Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

• Agapetos angel (talk · contribs)
• FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs)
• Jim62sch (talk · contribs)
• Duncharris (talk · contribs)
• others

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Contacted the persons in question via their talk page
  • Notice to FM in Talk (link not available); Notice to FM on his user talk; Notice to Jim on his user talk
• several redirections of discussion back to content rather than contributor and personalities
  • (no links; talk moved at present because of this recent issue)
• informal RfC from User:Durova
• Wikiquette alert [5](which went unanswered)
• an email conversation with an admin (unfruitful, and unable to support here because of copyright)
• (rejected) RfM [6] (which appears to have been rejected due to improper filing: ‘Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate’ )
• WP:AN/I (now deleted because it failed to resolve any issues, but instead became another avenue for continued harassment)

(NB, the timeline of these steps will be shuffled due to the ongoing nature of the overall harassment.)

These people are spamming personal information across the dispute resolution [& talk, as well as other places] pages. [correction agapetos_angel 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)][reply]

(provide diffs and links)

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]
6. [12]
7. [13]
8. [14]
9. [15]
10. [16]
11. [17]
12. [18]
13. [19]

Jim62sch 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the above list (in order of posting):

1. Related to person not named in this RfAr: [20]
2. Sarcasm is not evidence of dispute resolution [21]
3. Guettarda-related (Is Jim62sch attempting to keep Guettarda in this RfA?)[22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
4. Privacy related [27] [28]
5. Also Guettarda related (Again, is Jim62sch attempting to keep Guettarda in this RfA?) [29]
6. Contact User:SlimVirgin for details on the informal moderation. NB Jim did not include ‘and failed’ at the end of ‘Additional confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried’. [30] [31] [32]

Evidence of arguing with an editor for weeks on an issue, then telling the informal moderator that it is easy to comply with the request: (How is that dispute resolution?) FM's recent comment was 'Sources will be provided. It's a simple matter'[33] If it was indeed such 'a simple matter', why didn't FM do so when the objection was first raised (or raised for the nth time)? Is that evidence of trying and failing to resolve dispute?

Evidence of harassment? Jim stated that this was all a 'failure to communicate' and that it 'bothers [him] deeply' that I believe 'that people are out to harass' me. Would he care to post evidence that the steps in dispute resolution were followed? There is myriad evidence that there was harassment. For example, FM made a phone call [34] in an attempt to track me down and match my user id to a name (after he claimed it was a fact and posted it in various places all around Wiki). That actually goes beyond harassment into the realm of 'damned scary'.

Jim, you did in fact apologise twice for things that could easily be shown as erroneous. However, you also were the first to immediately disturb Durova's request for calm. Apologising after the fact for one part of it, and doing nothing to stop your participation in the rest is not evidence that you and I simply had a 'misunderstanding'. You linked to WP:DR. Again, can you honestly say and prove that you followed those steps? Or did you instead disrupt Talk, and continue to post the information there and elsewhere after being shown where an admin said it was a offence that could result in being banned? This was harassment intended to subdue an opponent, pure and simple. That the participants in the harassment became subdued after RfAr was filed is not evidence that it did not happen.

That defended, I would like to ask why RfAr is being used as a place to try cases? agapetos_angel 01:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent the request for injunction becoming more disruptive than the wheel war it was meant to prevent, I am dropping the request for injunction.

What remains is that Agapetos Angel feels harrassed by the gentlemen listed above, while at the same time, the right honourable gentlemen feel that Agapetos Angel has been misbehaving, and that they had little other choice.

In any case we now have much more time to dive into the diverse things going on.

Due to my personal history with Feloniousmonk, it might be interesting to attract an external advocate who is not me :-)

Technically this is a new claim, but since everyone has basically already somehow magically assumed that that's what was going to happen anyway (oh dear), we're all set anyway.

