all they find is that the truth has been voluntarily struck out? --Zeraeph (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop the attacks. Never, once, through dozens of AN/Is, 3 mediations and a checkuser have you ever produced a single diff to back up a single thing you say about me.  I'm such a terrible bully that you asked me to mediate your dispute at alexithymia and awarded me a barnstar for doing it. That is what you call a "bully". Produce a diff of "vitriol" from me such as when you called me an "erotomanic stalker" or LHvU told Ceoil to fuck off.  Won't find it, doesn't happen.  Stop. This is enough already.    Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an outright lie...only today I produced two diffs above that prove you were consciously, deliberately lying when you claimed something I said was "bogus". You just deny that anything that doesn't suit you happened and then bury nit under so many words no-one has the energy to challenge it. Does it ever penetrate your skull that when I asked you to mediate that situation on the Alexithymia article I was holding out a very sincere, and respectful olive branch in the form of requesting the assistance of what I then believed were your strengths (I have seen reason to doubt since, because that is what you chose to show me), and that I gave you recognition it choked me to give (after all you put me through) as part of that? I even trusted you to answer a question about something dear to me, another, stupid gesture of sincere conciliation I should never have been daft enough to attempt. And that you have done nothing with any of that but find ways to throw it back in my face ever since. Sandy, has it ever crossed your mind that I, and others see you as an unscrupulous, controlling bully simply because that is how you choose to treat us? And that I mistook you for someone else simply because you were choosing to behave exactly like her? Because bully me as much as you like, tell as many lies, for as many hours a week as you can, that is the simple truth here. --Zeraeph (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Z, you're very upset now, so my advice is to get some sleep, maybe even take a couple of days off, and come back refreshed. If there's no other way of settling things, you can file an RfAr. But I think right now, continuing to comment is not a good idea. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sandy, you asked for an example of a post from you that could be called vitriolic. This is one, from before the unblock, and indeed I believe from just before the block. You write at great length saying you don't want to be involved, but that long post clearly constitutes involvement. It upset Z a great deal and it fed into her feelings of being victimized, just as her comments about you have fed into you feeling she's harassing you. One of you needs to make the first step toward stopping the dynamic by just disengaging, which you've said elsewhere, Sandy, is your preferred approach in other situations. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Now try to stop what you started, SV; it's not furthering anything good.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's much appreciated. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 10:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed Z's blatant personal attack against Sandy on her talk page, and she has once again inserted it. I reverted again and am bringing it here for review...though apparently several admins have seen it and taken no action. I find this selective enforcement of policy disturbing, to say the least. Jeffpw (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently Slim and I reverted again at the same time. Thank you very much, Slim. I sincerely appreciate the enforcement of policy to remove vicious attacks against respected editors. Jeffpw (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed it again, and the page should be protected if it's restored. Z is extremely upset now, which is feeding into the dynamic. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 10:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a conflict of interest in that Sandy is a close Wikifriend. Even so, I want to record my feeling that Zeraeph's participation in the project has been overwhelmingly damaging. I have no confidence that her destructive behaviour will change this time around. I appreciate that Sandy's reactions to her may appear to be over-emotional at times, but I can see why the emotion has crept in. In any case, I do not believe that that Sandy's reactions are relevant to the issue of a community ban. I ask that the ban proceed for the sake of the project. Tony   (talk)  10:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support community ban based on extensive block log concerning personal attacks and disruptive editing. This has been going on for too long and needs to stop. Sandy is not the issue here. I am at a loss understanding why Zeraeph is allowed to edit.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse Tony's call for a ban 100 percent. Wikipedia does not need this kind of drama and upset, and editors who attack other editors, do not discuss their edits even when they're contentious, and take up the community's valuable time in endless discussion of their indefensible actions are absolutely not an asset to this project. Jeffpw (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not yet convinced. As with Sandy's thoughts about the old CSN, I think this should not be a rushed process. I hope no admin issues an indefinite block without a bit more time to mull it over. Cool Hand Luke 11:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In “another place”, within the past three weeks Z has called SG “a prolific and unscrupulous bully” who “persistently abuse[s]”, claimed that SG is a “voluble head wreck” who “just plays wall to wall mind games”  and “has become a law unto herself, as well as something of a personal Mafia”.   According to Z, “SandyGeorgia is an identical kind of bully” to Z’s stalker.  Z also refers to SG as “the "b*tch”.


 * Z called another editor “stark raving bonkers and no more a psychologist than I am a garden snail”. She also claimed an editor involved in this thread had OCD and Tourette syndrome; those comments apparently were removed.


