Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome

Mediation Case: 2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Zeraeph 23:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Asperger Syndrome


 * Who's involved?
 * User:SandyGeorgia


 * What's going on?
 * User:SandyGeorgia consistently expresses opinions as hard fact, subtly abuses other editors by treating their opinions with contempt, needling and baiting them. Hard to explain, but this editor's first priority seems to be controlling the page and it's contents at all costs, rather than the quality of the article. She persistently addresses other users as though they are her subordinates. Leaves "instructions" (not opinions) on the talk page and in-line comments. She distorts policy to suit herself and orders other editors to follow it. Nit-picks every edit made without her expressed permission, subtly alters the edits of others without seeking any consensus. It's a combination of many things that, in my life experience, would seem to add up to a pathological compulsion to control and covert bullying.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like to find a way to persuade User:SandyGeorgia to:


 * stop trying to dominate other editors and instead participate as an equal in achieving concensus.
 * stop covertly needling and baiting other editors.
 * address and attend to other editors with the respect of an equal.
 * stop distorting facts and policy.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * Yes, I would for now (pending the opinion of a mediator...I am genuinely at a loss for the best way to deal with this), my email is attached to my account and I can be contacted that way.

Copied entry from ANI to here:
I have a different view on what's happening, and what I'd like to change. I believe an examination of the talk page reveals that Zeraeph has engaged in uncivil personal attacks. In spite of requests to deal directly with me, he has made no attempt. I hope he will be encouraged to follow the normal channels of dispute resolution, which include contacting other editors first. Entry below is a copy from ANI: Sandy  17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeraeph, I'm not sure why you removed my sig from the paragraph above. Sandy 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I usually ctrl+c then ctrl+v when I refer to Sandy, in this instance I must have inadvertantly ctrl+x then ctrl+v, human error, it happens, I have restored it and honestly cannot understand why she didn't?? Why such a fuss about nothing? --Zeraeph 21:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not see any realistic way to resolve any problem directly with any person who's only attempt at resolution is to distort the facts as Sandy has chosen to do below and in other instances.


 * Resolution is dependent upon change, not pretence. AS long as the controlling, abusive and manipilative behaviors I have observed from Sandy cease, I do not care why they cease. I do not want her censured, I do not want her punished. I don't want her to eat crow, or any amount of humble pie. If her only motive in ceasing her abusive behaviors is an attempt to manipulate people into believing that I am lying...FINE...as long as she really ceases the behaviors. --Zeraeph 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you see no realistic resolution to the problem, what do you hope mediation will accomplish? I hope your only purpose in doing this was not to smear my name on AN/I, MEDCAB, FARC, my talk page, and the article talk page.  Please do not remove my sig from my entries, thank you,  Sandy 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have already explained several times here and elsewhere I had hope there was a way to resolve this issue here with reasoning, as long as there was a third party to mediate, until I saw on AN/I that Sandy's only response was to keep trying to distort and misrepresent the facts and events. There was no attempt at honesty or communication, just manipulation. The only kind of resolution that can ever be reached that way is an empty pretence for appearance sake, and I have no interest in a pretense nor talent for it.


 * Over the past few days I have been genuinely horrified by Sandy, and her tactics in pursuit of control, apparently for it's own sake. I have reason to know that there are already others who see this as clearly as I do but don't quite know what to do about it yet. --Zeraeph 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Copy of AN/I entry
Last State before Archival (Revision as of 21:13, 22 July 2006 without editing

User:SandyGeorgia
I see and have a big problem with this editor and I don't quite know how to deal with it.

This editor is very domineering and controlling and not entirely scrupulous about it, frequently needling and baiting other editors. I'd rather you form your own opinions by visiting Talk:Asperger syndrome‎ and archives.

With this editor the deal seems to be that unless you submit to his/her control he/she will find ways to make trouble for you.

Today I REALLY believed that we had finally got a concensus going in spite of User:SandyGeorgia that still included User:SandyGeorgia, but I was wrong, the minute I expressed this here, she/he had a knife in my back here  about an incident she/he had resolved to suit him/herself many hours earlier (which aspect, you will notice, is not mentioned).

I feel this user needs a gentle "word from the wise", and I can't find a way to do it right.

