User talk:Agapetos angel/mess

You have a shiny new user page, congratulations! I appreciate your discussing the article in detail, and I note your concern over the 3RR and "over-implementation" thereof. If you feel you're being treated unreasonably again, drop me an email (via my user page) and I'll take a look at it, and prevail upon the blocking admin if it seems to me there's a bad call. Alai 08:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm responding to the message left at User_talk:Calcol. I tried to leave the source on the page, but it looks like that has been removed. It is from the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Kentucky Secretary of State, and I don't believe it is available online. This is all I could find that's online: [1] and [2]. Calcol 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess another editor thought it didn't need to be there, or perhaps deleted it because it was unsourced? I don't know. Maybe add it with the sources, or go to talk and ask if it shouldn't be there. agapetos_angel 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the false accusations by Guettarda to their own archive page for moderator review. I have asked Guettarda to stop trolling my Talk with false accusations and twisting of facts that are unsupported by the review of the diffs for the article, yet he is continuing to do so. Any future posts by him on this talk will be removed without comment. agapetos_angel 06:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section entitled 'This is the evidence of False Accusation' has been moved here because my talk is repeated being trolled with continuing accusations after I asked that the editor stop doing same. agapetos_angel 06:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Do I really look like Lambchop to ewe?"

I sheepishly came to check out your ewe-ser page. I'm not trying to ram my opinion down your goat. Hopefully we can shear the POV leaving articles that will not be subject to future lamb-poons. ;-)

David D. (Talk) 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL! Well done, mate! agapetos_angel 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the section False_accusations above you accuse Guettarda of trolling. This is clearly yet one more intentional misrepresentation on your part and hence constitutes a personal attack. A personal attack on one of the community's most trusted admins no less. You need to immediately: 1) Change the wording to remove the personal attack 2) Cease misrepresenting Guettarda's attempts at getting you to settle your moral debt with an apology for your past misrepresentations as "trolling" 3) Stop being disruptive. I'd also advise apologizing to Guettarda. Should you choose to ignore and remove this warning as you have before, I'll personally bring the matter of your behavior before the community and Guettarda's fellow admins for review and consensus. FeloniousMonk 06:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling describes actions ("Trolling" is also commonly used to describe the activity) not contributor. After repeated postings on this talk page by Guettarda that involve false accusations regarding content, and false accusations of dishonesty, lying, etc., the activities of this editor are appropriately called trolling, and as such there is no reason to apologize or retract. I would be happy to discuss this matter 'with the community', as I have been trying to get a reply to my RfM for some time now. I think they would be adverse to the obvious conflict-of-interest that you, FM, have by issuing warnings when not only are you involved in the dispute as an editor, but given that I have already informed you that I have reported your behaviour as unbecoming an administrator. agapetos_angel 06:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Misrepresenting a person's actions to portray them in a bad light is one of the more common (and transparent) forms of personal attack. Is that your defense for repeatedly violating

WP:NPA? FeloniousMonk 06:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

'Misrepresenting a person's actions' (for whatever reason he had) is exactly what I have shown Guettarda has done by posting the diffs that show that he falsely accused me, then misrepresented the issues. I will not apologize for stating my opinion that dissent for a given intro version was implied by Guettarda's revision of that version, especially given that Guettarda's subsequent critique of that version showed that my opinion was in no way a mischaracterisation. Nor will I apologize for the rightful defence of pointing out that the accusations that followed were false. I supported the defence with links to the diffs, supplying context sorely lacking in Guettarda's accusation. This situation was further complicated by the continued posting in my talk by Guettarda full of bolded personal attacks. Trolling is exactly what has ensued here by Guettarda, and I will not apologize when the diffs can show deletions I had to make to posts made after I told him to stop. Again, after reporting you for personal attacks, I find your participation here to be a conflict-of-interest, and somewhat amusing in its irony. agapetos_angel 07:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the 3RR provided a reminder of why I find this complaint insincere. While 'he did it first' is never valid, and I'm not using that here, Guettarda's use of 'trolling' here when he removed my comment and as a header on his talk page (now removed by his archive on 12 Feb; cache) clearly defines that usage of 'trolling' is not considered to be a personal attack. FM, unless you wish to maintain consistency and accuse Guettarda of personal attacks as well, I'd suggest dropping this as a nonissue. Use of the term 'trolling' was by both parties, and not a personal attack. agapetos_angel 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC) update (archive removed header on talk page) 05:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Found cache 00:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To continued personal attacks made here

(moved back to my talk where it's not disruptive)

In response to continued allegations that show to be false or misleading when the context and evidence is shown:

• (Misleading accusation # 1) 2 3RR violations resulting in your being blocked twice and an article protection,

You filed the second supposed 3RR violation, which I disputed and pointed out was a false allegation. That you found a sympathetic admin is not proof that it was a valid block.