 * Z called an administrator involved in this thread “an arrogant pain, but there is a LOT more to being decent than just standing up to her...does it not cross your mind that the only way to stand up to people like [the administrator] and win is to be WORSE than they are.”


 * Z’s on-wiki conduct over the past three days is little different, as shown by her very first edits (now redacted) upon lifting of the block.


 * Z has stated: “my only interest in participating in Wikipedia at all was to protect some psychology and abuse related articles from being distorted into vehicle for promoting some very questionable and exploitative online agenda of which my stalker is an active part.”   The way Z carries out this personal interest is to harass and abuse anyone who disagrees with her, make false and unsubstantiated accusations against respected editors separated from her by an ocean, and claiming to be victimized by those subjected to her attacks.  Enough is enough.  Kablammo (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we're all over the place (again... welcome to AN, Geogre), but No ban from what has been presented. Arbitration would be the best way, if people think that this is insoluble.  If SandyGeorgia feels that she must pick at Z, and if Z has to have "justice" for what she believes Sandy has done, then RfAr is the way forward.  Personally, I see poking with a stick by Sandy and exaggerated and inappropriate response by Z.  I don't know whether to blame the person with the stick or the person reacting, so let's leave that for the Arbs.  Geogre (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously I will not be supporting a community ban, although I can see that there needs to be a singular change of attitude by Z in the non article spaces (and sometimes in) when interacting with some editors. A RfAr will allow many aspects of the matter to be investigated, including the actions and conduct of related parties (that should be interesting), in a far more restrained and decorous atmosphere than is apparent here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Community retirement
A number of people have pointed out problems with Zeraeph's repeated retirements. I suggest that if Zeraeph retires before July 1 2008, the retirement be enforced with a one-year block which begins when an administrator places the block (if no admin notices the retirement then the block might have a longer effect than can be calculated, but this clause also deals with situations such as no admin noticing an announced retirement until after a return). -- SEWilco (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Enforced behavioral restriction

 * Can we set up a community enforced behavioral restriction?
 * Zeraeph is banned from posting any sort of remarks about SandyGeorgia, except she may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances. This provision may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week.  After five such blocks, Zeraeph may be blocked up to one year.
 * SandyGeorgia is asked not to involve herself in Zeraeph's editing. If SandyGeorgia violates this provision, the agreement is suspended. Note: if the two editors come to the same article by any means other than following each other, that is allowed.  If there is an editing dispute between them, they will go to an administrator for help, rather than engaging with each other.
 * This is a first attempt at a negotiated settlement. Can either party work with any part of this? Jehochman  Talk 15:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I will never agree to a double standard, for which there is no justification, but if it is altered to impose the same, equal, terms on both of us I think it is worth considering thus:


 * Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances. This provision may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week on the offending party.  After five such blocks, either editor may be blocked up to one year.
 * Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If either violate this provision, the agreement is suspended.
 * Note: if the two editors come to the same article by any means other than following each other, they will go to an administrator for help, rather than engaging with each other. (I do not think it is a good idea any other way, it is too open to abuse from either side) --Zeraeph (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The catch here is "legitimate grievances." In the eyes of the supposedly aggrieved all their concerns will be legitimate. That's just human nature, not necessarily a comment on the two parties here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict so I pop this here:The beauty of that Raymond, is that AS SOON as a "legitmate grievance" is posted it will involve a third party Admin to ajudicate legitmacy. However, personally, with an agreement in place, as above, that has not been broken, I do not see that either of us should ever need to mention the other. If the agreement is broken it becomes and whole other matter again, so perhaps that clause could be dispensed with?--Zeraeph (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why they have to go to an administrator, rather than straight to ANI. The administrator will determine if the grievance is legitimate and proxy post at ANI if required.  This will hopefully filter out non-legitimate grievances and remove any personal attacks. Jehochman  Talk 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is one valid argument Jehochman, but the other is still that, unless the other party has breached the agreement, there should not be any need for that exception at all, as there are plenty of people to comment on "valid grievances" and plenty of other "valid grievances" for us both to comment on without ever mentioning each other again. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (Ec) My proposal is not symmetrical because SandyGeorgia has never been blocked before, therefore warnings should be given before any block. Blocks are the last resort when lesser measures fail. If this matter goes to Arbitration, I am confident the committee will not provide symmetrical terms either.
 * Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances.
 * Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to an administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other.
 * This agreement may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week against Zeraeph, or by warnings against SandyGeorgia followed by blocks. After five such blocks, either party may be blocked up to one year.
 * Either party may cancel this agreement by filing for arbitration.
 * Version 2 for your consideration. Jehochman Talk 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the idea is right, but the specifics will require wordsmithing of the sort ArbCom does. As evidenced by all the past cases, Z's idea of "legitimate grievances" aren't always in line with Wiki policy or others' ideas.  Further problems with the current wording.  Z has a long block log, including two blocks of a month's duration.  This proposal lowers her block duration to a week, and allows her to attack editors five more times before more serious sanction.  We should already be past that point; it should stop now.  One more chance at a block for a month, then next block for a year.   Next, the proposal doesn't even address the fact that she has attacked many more editors than me; it shouldn't be restricted to me.  I have been drawn into the last four fiascos because she took on others (Psychonaut, A Kiwi, Mattisse, and Soulgany101).  The restrictions should make clear she needs to stop *all* attacks; I am a very minor piece. Next, it doesn't even mention her 3RR edit warring and blanking sprees.  And finally, it doesn't effectively deal with the fact that I edit autism-related articles, always have, and am frequently asked by other editors to peer review or comment in that area. I don't edit MOST of the articles Z is involved in (personality disorders, psychopathy, bullying and her other articles), but I do edit all autism-related articles and help maintain two FAs (Asperger syndrome and autism), where the off-Wiki canvassing against those articles is an issue.  Finally, the proposal allows for a continuation of the long-standing issue of forum shopping.  I have no problem agreeing, but the proposal does not address the issues. Of greater concern is that I see no indicatoin of anyone asking her mentor (Deathphoenix) if he thinks any of it will be workable. And he has seen the off-Wiki evidence, because I e-mailed it to him.  The other issue which is glaringly overlooked here is that Z can go to any admin, but we already have admins inappropriately involved in the case when they are involved parties, and we have something going on off-Wiki when Mikka said he had "brought wrath upon his head" by his block of Z, when there is no on-Wiki evidence of that, so there needs to be some clarification of uninvolved admins. Multiple edit conflicts in trying to post this, so it may be outdated by subsequent posts. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sandy, you keep saying that there are involved admins, but who are they, and how are they involved?