What can I say? Please do this quick. I've deleted a section on WP:AN/I that purports to associate this user with a real person. I can't guarantee that somebody won't decide I was "censoring" Wikipedia and just roll it all back. We need an injunction. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I also exhort both admins from revealing personal information. You two should know better! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking briefly this morning at the contributions of the parties named by Kim, I don't see any sign that they're continuing to harass. If they resume harassment I may block them because I regard the actions described as such an extreme breach of civility as to warrant some kind of preventive. If the arbitration committee feels unable to respond, perhaps the community will. If I do block I will (as I nearly invariably do) place a report of the block on WP:AN for review and possible modification or reversal. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, such menacing threats violate civility and fail utterly to assume good faith. If you continue to issue them, I may block you because I regard the actions described as such an extreme breach of civility as to warrant some kind of preventive. If the arbitration committee feels unable to respond, perhaps the community will. If I do block I will (as I nearly invariably do) place a report of the block on WP:AN for review and possible modification or reversal. Guettarda 15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, I will request your desysopping from the board for two things: a) getting into a wheel war, and b) for continuing to harass the editor in question. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I do not appreciate your tone. You are taking on a menacing, uncalled for and uncivil attitude in the guise of righting a perceived wrong regarding civility. First, you have made an assumption (ascribing motives) that harrassment existed, and then you presume that this alleged and unproven harassmnent will continue. Quite frankly, I am offended, and see your blatant threat as a personal attack. Shall I respond in kind by opening an RfC on your present behaviour?

You are way out of line here, and rather than to see you and Guettarda get into a blocking war that will likely get you both de-sysoped, a simple apology or rewording of your statement seems to be in order. Jim62sch 15:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer to take this one to Jimbo? --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if you did not issue menacing threats. I would prefer if you didn't issue threats to good editors for trying to act in the interest of article quality. I would prefer if you remembered that we are trying to write a quality encyclopaedia here, not to exercise power for the sake of exercising power. Guettarda 19:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing where Tony is making "menacing threats". He's stating that he will take actions as an admin and giving the criteria under which he'll act. That's not a threat, much less a menacing one. Further, by offering to "take this one to Jimbo" he's offering to help resolve issues expeditiously. Please assume good faith. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, feel free to. Lar, your definition of "assume good faith" seems a bit odd to me. Tony and Lar, Wikipedia is neither the begining nor end of my life -- I came here to have a positive impact on the availability of knowledge, and there are many other opportunities to do so. I did not come here for politics or for testosterone-driven threats best left in the schoolyard. Jim62sch 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, his threat is menacing because he is saying, "If they resume harassment" - what harrassment? He has defined good faith attempts at dispute resolution as harrassment. So, if we don't abide by some arbitrary and unspecifed code of behaviour that Tony has defined as "harrassment", he will block us. It's menacing to make threats like that. Since Tony is well known for his unlateral actions, these do not appear to be idle threats. He says "If the arbitration committee feels unable to respond, perhaps the community will". Given how Tony defines "the community", again, this is a threat of unilateral actions. Yep, it's a threat, and it's full of menance. And no, "take this one up with Jimbo" is yet another threat to bypass the arbcomm. Guettarda 04:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, you're right. My blocking threat was ill thought-out and antagonistic. I overreacted in a situation where all parties should be working to lower the tension. I apologies to all parties for my extremely wounding and inappropriate words and blocking threats. You are both good guys, I know (all ofour, including FeloniousMonk and Duncharris) and that was not the right approach and I should have known that.

