Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motion to Close

1) Agapetos angel submits a motion to close the evidence portion of the proceedings one week from today.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We don't do this. Often a continuing pattern of behavior is taken into consideration. Fred Bauder 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think another week should be sufficient time for all parties to respond. agapetos_angel 04:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Apologies. I also have no experience in RfA and did not see this as an inappropriate request given the length of time that has been offered to give evidence. I not suggesting rushing ArbCom, but rather moved to close the evidence presenting stage. I'm weary of having to constantly refute false accusations from muliple editors, and my evidence section is getting overly long as a result.agapetos_angel 08:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very minor party in this RfA, so my opinion is not that important. However, I think that a week seems reasonable to me unless any other parties have objections. JoshuaZ 04:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Removing my comment per Guettarda. Sorry about that. I have no prior experience with RfAs. JoshuaZ 04:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this motion puzzling - I have never come across anything of the sort in an arbcomm case. I would strongly oppose any motion of this sort, inasmuch as I have barely started with my evidence, the "ink's" barely dry Joshua's evidence, there's been no discussion of the evidence, and quite frankly, it's totally unreasonable to expect the arbcomm to bump this one ahead of all the other open cases. Guettarda 04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What's the rush? I see no compelling reason to rush the arbcomm here. FeloniousMonk 05:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nor do I. After all, our purpose here is to find a remedy, how do we do this if we've yet to fully diagnose the situation? Jim62sch 00:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, Alai is considering presenting evidence, so at minimum he would need time for that. JoshuaZ 22:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Edit warring

1) Edit wars or revert wars are considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, edit warring seems to have occurred. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• This should include sanctions against Admin roll-backs abuse related to content dispute, rather than vandalism. agapetos_angel 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit warring is particular problematic when those edit warring are personally involved with the subjects of articles or are themselves the subjects. JoshuaZ 22:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disruption

1) Users may be banned or otherwise restricted for editing in a way that constitutes clear and intentional disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• This should include disruption on the talk pages as well when the disruption leads to a hostile environment. agapetos_angel 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Writing about yourself

1) Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view while doing so. See Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but the same considerations apply to those on the other side who are excited about an issue. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Dispute resolution process must be followed to determine if there is a conflict, rather than using the article's talk and other avenues of attempting to invade privacy. agapetos_angel 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good faith dispute resolution cannot occur in an environment founded on deception. An editor with a conflict of interest intentionally misleading the community to side-step limits to editing but insisting on dispute resolution is simply gaming the system. Conducted under false pretenses, any mediation cannot be expected to yield positive results, thereby rendering any such dispute resolution another part of the charade. For this reason the Agapetos angel user conduct RFC was started, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agapetos angel, addressing this very issue, but was overtaken by this RFAr. FeloniousMonk 08:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Oh, you mean like the time Angela tried to VFD her own article? Hmm. I think it's not always a good idea to edit articles about yourself, since it's hard to be objective. On the other hand, it obviously shouldn't be forbidden, else you'd get situations where The Next Siegenthaler starts out more sane, but then actually gets himself reverted. If you thought last time was a hoot, wait 'till THAT situation hits cnn :-P Kim Bruning 13:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sometimes the only defense against disruptive editors is to edit your own article (see for example pm_shef (talk · contribs) vs. VaughanWatch (talk · contribs) and Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs). However, the relationship should be disclosed. Thatcher131 13:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

1) Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy or self-promotion. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Wikipedia articles are not for propaganda or advocacy of any kind.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sockpuppets

1) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, if the facts exist. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Meatpuppets

1) A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, likely to be used. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute resolution

1) Comments about contributor rather than content of the article in article talk is considered harmful. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Article talk should be used solely to discuss the article without disruptive accusations and misinformation about contributor. There are specific WP:DR rules which must be followed. agapetos_angel 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) [Addendum: WP:DR does not include disruption of article talk pages and articles, which necessitated the filing of the emergency RfAr when the editors would not stop being disruptive despite warnings from Admins agapetos_angel 08:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]
• Proper DR channels were followed. The user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agapetos angel, was filed on 16 February: [1] It was intentionally undermined by those who filed this RFAr on 17 February: [2] FeloniousMonk 08:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider "Intentionally undermined dispute resolution" a very serious accusation against me personally. I recomend you assume good faith. If you are unable to do so, you shall have to provide a VERY convincing argument as to why I would intentionally undermine dispute resolution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Kim Bruning 19:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One who seeks equity must do equity. Agapetos angel is unwilling to complete her own obligations to the community, continuing misrepresentations to side-step restrictions from the article talk space well into WP:DR. For WP:DR to be equitable, one must come with clean hands. FeloniousMonk 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*That is not very relevant to whether Kim has acted in good faith. I am inclined to think that Kim has so far acted close to or reasonably close to good faith even while Agapetos has not. JoshuaZ 19:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) removing comment for a variety of reasons, including information as what not previous aware of. JoshuaZ 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't meant as a response to Kim, but to the proposed principle. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Privacy