 * I think Jonathan's second proposal is a good one. The important point is that both parties stay away from one another. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not agree to anything that is not totally equal and symmetrical, anything else places me at too great a disadvantage and will make things worse, not better. It would just be a charter to goad. The voluntary undertaking, of itself, serves as a warning.
 * Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, (consider removing following) except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances.
 * Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to an administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other.
 * This agreement may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week against either parrty. After five such blocks, either party may be blocked up to one year.
 * Either party may cancel this agreement by filing for arbitration.

--Zeraeph (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, I would have thought it was slightly obvious that the agreement means that we should BOTH cease all remarks and attacks concerning each other, fairly and equally. But if you will not agree to it, fine, I am more than happy to go to arbcom and have it all out in the open instead. --Zeraeph (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that aspect of the proposal; I'd be very happy if your name would stop popping up on my talk page. The proposal doesn't address your attacks on others and your disruptive editing, and it actually lowers the sanctions you would currently be exposed to.  You have no more reason to continue to accuse A Kiwi of wikistalking, when you exchange friendly e-mails with her and have a long-standing on-and-off friendship, than you do of accusing me of being your stalker.  The stalking accusations need to stop.  And mistaking me for A Kiwi doesn't excuse your refusal to adhere to Wiki polices and guidelines and submit to mediation; even if I had been A Kiwi, you still should have mediated the issue and adhered to Wiki policies. By the way, in the flurry of posts last night, I neglected to thank you for finally apologizing for the egregious things you said about me a year ago. I would be further relieved if you would stop the off-Wiki attacks on me, but that's not Wiki's problem. For the record, Zeraeph, I don't have Tourette's, I don't have OCD, I have never said I do (as you claim), I don't have the conditions of any of the articles I edit (if I did, that would be quite a mix), I don't "neglect my children" and I don't plagiarize. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely at variance with the facts about the situation with A Kiwi (Knowingly or not? I'm not psychic? Who knows?) and if you don't have Tourettes, perhaps you shouldn't have kept claiming you had on the AS talkpages, us Aspies are very easily mislead that way? (I'll find the diffs myself before it gets to arbcom). But if you feel that either Tourettes or OCD is in any way a pejorative I am happy to apologise for using the terms in connection with you. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal
There's clearly huge issues being dealt with here, which can be dealt with far easier than realized. Let's say there is no consensus for banning of User:Zeraeph when this is said and done, or that there's a consensus to not ban. (since if banned this propsal is moot) What she should do, if serious about contributing to the encyclopedia, is just come back under a new username and have a fresh start. Then SandyGeorgia won't bother her is she doesn't make herself known, and ideally she won't bother back either. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Wizardman 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how that stands with policy Wizardman, but it is something I would feel worth considering myself. The only reason I have not done it before is that it would, effectively, lock me out from the articles of interest to me, because too many eyes would be watching them, and I feel there would be goading, to the detriment of the quality of those articles. Most of my "watches" are for OR, and self promotion and to sustain WP:RS in areas where I know the subjects and the "players" only too well. That is, by far, the most useful purpose I have ever served here, and possibly ever will. --Zeraeph (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. Jehochman Talk 16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not workable. Z only edits specific topics that she is heavily involved in off-Wiki, she brings off-Wiki detractors, issues and baggage, and her posts are instantly recognizable wherever she makes them. Changing names won't be effective for her, and particularly since her largest issues aren't even with me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am fascinated Sandy, perhaps the agreement should make an exception for you to give me a daily bulletin on all the other things you know about me and my life that are news to me? --Zeraeph (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't agree with the post Sandy made above? that would be odd, as you have said as much yourself before. Jeffpw (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Where?--Zeraeph (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On Wikipia Review, you said virtually the same thing that Sandy posted above. Don't you remember? it was in that long post you made there, attacking her. Jeffpw (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Another modest proposal