I still hope that you both will refrain from outing this individual. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, apology accepted. At this point in time, SlimVirgin has things pretty well under control here [35], so the original issue really isn't an issue any longer. In fact, it seems that tensions have eased considerably, and others have joined the discussion. Jim62sch 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot provide supporting links to all the points in my statement because some of the support is located within the sections that had to be (re)moved because of the nature of the complaint. Wikipedia:Harassment gives a specific, if incomplete, list of types of harassment [36] which include wikistalking (for the purposes of disruption), targeted personal attacks (repeated personal attacks on a particular editor), and posting another person's personal information (which would logically by extension include associating my user name with an offline name and email address). The reported harassment on the WP:AN/I was the most recent violation in a series of personal attacks for which I have been attempting to resolve by many different avenues. I contacted the persons in question via their talk page to no avail, tried to reason with them in the article talk page, and tried several times to bring the article’s talk page back to discussion of the content and the other attempts listed above. Admittedly frustrated with being unable to find the correct and conclusive way to resolve this ongoing problem, I closed off my participation in the WP:AN/I and decided to ignore the attacks. Instead, I readdressed a neutral issue in the talk attempting to once again bring the discussion back away from personalities to content. This failed in that the next post by User:FeloniousMonk below mine was another personal attack. SlimVirgin had offered informal moderation in the form of a separate talk/dispute page. [37] which I initially questioned/resisted participation for reasons of disillusionment, but after a peptalk from FloNight and a nice email from another editor, I began the process as requested. In just a couple of days, and in an all-over reasonable tone, the participating editors have nearly reached complete consensus on every point [38] I had been raising for weeks to no avail. Ironically, most of the consensus has been very close to my original (and repeated) suggestions (with minor compromises). This illustrates with compromise from all parties, and no personal attacks directed at me, we would have resolved the disputes in the original talk. This supports that these admin, whose participation in the alternate talk page has been limited (and civil), were causing an insurmountable disruption that resulted in a hostile enviornment. Additionally, while the alternate talk page was approximately 12 hours into discussion, compromise, and consensus, the above editors filed a (now deleted) RfC against me. [39] I believe this illustrates yet another attempt to cause disruption rather than resolve, especially given that most of them have participated at least once in the alternate page. Given that official looking message boxes were added (and reverted back after the first removal) to three different articles,[40][41][42][43] and continuation of harassment beyond the attempts to move discussion to resolve, WP:AGF does not apply in that there is no indication that this behaviour will stop. I support the request for injunction to stop these (and any other editors/admin) from continuing this harassment as outlined above. I also strongly disagree with their previously attempted defence of public availablity as the (dubious) source in question does not draw the conclusions that the admin/editors purport. This WP:V violation would not be allowed in an article, and should be even less allowable against a contributor, especially as used as personal attack/harassment. That defence would open a wide hole allowing speculations based on other sources, such as white/yellow page listings which are also 'public knowledge' on the Internet, to be used in like manner. Thank you. agapetos_angel 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official policy that was breached is Wikipedia:Harassment, specifically [44]

Also, when 'getting started', users are encouraged to create an account. This does not represent official policy, but the relevant statement under reputation and privacy says that 'You don't need to reveal your offline identity'. Furthermore, there is no official policy that requires I reveal/prove who I am or who I am not. Nor would it be appropriate for me to require the same of these reported admin.

My intent, before this blew up into series of personal attacks against me, was (and would remain) to insist that the material in the articles in question meets policy, specifically WP:V. Stating, as a means of defence for the violations of WP:H, that I am the cause of the disruption conveys a false impression. Again, nearly all the changes to the main article in question that I had originally suggested have now (nearly) reached consensus [45] when allowed to be discussed in a manner that removes all commentary on the contributor and relies solely on (the validity of the) content. Finally, there has been no indication that any editor on that alternate page found any of my suggestions to be hagiographic or violations of NPOV.

Proof is available that the accusation that I personally attacked Guettarda is erroneous. Despite claims of a gentle approach on my talk page, which included 'Your deceitful behaviour'[46], the hostile manner in which I was treated from the inception of the complaint led to further lack of resolve. Regardless of that observation, it remains a fact that the original accusation that I placed Guettarda name on a poll was addressed, the presentation of the information was edited (under admitted protest, because of an X/not X disagreement) to make sure there was no further misunderstanding that it was not intended to be a poll, and an apology was issued. However, the revision continued to include my AGF assessment of the situation, which I feel is valid based on two pieces of evidence (one prior and one afterwards), followed with a request for Guettarda to explain how my assessment was incorrect based on the facts presented. Instead of responding to that request, my talk page was spammed (i.e., trolling) 10 times in one day with increasingly hostile contributions which included accusations of lies, lying, dishonesty, etc., and changing the headers on my talk page to put quote marks around words such as evidence and proof. I asked Guettarda to stop trolling my talk pages or I would remove any further posts. He posted twice more after my second similar request, which I removed, then archived the posts to their own page for review. I do not view my use of the word 'trolling' to be a personal attack in this context, and point to the usage by Guettarda himself when he removed the one comment I left on his talk page with the same sort of comment regarding 'trolling' [47] as well as having a statement at the top of his talk page about how trolling would be removed (cached here, because it has been removed since the accusation against me was made). FM, deeply involved in the ongoing disputes, continued Guettarda's claims. I removed the first one as I was upset by the situation, and in the middle of archiving, then fully addressed the second when he informed me that he was posting in the capacity of an admin.[48] , That this false accusation has now been posted in multiple places around wikipedia (necessitating repeated defence), rather than adherence to proper dispute procedure, leads to the conclusion that this is being used as calumny.