1) Wikipedia has fostered a conclusive presumption of privacy. An editor can chose to retain their privacy with the expectation that violation attempts are prohibited under harassment. Violations of privacy used to subdue an opponent must be considered especially grievous and addressed with stronger sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but when the user focuses on particular issues it becomes reasonable to inquire as to who we are dealing with. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Likewise, an editor's reason for privacy should also not be assumed and/or publicly analysed. agapetos_angel 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The personal information provision of the Harassment policy was never intended to assist editors who intentionally seek to circumvent limitations placed on them from editing topics in which they have a personal stake by misleading the community. A number of attempts were made to make the point clearly to Agapetos angel that her participation as an involved party was inappropriate without revealing her identity: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] It was Agapetos angel's response to those efforts that caused the events that lead to her identity becoming public. By dismissing all calls for what were at that time yet unnamed involved parties to step back, Agapetos angel made escalation a certainty. Instead of bowing to Wikipedia's guidelines and conventions, Agapetos angel chose to step up her POV campaign and her efforts to avoid the limits placed on involved editors. Those actions prompted the escalation of warnings [8] and the responses of others that ultimately led to her identity being discovered and revealed independently by a number of editors: [9] [10] [11] FeloniousMonk 08:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Accusations of affiliation were built on one unreliable source. All other supposed evidence of affiliation draws conclusions based on that single source being accurate. It has been proven that the source was changed during the confict time period, so all connections and conclusions are invalid. The house of cards has fallen, and repetition does not equal fact. agapetos_angel 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The reliability of the sources I cited will be judged by the arbcomm, not the parties here. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comparisons/references to Nazi propagandists are unnecessary. JoshuaZ 20:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're correct, Joshua. I've removed it as it was not my intent to be uncivil. agapetos_angel 02:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Repetition does not equal fact" - maybe its time to listen to your own advice, instead of lecturing others. Guettarda 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The aspects of personal identity that are readily available by way of a Google search cannot be expected to remain private when their subject falls under scrutiny in connection with questionable or biased [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] edits. Responsible investigation of possible biases and conflicts of interest is an integral part of basic administrative duties of policing Wikipedia content. FeloniousMonk 07:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, one must ask if the presumption of privacy trumps all other policies to a point at which the integrity of Wikipedia is compromised. If memory serves, the WebEx/Min Zhu case, which was of a similar aspect to the present issue, resulted in rather negative press for Wikipedia that substantively reduced its standing in the court of public opinion. Given that the aim of Wikipedia's stated mission may be reduced, albeit somewhat crudely, to appealing to and providing a learning environment for those who in general comprise the vox populi such negative press correlates to a diminution of Wikipedia's value and ability to provide a positive learning environment. It is therefore my assertion that privacy cannot and should not always be the prime objective, if you will, and at times must be subordinated to the need to maintain the integrity and viability of Wikipedia. I believe the case addressed by this RfAr to be representative of such a case. Jim62sch 14:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no presumption of privacy in Wikipedia as such and has never been one. The arbcomm, for example, has access to CheckUser tools. The rules, as they exist, do so to further the aim of producing a high-quality product, written by volunteers. Interpretations of guidelines and policies must bear in mind that these rules do not exist for their own sake, but for the sake of achieving the goals of the project. If Wikipedia were primarily a social experiment, it could be argued that anonymity should be absolute for those who desire it. However, as with any of the rules here at Wikipedia, where anonymity conflicts with the issue of encyclopaedia quality, the encyclopaedia should always win (cf. Jimbo’s many references to Calvinball). There is a general principle against writing about yourself, which is formalised in the WP:AUTO guidelines. This is obviously not an absolute prohibition – Jimbo himself has edited his own article, as have many other people, with varying degrees of opposition. However, the ArbComm has come down in the past quite firmly against disruptively editing articles which you are so close to that you have a hard time maintaining objectivity (cf., the Min Zhu/WebEx case and the Carl Hewitt case). The general principle of "do not write about yourself" is not something that only applies to people who make their identity known; it applies across the board. Our rules are not a game, and the objective is not "gotcha". Writing about yourself, or about other issues that you are too close to, is bad because it hurts the quality of the encyclopaedia. If Agapetos angel and the anons had made suggestions to the talk page about changes they thought should be in the article, the issues would probably have been resolved. This all started with her repeatedly deleting a section because it lacked sources. A request for sources would probably have been met weeks ago, but for me at least my time and energy were consumed dealing with disruptive and POV-pushing editors. Their connection with the subjects of the articles (Jonathan Sarfati and AiG) was obvious. Several attempts were made to get these editors to voluntarily accept the rules of the community, without revealing the underlying information publicly. If Agapetos angel had been acting in good faith, she would have abided by the community rules once they were pointed out to her. Instead, she chose to deny any connection. When the evidence was provided to her, she was the one who escalated the affair (in so doing, outing herself to the community at large). Privacy, such as it exists here, serves to make editors more comfortable, and thus encourage contribution. However, if an editor uses this privilege to violate rules and undermine the credibility of our content, there is no reason for us to ignore publicly available information. Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. Guettarda 15:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Guettarda's summary of events lacks accuracy and makes very tenuous assumptions. I was not the one to 'undermine the credibility of our content', but rather the one to point out where credibility was lacking. The section was moved to the talk page (not deleted) in accordance with Wikipedia policy (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:Living, et. al.) as related to unsourced material, some of it unverifable by the nature of how it was written (weasel words), when the subject of the article is living. The section was also original research, both in part and as a whole. (SlimVirgin, moderator of the dispute page, later confirmed that moving the section to talk/removing it from the article was appropriate per policy.) Guettarda assumes lack of good faith by his own admission. He also states, 'If Agapetos angel and the anons had made suggestions to the talk page about changes they thought should be in the article, the issues would probably have been resolved', ignoring that there were heaps of suggestions and discussion on the talk pages, and that the sources were not provided for some time. Also when the sources were finally found, a rewrite was necessary because the section as it stood was (as I pointed out) in violation of WP policies. If the sources were so easily obtainable as FM previously suggested, and Guettarda now alludes, then why didn't they expeditiously obtain the sources to resolve the problem? Guettarda's own admission ('my time and energy were consumed dealing with disruptive and POV-pushing editors') answers that question: his energies were instead directed at contributor rather than contribution. Therefore, these editors disrupted the article with reverts and caused a hostile environment with their harassment rather than quickly resolving the dispute by supplying sources claimed to be easily obtainable. That is a very odd resolution tactic. Finally, while ArbCom 'has access to CheckUser tools', it also has a very strict policy on the release of information related to the results of those checks, to protect privacy. Therefore, that is another support that privacy is a valid presumption. agapetos_angel 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Fortunately everyone involved in this conflict all live in western countries (well, sort of). We cannot always presume this. If people from more oppressive countries (these people exist, and they do edit wikipedia!) find that their personal privacy is not safe, it's game over. This is a very basic assumption here, let's make sure we stick with it. (Note that while institutions and public positions are not people and different rules would apply there, it's not relevant to this case.)Kim Bruning 13:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue in this case is honesty and civility between editors not personal safety. Claiming otherwise seems odd to me. FloNight 13:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's exactly the issue in my eyes. We have long had a standard that you don't reveal personal information on Wikipedia, even if it is Googleable, unless there is an exceptional reason. Time after time this has happened and the quick response has been to remove information and, if necessary, block those posting it. I don't have good links for this, but Jimbo's home address is the classic example. Even release of Wikipedian's real names off-Wikipedia has caused uproar (e.g. Daniel Brandt's list - and he felt he had a good reason I'm sure). Release of the real name or other details of a user who prefers anonymity is almost always an attempt to intimidate and bully. Where that isn't the intent, as in this case, it still remains the effect. So doing this should be a matter of careful consideration and consultation, and should be a rarity and not a norm. We must give Wikipedians the courtesy of anonymity when they prefer it. -- sannse (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at the expense of allowing them to disrupt articles. WP:BLP calls for involved parties to identify themselves on the talk pages of articles they edit with the ((Notable Wikipedian)) notice. It states involved parties should not write about themselves, but leaves open to involved parties assisting by providing references, by challenging unsourced statements, and by assisting other editors. WP:AUTO, which applies "to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest" states that editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. Responding to inappropriate editing is an integral part of basic administrative duties of policing Wikipedia content, and attempts were made for nearly a month to resolve the issue with revealing any personal details: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] FeloniousMonk 15:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of Living Persons offers people the advice that they may wish to consider using the notable wikipedia notice. It does not state that you are required to use it. In any case BLP is irrelevant, as there is no article on agapetos angel, afaict. Note also the big fat "presumption in favor of privacy" header earlier in the page. We might want to expand that section. Kim Bruning 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the so-called investigation was both irresponsible and spiteful. An offsite discussion about the Jonathan Safarti Wikipedia article regarding information about his wife demonstrates this [22]. The discussion involves no less than two Wikipedia editors involved in this arbitration case and is dated February 15, 2006--concurrent with the attempts to expose a relationship between agapetosangel and Mr. Safarti. --Ben 01:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I started that thread principally for the Socrates matter, which I felt needed better sourcing. Additionally, I asked about the name of his wife because there was at the time an issue of whether it should be mentioned in the article, in which case it might need better sourcing(see my reply to Dunc in that thread, and note that the my initial request was on Feb 15, before this came to head) Additionally, at the time I was highly unconvinced that Agapetos was Sarfati's wife and thought that the simplest way of establishing that to be the case without any privacy issues would be to establish that the first name of his wife was not Sherry. While bringing the topic up outside Wikipedia may have been irresponsible, I have trouble seeing what if any was "spiteful" about my request for information. I hope that makes things clear. JoshuaZ 02:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Upon further reflection, it is hard for me to understand how asking "I'm helping out on the wikipedia article on Jonathan Sarfati, and was wondering if anyone had information on two things: First, does anyone have any reliable sources as to the name of his wife( such as a dedication or note in one of his books)? Second, can anyone point me to the evidence that Socrates on theologyweb is/was in fact Sarfati?" was in any way irresponsible. It did not mention Agapetos or assert any connection whatsoever. JoshuaZ 22:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, given Ben's behavior and current filing of a highly vexatious RfA, I do not think what he claims to consider "spiteful" should be very relevant. JoshuaZ 19:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Individuals using various internet resources and fora to gather and coordinate evidence in the course of participating in WP:DR is and hardly proof of irresponsibility or spitefulness. This comment by Benapgar is an example of WP:POINT considering it's context. Benapgar was never a participant in this imbroglio and has an extensive history of disruption and personal attacks which is now being considered at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Benapgar. His participation here may rightly be viewed as evidence of his spreading disruption and sowing the seeds of conflict which prompted the RFAr against him. FeloniousMonk 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• FeloniousMonk's comment above seems to contradict his earlier comment ('carried the disruption outside of the RFAr'). However, while I do think the 'investigation' was harassment and did not follow WP:DR, I do not think that Joshua's intent in the offsite discussion was based in spite. Irresponsible, yes, but not spiteful. agapetos_angel 16:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Strike based on Joshua's 'further reflection' 01:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Agapetos Angel referred to me above as agreeing that her removal of a certain section or moving it to talk was appropriate. I want to clarify that I'm not familiar with the context in which AA moved or deleted anything. The only comments I made were on a subpage I set up as an uninvolved party to try to resolve the dispute and I don't know anything about the situation before that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The appropriateness agreed on the subpage was addressing the exact issue that was ongoing on the article talk page. The move of the section to the article's talk was justified by WP:BLP, WP:V, & WP:NOR. agapetos_angel 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respect for Wikipedia's consensus decision making process