I am not involved but have just read through this. How about the next time either party mentions or contacts the other they get a 1 hour block, the next time a 1 day block, then 1 week, then one month, then 1 year, then one century? It is abundantly clear that the on-wiki disruption being caused by this issue would be resolved if these two people just stopped talking to and about each other. Regardless of how it started both parties seem unwilling to give this up which is the current source of disruption to the encyclopedia. Opinions on this solution please. 1 != 2 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again. It doesn't appear you've read and understood the entire history.  Z's most recent issues have all involved editors other than me.  And her attacks on me and other editors are aleady well beyond the 1 hour, 1 day block level. She accuses everyone of stalking her, and most recently referred to me as a "madam". Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read it. I have also read it all being repeated over and over. If what you say is true then breaking off contact will be easy. Z will certainly be held accountable to any behavior issues that may happen elsewhere. 1 != 2  17:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am prepared to consider any equal, mutual, undertaking to end this...the only thing I will not consider is an unequal agreement. The truth, from my point of view, is if SandyGeorgia ceases to discuss me I will have absolutely no justification in discussing her. The only actual content dispute was of the kind where there is probably, ultimately, some merit on both sides (judge for yourself the difference between these two versions I prefer one, Sandy the other). I walked away from that, and left her to it.--Zeraeph (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is an unworkable solution, as it penalizes a contributer who does wondeful things for the project, and puts them on equal footing with one who has caused massive disruption and been blocked several times for harassment, 3rr, etc. Jeffpw (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how preventing a person from contacting someone they do not wish to have contact with is a punishment. I would think that someone wishing to avoid Z would embrace this idea. 1 != 2  17:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Z, you will not likely get a symmetrical agreement from ArbCom, and ArbCom will see the confidential evidence I won't display publicly. I suggest that settling something now is your best shot.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I will also expect to see, and be allowed to defend myself against, that mysterious "off-Wiki" evidence, as is only reasonable, arbcom it is...that was my original preference but I thought Jehochman made a good suggestion if you agreed to it on equal terms--Zeraeph (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just filed a request for arbitration. There have been many informal attempts to resolve this dispute.  They have failed.  I do not believe that further discussions will be fruitful.  Jehochman  Talk 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I admit that arbcom will most likely come up with a more elegant solution than the one I proposed. 1 != 2  17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your proposal was pretty good actually. Even simpler -- both women should agree to stay away each other to the fullest extent possible consistent with their being able to edit articles they want to work on. When the latter means they have to meet somewhere, each should ask an admin to keep an eye on the interaction, which both should strive to make as brief as possible. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To me that is perfect SlimVirgin, as long as all sanctions are equal, and we both agree not to mention each other at all except to an admin for grievance resolution in the event of a default. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we call this resolved?
Everybody seems happy this should go to arbitration. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this is not resolved. There was solid unanimous community consensus a year ago that an ArbCom case would benefit no one (least of all Wikipedia and Zeraeph).  Nothing has changed for the better.  And no one has yet, as far as I know, spoken to Z's mentor, who argued unanimously along with everyone else that having Z's behaviors examined before ArbCom was not in her or Wiki's interest.  I requested that this discussion proceed with careful deliberation, and the move to open an ArbCom case was exactly not that.   A workable solution was emerging when this preemptive move was made.  What is the hurry?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sandy, you won't agree to stay away from Z, you won't agree to stop posting about her, and yet you want to stop an RfAr. With respect, that's a position not likely to work. If you agree to stay away from her, an RfAr won't be necessary, but if you don't, then it certainly is necessary, because there'd be no other way to proceed. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we please stop adding to the speculation here? Where have I said I won't stay away from Z, where have I said I won't stop posting about her? I said the proposal wasn't workable for other reasons (such as decreasing sanctions she would otherwise be exposed to, not recognizing her attacks on editors other than me, allowing her *five* more attacks, not addressing her edit warring), which I detailed.  I said I had no problem with that aspect, since I've never been the one to seek her name constantly dropping into my talk page and I'd be happy for it to stop.  Please read and respond to what I said, not what you think I said.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All I can see is that you keep posting about her. You did it before the block, after the unblock, you've accused me of being an "involved" admin, which is utterly bizarre. You've posted some theory about how you were attacked on WR, and I immediately stepped in to unblock, as if I'm an editor who might do something to please WR. You've either asked your friends to come here and comment against Z, or you haven't asked them not to, so we've had the most amazing pile-on over what was actually quite a simple issue. In other words, you seem to want escalation, yet when it reaches the highest point it can -- ArbCom -- you suddenly don't want it anymore.