Finally, another proof that I am not the disruption as purported is also supported by the fact that even after I removed myself from talk and from the WP:AN/I to participating in the alternate page for discussion with the informal mediator, the WP:H violations continued in my absense. agapetos_angel 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it please be addressed that posting a link on this request to a page that repeats the WP:H violation is, I believe, a means of circumvention before a ruling can be made? agapetos_angel 01:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am dropping (and ask others to do the same) User:Guettarda from the list. I think that the actions by this admin may have been more inappropriate action/reaction than intent to harass. agapetos_angel 13:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Specific to injunction)

If the harassment is deemed a separate issue, then my statement above may be used for that purpose. However, I entreaty the Committee to hear the injunction request, particular to the issue of conclusive presumption of privacy on Wikipedia, and its subsequent violation by the aforementioned administrators.

The conclusive presumption of privacy is based, in part, on:

1. "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment." - Wikipedia:harassment, official policy
2. 'Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym.' - Wikipedia:Privacy_policy directs contributors to 'the official version of this policy', Foundation Privacy Policy
3. 'E-mail (optional): Enables others to contact you through your user or user_talk page without the need of revealing your identity.' - Special:Preferences
4. 'You don't need to reveal your offline identity' - Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?#Reputation_and_privacy
5. (Supported by an admin's official warning:) 'Using an editors real name or other personal information without their specific permission can result in a ban.' - [49]

Thank you agapetos_angel 01:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia's privacy policy doesn't explicitly deal with privacy issues between users, but it's an issue that has come up quite a lot over the years. Usually there is quite a clear "bad guy" putting out private information, and they are quickly banned and the information removed. In this case there are well meaning contributors worried about the influence a user is having on an article they believe she is intimately connected to. Usually identity outing of this type is used to bully and intimidate. I don't think that is the intention here, but I do think it is the effect. Most of us who chose not to disclose our real names could be outed in this way, it's hard to keep private information off-line, but that doesn't mean it is OK to go looking for it. We rely on the courtesy and civility that Wikipedians are supposed to show each other to keep our privacy. Those posting this information feel that it is justified in this case, because of the alleged connection between the user and the article she is editing. I would say that this is not relevant, what is important is the edits, not the editor. If Agapetos angel is making bad or biased edits, then we need to tackle that, and not the side issue of her identity. I am not convinced that those involved in this will ever agree with this, and past attempts to look at the situation have been marred by further postings of the information (see the deleted RfC). I think an arbitration ruling would be very helpful in this case, and a quick one is needed before it becomes impossible to reverse the damage.

I find Kim's actions (not informing the subjects of the RFAr until he was caught) to be underhanded and shows a remarkable lack of good faith. As for the rest of it, I'll be damned if I care. Guettarda 18:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I agree with Guettarda. This "emergency request" was undertaken in an underhanded manner and apparently without any attempt to see both sides of the issue. Is there a reason it took 19 hours to inform the parties of an "emergency" request? It seems that the notification was taken only after I had left Kim a note on his user page [50], and after I and others had contacted User:Zocky regarding the knee-jerk deletion of part or all of related pages [51], who used the following nebulous reasoning "deleting what seems to be a lot of private info disclosure until I read it. please do not undelete without first reading it yourself" in his edit summary. Initially, the RfC had been deleted by User:Physchim62, who restored it after being contacted by Guettarda. In any case, Kim was even notified early on by User:Hinotori that he was likely incorrect in filing this RfA for the reasons specified

Disputem maiorum: Now, let me dispose of the following: this claim is NOT factual, "certain key information elements can only have been obtained through private correspondence, specifically email address". Anyone Googling the user's alias can find the info on e-mail address. The same holds true for identity info. Note: do not delete this statement under the guise of privacy violation as it is relevant to a "defense" regarding Kim's assertions.

Having thus disposed of the major premise, I shall tackle the other issues in due time, but certainly no later than tonight. Jim62sch 21:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asserions by AA:

1. "wikistalking" -- no one has stalked AA. In fact, prior to stumbling across the Sarfati article I had never even heard of her. In addition, while I know from looking at her edit history that she has edited numerous other pages, to the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any of those pages except Noah's Ark -- my contribs to which predate AA's, nor have any of the others. Thus the charge of wikistalking is unfounded.
2. "targeted personal attacks" -- while at times the discussions among all parties may have become heated, I do not recall any personal attacks against AA (certainly not by me), and to my recollection, those items she has considered personal attacks were clearly not.
3. "posting another person's personal information" -- since FM's explanation was blanked, is there anyt reason to exect that my explanation of the reasons and history that necessitated the use of public knowledge wouldn't also be blanked? Thus, I see no reason to answer this charge as I need not waste keystrokes on an item likely to be removed. 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
4. ". I also strongly disagree with their previously attempted defence of public availablity as the (dubious) source in question does not draw the conclusions that the admin/editors purport": Obviously, this charge cannot be directly be disputed here, but I will note the following: Google caches its data each time an item is searched for. Given that the item in question had been searched for on 13 Feb 2006, there is zero chance that the alleged cache from 25 Jan 2005 could be legitimate on 16 Feb 2006, thus the claim of the "dubious" nature of the source is in and of itself dubious. 23:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
5. "That defence would open a wide hole allowing speculations based on other sources, such as white/yellow page listings which are also 'public knowledge' on the Internet, to be used in like manner.": Were the information found to have been as trivial as AA suggests, she would have a point. However, that was not the case. See the deleted comments from FM and Raul's comments to discern why the case is somerthing other than implied by AA. 23:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
6. in re "Official policy that was breached is Wikipedia:Harassment, specifically [52]": I'm not fully sure as to which part of the policy is refering as she has coverd them all previously, but if it is that which I believe it to be, there is a qualifying phrase, a caveat as it were. 01:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
7. One making the following assertion needs to provit: Finally, another proof that I am not the disruption as purported is also supported by the fact that even after I removed myself from talk and from the WP:AN/I to participating in the alternate page for discussion with the informal mediator, the WP:H violations continued in my absense. agapetos_angel 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC). Additionally, I do not recall seeing a comment by AA that she had removed herself from talk. 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
8. For the comments re Guettarda, I shall let him answer these charges for himself, if he so chooses. 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
9. re the following: "Could it please be addressed that posting a link on this request to a page that repeats the WP:H violation is, I believe, a means of circumvention before a ruling can be made?". First, what link, second if evidence is to be presented, it needs to be presented unfettered by the assumption of distastefulness by one of the parties in the dispute. 02:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I commend Kim on his decision to drop the request for injunction, however, I believe that this RfAr should be closed and an RfC pursued first (I believe that to be the proper Wiki path, but if I am wrong, let me know). My basis for this request is that AA's assertions differ in content from those of the original RfAr, thus a different path is needed. Jim62sch 12:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, that AA still believes that people are out to harass her bothers me deeply. If we look through the evidence we will see that harassment was not part of the issue: NPOV and honesty were. As for myself, were harassment really my goal, would I have retracted two statements I made in good faith that I later realized were incorrect? I think not. In fact, to borrow a line from Cool Hand Luke, "what we have here is a failure to communicate." Nothing more, nothing less. Jim62sch 00:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment removed. Flames, meet petrol. James F. (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Request to have this testimony immediately deleted, as it puts forth information I would like the injunction on. (is there such a thing as contempt of arbcom?) Kim Bruning 19:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FM, don't deliberately go against a direct and repeated well-intentioned request, whether or not you believe it to be baseless.

James F. (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than delete the entire statement, only the second paragraph needed to be deleted (if anything did). Was this how the Min Zhu/WebEx case was handled? Maybe in the regular business world the concept of a "conflict-of-interest" means little, but where I work it means everything, so perhaps I have a different standard regarding acceptable behaviour. Jim62sch 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as "contempt of arbcom", but it certainly shows strong disagreement with the position of those asking for the injunction. All in all, it's probably a good idea not to repeat the information here, at least until some definitive ruling can be made. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy with Felonious here, the chances of two people choosing the handle "agapetos_angel" are pretty remote, the source of the allegation is on the web, and if the inference is correct it is very clearly problematic for edits to be made to the article by that person. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's impossible as the e-mail address can be held by only one person, and the e-mail address is in fact that of the person in question here. Additionally, there are issues regarding tampering with Google templates that will not be disclosed here, but that are relevant and can be provided privately upon request. Jim62sch 22:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the question of whether it's a breach of privacy to identify editors from IP addresses, and then whether or when those editing a page they're personally involved in have a right to that privacy. ...dave souza, talk 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This raises a number of important and relevant questions. As far as I am concerned, privacy does not trump neutrality, as NPOV is policy while privacy is not. But I am not from the USA, where some people clearly view this very differently. It does look as if an editor is standing on privacy to avoid answering allegations of editing articles in which they are personally involved: refusal to answer, in the British courts, allows certain inferences to be drawn. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts of the ongoing issue of Agapetos angel's behavior that led up to this are already described at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agapetos_angel, so I'll just direct readers there and add my own brief summary of how I believe Agapetos angel caused this event to escalate herself through misrepresentation and insisting on disrupting an article in which there is strong evidence that she has a personal stake. Agapetos angel has a history of being disruptive at Jonathan Sarfati, including 4 3RR violations, resulting in being blocked 3 times. She has also been editing heavily the article of Sarfati's employer Answers in Genesis, and the article of a colleague of Sarfati, Ken Ham.

Public information, found on the web through google and available to anyone indicates Agapetos_angel is intimately related to Jonathan Sarfati. <Details deleted> This information reinforced additional information found on Wikipedia implying a connection. <Details deleted>

When her apparent involvement was brought to her attention in a neutral and non-revealing way [53], she misrepresented herself repeatedly by implying that she did not have a personal relationship to Jonathan Sarfati: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

All efforts to get Agapetos angel to cease edit warring and violating 3RR without revealing her personal connection to Jonathan Sarfati failed. Her response has been neither outright confirmation nor denial of whether she has a relationship to Sarfati but instead to continue the edit warring and personal attack disruption and to misrepresent our efforts get her to abide by policy as "harassment". [59] [60] If Agapetos angel does not respect the community enough to state whether or not she's an involved party at Jonathan Sarfati when asked directly, [61] [62], she has no standing on which to object to others who have reservations about whether the participation of an involved party is indeed appropriate. The easy way for her to settle this matter and spare the community further disruption would be to just speak up as to whether she is indeed related to Sarfati. Instead, Agapetos angel has chosen to play coy, which naturally raises suspicions that Agapetos angel is relying on intentional ambiguity in the hope that she can continue a POV campaign and relying of false charges of harassment against those who may stumble upon the truth. Agapetos angel has yet tell the community that truth, despite numerous requests and occasions where doing so would be appropriate and helpful. If indeed she is not an involved party, setting the record straight would have little risk to herself and only bolster her credibility while earning her an apology from me and settling this matter for good for the community. FeloniousMonk 19:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(opened new section, is that right? Kim Bruning 11:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC) See new statement above)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Accept as above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Morven. Mackensen (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to look at everyone's behaviour. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, per my comments below. Raul654 18:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Unclear exactly who the involved parties are, and what issues will be examined. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll accept an Agapetos angel case, but not the injunction. Dmcdevit·t 19:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, given how this has gone on, as a case to look into. Charles Matthews 17:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept ➥the Epopt 20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see no breach of the Foundation's privacy policy here. The Foundation's privacy policy is only in respect to what information will be released or kept private by the Foundation and those it privileges with extra access to sensitive information - developers, those with CheckUser, the Arbcom, et al. Regular Wikipedia users are not bound by that policy, and I do not think the Foundation is bound to keep information private that has been released by others, not through the Foundation. While I think a case could be made against this practise through the application of other policies, I don't see such a case being made here, which is not to say that it can't be. Has User:Agapetos angel complained about the release of her personal info? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to me that info that can be gleaned from the web is not really private at all. it's publically available. Am I right in thinking that the only info released is the person's name and her relationship to the people whose articles she has edited? Not her address or telephone number or anything like that? I am not willing to make a blanket statement about this sort of thing.(linkspammers posting links to their own websites need to be identified for example) But I will say that in this particular case I don't see that info on who she is is needed. It's what she does that matters. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• So people used publically available information to make a connection between Agapetos_angel and the articles she was causing trouble on. This is (a) not at all a breach of the foundation privacy policy and (b) a commedable effort in keeping our articles free of bias created by editing from someone with an obvious conflict of interest. Soundly reject. Raul654 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in the interest of those who, like me, were totally unable to read most of this request - I found this request to be almost totally incoherent. Only FeloniousMonk's (now deleted) comment told the whole story in any sort of ordered fashion. Kim's initial statement that people are spreading Agapetos_angel's personal information amounts to a serious lie-by-omission, in that he fails to mention in any way the non-trivial reason they were doing it - that she was editing (in a very biased way) of someone she personally knew. No one even mentioned Jack Safarti's name until FM did. Ridiculous. How do people expect us to make sense of these things if they only tell us 20% of the story and expect us to psychically know the rest? Raul654 21:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the simple reason that I have asked only for a very specific, narrow, limited injunction on very specific, limited, narrow grounds. Kim Bruning 21:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ??? so what if they were a POV-pusher extraordinaire? I've dealt with worse, and I have never seen it to be acceptable to use the threat of revealing personal information as a way of "winning" the argument. This is totally unacceptable. What are we coming to? We can deal with POV-pushers without revealing who they really are. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that RfAr is NOT the place for discussion. (This will be my only comment in this section.) -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 13:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it's quite obivously a violation of civility to expose personal information, and that claiming that an email address is the one used to privately and off-wiki email participants is absolutely and obviously such exposure (no, that's not repetition of publically-known information). There may be other disclosures of private information in the above (and elsewhere) too, but I've not quite the time right now. So... yes, pending a proper case. James F. (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• While I don't think it is a breach of the Foundation privacy policy, it is not the sort of consideration of others I'd expect for good editors to insist on publishing her personal information. From the limited places in which this information is available online and the way she wished to deny the connection, it's fairly clear that she wished to remain anonymous. It's not like her name has been published in the New York Times linked with this identity; it just happens to be available in some corner of the web. If her edits show bias, great, repost the request for comment on that alone and I'm sure people will be happy to act on that; it sounds like it is fairly clear that she is biased without needing to "out" her. I don't think an emergency injunction is quite in order, but I do think people should not use any more force than necessary here, and are strongly advised to make their case without reposting the material objected to. (If this sort of thing isn't a big deal, why was such a fuss made over Daniel Brandt's site?) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC

  Brandt's site tried to expose anonymous editors simply because they edited the article about him, not because they had any specific personal relationship to the article itself; in this case, the identity of the editor in question is actually relevant to whether or not they should be editing the articles in question. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm rejecting this case because I don't think publishing this information is a breach of any specific policy. However, I do think it is a bad idea to "out" people who wish to remain anonymous. Cases are really about policy violation, or disruptive behaviour of various sorts, and if the individual at the center of this issue is doing either, then a case should be brought on those merits alone, and not based on her alleged identity. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  As well as applying policy, we have to face up to being one of the few (only?) bodies that can actually take a firm stand and get things done in the midst of contraversy such as this. I think trying to cop-out with "but there's no policy about this" doesn't speak well to the Committee. James F. (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm one of the many editors who believes that we should not be constantly expanding the role and powers of the Arbitration Committee; in this case, my concern rests with the belief that we should try to stick to our mandate of policy adjudication, rather than policy creation. I don't think that really qualifies as a "cop-out". Jayjg ^(talk) 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I have seen the board create policy before. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.