Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

Can we at least have a clear summary up the top what the dispute is all about? I doubt anyone wants to wade through this badly disorganised page to work out what happened here. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm recused from this case, but if I were not I'd say that FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs), Jim62sch (talk · contribs), Duncharris (talk · contribs) and others say that Agapetos angel has been editing Jonathan Sarfati disruptively without disclosing a close personal relationship with Sarfati. She, supported to some extent by Kim Bruning and myself, claim that their conduct amounts to harassment. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this as the wording assumes some allegations as fact (begging the question) and did not cover that the harassment is the cumulative result of policy and guideline violations. agapetos_angel 08:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(following paragraph copied from my talk page. WAS 4.250 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

She replaced Tony's summary with one that was substantially inaccurate. Tony is, as he himself says, one of her supporters. How is that "bullying"? Guettarda 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this diff [1] more carefully. Do you wish to stay with "replace" or would you like to go with the word "add"? WAS 4.250 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please spell out more clearly what you are trying to say? I don't follow your shorthand. Guettarda 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. Jim62sch 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the diff I provided a link to, I see that the version being altered (last edited by angel) contains both angel's summary and the summary FM accepts. What do you see? WAS 4.250 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Now I see she ALSO revised the other version! That is so totally unacceptable, it never occurred to me to check the two paragraphs for differences. So both sides are bullying and trying to control the summaries of the other. Ha! WAS 4.250 16:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for catching my mistake. I have removed my one sided accusation of bullying. I think all fair minded people will agree each side has the right to their own short summary. That's all I was trying to do, and you've helped me do that. Thanks, again. WAS 4.250 16:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So both sides are bullying and trying to control the summaries of the other - I don't agree with this assertion at all. I was not trying to control the summaries. If anything, Tony is a member of the "other side". Aa deleted Tony's summary (which, in my opinion, was a fair summary of the dispute) and replaced it with a one-sided summary of her own. I was not trying to present "my side's" summary. I think your characterisation is very unfair. Guettarda 18:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all fair minded people will agree each side has the right to their own short summary. (1) No, I don't agree and I don't think that's the way it works in arbcomm cases - each side can present a summary in their request section. If each person was allowed a summary, there would be 7 summaries at the top of the page (based on listed participants and people who have posted pleadings; and (2) each side? We have two summaries produced by the same side - one of which presents two sides of an issue, and one of which presents only one and ignores much of what is asserted by the other side. Guettarda 18:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were this process based on the rule of law, this RfAr would have been tossed as the initial complaint is no longer extant (in fact it was rejected [2]), and the proper procedures of dispute resolution have been bypassed. (No, this is no legal threat, this is an observation). As for the summary by Tony, it is far more accurate as it explains the situation in chronological order and presents both sides fairly. Jim62sch 22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Tony's summary (which, in my opinion, was a fair summary of the dispute) and replaced it with a one-sided summary of her own. I was not trying to present my side's summary. I think your characterisation is very unfair. I'm sorry for upsetting you. You are a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. You mean well. You had no intention of bullying. Intensions are not everyhing. Sometimes acting in good faith produces unfortunate consequences. Many seperate people all acting seperately can together produce results no one of them intended. A case I hestitate to bring up, and is a millions times as bad as this case could possibly ever be even if the worse were imagined is the case in Afganistan where dozens of soldiers individually kneed an innocent. No one kneeing killed him. All the kneeings together killed him. Fairness includes paying attention so ganging up doesn't occur.
2. I think all fair minded people will agree each side has the right to their own short summary. You disagree.
3. As for the summary by Tony, it is far more accurate as it explains the situation in chronological order and presents both sides fairly. I maintain a person has the right to present their case without having it reworded by their enemy. I have no opinions as to which, if any, side is more accurate. I am simply astonished that both sides see fit to rewrite the opinions of the other side. WAS 4.250 00:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I really have no idea what you are talking about. "Fairness includes paying attention so ganging up doesn't occur"? How does allowing one side to have two summaries prevent gaining up? How does your assertion that one side should have two summaries prevent ganging up? You are facilitating ganging up.
2. I think all fair minded people will agree each side has the right to their own short summary. You disagree If "all fair minded people...agree" can you show me an example? Can you show me in which other cases multiple summaries are used? Your implication that I am not a "fair-minded person" is quite an insult - and is unsupported by the facts, as far as I am aware of them. Instead of slinging insults, why don't you provide some diffs to disprove my assertion that multiple partisan summaries are no used in arbcomm cases?
3. "I am simply astonished that both sides see fit to rewrite the opinions of the other side". What? Tony provided a summary. Agapetos angel re-wrote his summary. "Both sides"? I find your assertion baffling. Guettarda 02:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I really have no idea what you are talking about. [...] I find your assertion baffling." I most humbly apologize for my poor communication skills. WAS 4.250 07:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ri) Tony said that I was 'supported to some extent' by him, so I did not see any issue in revising his summary. I intended no disrespect; however, I also did not intend to ignore a summary that I feel does not accurately reflect the situation. (Actually, I have not seen any rules that stated that I could not edit the summary; I'm sorry if I missed something and would have appreciated someone pointing out where I erred) This RfAr was brought not to address my behaviour, but to request assistance against the harassment by the admins and editor listed that was not being resolved by other means and was escalating. When SlimVirgin privately requested that I review the situation and consider dropping action against Guettarda and FM because of the possible severity of action that could be taken by ArbCom, I did as she asked. I agreed to drop Guettarda under the AGF that his participation might be viewed as action/reaction in an inappropriate manner that could be addressed under another means (or ignored). However, if Guettarda wishes to remain a participant in this RfA, then I request he add his own name back onto the list, or hereafter refain from making any changes ('Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request'.[3]) Reverts would only serve to inflame the situation, but I respectfully request that my summary be allowed to remain. Thank you agapetos_angel 07:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see that the discussion page is indicative of the problems encountered on other pages.