Who filed the first article protection request which locked editing immediately after a series of edits made by you to move the article to your POV? I see this same pattern emerging with the filing of this second request.

Either you stick by your claims of consensus OR it is not consensus and edits are allowed as yours have been. You can't have it both ways by moving to your POV, including deletions and major edits, then file all sorts of charges and make all sorts of erroneous accusations to prevent your POV pushing being examined and halted.

• (False accusation # 1) followed by filing a trumped-up supposed 3RR violation against a fellow editor [3],

I filed a 3RR on you that clearly said that there was no 4th revert, outlined the caveat (i.e., gaming the system), with a clear n/a after '4th', so that there would be no misunderstandings.

• (Misleading accusation # 2) filing a misleading request for unprotection,

Nothing in that request was misleading or inaccurate. After the page was unprotected, there were major revisions by you that were not discussed in Talk, and when I requested why, after reverting back for the unsupported changes and deletions, you did not respond to that request until 18:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC) nearly an hour after you reported me to be blocked for 3RR Reported by: FeloniousMonk 18:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC) (insuring that these allegations would remain unanswered for 24 hours).

• (False accusation # 2) edit warring and violating 3RR for a third time after the page was unprotected,

THAT is a 'a trumped-up supposed 3RR violation against a fellow editor' This gives a complete outline of what you called a fourth revert, piece-by-piece showing not a 3RR violation, but like you did several times yesterday, a complex EDIT to the article. At least I had the good grace to point out when I filed against you for 3RR that the 4th was not applicable and that the spirit of 3RR was broken, not the actual rule (i.e., gaming the system). That you reported me erroneously (a second time) only points to retaliation filing, not any violation.

3

• (False/Misleading accusation # 3) engaging in personal attacks,

In your opinion. As I pointed out, your behaviour has been unbecoming for an admin, and your claims of 'personal attack', after I reported you for doing that very thing repetatively, should be suspect to anyone who reviews this misleading and false accusation and erroneous (see next item for further explanation).

• (False/Misleading accusation # 3 continued) and fanning the flames of dispute instead of seeking to resolve them [4].

Non sequitur. After 8 postings on my talk page in one day by Guetarda :

14:43, 11 February 2006 UTC
14:52, 11 February 2006 UTC
15:00, 11 February 2006 UTC
15:55, 11 February 2006 UTC
15:57, 11 February 2006 UTC
15:57, 11 February 2006 UTC
16:07, 11 February 2006 UTC
16:08, 11 February 2006 UTC

I told Guettarda (for a second time) to stop trolling my talk page [5], after which he posted twice more for a total of 10 in one day:

16:16, 11 February 2006 UTC
16:19, 11 February 2006 UTC

I removed those last as I said I would and created an archive to report for admin review.

You then posted again here, where I addressed this accusation fully. As I pointed out there today, this shows where Guettarda, after I asking him to come to address a situation in Talk rather than leaving his comments on commentary (i.e., edit summary), deleted my one and only post on his talk page with the comment 'deleted trolling'. Furthermore, see the header on Guettarda's talk page.

It is not 'fanning the flames of dispute' to indicate that trolling will not be allowed on my talk page, just as Guettarda has reserved the right to do on his. This is yet another example of where you will belittle and report an editor with whom you have a dispute, without applying that standard impartially across the board. If I am guilty of 'personal attack' for removing the 9th and 10th postings after two warnings, then that should be reflected in policy as not being allowed, and the same standard should be applied to Guettarda who would also then be seen as 'fanning the flames of dispute' in a like manner by removal of my one comment aimed at settling a dispute. Also note that the claim of personal attack for my use of 'trolling' is also not applied across the board to Guettarda's use of the same terminology; nor is it addressed that Guettarda used personal attacks (often in bold text) in those 10 edits of my talk page (including 5 accusations of lying and 2 of dishonesty in the first of the 10).