 * As I said above, what is needed from you is some common sense and some empathy. First and foremost, you need to disengage because, rightly or wrongly, your continued involvement with Z is like a red rag to a bull. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * SV, I must ask you again to please try to stick to facts. That I was attacked on WR is not a bizarre theory; with the exception of the portion of the attack they removed at my request, anyone can see it.  You are now accusing me of asking my friends to come here, an obvious breach of good faith; my friends coming here and all the shouting and distraction in the world will ultimately make no difference, because the diffs will speak for themselves.  It has been suggested that you are the person who needs to disengage.  Please let other admins handle this.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sandy, wanting a licence to go on harassing me without me having equal redress is not a resolution. You have chosen to deliberately make my life a misery for over a year, unless that improves, and the only realistic way that will improve is through an equal, unconditional undertaking that we both enter into to stay away from each other, under identical sanctions, I have nothing whatsoever, to lose, and everything to gain, by going to arbcom (where YOU supporter has chosen to file), because on those terms arbcom IS my only chance of ever being allowed to edit Wikipedia in peace and on equal terms. That is the choice you are giving me, a small chance with arbcom, or no chance at all. Which would you choose? --Zeraeph (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If this issue is being handled through arbcom then I don't think this venue is needed anymore. Though calling it resolved is not really accurate, more accurately it has moved to a more structured location. 1 != 2 18:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't my hurry, it was Jehochman's, he "filed", I heard about it when you did, so if you don't like it take it up with him, not me. Though I must state this is what I wanted myself. If you want to backtrack and accept an equal undertaking instead, fine with me. As long as it is equal I will support you in that.


 * Until, the only thing I saw as "resolved" is this particular discussion, which is superfluous now best to get back to life and let it be dealt with in due course. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideas on the table
I've put forward two proposals. My experience with Arbcom is that a case can be pulled before it opens if the parties come to an agreement. The proposed agreement covers Sandy and Zeraeph. Other disputes can be resolved one by one, or we can take the whole matter to arbitration. I am indifferent. It's up to the parties to decide how they want to resolve things. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Get a neutral party on board to monitor Z's edits and keep her from attacking anyone (not just me) and edit warring anywhere, and I'll agree quickly to anything within reason (lowering the sanctions she would currently be exposed to for these behaviors, from one month to one week, and allowing her five more attacks, is not reasonable—I have no problem with most of the rest of your proposal, but it still troubles me that no one seems to have consulted Deathphoenix yet). Z attacked me on WR, in a discussion mostly about SV on a forum mostly about SV in an incident that was openly discussed right here on AN just before SV prematurely unblocked her.  SV involved herself in the issue without informing herself completely of the history, according to her own posts above, where she asks for time to review the history.  SV is not an uninvolved party because of the WR aspect of Z's most recent attack on me. By the way, am I allowed to post a link to that here?  WR already had the courtesy to remove significant portion of Z's attack, so that evidence is already gone.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hang on. This is completely irrational. "SV is not an uninvolved party because of the WR aspect of Z's most recent attack on me." I am an involved admin in this case, because Z recently attacked you on Wikipedia Review, and because I am often attacked on Wikpedia Review? :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See my last edit, unless there is a totally equal agreement by both of us, my only realistic chance is with arbcom anyway, so as you opted for it (thank you, and I mean that), I will take that last chance, it's the only real one I have. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Sandy, not one single word about you has been removed at this point.--Zeraeph (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Sandy, please take my proposal, Version 2, modify the parameters to your liking, and then post it. If two month long blocks instead of five one week blocks is agreeable, that's fine with me. Jehochman Talk 19:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I hope I have the right version. I've equalized some of the sanctions and statements to include both of us, because basically there is no chance I will edit war or engage in personal attacks, because I don't do that, so I don't mind including myself in the sanctions.  I am not a good writer; it will need tweaking, but it would be something like this:


 * Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from referring to any poster previously mentioned in any case involving the two of them or articles they edit as a stalker, harasser, "madam" or any other term intended to defame, malign, demean or attack. Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other or other previously mentioned parties in the cases involving them, except they may go to any neutral administrator via talk page or email to request help when violations of Wiki policy or guidelines occur.
 * Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to follow each other to any article, discuss each other edits, or involve themselves in each other edits. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to a previously uninvolved administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other. It is acknowledged that they both edit autism-related articles; if there are any disagreements on those articles, they will go to an administrator and not engage with each other.
 * This agreement may be enforced by any previously uninvolved administrator via blocks or warnings according to policy. After two such blocks, Zeraeph may be blocked up to one year and SandyGeorgia will be blocked according to blocking policy.
 * Zereaph is banned from any personal attack against any other previously involved or uninvolved editor.
 * Zeraeph is admonished to confine her requests for assistance to one forum or one person, and to avoid forum shopping.
 * Previously involved adminstrators include SlimVirgin, LessHeard vanU, Mikkalai, ( ?? ... others ??)


 * It's a draft. I have clearly put myself on relatively equal footing with Z, in spite of my clean record. The intent of my version is to also cover the other people Z has attacked. My family wants my attention now to play Monopoly.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No Jehochman, my only real chance is either bilateral agreement with equal terms, or arbcom, you chose to file arbcom, Sandy refuses equal terms, so arbcom is my only option. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I now agree that ArbCom is best placed to look at this, because the behavior of all parties needs to be examined. People have been poking Zeraeph and she has overreacted, which made the poking even worse, and provoked the next overreaction. The personal attacks I saw from anons on her talk page while she was blocked were unacceptable, and this pile-on -- plus the strange conspiracy theory about Wikipedia Review that I still haven't understood -- would seem to confirm that there's a serious problem here with the dynamics. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree SlimVirgin, I might not have a GOOD chance with arbcom, but I do not have any chance anywhere else. Unless arbcom can work a miracle SandyGeorgia will never leave me in peace to edit here, anyway, so i have nothing to lose at all by at least trying. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Any negotiated settlement will be imperfect, but I think Sandy's proposal is more than fair. Zeraeph, I strongly urge you to consider it because at ArbCom, you are likely to face much stricter limitations. Please listen to me. If you accept Sandy's proposal, I will withdraw the case, or you can suggest changes, but you will have to accept that the terms will not be symmetrical because the two of you do not have symmetrical editing histories. Otherwise, ArbCom goes forward, and I am confident you will not get such a good deal, nor such quick and pleasant service. Jehochman Talk 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Sandy's proposal is no more than a charter for Sandy to abuse and interfere with me at will, even worse than at present, without sanction and with my consent. Why on earth would I agree to that? I would not longer be realistically able to edit here anyway. I have stated, clearly and in small simple words, several times that the only agreement that will not leave me open to further abuse by SandyGeorgia is a totally equal one, on both sides. In reality, whatever you believe, how ever many nlies have been told, I am the innocent party here, and there is always a chance I will be able to prove that at arbcom. I want to take that chance. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what I am prepared to agree to, a totally fair and equal proposal, if Sandy intends me no further harm she has no reason to refuse it:
 * Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, (consider removing following) except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances.
 * Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to an administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other.
 * This agreement may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block of one week against either party. After five such blocks, either party may be blocked up to one year.
 * Either party may cancel this agreement by filing for arbitration.