Additionally, Tony's account, as added by FM is far more accurate than the one by which it was temporarily replaced, especially in light of several requests from arbitrators; to wit:

"Accept after further thought and developments. This acceptance is to consider not only the narrow issue of privacy, but the behavior of all parties to this case. I'd like to ... expressly encourage all parties to make their case much more comprehensibly if/when the case is accepted, rather than the confusing way this one appeared. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)" (Emphasis added)

"Accept as above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)"(Emphasis added)

Accept per Morven. Mackensen (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)(Emphasis added)

"Accept to look at everyone's behaviour. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)(Emphasis added)

Given the overwhelming desire to look into everyone's behaviour, AA's behaviour is not precluded from examination, thus, again, Tony's summary was quite accurate. Attempting to recast the dispute in order to support the views of one party or the other shows bad form, a disinclination to act in good faith, and what could be construed as harassment in the sense that facts are being intentionally misrepresented. Jim62sch 13:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I steer clear of requests for arbitration so I'm unclear about the proper way to contribute. My name came up more than once on the arbitration request and I'd like to make some sort of statement, especially since there seem to have been misleading implications about my involvement. I came to the Answers in Genesis article in response to an RfC. The editors were in disagreement about how to construct an article section and present citations. Setting aside the contentious issue of creationism, the active editors all agreed to treat the matter in strictly technical editing terms. The result was harmonious collaboration and a better article. As they reached consensus I awarded the resilient barnstar to all the editors on the page. I wish more of the RfCs I've answered ended half as well. This was only the second or third barnstar I've ever given. I offered it without any suspicion that one of the recipients was party to another dispute that would lead to arbitration. I hope the committee considers this in its deliberations.

I need to clarify the mention of my name in the list of evidence that dispute resolution has been tried. My informal RfC at Jonathan Sarfati was not directed at Agapetos angel, but made at Agapetos Angel's own request and largely intended for the page's other editors. Other editors at Jonathan Sarfati ignored most of my input and I discovered today that nearly three weeks of discussion including all of my RfC comments had been removed from that talk page in the name of refactoring. Agapetos angel's behavior has been fair, conscientious, and courteous in everything I observed. I have not surveyed all of this editor's contributions so there may be things I haven't seen. Based on my interaction I would rate this person as an above average editor, responsive to feedback, willing and able to act in the interests of fairness.

I was offline for a couple of weeks and discovered this arbitration today. I'm concerned that it may not have been raised in good faith. Immediately below my barnstar award at Talk:Answers in Genesis and under the same section heading, Felonious Monk posted an accusation that Agapetos angel is personally involved in AiG. I don't know whether this post was true or appropriate, but it was certainly disharmonious. If an actual relationship does exist then Agapetos angel should have disclosed it. Jim62sch admits that he disrupted a request I made for calm, stating "I felt that Durova was missing the bigger point." To my understanding, the bigger point in all we undertake here is to produce a useful and impartial encyclopedia.