HELP! --Zeraeph 01:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When did this all start, and who (if any) are suspected sock-puppets? (I see references to sockpuppet suspicions on that talk page). All in all, some more detailed history please? FT2 (Talk 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The mention of sockpuppets is a red herring really...an anonymous editor jumped in and asttacked an editor, so I expressed the hope this was not a sockpuppet (with no particular "puppeteer" mentioned or in mind)...User:SandyGeorgia jumped to the conclusion I meant her. --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if this is true, User:SandyGeorgia has been a very kind spirited person, I've worked with her on a mediation for Tourettes syndrome and she was most kind. I'm not sure where she "stabs you in the back", can you make it more explicit? I'm going to notify her about this section so she can reply. - FrancisTyers · 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Francis, I have read that mediation and I honestly do not see any evidence of "kindness" (for example: "Sandy is hypocritical when she gets on her soapbox about how I'm violating wiki rules! She edited some things I wrote on the talk page and moved it out of context. She also tried to simply erase the entire section on Marinol, until a sysop reverted the page back!", not quite my idea of "kindness"). I just see yet another editor who has been subjected to the kind of abuse I see on Asperger Syndrome, not being believed, which is a common feature of this kind of situation. --Zeraeph 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note, Francis. Since User:Zeraeph had not contacted me about any problem or dispute between us, I was not aware of this issue, and do appreciate that you brought it to my awareness.


 * That is completely untrue, I have repeatedly tried to find reasonably civil ways to express the problems I see and have with User:SandyGeorgia and I have every reason to believe she is aware of that (see and most clearly here:). I really think someone should actually look at the talk pages for themselves and form their own opinions


 * It has been suggested that she has already behaved similarly on another article. Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an appointment right now, but will be glad to respond in more detail later this evening, as needed. But, just to briefly address the question above about sock puppetry:


 * I am not aware of any suspicious or suspected sock puppetry on the article, nor have there been any problems with edit warring or anything of that nature, either right before, during or after Zeraeph raised the question of a sock puppet. I have no reason to suspect there is any sock puppetry going on, and believe the comments Zeraeph referred to were probably from a legitimate, anon editor. Since Zeraeph mentioned a sock puppet in a passage referring to User:RN and myself, I simply asked him to please not refer to sock puppets in proximity to my name.  I also reminded him of civility, because of his response to the anon editor, to myself, and to Rdos.  Sandy 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I should like a few impartial parties to look at the relevant talk pages for themselves. However, I do not think it is for User:SandyGeorgia to presume or inform me (or anyone) of what they mean by anything they say, nor to order people not to mention anything in connection with her name. To whit, if now, or at any time in the future, a person sees cause to suspect her of sockpuppetry User:SandyGeorgia has no right to order them to refrain from remarking it. Nor to dictate in any way what other editors should, or should not, say, yet she frequently does. Frankly she often addresses other editors as though she were a schoolmarm and they children who must defer to her. She also treats articles as though they were her personal property. To the extent of informing other editors what they may or may not do on both talk pages and in-line comments. --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been an ongoing massive and consensual effort to improve the AS article, and editors are working very well together, with the exception of those few incidents, which resulted in a message to Zeraeph about civility. If a more detailed history is needed, I can provide more input later this evening. I do hope that Zeraeph will not be offended because I asked about a policy that I am not that clear on:  it is my understanding that warnings and warning templates are not supposed to be removed from talk pages, which appeared to be the case here.   I think a review of the talk page history will reveal why I was concerned that we maintain civility.  Regards, Sandy 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Another problem is a persistent tendency to distort facts, present them selectively and express her opinions as though they were hard fact, as above.


 * I would really like an impartial admin, with whom neither of us have ever been involved, to keep an ongoing eye on this situation. I know what abusive control looks like. I also know that I have never seen behavior like User:SandyGeorgia's on Wikipedia before, it seems to me to be all about "tactics" and "control" for the sake of it, and I am at a total loss how to cope with it, at the same time I really don't want to run away and leave a significant article at the mercy of any distortion of bias or information she may choose to insinuate into it. I'm not putting in a lot of refs because I think the best way for anyone to see this is the look at an overview of the WHOLE picture, and see the pattern, not "selective excerpts". --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Diffs and refs added. Sandy 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the sock puppetry issue, I jumped to no conclusion, Zeraeph, but I did point out that you were using the term sockpuppetry in the next sentence after you mentioned me, and I asked that you please take care with doing that. This is in accordance with Wiki policy (AGF), not a "domineering" directive of mine. We had another problem when you archived the talk page, with no warning, in the midst of multiple ongoing discussions and a FARC.  Because you archived *current* (within the hour) discussions, I asked that you not do that, and I restored the talk page, with consensus, while other editors waited.  Again, this is in accordance with Wiki policies, not my directives.  Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the sockpuppetry issue, here is my remark Sandy's initial response here is Sandy's second response an hour or so later.


 * I would prefer that one or two impartial admins looked at the relevant pages and formed their own opinions of what is happening in context (not least because, as long as they do, nothing else will happen, and the page will be edited by true concensus of equals as it should be).


 * I do not believe any WP guideline is meant to be expressed as though it were a personal order to a subordinate. re the above this might be a good starting point where Sandy orders me, as though I were a subordinate, to revert an action I had stated I believed was right in it's context, rather than doing it herself. Which WP guideline impels her to do that? --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the TS mediation, those were statements made by my co-editor on the TS page, and since Francis was the mediator, he was in a good position to know whether or not I was kind. The co-editor was emotional, and was mistaken in his statements about the talk page or the edits.  In fact, I have been very kind to him, and with respect to him, then and today.  A thorough review of the talk pages in question will reveal the facts. Francis, who was the mediator, can respond to your charges about my behavior on that. I would be interested in seeing an example of what you refer to as my abuse on AS, so I can understand what is troubling you.  We have gotten a lot of collaborative work done in the last week, and I've not seen any evidence of discord.  Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As already clearly shown, Sandy is perfectly well aware of discord (see and most clearly here:) and the above statement is untrue.


 * Also see her own comment further down here where she states You have never made contact with me, indicating we had a dispute, but you did seem to engage in a personal attack on me on Talk:Asperger syndrome, when you referred to me as domineering and passive-aggressive. Since we have so much work to do on that article, I ignored the personal attack, called no attention to it, and moved on with our work. Because you are a frequent editor of pesonality disorder articles, I just took it that you tossed terms like that around casually, and decided not to make it personal. .


 * It is very hard to communicate discord when the person you are trying to communicate it to dismisses your every attempt to communicate it as a "personal attack", and tries to get you censured for it instead of considering or discussing what you are saying. As a result, you are prevented from trying to communicate by the risk of censure. Unfortunately, the more severe the problem, the harder it is to communicate in a way that cannot possibly be manipulated and presented as a "personal attack", which was my cue to bring this here.


 * I suggest Sandy show examples of "kindness" because while I have frequently seen her flatter people one moment and undermine them the next in the exact manner of one who seeks to control and manipulate by abusive means. I have never seen a trace of "kindness" --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am aware that you got notably upset when I used the words "unencylopedic tone" to describe an anon editor's insertion of unreferenced, unnotable text which appeared as an advert.  You asked me to define "unencyclopedic tone", I answered your question 3, 4, or 5 times, no answer I gave satisfied you, and the topic was dropped.  I was not aware you were still stewing on something.  Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This should be read in context, as it happened . My problem was with the way Sandy persistently dismissed the contributions of other editors without real explanation of discussion, using phrases like "unencyclopaedic tone" in lieu of giving reasons as though this were a self evident fact rather than just her opinion. My error there was in trying to show her what she was doing rather than state it clearly, because I could not think of any way to state it clearly without being represented as "uncivil" again. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have provided links above to the Asperger syndrome FARC as evidence that you have tried to find civil ways to express the problems you see, but I see no evidence on those pages that I am to suppose you are speaking of me, as the description does not fit me. I presumed you were speaking of problems on the article that long pre-date me (I cannot help but notice the tension) and that I had walked into the middle of something.  Regardless of at whom the comments were aimed, they didn't seem very civil.  Since you are now saying they were aimed at me, I don't understand your objection to referencing the text from reliable sources, which we are all productively doing.  If you had something to say directly about me or to me, the FARC page wasn't the best means of communicating that to me.  Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have provided a link to another user's page, where you were having a dispute with him because he had warned you about civility, and not me.   I became aware of this when I went to his userpage to notify him of the FARC, as was agreed on the WP:FAR talk page.  When I found I was being discussed there, I tried to make light of it. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have never made contact with me, indicating we had a dispute, but you did seem to engage in a personal attack on me on Talk:Asperger syndrome, when you referred to me as domineering and passive-aggressive.  Since we have so much work to do on that article, I ignored the personal attack, called no attention to it, and moved on with our work. Because you are a frequent editor of pesonality disorder articles, I just took it that you tossed terms like that around casually, and decided not to make it personal. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy on one hand, insists that she was not aware or informed of, any problem, and on the other insists that my every attempt to communicate that was a "personal attack" to be ignored. How manipulative is that??? It's called creating a "double bind" where the target is caught either way. It is also quite typical of her ongoing behavior. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As to "order people not to mention anything in connection with her name", order is strong language. I asked you please not to refer to sock puppetry in the proximity of my name, and this is simply Wiki policy of good faith.   What editor appreciates having their name associated with sock puppetry?  It is interesting that you say I treat the article as if it were my personal property, when the only edits I have made for five days have been to revert vandalism, cleanup references, make edits specifically requested on the talk page, or add comments to text.  I have taken this position because I understand that I am seen as a neurotypical outsider by a few of you. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot be inserting bias into an article, when I'm not even editing the article, and when hundreds of edits have been made by many editors in the last five days. You are "at a total loss how to cope" with this, but one thing you did not do is talk to me about it.  My e-mail is activated, I will read and respond, and I guard confidentiality of e-mail scrupulously.  You are welcome to resolve this directly with me.  Or, alternately, since it seems that what you have is a personal dispute with me, perhaps you would like to request mediation?  I am open to any option, and hope that we can move forward amicably.  Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an more accurate picture would be derived from Special:Contributions/SandyGeorgia even the sheer volume of edits on one single article and it's talk page is unusual. My impression, over several days, has been that Sandy has far more interest in controlling how others edit, for the sake of controlling, than in the article or it's topic anyway. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm also hoping you'll explain this comment:  about an incident she/he had resolved to suit him/herself many hours earlier (which aspect, you will notice, is not mentioned).  I don't know what incident you're referring to, what I had resolved, or what is not mentioned.  Thanks, Sandy 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me reiterate that as long as one or two impartial admins keep an eye on the situation I do not think the problem will continue or recur. I doubt of it would have got so far out of hand if the active presence of an admin had curbed the situation in the first place. Put bluntly, as long as Sandy believes someone with some kind of authority over her is watching she will behave like a little burnished angel, which, for me, is a perfectly satisfactory solution --Zeraeph 09:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My conclusion is that this entry is a personal attack, from an editor who has made no attempt to present or resolve his apparent dispute directly with me. Examination of the talk page reveals cordial and consensual editing, and steady ongoing progress towards improving the article in order to retain its featured status, with two editors now changing their votes on FARC to "Keep" as a result of the progress made.  I hope admins will explore the talk page and evaluate the extent of personal attack. I understand it is stressful to see one's past work under fire during FARC, and that tensions will naturally arise, but other editors seem to be coping fine. Sandy 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the top of this page (Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.), I respectfully request that this issue be taken to proper channels, and struck from this page. This doesn't seem to have the best means of addressing the issue, or the right place for it. Thanks, Sandy 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Text that was originally inserted at this point:


 * Note: the entry below is no longer a copy of the report to AN/I, as it includes a subsequent insert from Zeraeph.  Sandy 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement, though I initially hoped it might be possible to resolve this issue here, which is why I made the request, but since I saw the responses on WP:AN/I I now realise that would be inappropriate, as well as impossible --Zeraeph 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to participants: I just archived the talk page, it can be found here. - FrancisTyers • 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was stuck on how to handle another editor's request to archive the talk page, in the midst of this.  Sandy 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, it is rather disingenuous to simply refer to this a single domineering editor - as I have supported what Sandy has done (YES we are seperate editors thankyouverymuch). Sandy has not been uncivil at all (in fact, I wish I could handle it as well as she does...), but you on the other hand have at times been slightly uncivil - but either way I'm a bit puzzled it is on ANI. In fact, you should really thank Sandy for putting in so much work into saving that article from FARC - her or myself wanting sources for information in a featured article is hardly domineering. Anyway, this particular issue is dispute resolution stuff. RN 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * RN, my life experience has taught me that you are mistaken in what you say here. Also, whatever you support, I have never seen you behave as Sandy has to anyone.


 * If you read above you will see that the only response Sandy has chosen here is to misrepresent facts. If there is any way to resolve any issue with a person who does that then I am afraid I do not know what it is.


 * I am curious as to why you think that anyone would think you and Sandy are the same person?


 * I am also curious as to why you would suggest that I should "thank Sandy for putting in so much work into saving that article from FARC" when it is not *my* article, it belongs to the whole community, and I have made it quite plain that, like most editors, I care far more about the quality, true consensus and integrity of the article than I do about FARC...personally, I never even think of FARC --Zeraeph 19:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
Coordinator closing early, see ~Kylu ( u | t )  23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.