--Zeraeph (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked your proposal by striking and substituting the bit "according to blocking policy". I think this will give us all what we want.Jehochman  Talk 21:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am afraid that won't work, it must be specific and equal, just to make sure that nobody is ever tempted to try and manipulate the concept "blocking policy" in their favor. If both of us are sincere and intend to stick to the agreement it shouldn't make the slightest difference to either of us. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that Sandy's block record is clean and Zeraeph's isn't, any escalating block procedure cannot, obviously, be equally applied. Otherwise, the proposals aren't too far apart. But I would another couple:
 * User:Zeraeph clearly and unequivocally retracts STALK accusations against SandyGeorgia, and any other editor similarly accused, or else produces evidence to substantiate them.
 * Although not strictly enforceable, editors are strongly discouraged from disparaging one another on other websites, as Zeraeph has done recently. Marskell (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Only an equal proposal has any chance of resolving the situation, therefore I will only agree to and equal undertaking. Otherwise this should proceed to arbcom. I will be presenting evidence at arbcom, I am sure you are welcome to read it then.--Zeraeph (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Retraction of accusations is not strictly necessary. If either party informs me of inappropriate comments that have been made on wiki, I will consider removing them, as allowed by policy. We should not attempt to regulate off wiki conduct.  Jehochman  Talk 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There was an easy way to deal with all of this drama before the fact
Slim Virgin should have discussed this with Sandy Georgia before ever unilaterally unblocking Zeraeph. What was the all-fired hurry to stir up all of this drama? What's wrong with pre-action discussion? Try it some time. Corvus cornix talk  19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, she should have discussed it with Deathphoenix; I'm an involved party. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, she should have discussed it, period, probably here, first.  Corvus cornix  talk  20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would I have discussed it with SandyGeorgia? I had no idea about this vitriolic background. I saw that Z had been blocked after a dispute with Matisse, an editor with a history of sockpuppetry. I also saw that anon IPs were leaving abuse on Z's talk page. I expressed concern about the block, and the blocking admin, Mikka, said he had no objection if I looked at the case and decided to unblock. So I did. When a new admin responding to an unblock request, and the blocking admin, get together and agree to a review, there's no need to involve other people.


 * What puzzles me is what SandyGeorgia was going to do in 12 days time, or whatever it was, when the block expired naturally. Was she intending to kick up this fuss then too? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Kick up this fuss"? What is your statement as regards Zeraeph making repeated stalker accusations against others? As regards Ceoil: "Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me." Yet another insinuation: "I am tired of trying to find ways to be co-operative and diplomatic with one editor, who has stalked me, "off-wiki" quite ruthlessly since 1999 (and frankly, is only here to continue the job), while also finding ways to be co-operative and diplomatic with another who seems to be making a life's work of WP:GAMEing the system to try and find ways to ensure that I am forced to submit to a double standard where other people have rights but I must submit to her control and micromanagement." You have said that you are mentoring Zeraeph, so I would like to know what course of action you are taking to prevent such unfounded accusations from occurring in future. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * SandyGeorgia didn't kick up this fuss. Look at where, when, and how it started.  Kablammo (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sandy hasn't kicked up a fuss in the slightest. Ceoil has, and I wish he'd been more temperate about it, even if I sympathize. And Zeraeph has by leaping right back into her last content dispute and reiterating her stalk allegations. Sandy is only commenting on threads that are about her. Anyway, perhaps we should leave off to see what the arbitrators decide. Marskell (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ceoil is not responsible for all these posts, Marskell. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * SV, there would have been no fuss; your unblock enabled Z to continue her previous behavior, empowered her to continue attacking me, and encouraged her to continue edit warring. Your unblock sent a clear message that she had carte blanche. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what happened here is that you rushed in wanting to control the situation, and it's the control issues that caused this in the first place. Mikka, LessHeard VanU and I were the admins dealing with the situation. What was going to happen was that one, two, or all three of us would have talked to Deathphoenix, Z's mentor, and between us we would have worked out how to proceed. Instead, I've had to spend literally hours dealing with posts triggered by you, instead of finding a way to move ahead. And then you accuse me of not knowing enough about the case, and of not having spoken to DeathPhoenix, when you're the one taking up all my time. I've also had to put up with personal attacks from you about me being "involved" because you were criticized on Wikipedia Review. Well, it's enough. I think the ArbCom should deal with this now.