This leap to arbitration appears precipitous. Isn't it normal procedure to begin with mediation or a user RfC? I certainly know other editors whose behavior has been far more inappropriate, who I wish were in arbitration. Unless there is something about Wikipedia procedure I don't understand, there seems to be nothing in these mild accusations to justify having bypassed several less severe methods of dispute resolution. The speed with which this proceeding has reached this stage has the appearance of impropriety. Some of the editors involved in the dispute at Jonathan Sarfati are administrators. I don't know whether this represents actual influence or prejudicial treatment, but this proceeding gives a strong whiff of something like that. No particular dispute is important enough to compromise an admin's reputation for impartiality.

I usually avoid references to my POV on controversial issues. Since we're in arbitration I'll add that I follow Stephen Jay Gould's opinions. I'm surprised to find myself stepping forward in defense of Agapetos angel, but the RfCs and this arbitration are really about fair editing and user conduct. Durova 09:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked out a little bit more, I'll add that Agapetos angel requested mediation for Jonathan Sarfati on February 11 and the request was rejected because other editors refused to participate. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 2 Durova 11:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, you might want to make sure you get your facts straight: 1 -- AA requested the RfM on Jan 30, not Feb 11. 2 -- Only one editor responded to her, likely because he was the only person who saw it. 3 -- I don't think any of us were ever directly notified of the RfM (I recieved a comment on my talk page about an RfC, which I could not find on the JS discussion page; 4 -- RfM was rejected on the 12th, (see item 2 above) Jim62sch 18:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half the problem would go away if both sides would agree to not edit other people's opinions even if they list your name as agreeing with them when you didn't. The issue of the relevance of real-world identity needs to be addressed because we can't have a radically open to anon editing system combined with rules about what you can and can't do based on your real world identity. The two are logically incoherant. Jimbo has said in print that it is "a fool's game" to try to figure out real world identities and deal with contrubutors on that basis. Perhaps an arb-com ruling that only self announced real world identities count in nonvandalism cases, and we don't out real world identies just like we don't make legal threats would make the other half the problem go away. Rules that are inconsistent with themselves need to be fixed. The problem here is more with the rules than the people (or so I choose to believe :) WAS 4.250 16:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the RfM request date mistaken? Did you really not know about the request? I suppose it's possible that I was misled from the exchanges on our talk pages, but having seen the good faith she exhibited at Answers in Genesis I had no reason to doubt her. Either way, normal Wikipedia procedure is to open arbitration as a last resort. Other options remained when this one started. Agapetos angel's fine conduct in the Answers in Genesis RfC demonstrates a strong streak of fairness and cooperation. Per WP:Assume good faith, other editors should seek to build on that foundation. Durova 10:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation conducted in bad faith is pointless. No basis for good faith assumptions can exist in an environment founded on deception. Willfully misleading the community about your identity with the express intent of side-stepping the guidelines and conventions that place restrictions on editors contributing to subjects in which they hold a personal stake is by definition an act of fraud, deception, and hence bad faith. At the time the RFM was filed several parties were already aware of the fraud, and their declining to participate in such a mediation would need to be viewed in that light. FeloniousMonk 18:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it was neither myself, nor FM, nor Dunc, nor Guettarda who skipped procedures anyway. While you may haver found AA's behaviour to be acceptable at the AiG page is not doubted, but in this case, she went way overboard. A key factor, besides the deception FM mentioned above, is that everyone was forced to take a harder look at her behaviour in the wake of the deceitful "fake straw poll event".

Anyway, the RfM date was incorrect, and only FM responded to it -- I do not recall every having seen it. Jim62sch 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What RFM? Guettarda 21:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the point in the discussion where she first mentioned a request for mediation David D. (Talk) 21:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I said above. Note that 17 minutes after only one editor said no, she called it quits. Didn't wait to hear anything from anyone else, just threw in the towel. Yeah, that's a good faith attempt. Looks to me more like going through the motions for some purpose or other. Jim62sch 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out to Jim in email, he is very much mistaken in this accusation that I 'called it quits'. Directly answering FM's comment regarding 'You should try to compromise and reach consensus here first', is not an indication of RfM closure. Note the following sentences that indicate the results of that effort. RfM was rejected, not closed by me, for failure to show that parties agreed to mediate. (I erroneously thought that informing everyone on the article's talk page was enough). agapetos_angel 07:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How certain are you that this user concealed a conflict of interest? If that is true then it's reprehensible, but to my knowledge not an actual violation of policy - Wikipedia allows editors to change their own articles but merely cautions against it and advises disclosure - and such a thing didn't affect this user's ability to collaborate fairly at the other article. I've looked at the dialogues on this subject and I'm disturbed by the assumption that her refusal to comment on the accusation is implicit acknowledgement of its truth. That is exactly the mistake Joseph McCarthy made during the Red scare.

Here's one alternative motivation - I have no idea whether it applies in her case - but it's very plausible. Suppose she's just an ordinary person who happens to be a domestic abuse survivor. Stalking is a legitimate concern to this type of person. She's concerned that any response at all would prompt more cybersleuthing and expose information on this very prominent site, making it much easier for her ex to - well - in stalking scenarios murder is a realistic risk.

Assuming good faith means I don't try to read the worst into her silence and neither should anybody else. She's acted in good faith on a related article so we should assume she's willing to act in good faith on the Jonathan Sarfati article, if other people would only calm down. We also should assume she has a perfectly good reason for not answering accusations about her identity, and that it's none of our business. Durova 03:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty certain, or else I wouldn't be here. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, or so the saying goes... FeloniousMonk 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for me as well. WP:AGF doesn't mean that you should bury your head in the sand when confronting less than desirable facts. Jim62sch 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize myself as burying my head in the sand. Given that my views on science are strongly opposed to those of User:Agapetos angel I'm disposed to be critical. That said, you have failed to establish the relevance of your investigation. Agapetos Angel has focused on the content of the articles and correctly raised relevant encyclopedic policies. The case for evolution is strong enough that there is no need to bend policy or conduct ad hominem attacks. What I saw at Talk:Jonathan Sarfati was a set of hostile editors who erected uniquely high standards of evidence regarding information that could be in Mr. Sarfati's favor. It would be rather unusual for someone to obtain a Ph.D. in chemistry without publishing a few peer reviewed papers, yet these editors insisted that every paper on his C.V. be double checked against relevant publications for authenticity and every journal's peer review practice receive independent verification. The only excuse for such extraordinary scrutiny is Mr. Sarfati's minority opinion on evolution. The publications themselves are nothing spectacular: a handful of routine studies in physical chemistry, unrelated to evolutionary theory, and more than a decade out of date. This is a near-great chess player who abandoned the beginnings of a career in science to become an author of general audience books. One of the hardest things to do is to take a procedural stand in support of something I disagree with, but I have to say that Agapetos Angel's editorial decisions are healthy and productive: if you want to develop a really good refutation of Mr. Sarfati and his beliefs, then solicit the best evidence in his favor from the editors best able to provide it. This man isn't much in the world of science. Durova 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one said he was much in science, but, overall his main popularity is with his pseudoscience.

What the hell does this mean? "That said, you have failed to establish the relevance of your investigation. "

I tire of this silliness. The real world is far more important. Jim62sch 09:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: re "I do not know whether Agapetos angel has a conflict of interest. If there is one it is reprehensible, but fails to rise to the level where arbitration is necessary." Neither myself, nor Dunc, nor FM, nor Guettarda started this RfAr -- Kim Bruning did, and for completely different purposes. The orginal RfAr was rejected and that should have been the end of it. Just so we are clear. Jim62sch 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here [4]. JoshuaZ 16:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if AA could be convinced that admins wouldn't close ranks, by punishing AA for daring to complain about admins' violation of Wiki rules. At present, the admins reacted to AA's justified complaint by banning her, and while grudgingly admitted that her opponents were guilty of edit warring, the ArbCom not only didn't punish them, but allows them to ban AA for editing this article.60.242.13.87 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a request at my user talk page I performed an investigation on two IP addresses that have been active at the Jonathan Sarfati biography, which is one of the articles from which Agapetos angel has been indefinitely banned. At User_talk:Durova#AA_meeting Otheus, who appears to have acted in good faith, petitioned me to investigate the possibility that 60.242.13.87 and 58.162.2.122, both of which have been blocked[5] or warned[6] per this arbitration case, are not the same person as Agapetos angel. Otheus presented evidence both onsite and via e-mail in support of that possibility.

Upon investigation, I conclude that these two IPs are almost certainly the same person, unlikely to be Agapetos angel, and very possibly Mr. Sarfati himself. My evidence is summarized with a fair number of diffs in the thread and I can provide more upon request. Does the original ruling cover this situation? Please advise. Durova^Charge! 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the original article-ban remedy was applied to (among others named) User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204, as well as "any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." I suggest, unless the AC wishes to make a clarifying statement to some other effect (or the user(s) concerned wish(s) to appeal the original remedy), that the best course would be to have an uninvolved admin review the blocks, with particular regard to whether these are the same editor as sanctioned previously in a similar IP range, and/or have engaged in sufficiently similar behaviour to merit such sanction. Alai 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions. That has already been done. This particular rabbit hole goes rather deep. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]