1) Administrators, like all editors, should be respectful in cases where consensus is not clear or is in dispute, and applications of sysop rights should show respect to discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but they should not be so respectful that they cannot take effective and appropriate action. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrator rollback/revision abuse

1) Repeated rollbacks and revisions by administrators should be considered abuse of sysop rights when they are used in content dispute rather than fighting vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but a rather minor infraction. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• This does not include explained reverts of content that administrators dispute and discuss as any other editor.agapetos_angel 06:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• First, one questions the assertion that rollbacks, aka reversions, should be solely the purview of those fighting vandalism. Should this assertion prove to be the ruling, then WP:CON would be effectively and should therefore be redacted to indicate the much weakened role of reaching a consensus. In essence then, Wikipedia will find itself paralyzed by disputes, mediation, RfCs, et cetera.
• Thus, we are required us to request a clear clarification of what is likely to be a subjective decision as to when reinsertion of disputed content against consensus becomes vandalism. If the paradigm created by the current definition of consensus is arbitrarily weakened, then there can be very little cause to revert content that has been disputed by all but a few editors, as defining it solely along the requisite terms of vandalism will become nigh on impossible.
• Therefore I move that the assertion that "Repeated rollbacks by administrators should be considered abuse of sysop rights when they are used in content dispute rather than fighting vandalism" is far to narrow and effectively reduces the necessity and efficacy of administrators. Jim62sch 14:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My intent in this proposal is to point out inappropriate behaviour where an administrator asserts 'administrator duty' but in fact is editing like an editor. For example, if an administrator changes an article repeatedly with official sounding edit summaries but is in fact in the middle of the content dispute and using that revert/rollback/revision as a means to bring the article to their preferred version, this is an abuse of their administrator rights. agapetos_angel 02:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Administrators who abuse rollbacks/revisions/reverts repeatedly a single 24-hour period in a team effort in content dispute should be considered to be to 'gaming the system' and acting as a single administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

They are just edit warring, bad enough in itself. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• This does not pertain to correction of obvious vandalism. agapetos_angel 06:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This asertion is as well problematic at best. Given the 3RR rule, it may be of certain times a necessity to act in concert. This would be of even greater necessity when two or more editors are acting in concert to present a specific POV in direct contrast to various guidelines/policies including, but not limited to, WP:NPOV and WP:CON. An example of such tandem work can be found at, [23] and [24]. Jim62sch 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No legally-based accusations

1) Along with WP:No_legal_threats, there should be a policy of no legally-based accusations toward other contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, dragging in personal details regarding an editor in is improper. Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• For example, an editor should not indicate that another editor has been involved in illegal activity, named or unnamed. agapetos_angel 07:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Such a policy would result in many different problems. For example, if an editor attempted to hack wikipedia, one would not be able to mention it under this policy. And any discussion of a notable wikipedian that had any past accusations of criminal behavior would be impossible. Finally, I simply fail to see any benefits from such a rule. JoshuaZ 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, but there has to be some alternative mechanism in place, then, to stop false accusations of illegal activity. This is a very serious type of accusation, with the potential to have ramifications offline. agapetos_angel 02:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Respect for cultural differences

1) Wikipedia is an endeavour by contributors from varied cultures. Therefore, cultural considerations must be taken into account in all determinations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True enough Fred Bauder 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Wikipidia is not merely an American endeavour. Different cultures might place different levels of importance on contributed material. Therefore, cultural differences must be taken into account when determining aspects like POV, etc. A relevant example would be the disagreement over inclusion of chess facts in the Sarfati article. Americans editors seemingly placed a POV label on the inclusion of relevant and verified chess facts, citing notablity as one objection. However, neither POV nor notability was a factor based on the level of importance other cultures (Asian Pacific, for example) might place on those facts. This was evidenced by the comments by a chess club president who stated that a Sarfati chess 'event was front page news in our local papers' (and on his chess website)[25] and further commented that the VP of the club was 'quite definitely NOT favourable towards Jonathan's non-chess views. Yet this doesn't stop him from being quite in awe of Jonathan's chess abilities when he speaks privately, nor does it stop him from saying so publicly on the club's website'.[26]. The determining factor should be the culture of the subject of the article, rather than the culture of the contributors to the article. agapetos_angel 22:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No one is claiming that Sarfati's chess abilities are non-notable. There remains however the basic fact that he is far more known for his non-chess views. As observed earlier, even if one googles for Sarfati+chess, the first page of links all return creationist websites(not counting Wikipedia and its mirrors). In any event, the issue of how much chess to have in the article is, in my view, an essentially separate issue which should not be decided by arbitration but should be decided on the relevant talk page. Very little discussion went into that matter and so it is unreasonable to make that highly relevant to this RfA now. JoshuaZ 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of notability was the claim, and the dispute was more than just a minor issue with 'very little discussion'. It was sufficient enough a problem to be mentioned in the iRfC by Durova. As I indicated chess was one example. This proposal is relevant because cultural differences seem to be one of the major problems behind several of the conflicts and I think it should be addressed. agapetos_angel 16:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of notability was not the fundamental issue. The matter seemed to be how much emphasis to put on chess and whether to mention it in the introduction. JoshuaZ 16:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability was the fundamental issue, claimed against emphasis and mention. agapetos_angel 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is strikes me as a special pleading for an exemption from WP:NPOV#Undue weight to promote a particular POV. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand how this relates to the content of this dispute or to what evidence this relates. Guettarda 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Special pleading does not apply because there are obvious cultural differences which attach different levels of notability to some issues (e.g., Durova's excellent summary here, starting 'Similar issues surrounded Mr. Sarfati's career as a chess player.'). Assertion that this is to promote a particular POV is erroneous because the content was neutral (and sourced). WP:NPOV#Undue weight does not apply because there was (1) no comparison of viewpoints regarding the information, (2) the chess information was not disputed, and therefore, (3) there were no opposing viewpoints to the information. If the appearance of a FIDE Master does not garner front page news in an American city, but it does in an Australian one, that illustrates a cultural difference. The sourced chess information was fact ('information about which there is no serious dispute') and the exclusion appeared to be based on the push that there was lack of notability, seemingly based on cultural differences. agapetos_angel 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Yahoo, limited to Australia only: Sarfati+chess = 50 hits; Sarfati+FIDE = 40; Sarfati+creationism = 83; Sarfati+AiG = 70; Sarfati+Answers in Genesis = 121; Sarfati+young earth = 126; Sarfati+evolution = 147. So, for what is he most well-known in Australia? Jim62sch 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Front page Australian newspaper article: Sarfati+chess. agapetos_angel 04:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found this looking for source to a different question on the RfA: Australian Chess Federation newsletter No. 355, 8 February 2006 [27] Another Sarfati+chess, again showing recent notability. agapetos_angel 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Consensus

3) For purposes of content of articles consensus is an agreement between those who advocate opposing points of view on a version which fairly presents both points of view in a way which satisfies Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Citation of "consensus" during the course of POV edit warring is only a tactic when there is no actual agreement as to content. Fred Bauder 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• When it has been sufficiently established for the majority of the participants and there is agreement that a particular editor is participating in bad faith and there is also broad agreement on article content beyond the bad faith participant's objections, then consensus can be said to exist. FeloniousMonk 16:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is how it often works in practice. Here, where we probably have autobiographical editing, that attitude is understandable. However I think there is probably POV editing on the part of the opposition also. The problem is, I rather doubt we have anyone editing the article who is not trying to make a point, either pro or con. Fred Bauder 02:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I find your accusations deeply insulting. I don't edit articles to make a point. People who edit articles to make points should not be editing Wikipedia. If you can support your accusation, please bring your evidence so that I can be banned from Wikipedia. If you can't support your wild insults, please withdraw them. Guettarda 03:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in seeing what specific difs Fred has that he thinks show con POV-pushing. I would be especially curious as to what point edits Fred thinks that I or Alai made, and would strongly appreciate specific difs. There is a tendency when one sees a highly controversial article to presume(often correctly) that both sides are making POV edits. However, This is not always the case, and I would posit that this is one example where the POV pushing only occured on one side. As a fairly new user I am anxious to learn what edits were POV so I know for future reference and can adjust my behavior accordingly. JoshuaZ 03:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jimbo called for editors, but what came were human beings. So I'm willing to accept that we all start from our respective viewpoints when we come here as volunteers. The only issue is to what degree an editor is willing to work toward maintaining NPOV. There's a gulf of difference between having a perspective, and promoting a perspective. The point made here and shown by evidence time and again is that Agapetos angel has only contributed on these topics to promote a very particular POV that is not verifiable, that Sarfati is a research scientist and chess master first, a creationist second: [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Now, if you want to deem our resistance to her new description of Sarfati that violated both WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:V as "trying to make a point," then I suppose I should be offended as well. But I just can't worked up over opinion; I mean everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts. FeloniousMonk 04:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry & Meatpuppetry

1) Agapetos angel has used several suspected sockpuppets and meatpuppets to lend support in discussions, plant misinformation, and make reverts. These include User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, seems like a individual or small group. Fred Bauder 17:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Regarding the 58* IPs: Errors in posting under dynamic IP means that I cannot state with certainty that I did not post under 58.162.252.236 and 58.162.245.148. It is hard to tell at this date and the subject matter is ambiguous enough that authorship cannot be determined. However, neither was used as sockpuppets to bolster any sort of opinion, so the accusation is invalid. The rest of the 58* IP postings are neither mine nor sock puppets. Proximity is not proof of puppetry. (I know for a fact that 58.162.251.204 is not mine because participation was after I stopped editing the Sarfati article, and the style of writing and topics of discussion are different.) I have freely admitted to knowing 58.162.255.242 [39]. This user is not and was not a sock or meat puppet. This was a frustrated editor who went overboard in presenting issues, and who stopped editing that article upon my request. I cleaned up that mess with the help of the other editors and the RfC mediated by Durova. Regarding User:Dennis Fuller: DennisF and I were in conflict on the Answers in Genesis article, and his user talk page speculates on my identity. This should be sufficient proof that he is not my sock or meat puppet. Regarding 220*: These editors may be the same person or not. None are my sock or meat puppets. Based on information from User:Alex Law, TPG has a cluster of proxies used by TPG 220.245.180. 130/131/133/133/134, and he is one of thousands that use that proxy (no implication against AL intended at all). TPG is 'one of Australia’s largest Internet and Network Service Providers (ISPs)' [40] Regarding User:Phloxophilos: I have had no contact at all with User:Phloxophilos and this user is not my sock or meat puppet. agapetos_angel
• It's probably worth noting that Dennis Fuller (talk · contribs) and Phloxophilos (talk · contribs) have had no edits since the start of this RfAr with one notable exception for Phloxophilos [41], and that person behind the 220.245.180.*** range ceased to edit once the allegation was made by JoshuaZ that this was likely Sarfati himself, while a related IP 203.213.77.138 (talk · contribs) stepped up to take his place. FeloniousMonk 22:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Checking the contribs of each editor will show that all have made edits since the RfA started. agapetos_angel 10:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be accurate to say that they stopped editing almost immediately after the RfA started. The evidence page was opened on the Feb 23, the accusation that they were puppets was first put in on Feb 27 by Felonious and Phlox and Dennis stop editing on March 2 and March 3 and neither has made a single edit since then (except for Phlox's interesting one noted by Felonious). Furthermore, 220.* stops editing within 24 hours of my posting my evidence. All these editors were prior to editing much more frequently. JoshuaZ 17:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that is not accurate. User:220.245.180.134 stopped editing the Sarfati article on 30 Jan 2006 and User:220.245.180.130 stopped editing the Sarfati article on 26 Sept 2005, both before the RfA. User:220.245.180.133 last edited 8 March 2006, and has only made 11 edits to the Sarfati article, not to mention that he or she has been editing Wikipedia for a year and the various contribs show it's obviously not a sock puppet. User:phloxophilos started editing after the RfA, and given the reception, I'm not surprised that he or she left. And finally, again, user:Dennis_Fuller and I were in conflict on two article, so unless someone is now asserting an insanity accusation, I think that should be dropped as obviously invalid. agapetos_angel 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already presented evidence that Dennis is most likely not a sockpuppet, thank you. It is also plausible that phloxophilos left due to problems with what was going on. However, the fact is that Phlox did leave shortly after Felonious argued that Phlox was a sockpuppet. Finally I have trouble understanding your comment about 220.*. You seem to be breaking 220.* into three separate editors. I am deeply puzzled as to why you would think that these were three separate editors. JoshuaZ 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Joshua. Because you mentioned DennisF again, I failed to notice any retraction that he was a supposed sock/meat puppet and it's frankly getting more than a bit insulting. I don't see any indication that User:phloxophilos actually left Wikipedia, but regardless, he or she might have lost interest in Wikipedia in general, might have become upset from the reception (newbie bitting, accused of being a sock/meat, etc.), might have be connected, or might not be posting for any number of other reasons. I could really give a toss because there are other options, so we should not assume a connection based on so little evidence. The real issue, however, is that this is under an accusation that they are all my sock/meat puppets, a false claim that I am answering. I don't care if the 220's are separate or not; I just know that they are not mine. I responded based on the separate IP listings in the original proposal, to point out that your statement that 'All these editors were prior to editing much more frequently' and FM's statement that 'have had no edits since the start of this RfAr' are not correct, and to address the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. agapetos_angel 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that there is sufficient precedent in RfAs that extremely suspicious correlations constitute valid evidence, and while it is conceivable that Phlox and DennisF left due to the hostile environment, I have a great difficulty seeing that apply to 220.* Given 220.*'s highly combative nature, I would expect that the response to a false accusation (of being Jonathan Sarfati) would be to vehemently deny it and claim it was another ad hominem by the "antitheists." Therefore, his silence is highly suspicious. JoshuaZ 04:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

JoshuaZ, maybe there is a connection, maybe not. Oftern users stop editing articles with edit wars or content disputes. That is the one reason that content disputes and edit wars are considered harmful. --FloNight ^talk 18:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) User:FeloniousMonk posts (IP 144.160.130.16 [42] [43]) from California. The following anon users should be considered as possible sock or meat puppets of FeloniousMonk: User:66.81.128.86, User:66.81.141.123, User:69.19.150.170,User:69.19.150.235 They all resolve to California, and posted in a similar manner while being used to edit Jonathan Sarfati.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• WP:POINT would be applicable if the anon users had no connection to the articles in question. However, all the listed anon editors made changes to Jonathan Sarfati from the same state as FM, and many in the same manner as FM. I've clarified this in the proposed statement. agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not only is this an instance of WP:POINT, but in making this allegation Agapetos angel proves the gravamen of the allegation made elsewhere that Agapetos angel resorts to false claims against those who confront her. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So, FM, you are denying that these anon IP editors were used by you on the Sarfati article? If so, I can only believe you, but note that you indicated proximity, and all of them came from the same area of California as your IP. agapetos_angel 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, do I really need to? Of course they are not me. The arbcomm has the means to see through such charades, and I welcome their scrutiny. FeloniousMonk 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then, as I said, I AGF that you are telling the truth. agapetos_angel 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue of whether this is FeloniousMonk or not is irrelevant unless there is some evidence that either (a) they were used to circumvent the 3RR or some other restriction, or (b) they were used to give a false impression of consensus. While these four IPs may be the same person, they were active a year before FeloniousMonk was active on the article.
  • User:66.81.141.123 made the second edit to the article;
  • User:69.19.150.170 made four edits, the third through seventh edits to the article, adding some content and removing other content;
  • User:69.19.150.235 made a single revert;
  • User:66.81.128.86 made a single edit, reverting to a version by User:Infocat, who had reverted the insertions of the previous pair of IPs;
• There is no evidence of sockpuppetry in these edits; this would be spurious even if they was some way to connect these edits to FeloniousMonk (which there isn't). Guettarda 19:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• The above seems to be WP:POINT. The person proposing this may want to re-think using WP:POINT in the middle of arbitration case. --FloNight 18:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is not WP:POINT, what is the point of this proposed finding? Are you seriously suggesting that FM deliberately deceived WP community with sockpuppets and meatpuppets? FloNight 06:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 70.182.0.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to originate from Georgia. --FloNight 07:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you are correct. One IP which resolves to California, but a different IP check shows Atlanta. I've removed it from the list. However, the 66* and 69* are all from the same ISP as each other and the same area of California as FM's IP. FM opened the sock/meat puppet discussion which prompted me to check the article's history. There I found the anons from California who post in a similar manner, and discovered the meat puppet related to Jim. Therefore, I am serious. (Continued converstion should probably be moved to talk.) agapetos_angel 08:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• agapetos_angel, I request that you strike out this proposed finding. It needlessly raises the tension in this case, and is not in the best interest of the WP community. FloNight 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, Flo, but I disagree. IP 144.160.130.16 is from El Monte, CA, which maps show is east of Los Angeles. The others are also from the same area, Canyon Country and Los Angeles. So not only are they from the same state, but from the same area within the state. If FM maintains that he is not these IP users and they are not his sock puppets, then we can only AGF that he is telling the truth. agapetos_angel 17:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly easily checked using sockcheck, I'd think. Kim Bruning 13:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to strike this out when FeloneousMonk denied the connection. agapetos_angel 22:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) user:Jim62sch revealed his IP [44] which resolves to Philadelphia (xxxx.phlapa.east.xxxx.net). user:Rainbowpainter made one article edit since joining,[45] adding to the conflict on Jonathan Sarfati[46], and the user page states 'Philadelphia Flyers fan'. User:Duncharris posted a suspected sock puppet box on Jim's user page [47] which Jim removed [48]. Therefore, it must be concluded that Rainbowpainter is Jim62sch's meat puppet for the purposes of this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems to be his wife. Fred Bauder 17:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Rainbowpainter is my wife and can make whatever edits she wishes to make, as neither she nor I are subjects of the article in question. Dunc's tag was something Dunc will explain. Jim62sch 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)ADDENDUM: And, as he noted below: IT WAS A JOKE! I shall refrain from any further comments to AA, as enough energy and time has been expended on her baseless accusations. Jim62sch 10:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the guidelines FM stated, Rainbowpainter would be considered your meat puppet on the article. agapetos_angel 08:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So, um yeah who is your spouse? — Dunc|☺ 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't state I was married. Who is your spouse? [that was inappropriate, sorry] agapetos_angel 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 02:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this serves as proof of the allegation that Agapetos angel resorts to false claims against those who confront her, as well as being an instance of WP:POINT. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but Jim confirmed it was his wife, so the claim is not false. agapetos_angel 17:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Jim's comment was a clarification of fact, not a mea culpa, and an example of what responsible editors do when queried on such matters to avoid creating disruption, something I've alleged you've failed to do. There's no pattern of meatpuppetry by Rainbowpainter. An individual editor making a single edit under her unique username does not a meatpuppet make: [49] Rainbowpainter has made no effort to hide her identity or relationship to Jimsch62, in fact just the contrary I'd say, seeing her recent response to you making this allegation. No doubt objective observers will note the irony. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Um, yeah, sorry, it was supposed to be funny but didn't quite work out that way. Sorry Jim. Anyway, this is a needless distraction from the behaviour of the subject. One revert by a friend isn't being disruptive. Continuing a campaign of disruption over several months is. — Dunc|☺ 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No biggie, Dunc; and agreed wholeheartedly. Jim62sch 10:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• agapetos_angel, I request that you strike out this proposed finding. It needlessly raises the tension in this case, and is not in the best interest of the WP community. FloNight 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but again I disagree. Jim has confirmed that Rainbowpainter is his wife. That account was used to edit one article, in the midst of the conflict, to perpetuate that conflict. That is the definition of meat puppet. agapetos_angel 17:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, is it now? My wife does what she chooses to do. She read the article of her own free will and posted of her own free will. Your rather sickeningly ignorant, illogical and insulting implication is that she is some mindless twit who does whatever I tell her to do. I assure you, that that is not the case. She is a very intelligent woman with a mind of her own. That she too feels that you covered up your identity to influence the Sarfati article only reinforced my belief that it was so. Now then, does her reinforcement make me her meat puppet? Jim62sch 23:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get something straight right now, I am neither a sock puppet nor a meat puppet. Jim only could wish I'd do his bidding. I have followed many articles before ever joining and this one lets just say intrigued me. While AA may be a fine editor it's obvious that she is very close to the article. I edited the JS page on my own, I felt AA was trying to cover her tracks. True I've made one edit since joining in January what is the crime there. I do not have all day to spend editing pages I have a home, a business to run and five children to raise, therefore most of what I do is read and let me tell you some of the behind the scene stuff is pretty darn entertaining, I feel I'm watching my two toddlers bicker and fight over a toy. So in closing I would appreciate that you remove your accusations against me which are WRONG. You are pretty much accusing me of having no mind of my own, couldn't be further from the truth and will not make you look any better.Rainbowpainter 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made no implication about household hierarchy or intelligence. FeloniousMonk proposed above: A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Rainbowpainter is a new user who engaged in the same behaviour as Jim62sch in the same context (on the same article) and appeared to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose based on the single edit. agapetos_angel 02:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing a person of being a puppet is pretty much saying someone else controls what they do. As I’ve stated I pretty much read articles and I’ve been reading them LONG before I joined. Accusing one of being a puppet because of one edit and because of a relationship with another editor is insulting. I have a running list of things I’d like to edit when “I” have time. I made the edit of my own free will (a puppet lacks free will) not because of any relationship with another editor so it’s time to back off. If I was a puppet don’t you think I would have gone further than one edit, I didn’t even revert it again. Right now, I do not have time for this so I am nicely asking you drop YOUR accusations of me being a puppet as it implies things that are just false and insulting.Rainbowpainter 04:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, behave. Besides, at least one arbitrator also has an SO who edits, so this whole point is a tad silly. Can it be dropped? Kim Bruning 13:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bruning, I don't think this issue is silly to those involved. This is an arbitration case with the potential that users will have sanctions. --FloNight 13:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Flo. Given Agapetos predilection for arguing that effect and appearance rare tantamount to actions of intent, the comments by Rainbowpainter that give an indication of her feelings of having been insulted by Agapetos have as much bearing on this issue as those of any other editor. Whether Agapetos intended to insult Rainbowpainter is not clear, but the effect has been the same.

Personally, I find it rather ironical that Agapetos would seem to take issue with Rainbowpainter's comments, as these comments are of a similar genre to a majority of those made by Agapetos herself. Additionally, I tire of Agapetos' disembogation of highly hypothetical detritus under the guise of evidence that serves not to further the interests of the case at hand, but rather to attempt to distract from her own behaviour and actions. Jim62sch 15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: Since I musn't have been as clear as I'd like, my points were: AA insulted Rainbowpainter (who I already said was my wife); Rainbowpainter is not a meatpuppet; AA appeared to not take RP's comments seriously and refused to act in good faith, even though AA has made statements of indignation similar to those of RP and contantly accuses others of failing to act in good faith; finally, that I'm getting tired of AA manufacturing alleged evidence. I hope that helps. Jim62sch 15:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Looks very confused> I was in opposition to subfinding 3: "Rainbowpainter is a meatpuppet of Jim62sch". Are you sure that's right? I guess you know what you're doing... I retract my opposition to this (sub)finding then. <retreats in confusion> Kim Bruning 11:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to Kim here [50].

Oh, the info provided by AA is inaccurate. The IP resolves to:

IP Address 71.242.43.76

City EASTON

State or Region PENNSYLVANIA

Country UNITED STATES

ISP VERIZON INTERNET SERVICES INC.

At other times the non-static IP resolves to Virginia. Jim62sch 02:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (xxxx.phlapa.east.xxxx.net) was used for your protection, not for inaccuracy. I x'd ISP specific details (i.e., verizon). agapetos_angel 10:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discourtesy

1) Agapetos angel has frequently misrepresented herself and others, engaged in personal attacks against other editors, and been generally uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not sure I have seen evidence to support this. Fred Bauder 17:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Accusations of misrepresentation, personal attacks, and incivility have to be viewed in context and with regard to like participation by other editors. If my use of trolling and drivel is subject to a penalty, then sanctions must be fairly applied to all editors that have used the same or similar terms, including the other editors named in this arbitration. Context of the situation must also be taken into account (e.g., in response to spamming of worse incivility such as false accusations of forgery, dishonesty, and lying, or in response to a nonsense post on my own user page). It is my understanding that use of profanity in edit summary is not an offence that is sanctioned. I submit that my usage of these words was far more civil than profanity and appropriate to the circumstances. agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One wonders if this "observation" is intended for development into a list of accusations, or is merely an additional tu quoque (or, more appropriately vos quoque) fallacy. Jim62sch 16:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't that be vos también? Regardless, it is not 'an additional ... fallacy' as it is not submitted as a defence, but rather as a call for fair and even application. I do not see any need for self-defence or further development into accusations because I do not personally view the use of trolling or drivel, for example, to be uncivil in the manner that any party in this arbitration used them. However, if the complaints by others regarding incivility in usage is determined as a result of this arbitration, then all parties should be subject to the same scrutiny for using those terms in a like or more severe manner. This arbitration, as you previously pointed out, is to examine the behaviour of all parties concerned. agapetos_angel 22:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Solamente si tu quoque fue español, pero, tu quoque es de latina. Gracias. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Guettarda repeatedly spammed my user talk page over several days in a discourteous manner (also see [51] and [52]). His incivility included public accusations of: 'forgery', 'deceitful behaviour', 'dishonesty' (x 7), 'intentional mischaracterisation', 'dishonest claims', 'lying' (x 3), 'lies' (x 9), and 'libel'. Furthermore, his escalation of the event was disproportionate to the original situation, especially as most of that incivility came after two apologies and multiple attempts at revision that retained the summary of events as I saw them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• This was indicated on several occasions to be an example of how dispute resolution was attempted with me, indicating the failure was mine because I removed the increasingly hostile accusations as trolling. agapetos_angel 07:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One notes that these comments were in relation to the faux straw poll created by Agapetos and to which she repeatedly added Guettardaa's name falsely in an attempt to indicate that he had agreed with one of her proposed edits. The ommission of those facts, which have already been presented as evidence on the appropriate page and provide a clear nexus for Guettarda's comments, is something I find rather troublesome as it appears that Agapetos is again attempting to deflect attention from her own actions by using what are in effect Strawman-like disinformation tactics. Jim62sch 16:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's misleading to characterise an attempt at dispute resolution as "spamming Guettarda 19:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, changes such as adding quotation marks to words in the headers on my user page can be classified no differently. agapetos_angel 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Apagetos angel forged my name on her straw poll, made false accusations about me, refused to remove these false claims, and claimed that she had provided "evidence" to support her claim when she was providing spurious and unrelated diffs. In an attempt to de-escalate the issue I avoided Talk:Jonathan Sarfati and User talk:Agapetos angel for several days in order to allow her to remove her false accusations. When she failed to do so, and when she deleted my requests, I repeated them. As for using words like "lies", "forgery" and "intentional mischaracterisation" _ was calling like it was. What else am I supposed to call someone signing her action of signing my name to a poll and claiming I held a position which I did not hold? What else was I to call her insistence on posting such things after I had asked her to remove them? Guettarda 19:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence shows that these claims are half-truths. I did not forge anyone's name, but rather listed names in a manner that some mistook for a second straw poll (listed after the actual one). I revised the ill-formatted summary several times in attempted compromise between their misconceptions and my opinions. I also apologised twice and pointed out that the opinions were my own. After the apologies, Guettarda escalated the issue out of proportion by the aforementioned spamming. I removed and archived his posts after two warnings to cease trolling my user talk page. Adding quotation marks to words like proof and evidence is not dispute resolution; neither are repeated uncivil accusations. I asked twice why Guettarda reverted the article beyond my edit to the intro if he did not have an objection to it, a revision that implied to me that he did not agree with that verision of the intro (as featured in the straw poll). This was later further supported by Guettarda's breakdown and complaints regarding that version. agapetos_angel 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, Agapetos angel is not representing the events accurately. Her forged straw poll was not the major issue of the dispute - it was her false claims that I was advocating a position on her proposed edits. Despite what she claims, I had not expressed an opinion on the issue, I had not formulated an opinion of the issue, so her assertion that I was opposed to the issue was an blatent falsehood. She went on to accuse me of making false allegations against her and claimed that she had proof to support her position. However, the diffs she supplied did not relate the the matter at all. She repeatedly made false accusations against me, and I posted repeatedly to her page to try to resolve the issue. She responded with personal attacks, calling my postings "trolling" and using edit summaries like need anti-trolling spray. She never apologised for making false claims about my position on her proposed edits. Her apologies did not relate to the primary dispute, so her reference to them is spurious and appears to be meant to mislead. Guettarda 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Need anti-trolling spray' was a very frustrated comment related to Guettarda's repeated spamming, specifically the changes to my user talk page headers where he added quote marks to proof and evidence. For Guettarda to now call the accusations of faux straw polling 'not the major issue of the dispute' is ironic given his repeated focus on that accusation. Rather this seems to be a tactical withdrawal now that others are agreeing that this was a misconception (from my admittedly poor formatting). There was an obvious lack of intent to harm based on the multiple revision attempts I made to rectify those complaints. Reviewers will note that I did not state that Guettarda was advocating a position, but rather from the beginning noted that dissent was implied. This implication, as I noted, was because of a revision beyond my edit to the article with that intro. If Guettarda was not opposed to the intro, but rather reverted past my edit for no valid reason, this could indicate abusive revision. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that the revision was actual disagreement. Furthermore, Guettarda's subsequent breakdown of that intro with complaints gave strength to my earlier assessment. Arbcom can review the diffs and the issues regarding the proof of Guettarda's false claims which are self-explanatory. agapetos_angel 03:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) Jim62sch publicly accused me (Agapetos angel) and user:Dennis_Fuller of 'exposed illegal activity' [53]. Along with WP:No_legal_threats, there should be a policy of no legally-based accusations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• When presented with contradictory evidence, Jim62sch partially retracted this statement [54] (couched in further insinuation). I personally used the term 'libel' in reference to material that was in an article; however, legal accusations against a contributor is a far worse offence. This point should be addressed by ArbCom as a serious offence to prevent repetition by any party. agapetos_angel 07:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One must, of course, recall the meaning of "appears", and when one does, the remainder of the sentence makes sense. In addition, as noted, the Arbcomm commitee has been mailed the evidence regarding what may very well have been an attempt to cover-up the identity of one person, by misdirecting it at another. Furher evidence will be, I believe, forthcoming. And while one could rationally argue that I might have used the terminology "questionable activity", the point remains the same: intentionally involving a third party to cover one's identity would be violatio legis.
• I might suggest that Agapetos be more careful with the verbiage she quotes when making an accusation: "exposed" was used as a verb, not as an adjective. This subtle deviation from the original quote has the effect of changing, possibly to what may have been perceived to be her advantage, the context of the quote. Jim62sch 16:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unclear as to why there should be "a policy of no legally-based accusations". WP:NLT refers to threatening legal action against other users or the project. This does not come close. Guettarda 19:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It was inappropriate and erroneous. agapetos_angel 18:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Which, of course, has naught to do with the original "charge" above (or with Guettarda's comment). You've gone from, "Person A deliberately disrupted traffic at rush hour causing several accidents that involved fatalities" to "Well, Person A did jaywalk". In any case, it is obvious that someone did tamper with the page in question, unfortunately we may never know who did so. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a concise reply to Guettarda's last statement where rehashing the specifics was unnecessary. This is akin to responding to your first hypothetical example of by saying 'that should be illegal', then when someone states they are unclear as to why that should be illegal, answering 'because it caused harm'. The terseness fails to communicate the emotional horror of the actions, but it directly and logically provides an answer. As for the page in question, it is also obvious that the tampering happened during the conflict and to the advantage of the harrassing editors, but as you said, 'we may never know who did so'. agapetos_angel 04:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Writing about yourself

1) Agapetos angel has contributed to articles in which she is personally involved and has failed to maintain a neutral point of view while doing so. See Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Evidence submitted privately to ArbCom negates this claim. A tenuous affiliation was drawn by a single online source and used in an attempt to silence an opponent. Further cache evidence shows that the changes were manufactured during the timing of the conflict. Also, a quote was misattributed (now retracted) and posted as evidence of affiliation. Wikipedia was repeatedly disrupted rather than these editors following proper dispute procedure. agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The evidence submitted privately to the arbcomm, which Agapetos angel has reviewed, contained 9 independent sources, over 20 supporting links, and 3 emails from 3 parties all indicating that Agapetos angel was indeed a very specific involved party. To state that only 1 source was offered is to again misrepresent verifiable facts. FeloniousMonk 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No affiliation has been established beyond FM's commentary that one must exist because of his malformed conclusions. The only relevant source is the school source where information was changed in the midst of this conflict (Google cache shows it was changed between 22 Dec 2005 and Feb 2006) through a webform with no apparent checking mechanism. None of the other emails or sources establish any affiliation with the subjects of the articles. I have submitted rebuttal to ArbCom. I also want to add that I am particularly disgusted by the actions of KillerChihuahua who, after admonishing me for accidently using her real name and warning I could be banned for doing so, passed on private information garnered from my apology email. Those actions fueled this lynching, while the information gives absolutely no indication of affiliation to any of the articles' subjects. agapetos_angel 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So, you admit that you've used that email account. FeloniousMonk 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, one might note that the current Yahoo cache contains the information as presented by FM. I have forwarded this evidence, as well as the linguistic analysis of the language origin of the maiden name on the internet page in question (based on a post by AA) to Arbcomm. Jim62sch 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, please note that there was no reason to suspect that KillerChihuaha was in any way personally involved, thus making use of Killer's name completely unjustified. JoshuaZ 19:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond the narrow issue of whether Agapetos angel is precluded from major editing of these articles as an involved party, there's the question of whether or not Agapetos angel can participate on the topic without being disruptive. Given that when her contributions were challenged as POV she then engaged in disruption - edit wars spanning many weeks, four instances of violating 3RR resulting in three different blocks, dismissing the concerns of others, personal attacks - our experience at Jonathan Sarfati and her recent edits here [55] [56] [57] [58] show that she cannot maintain a neutral point of view on these topics. FeloniousMonk 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Agapetos angel acted with admirable fairness on Answers in Genesis. Durova 20:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There is evidence beyond the "single online source" which I will provide via email to the Arbcom members if desired. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• An editor can be banned for a great many things. My identity was not relevant to the discussion Agapetos angel and I were having; Agapetos angel's identity is relevant. To compare the two is a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, a fallacy of accident. I have not posted anything on Wikipedia or released it into any public forum. Agapetos angel's "disgust" is misplaced. I note that Agapetos angel is mentioning her disgust here, also, rather than speaking to me about it, a pattern I have noted. Agapetos angel is not attempting to resolve disputes or issues; rather, she is appealing to Arbcom to legislate what might have been resolved far more civilly. A "call the cops" mentality does not generally result in harmony. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You might note that I was the one to "call for the cops", not Agapetos angel. Kim Bruning 19:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I might, if I were referring to your actions. I am not. I am referring to the actions and statements of Agapetos angel. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of Jonathan Sarfati

1) Agapetos angel disrupted the Jonathan Sarfati article through edit warring and repeated 3RR violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• The 3RR sanctions were applied erroneously, as close examination of the evidence will reveal. False reporting led to the sanctions being imposed. In the first instance, there was no report filed because Duncharris blocked me while involved in the edits. In the second, there were several edits listed and most were unconnected (separate edits). In the third, there was misinformation posted and retracted, and the edit that was fourth on the list was unrelated to the other three (which means that 3RR was not violated). agapetos_angel 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The second and third 3RR blocks were done by WMC, who has always been careful and judicious in his application of blocks for the rule. The old "the fourth revert was not the same as the other three reverts" argument holds no water. Guettarda 15:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WMC did not make the second block. agapetos_angel 08:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) FeloniousMonk, Duncharris, and Jim62sch disrupted Jonathan Sarfati, Answers in Genesis, and/or Ken Ham by posting accusations and misinformation in article and talk rather than following proper dispute procedure. See WP:DR

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• It is unclear whether Agapetos was simply careless in her wording of this allegation, or if she intentionally engaged in misrepresentation of fact. A careful study of my edit history [59] indicates no activity on either the Ken Ham or the AiG article or discussion pages. Were I to act in a manner compliant with WP:AGF, I should suppose that Agapetos were merely careless. However, in light of her previous baseless allegations, as well as her behaviour on the faux straw-poll issue, I am afraid that I must, with great sadness, assume intent on her part to cast false aspersions upon a fellow editor. Jim62sch 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I can tell, the only person posting intentionally misleading information was Agapetos angel. Guettarda 15:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also see note that Duncharris has zero edits on the Ken Ham talk page. JoshuaZ 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrected wording where I merely forgot to put and/or rather than just and. Pointing out that an editor did not disrupt one article does not help the dispute process when it is obvious that the editor disrupted another article(s). agapetos_angel 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) FeloniousMonk, Duncharris, and Guettarda disrupted Jonathan Sarfati with abusive rollbacks and/or reverts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• As mentioned below, I only used rollback once, when I saw what appeared to be evasion of a 3RR block (and as per the evidenc provided by JoshuaZ, I still think it probably was). Other than that, I reverted edits on that page that I saw as unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. This does not constitute disruption. Agapetos angel's accusations against FM and Dunc are, as far as I have seen, equally baseless. Guettarda 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've never used rollback at Jonathan Sarfati: [60] The 6 times I reverted at Jonathan Sarfati [61] were to correct blatant flouting of WP:CON and WP:NPOV. Contrast that to the 26 times Agapetos angel reverted at Jonathan Sarfati: [62] Responsible reverting of edits widely viewed as biased and ignoring consensus by an apparent involved party, continuing to edit despite having been advised of guideline, convention and policy, is hardly disruption. FeloniousMonk 19:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Agapetos's modifications to this claim is highly telling. After having the claim beaten back by evidence (mentioned above by Felonious and Guettarda), she ammended the phrase "and reverts" to "and/or reverts" to the above claiming she "forgot" (see this dif [63]). There are other examples where she has made similar changes such as here [64]. However, the claim that she forgot seems to be hard to swallow given that she has specifically mentioned only admins in the above accusation, which is hard to understand unless rollback use was very specifically the major part of this intended finding. This seems to fit into Agapetos's general standard of making post facto justification and changes for her behavior. JoshuaZ 22:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• After evidence was presented here showing that no one had misused rollback as she asserted, Agapetos angel has come back and added "and/or" where she had "and" and adding "and/or reverts" to the rollback complaint, claiming that she meant to do it that way in the first place: [65] [66] On its face a bit hard to believe, especially since in the original rollback complaint she specifically mentioned those editors who were admins. Considering that lodging false claims is one of the allegations against Agapetos angel, I offer these changes [67] [68] as evidence of a disengenous attempt by Agapetos angel to retroactively shift the goal posts to cover up a claim exposed as false. FeloniousMonk 22:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Jim states above 'unclear whether Agapetos was simply careless in her wording of this allegation', and I corrected the wording in reply to that statement so that my original intention was clear. As has been pointed out to me, Jim also used rollback and revisions synonymously.[69] However, if there is going to be wiki-lawyering over mistaken terminology and continuous assumuptions of bad faith, this will never be resolved. My intent in this proposal is to point out specific inappropriate behaviour where administrators indicated they were performing administrator duty but in fact were editing like an editor to bring article to their preferred version. This is an abuse of their administrator rights, regardless of the (incorrect) use of revert/rollback/revision terminology. 02:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)agapetos_angel

And here I thought, given the italics and quotation marks, that I was merely quoting your assertion. How silly of me.</> Jim62sch 02:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To rephrase (pardon any appearance of incivility above; my comment was intended to be ironical, but I realize not everyone may see it that way): I was quoting AA's assertion in order to reply to it, neither agreeing with the assertion, nor seeing a need to explain the difference between the terms. As I had used both italics and quotation marks I had assumed that it would be clear that that was precisely what I was doing. Jim62sch 12:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I'm not sure what you're up about, but there are no 'italics and quotation marks' in your post in question. You stated 'rollbacks, aka reversions,' using the terms synonymously. agapetos_angel 05:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]