 * The bottom line here is that your harsh words about Z have hurt her just as much as her harsh words have hurt you. If you would recognize that, it would go a long way to resolving the issue. As I said above, what's needed here is some empathy, and that it's not forthcoming is very sad. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim, you unblocked Z a full 2 weeks before her block was set to expire, without, by your own admission, having really examined the situation. At best it was an ill-considered action, even if you did consult the blocking admin first. What I am reading here in the compromise that was offered was both Sandy and Z being sanctioned for remarking about the other. That is absurd on the face of it, and signals a desire on the part of admin to just dismiss this with both parties sharing the blame. From everything I have seen, Z has been posting multiple personal attacks against Sandy, both on and off wiki, at an attack site. That she was unblocked after doing that is just plain wrong. I also don't see that arbitration is the way forward, as if this was some simple dispute between two editors. What I see is one editor in good standing being attacked by an editor who has been blocked multiple times for behavior problems. In my eyes, arbitration just validates the offending editor's position, and provides another venue for that editor to continue attacking. I would simply reinstate the block that was lifted, based on the disruption this editor has caused since being able to edit again. I'll be frank: Sandy is a productive contributer without which Wikipedia would significantly suffer. Z's absence would only be noticed by the peace it would bring. Jeffpw (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled at the reluctance to let the ArbCom deal with it. The admins who were dealing with it have been prevented from doing so. SandyGeorgia was asked many times to disengage and declined. She opposes any compromise that treats both editors on equal terms, and Z opposes any that doesn't. There have apparently been aborted mediations. Therefore ArbCom is the best way forward. There's no point in simply reinstating a block that will expire in 12 days times, or whatever it was, because this will simply blow up again then. Best to have it dealt with once and for all. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled at your insistence at treating 2 editors, one who has given her all to improve this project, and one who has continually disrupted it, as equals here. Surely there is some sort of assumption of good faith for the party who has been contributing productively for years, when in dispute with an editor who has made multiple personal attacks, both on Wikipedia and on an attack site against this project. It's strange that some here want to view this one particular conflict as an isolated incident, and not as a pattern of abuse on Z's part. Jeffpw (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm always very in favor of giving good contributors a lot of slack, and the benefit of the doubt. But there's a limit to how far that can extend. Z has been editing for two years and has made 5,000 edits. The ones I've looked at have been good -- she seems to care a lot about using good sources well. What has happened is that she responded badly to being criticized, which prompted more criticism, which caused more bad reactions, and on it went into a downward spiral. Even just before Z's recent block, SandyGeorgia continued to post criticism of her, in a way that was completely unnecessary because Z wasn't interacting with Sandy. And yet I believe SandyGeorgia knew that Z has Asperger's (which Z has posted here too), which may make it harder for Z to cope with other people's emotional responses. So it's a downward spiral that a bit of empathy might have prevented. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim, do you have diffs for these unprompted attacks from Sandy when Zeraeph wasn't interacting with her? For months Zeraeph's user page has constituted an attack on Sandy. (Of course she doesn't name her, but to suggest she's not referring to her strains credulity.) "I'm always very in favor of giving good contributors a lot of slack, and the benefit of the doubt." You're not doing so here. Jeff says it very well in his last. Marskell (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do. It is also, to use the politest term I can, wildly inaccurate and so is this   What kind of chance have I ever had to edit in peace here with such poison being spread about me? --Zeraeph (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I read that at the time, I read it earlier today, and I re-read it just now. That's by no means a personal attack. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it a violation of WP:NPA. Sandy was entirely civil, and expressed her extreme frustration in a remarkably polite way. In contrast, your attack of Sandy on your talk page today had to be refractored due to it's violating policy, and an admin had to revert you after you reverted my refractoring of it. Jeffpw (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, telling lies about people to incite conflict is not usually considered "civil", and by her choice of words, any statement I have ever made about SandyGoergia was just as civil, and arguably more so. You cannot have it both ways. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a blockable offence, and I would like an explanation by administrators as to why they have failed to do so. Editors have been blocked for much less incivil comments. Why are such attacks being constantly ignored? SlimVirgin ignored my queries, and still hasn't answered them. I'll repeat them again: Since you are mentoring her SlimVirgin, what are you doing to prevent such attacks / false accusations in future? I'd like an answer, since these delusional stalker accusations have to stop. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there not an admin reading this who will block? Z has earned it many times over. Going to Arbcom is ridiculous, if only because it wastes everybody's time. Insisting that Sandy be treated with the same repercussions as Z is ridiculous. I support a community ban on Z and have watched in amazement, as a block has not been forthcoming and ongoing personal attacks have not been promptly removed. R. Baley (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad, Arbcom has now accepted, I now respectfully suggest that all other discussion be archived and cease, because it is senseless and going nowhere. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One arbitrator has accepted. Doesn't mean the case is accepted yet, it'll be a few days until enough arbs vote on the matter. Wizardman  22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't realise that, but regardless, hasn't this gone on long enough here in ever decreasing circles? --Zeraeph (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully endorse what R. Baley just said, and also feel it's a ridiculous waste of time. That is senseless, and will actually go nowhere. Zeraeph still hasn't made any apologies whatsoever for insinuating other editors are stalkers here, a situation which is quite appalling. "Respectfully suggest" Zeraeph? I "respectfully suggest" you stop making ludicrous stalker accusations / insinuations against other editors, as they're unwelcome here. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly urge all editors to stop provoking Z, and for Z to stop responding. Since there is an ongoing Request for Arbitration, Z, SG and others are free to enter their statements there, and if the case is accepted, their evidence. But please stop posting accusations and counter-accusations here &mdash; this is counterproductive, and only fans the flames. Crum375 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Removed personal attack. Crum375 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

Thank you Crum with the proper procedures running, at the highest level, it seems idiotic for either side to continue this here now --Zeraeph (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators