Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-29 Talk:Asperger Syndrome

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request Information

Request made by: Keyne 18:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Conflict regarding alleged editor misconduct.

Who's involved?

User:Zeraeph, User:Keyne, and User:SandyGeorgia (latter only as the accused)

You forgot User:Perl, User:64.236.128.14 who actually initiated the discussion.--Zeraeph 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

Misconduct is alleged against User:SandyGeorgia. User:Keyne has requested multiple times for evidence of any such misconduct so that it may be addressed, to which User:Zeraeph has responded in irrellevant non-explanations and increasingly hostile tones.

What would you like to change about that?

Talk:Asperger Syndrome

as it would constitute a rather lengthy series of personal attacks. Finally, an assertion regarding the outcome and verifiable ability for all editors to post would be extraordinarily welcome.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Discreet communication is not preferred. This has been a public dispute, and does need some public redress.

Mediator response

Compromise offers

Discussion

I feel strongly that User:Keyne is either a sockpuppet ot meatpuppet of User:SandyGeorgia, the similarity of syntax and word useage is positively alarming, and User:Keyne does not attempt to negotiate but only manipulate, in exactly the same manner. Thus, as on previous occasions, (here [1] and [2]), I feel there is nothing whatsoever that can be achieved through mediation or discussion. I have repeatedly brought evidence of this issue into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (details here [3] and here [4]), to which the only response has been deceit and manipulation on the part of the respondant. I think this is the beginning of an extremelly serious problem that, at this present time, can only be resolved through investigation of the kind for which Wikipedia does not have the resources. However, when another editor complains of the same issue, as in this case, honor obliges me to support them. When they are attacked for so doing, as they were, in this case by Keyne, honor obliges me to defend them. My only regret is that I wasted so many words trying to reason with Keyne before I realised any attempt was futile --Zeraeph 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY - My name is Kiwi. This is only the second time I've ever posted at Wikipedia, so this might not be done right. My apologies in advance. Leave complaints and comments on my talk page. :o)

User:Zeraeph has made a serious allegation about User:SandyGeorgia and User:Keyne and seemingly not for the first time. MeatPuppet was a term I had not heard before, so I decided to look it up. I found it in the UrbanDictionary.com. The definition shows this is an horrible insult to be leveled at any editor -

---

1. meat puppet person(s) that have no will of there own; somebody that lets others control them. "George is Pats meat puppet, he does what ever she says." by Therese NC Dec 11, 2005

2. meat puppet A person that is totaly devoid of brain material; a complete idiot by Zorglub Germany May 19, 2005

3. Meat Puppet Porn slang for a male porn actor "Forget about it... you don't need to be a genius to be a meat puppet! He can be replaced easily..." by Courtney Apr 6, 2005

---

I wanted to know if this charge was legitimate or just a red-herring to derail this Mediation Cabal with spurious charges that would deflect attention from the true issue of this Cabal. So I pulled up both person's Contribution Pages and then spent a couple of brain-numbing hours seeing if it was possibly true.

First, I found that (except for the Asperger topic they both worked on to get it to featured article status) they didn't have any other topics of common interest.

What I found shows how impossible it would be. See the times below when both people were posting at the same times.

---

SandyGeorgia - 02:06, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→See also - check talk page)

Keyne - 02:06, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→See also)

---

SandyGeorgia - 17:21, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Article and prose size - typo calculate)

Keyne - 17:21, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Causes section)

---

SandyGeorgia - 18:05, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Criticism of Hugo Chávez (→Out-of-context quotation - go find it)

Keyne - 18:05, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Causes - epilepsy - structure shift + response/question)

---

SandyGeorgia - 19:10, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mingus ah um (→Libya - will get to it)

Keyne - 19:10, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Previous wording)

---

SandyGeorgia - 19:23, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Macedonia (terminology) (→Terminology by group - grammar, please double check)

Keyne - 19:23, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Previous wording)

---

SandyGeorgia - 22:38, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Hugo Chávez (JR, please do NOT remove referenced text. The references are NOT on the talk page, and it is very hard to go back and re-construct them. Resolve this on the talk page, not by removing text.)

Keyne - 22:38, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Asperger syndrome

---

SandyGeorgia - 22:36, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004 (rv, JR please don't delete referenced text. It is SO much harder to have to go back in the diffs to find the references and re-construct them. Resolve it on the talk page.)

Keyne - 22:36, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Asperger syndrome (→Notable cases)

---

SandyGeorgia - 22:50, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Images and Lead - I like it)

Keyne - 22:50, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Asperger syndrome (→Social impact)

---

SandyGeorgia - 13:18, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Causes again - Rdos PMID sources)

Keyne - 13:18, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Asperger syndrome (→Research into causes)

---

SandyGeorgia - 15:17, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Early intervention - also, increasing functioning in all realms)

Keyne - 15:17, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Asperger syndrome (→Writing peculiarities - more)

---

SandyGeorgia - 23:09, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IG Farben Building (→IG Farben Building - strike, correct typo)

Keyne - 20:09, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome

---

SandyGeorgia - 01:13, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Causes again - PMID)

Keyne - 01:13, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Asperger syndrome (→Research - ugly attempt at a lead-in. needs tweaking)

---

SandyGeorgia - 01:54, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→DSM addition date ref - lose disease)

Keyne - 01:54, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Asperger syndrome (dsm-iv link has first date at 1994 publish)

---

SandyGeorgia - 01:58, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Criticism of Hugo Chávez (→Consultative Referendum (out of context quote - part 2) - that's a stretch)

Keyne - 01:58, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Asperger syndrome (→History - rm disease-speak)

---

SandyGeorgia - 02:01, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→DSM addition date ref - stupid DSM

Keyne - 02:01, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Asperger syndrome (→Notable cases)

---

I finally got so tired of highlighting, copying and pasting, I gave up. The following is just to show the type of pattern I found innumerable times, too many to copy like I did the others.

SandyGeorgia - 18:16, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Criticism of Hugo Chávez (→Out-of-context quotation - correct)

18:14, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (Images)

Keyne - 18:15, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Causes - serotonin - 'spoke too soon.)

18:13, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Asperger syndrome (→Causes - serotonin)

I hope everyone can see that no one could do this so quickly and flawlessly: To log out of a screenname, change your ISPs, then log back in with another screenname, then always remember to post only in your subjects of interest and to always sign your name correctly.

No way can anyone do that -back and forth, back and forth, back and forth- for hours at a time, for months.

---

I hope this helps people see that Keyne is no one's puppet and that SandyGeorgia is not engaged in any fraudulent and deceptive participation at Wikipedia, never mind hidden attacks on User:Zeraeph. This has been nothing but a red herring thrown out to disparage and discount the reputation of both people. Kiwi 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that leaves two possibilities:

• Keyne as a meatpuppet [5] acting on instruction from User:SandyGeorgia
• Sockpuppetry using two different, incompatible browsers eg IE and Opera, copying and pasting rather than typing.

The fact remains that Keyne uses words in a near identical way to User:SandyGeorgia, and pursues an identical strategy of passive/aggressive manipulation. That would a one hell of a coincidence if there is no active collaboration. I don't deal in red herrings, and the User:SandyGeorgia situation is easily the most genuinely alarming thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Time will prove me right. --Zeraeph 22:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are really a very funny woman. Your beliefs are purely crazy (note, I said your stated beliefs are crazy, not you as a person). Do you belong to the Flat Earth Society, too? :D There is no way in the world a sane person can suggest such a thing. It is too paranoid for words.

The only answer is that you are attempting to deflect an investigation by tossing red herrings left and right. You just don't want people looking at your behavior. That means you must have something to hide?

Can you support your claims? Don't give us that lame "Time will prove me right". You have posted users' IP address before so do it now. Prove yourself right now. Kiwi 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the above merits any kind of answer - ever. But am I the only one who wonders how a newbie who barely knows what an edit summary is can suddenly claim to know so much about people they do not know and an issue in which they have never actually been involved? --Zeraeph 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are trying to turn ME into the subject of this Cabal? But the subject of this Cabal is you, Zeraeph. Boy, you must have a whole chill box full of red herrings, the way you toss them around.

It is true I'm not a Wiki editor. I am just a psychology grad student who comes here to read -mostly about Asperger and Autism- for more than the past two years. I can read, go everyplace and read anything at all (I think?) It is incorrect to think that people do not exist until they stop just reading and decide to speak up. You don't really believe that, but saying that I am suspicious is your attempt to distract attention from yourself again.

Now back to the subject at hand -- your problems playing nicely wtih others.

Kiwi 23:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so...I am afraid I refuse to interact with either sockpuppets or mind games, let alone both. I will make no further posts on this namespace. --Zeraeph 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has asked me for an edit summary, but I'm sorry, I don't know what that is. The only thing I know how to do is "sign my name" with those squiggly things. Kiwi 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot help also observing the curious incidence of a new editor who has never edited except on this particular issue, thus: [6]. My deep, gut feeling is along the lines of "the new editor doth protest too much" - and that IS just my genuine gut feeling...and anything else would be a lie. --Zeraeph 22:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See what I'm dealing with? Paranoid conspiracy theories and personal attacks abound. Assistance would be greatly appreciated, as I don't prefer being deemed a non-person on the grounds that I don't agree with someone--worse, even if I do! In retrospect, this may be beyond what the Cabal is willing to handle, so if that is the case, recommendations would be very welcome. I'd really like to get this mess resolved, and I'd really prefer to return to "being a person" again. :) --Keyne 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one further comment from me regarding this train of thought from above: "I am afraid that leaves two possibilities:" Note that Zaraeph cannot fathom that I'm my own person, and only considers anything I may write/think as being a sock/meatpuppet (and no, defending or agreeing--and even disagreeing--with some points of Sandy's makes me neither). --Keyne 16:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

IT IS OFFICIAL - NO SOCKPUPPETS HERE!!

Thank goodness, an official inquiry was made to uncover any possible connections between Keyne, SandyGeorgia and myself.

User:Mackensen has just posted the three of us to be "Unrelated" (Mackensen 22:41, 31 August 2006)

Zeraeph requests CheckUser for A_Kiwi

CheckUser Talk for A_Kiwi

This is a wonderful step forward in making this the first of 3 Mediation Cabals (one begun by Zeraeph, one by SandyGeorgia and this one by Keyne) to actually persist and lead to some resolution of the core problem which has remained the same - Zeraeph's unsubstantiated charges against SandyGeorgia.

Now Zeraeph can be assured that there are no sockpuppets and I will totally withdraw if she will simply present her evidence that subtantiates her continued charges over a long time. Conflict resolution is all that is desired or has been desire. Zeraeph is the only person who has continually made serious allegations, but who has repeatedly announced her withdrawal from any mediation, even when the request for mediation came from her. See Zeraeph's request for Mediation Cabal

I have no need to take any sides in this dispute. After all, just last night I was completely alarmed at this allegation that Keyne was merely a Sandy sock. My only desire to see unsubstantiated charges cease. It is neither coercive, manipulative or game-playing to ask someone who brings serious charges to be prepared to back them up with specifics.

This MedCab should insist that those who bring unsubstantiated charges, over and over again, "put their money where their mouth is." It would be non-productive to let this be the third MedCab to simply be closed without resolution and no input from Mediator(s) in order to create some permanent resolution to a case of extended character assassination. --I am Kiwi 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, either the proxies are too intricate, or it must be meatpuppetry. Bear in mind the issue is NOT sockpuppetry, it is complex long term abuse. Sockpuppetry was just one option on the mechanics of it that, if proven would resolve it once and for all, so checking seemede obvious. The complex, long term abuse and collusion is not even in doubt. --Zeraeph 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to ask you to stop the libellous comments now, Zaraeph. Not everyone that has a similar contary opinion to yours is as you describe. It's somehow sad that you cannot even fathom the more obvious resolution: that we're simply three people with differring opinions to yours, independant of each other. Be civil, and assume good faith. --Keyne 12:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are Zeraeph's accusations?

I'm very confused, and have been for the whole time I've been watching this discusion grow on

, about one very simple question - what, precisely, is Zeraeph accusing SandyGeorgia of? He has been asked this multiple times, and has consistently been extremely vague at best in responding. It is long past time for Zaraeph to present some clear, specific examples of abusive behaviour, preferably with diffs. If there is abuse, let's deal with it. If not, let's show once and for all that the emperor has no clothes. The above discussion is not in any way helping matters - quite the opposite. Some facts and logic, on the other hand, could go far right about now.

Thus far, all I have seen is Zeraeph accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being manipulative (yet another vague accusation for which I have yet to see any evidence presented), and claiming that the truth of his accusations is "not even in doubt" and similar things when, in reality, no-one but him seems to agree with them. If the evidence is really as clear-cut as he claims, what does he have to lose by simply presenting it, without all the bluster? If Zeraeph is right that it's so obvious, then so should the solution be, at that point. PurplePlatypus 05:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go:

• WP:AN/I initiated by Zeraeph [7]
• WP:AN/I initiated by Zeraeph [8]
• WP:Mediation Cabal initiated by Zeraeph [9]
• WP:Mediation Cabal initiated by SandyGeorgia [10]
• WP:Mediation Cabal initiated by Keyne [11]
• Talk:Asperger_Syndrome the discussion referred to in above discussion initiated by Keyne [12]

Actually in the past couple of hours I have realised that the whole thing is much nastier than I ever could have thought, and in a sense much closer to home (for me anyway). User:SandyGeorgia is actually an erotomanic stalker who attached herself to both myself and one other person since February 1999. If I had realised THAT I would never have requested a "checkuser", because it was a waste of time, she's just too practised at sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry to get caught that easily.

I did not recognise her simply because I was not vain enough to assume I was the target. Though I DID see the strategy clearly for what it was. A woman hell bent on manipulating her way to Admin status to further a personal agenda (which probably involves, ultimately, the abuse of me and the promotion of her personal idol).

The sheer effort and time involved in setting the strategy up truly staggers me, but it is also typical of her. Two people have been her whole world for 7 years and I am one of them.

Ultimately the Wikipedia community will prevent her from being able to sustain the second part that strategy for any length of time, it will astonish her how fast the community can turn it's back on someone who seeks to promote an agenda devoid of valid citation.

I am going to take the first half of that strategy away from her RIGHT NOW. I am not giving her the slightest influence over any aspect of my life, I am signing out of Wikipedia for good after this post, and I won't be looking back for "audience feedback". Not my style. --Zeraeph 05:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the personal issues between you, which I have no wish to get involved in and so make no comment on whatsoever, the links you provided are NOT the droids I'm looking for. For example in the first one you simply baldly state: "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." WHAT does she do that's domineering and controlling? What are some SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of this behaviour? And why, if it's so clear-cut, does almost nobody who has "form[ed their] own opinions" by doing as you say seem to agree with you? Maybe you misunderstood my request for diffs; I was looking for specific edits of hers that display the behaviour you are criticizing. PurplePlatypus 07:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what this MedCab request is hoping to find out, PurplePlatypus. I've asked on many occasions and have yet to receive much more than dismissal of request or provocative comments (and personal attacks). The only thing I wish to do in this matter is figure this out, and resolve it one way or another. If Sandy is being a domineering, evil editor, then it must be remidied; however, if the latter is not true, then the section really must be removed and we need to go on with our wikilives. I don't particularly care one way or another which is found to be correct, but I do care that we move beyond this accusation. --Keyne 12:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You all are misunderstanding the purpose and limits of MedCab. They help to resolve disputes when all parties are willing. Zeraeph has never been willing to mediate, and IMO, her behaviors and libelous and attacking posts to Wikipedia will not end via mediation. While I appreciate people asking for some substantion of her allegations against me (us), this mediation only serves to provide her yet another forum for smearing our names, and MedCab is not able to do anything about it: they did nothing about it the last two times either. If anything, the last two situations were made worse by inexperienced mediators and unclear MedCab policies. MedCab is a volunteer effort; they have no power to effect anything in this case, which will sit here unattended, as yet another smear against me (us), until some mediator decides to take the case, and then what will the mediator do ? This is why I have opted to ignore the whole deal (although I had to participate in the CheckUser, which was a serious allegation). Defending myself against someone's paranoia is futile. There is a serious and fundamental flaw in Wiki's policies when another editor can attack and libel me (us) to the extent that Zeraeph has, and an admin won't step in and do something about it. All of the libel she has spread about me (now us) across Wikipedia, in multiple fora, should be deleted and cleansed from history, but that will never happen. Wiki leaves the burden of action upon the accused, even in blatant situations like this. It's too bad (for me) that Keyne and I aren't working in concert, and that he does not have e-mail activated, as I would have advised him long ago not to bother with taking this route. Sandy 15:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pure user conduct issue and handling those are not for the mediation cabal to decide as we are an informal process and cannot impose sanctions upon any editor. If you would like to pursue other avenues of getting to the bottom of this, I would recommend a user conduct

]

Thanks to all for the good faith efforts to defend me (us). If it is decided to pursue further action, Zeraeph's escalating personal, unfounded and libelous attacks should be noted: "User:SandyGeorgia is actually an erotomanic stalker who attached herself to both myself and one other person since February 1999. If I had realised THAT I would never have requested a 'checkuser', because it was a waste of time, she's just too practised at sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry to get caught that easily." [13] Sandy 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record, the previous warning issued to Zeraeph, which she removed from her user talk page. [14] Sandy 17:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cowman. I wanted to start from the ground up, but I guess I missed the mark a little bit. Thanks for the suggestions. --Keyne 18:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that score, Keyne, you did the right thing. You showed good faith, you did your best, you followed the instructions. Sandy 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]