There is a definite problem here, but these erroneous accusations, false reportings, misleading commentary, and revisionist history you are engaging in won't resolve it. Someone taking the time to really analyze Talk will note that I've made heaps of compromises away from the edits I wanted to make, talked through the disputes with umpteen attempts to come to a compromised consensus, and tried to use humour to diffuse situations that were seemingly getting out of control. However, I will not play doormat and not defend myself against false accusations and personal attacks; nor will I go quietly away like you might wish me to rather than pointing out that policy is being violated in this article. I've agreed with many, many of your MoSed changes, FM, but these continued false accusations are getting far beyond the pale. The primary reason this talk page has been disrupted is because of your continuing false allegations and the need to respond to them with the evidence that they are, in fact, false. agapetos_angel 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the page and the talk. If you're feeling up to it you could head over to a university library and verify the publications list. I suppose there's a chance articles that old might not be indexed online. I doubt an inorganic chemist would appear at Medline.

There isn't much more I can do. The editors on that page haven't been very receptive to my comments. Even if you think the other editor is vandalizing, it might not look that way to an admin. Stay on the safe side of the 3RR. Wikipedia won't grind to a halt tomorrow if a version you disagree with stays up a little while. Best wishes, Durova 07:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova. Message on your talk agapetos_angel 07:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive,

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

Thank you. Email sent agapetos_angel 13:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked [6] (again) for

Reply: FeloniousMonk calls this the 'consensus version':

Contents:

1 Biography

1.1 Writings

1.2 Moral issues

1.3 Chess

1.4 Scientist

1.5 Education

1.6 Honors/Awards/Associations

NB Chess section is above the Scientist section

Accusation: "The 4th revert is a complex revert within an edit that attempts to disguise the restoration of User:Agapetos_angel's preferred wording."

Reply: (Due to complexity, breakdown of each change on the 4th edit, piece-by-piece)

(1) Support # 1

• Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati

TO

• Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D.
  • Response to complaint that version one was not according to style guide and that version two was preferred.

(2) Support # 2

• is a
  young earth creationist

TO

• is a
  young earth creationist
  author and speaker
  • Response to complaint 'reads like one long link'; NZ and AUS covered in article, not necessary here (NB I did not use 'research scientist' as the job title usage is still under dispute. I attempted to be as neutral as possible by using 'author and speaker')

(3) No support needed; this was an addition based on discussion in Talk and iRfC.

• Sarfati, a
  FIDE Master, was the 1987/88 New Zealand national chess champion. He represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads. His continued interest in chess includes giving blindfold chess exhibits at AiG conferences and at chess clubs in Australia and New Zealand
  .

(4) Support # 3

• Sarfati has had papers published in
  peer-reviewed scientific journals (Abstracts
  available on ScienceDirect.com).
  • In response to FM stating "This phrase will be removed pending supporting cites"
  • Requested cites provided here; phrase restored with appropriate cite

(5) No support necessary: GRAMMAR AND MOS EDIT ('also' and closing bracket)

• For obvious reasons

(6) Support # 4

• His latest book, Refuting Compromise is a rebuttal of the teachings of Dr.
  Hugh Ross

TO

• His latest book, Refuting Compromise is a rebuttal of the
  Genesis account of creation
  with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects.
  • FeloniousMonk calls this the 'consensus version' (NB second wording in 'consensus version'). Either FM is standing by his claim of 'consensus version', or he is standing by his edits which negate any claims of consensus.

(7) No support needed; additional material

• Sarfati outlined the reason for the exception to this admonishment in the critique's introduction (linebreak, indent) "As some astute signatories to his guestbook have pointed out, John Stear’s “No Answers in Genesis” is short on substance but long on rhetoric against creationists ... Now, unlike Stear’s scurrilous little site, the Answers in Genesis site majors in issues, not personalities. But I can certainly play Stear’s little game of ad hominems ...".[7]
  • This still remains in current version of article; inserted as valid NPOV context to the previous cites.

(8) No support needed; Correction

• The International Chess Federation

TO

• Fédération Internationale des Échecs or World Chess Federation
  • This is a name correction. No reverts, no changes in current version.

SUMMARY The supposed fourth revert was not a complex revert, but rather a complex edit. Therefore, this fails to meet the 3RR. Thank you. agapetos_angel 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Admin reply

You appear to be basing your analysis on whether the changes were correct and/or justofied, in your view. Ie, content. This isn't about content, its about 3RR. Please read the rules and stick to them William M. Connolley 10:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Request for additional review

I respectfully disagree that this is not about content. The analysis of the changes was to answer where you said in the 3RR report, "I can see bits of #4 that could be considered reverts. But can you make them explicit, please?". I was making 'explicit' that # 4 was not a revert by showing details of content. This was also to answer the assertions that Jim made following your request.

Review of the content is appropriate to show that the # 4 changes were made according to discussions in Talk (see linked sources), new additions to the article, and reinsertion of phrases removed pending requested citation after cites were given (and the addition of the cite in the article), etc.. A revert is listed in 3RR as undoing another editors work. I did rollback FM's edit where he was making major changes to the article that he then re-reverted and continued to make even after I questioned this in edit summary and talk. He didn't respond in Talk until after he reported me for a 3RR (erroneously as shown), making sure that I couldn't respond to another of his personal attacks, and his response did not address the major changes he had made to the article. A review of the pattern of FM's behaviour points to this 3RR filing being used as another weapon, rather than an honest filing.

Furthermore, a detailed review of Jim's last assertion that "... Agapetos_angel continued to place Chess above Scientist in all four edits. This in spite of the large difference in Safarti's prominence as a YEC (working, per AiG, as a scientist) and as a chess player." shows it to be completely erroneous.

Jim used this as a 'proof' that I somehow violated 3RR ('continued to place') by reverting the sections four times. In actuality, I only moved it once (# 4 on the report), and this was not a revert, but rather part of a larger overhaul on the section, as other editors were doing. Please see below for details and links to diffs that show comparison before and after.

Therefore, how can something that I did not revert even once, never mind a fourth time, be accepted as proof of a 3RR violation? agapetos_angel 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection order stayed the same

Version after unprotection (VAU, hereafter): (39038107)

Order of subsections this version:

• 1.1 Writings
• 1.2 Moral issues
• 1.3 Chess
• 1.4 Scientist
• 1.5 Education
• 1.6 Honors/Awards/Associations

Details of the 3RR report (in italics) with diffs:

Previous version reverted to: (ID: 39166386)

• Subsections match VAU: (compare 39166386 v 39038107 )

1st revert: (compare 39169083 v 39168980)

• Subsections match VAU, and remain the same before my revision and after my revision

2nd revert: (compare 39171503 v 39171207 )

• Subsections match VAU, and remain the same before my revision and after my revision

3rd revert: (compare 39175386 v 39174161 )

• Subsections match VAU, and remain the same before my revision and after my revision

4th revert: (compare 39188639 v 39175546)

• Only here did the subsection order change:

Before matches the VAU

After is part of a complete overhaul.

Notice that this revision (as explained in detail in my previous posting) included moving the subsections around for the first time since the VAU, with the exception of what amounted to a typo by FM that he corrected and moved back to VAU. ('Before', FM edit (1)- typo, FM (2), & FM (3) which fixed typo and restored back to 'before'.)

agapetos_angel 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response

• *

Wikipedia:Harassment reported by me, specifically:

Targeted personal attacks: Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter.

Threats: Threatening another person is considered harassment. This may include threats to harm another person, to disrupt their work on Wikipedia, or to otherwise hurt them.

Posting of personal information: 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. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.

I have reported harrassment by user:FeloneousMonk and user:User:Jim62sch, as well as warn them on their user page. agapetos_angel 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Jim62sch: Jim, please read KC's warning at the bottom of the page here. I have asked her, and another admin, to step in, because according to KC, this is an offence which could get you banned. I'd strongly recommend backing off. agapetos_angel 03:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, the item to which you refer was directed at your behaviour and is over a week old. "Using an editors real name or other personal information without their specific permission can result in a ban. I advise you not to do this. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)"

If you also notice, I did not reveal your real name, I merely cross-ref'd something from the AiG talk page (thank your buddy Durova for sending me there). Admittedly, I did not notice the quotation marks, so the attribution might have been incorrect, and I will apologize for that, and that only, assuming it is a misattribution.

Finally, your real name is available, for free, on the Internet for anyone wishing to do a search on your nick. That you seem to think you can hide behind policy while being guilty of a far greater violation does not bode well for Wikipedia.Jim62sch 11:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction couched in another allegation, eh? Nice. It was obviously a quote made by Armstrong from AiG, which was linked to the AiG page where it is located. Let me know when you discover you were wrong about this new accusation too (What's that, three? Four, now?). agapetos_angel 09:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Jim62sch#Please_retract

You know, if you're feeling harrassed, you can always file an RFC against Jim, KC, and FM. Explan your grievances, with diffs. I'm sure the ArbCom would not look favourably on those being pains in the bum. — Dunc|☺ 11:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not doing yourself any favors by acting hastily. People are looking into this, let them do their jobs. Kim Bruning 11:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you agapetos_angel 13:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[text delete by David D.] William M. Connolley 17:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that is appropriate.

David D. (Talk) 17:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe just the link to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment will do, then. Since AA has used that as an edit comment, I assume she doesn't object ot it. William M. Connolley 18:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes that seems fine.

David D. (Talk) 19:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello AA! I hope you will work with SlimVirgin. It is important to settle your conflicts and move on. Escalating the dispute through formal arbitration should be a last resort. This is just a suggestion. Do what you think is best. regards, FloNight ^talk 03:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on WP:AN/I. agapetos_angel 05:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agapetos_angel, I read your reply. Perhaps you miss my point. It is possible that some (a few or many, I don't know?) editors and administrators do not see a clear cut case of harassment. We are trying to gently guide you into a method of dispute resolution that will benefit yourself and the WP community. Make it possible for us to write the ‘pedia with as little disruption as possible. Regards, FloNight ^talk 15:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flo. I understood what you said. Some may not see it as a clear cut case of harassment, but a smear campaign carried over three articles is easily documented and continues. What you refer to as a method of dispute resolution appears to me to be punishing the victim of the harassment rather than reprimanding the ones who caused it. The so-called evidence that the ones who are harassing have presented has now been shown to be retracted, easily manipulated, and/or unrelated. A more effective way to deal with disruption is to stop the admin who are violating policy. That would be the greatest benefit to the WP community. I'm done arguing this point over and over with the others (not directed at you personally, please don't misunderstand). It's been shown the so-called evidence is not, it's been shown that this group has been harassing me (and continue to do so, now with others), and I've lost whatever good will I had to try to keep fighting this point over and over again. I'm going back to editing. agapetos_angel 22:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took the advice. I've made four suggestions and after seeing if there is a good result (i.e., policy adherence), I'll submit more. agapetos_angel 04:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good! You need to be patient and trust the community. The right information will get in the article eventually. Unless something is a copyright violation or libel, there is not any BIG hurry to change an article. If something is disputed, you can say that you disagree but leave it alone for awhile. On another point, someone will do the same. I don't mean to talk down to you. These are things you know and have done on other articles, I'm sure. But in the middle of an editing war, every edit grows in importance. This happens to everyone at some point in time. (I'm speaking from experience : ) Also, and this is hard to do,

WP:AGF. Remember, the other editors (even ones that you have troble with!) think they are doing what is best for WP. You all have the same goal in this regard. That's the glue that holds this place together! Try to be patient. FloNight ^talk 05:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It's difficult to AGF when being harassed (not so open minded your brains fall out), because that is specific action rather than intention. However, I will try to be more patient. What happened to your ? : ) agapetos_angel 05:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult, but, still necessary.

WP:AGF is key to consensus editing. Try looking at the situation from the other editor's perspective. They really think that their actions are right! They are trying to make the articles better. In this regard, they are no different from you. I think this can work for you. It is hard, I know. The outcome will be so much better if you can. My heart was a special valentine's day (or week) signature. Need to think of something for the next holiday. FloNight ^talk 06:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Agapetos, it would be highly appreciated if you did not mark controversial, large scale edits as minor. JoshuaZ 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, I've made the correction (but it was not 'large scale'). You may want to inform the others that have done the same thing, if you feel that strongly. agapetos_angel 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I see why it was viewed as a large scale edit. I reverted back too far. Thank you for calling my attention to that. agapetos_angel 23:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agapetos angel Guettarda 14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed some of your work here, so I followed you contributions to Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati/dispute. The first item on the list discusses the inplication that Sarfati is a troll known as Socrates at Theologyweb. I am a member at Theologyweb and I looked at his profile. Socrates' last post was June 22, 2004 and last activity was October 20, 2005. I have posted a question as to whether he was known as a troll to Twebbers. (he was before my time there) I'll let you know what I find out. In any case, I really wouldn't trust Talkorigins.org to tell the complete truth. PrometheusX303 14:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates was not considered a troll at Theologyweb. Read this thread PrometheusX303 18:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus, thank you, but it would be better if you address this on the dispute page. (BTW, the link involves having to register, so you may want to post the text as well. I didn't sign up to see what it said.) agapetos_angel 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that tomorrow on the dispute page. I did not know if I was supposed to butt in on the discussion.

I also didn't know that you jad to register to read threads. I'll post that info too. PrometheusX303 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I got so used to using that policy for when vandals remove warnings from their talk page that I got it in my head that it always applied to removal of comments - my mistake. I have amended my comments at the RfC accordingly. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedits. I missed them while working on the article. Jim62sch 00:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

AA, I request that you strike out these proposed findings. They needlessly raise the tension in this case, and are not in the best interest of the WP community. regards, --FloNight 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop

• 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)

• 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)

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

agapetos_angel, you've made your

AA, I'm sorry if you disagree with my assessment of the situation. I'm going to be polite but honest, so please take my next comments not as a complaint but rather straight talk. When I read the proposed findings I thought you were being vindictive or

WP:POINT. Not wanting to accuse you of being vindictive, I offer the suggestion that you remove them due to point. No matter the why, I don't think it is a good idea to heighten tensions in the middle of an arb comm case. (By the way, I offered the same idea to other people during an arb case in the not too distant past.) The point of arbitration is to resolve the dispute to make WP a pleasant and productive place to write an encyclopedia. If at all possible, you should try to mend fences and move on. Of course, my opinion doesn't really matter. You need to do what you think is right. regards, FloNight ^talk 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments

Calling the attempt at a summary a "straw poll" is either stupidity or deliberate disruption; in either case clear bullying. WAS 4.250 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your original edit you wrote:

"So, from the people who have responded to this consensus attempt, we have the following 'votes' regarding the revision:

FOR the revised version:

• David D.
• agapetos_angel
• Alai (expressed 'no direct objection')

AGAINST the revised version:

• Guettarda (implied)"

What does "from" mean if people are voting here in this list? Why is "votes" in quote marks if it is a real vote? Why are there no time stamps if this is either a vote or a forgery of a vote? If Alai voted, why say (expressed 'no direct objection') in third person past tense rather than first person present tense? How can Guettarda say "implied" about his own vote? WAS 4.250 01:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAS 4.250, how is this discussion helpful toward settling the differences of the parties involved. This issue has been rehashed ad nauseam. IMO, outside parties should try to assist these users in moving past the dispute. Your comments seem to stoke the fire. FloNight ^talk 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate WAS taking the time to review and comment on the summary, especially as there have been more accusations of 'faux straw polls' repeated recently. The discussion was very helpful because it showed that someone else noted that there was an obvious misconception of my posting and that it was not the accused intention to harm. I fail to understand the objection against someone revealing truth. I greatly appreciate that WAS illustrated what I've said from the beginning, that the second section was a summary of the poll, not a second poll. To also respond to the 'signed and linked' accusation, note that Flo linked WAS's name in the above comment. My usage was similar. agapetos_angel 16:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC) And I did fix dissent in the original[reply]

While AA did write the original poll in a way that could be misconstrued i do not believe that it was done intentionally to mislead. She made every attempt to reformat it in a way that was NOT misleading when others complained about the format. If we cannot

David, you're correct that it was never my intention to mislead anyone into thinking it was anything other than my assessment of the situation and an attempt to move forward and move on. agapetos_angel 01:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC) (clarified what seemed to indicate that I was arguing with David, when I was actually agreeing with him. Thanks for the comment, David. agapetos_angel 01:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

AA, happy your back and editing. The

Boyd Family seems amazing. Probably best if I stay away since we see things so differently. Wishing you my best, FloNight ^talk 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you agapetos_angel 01:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the subsection Administrator rollback abuse

You say "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)"

and Jim62sch says: "First, one questions the assertion that rollbacks, aka reversions ..."

WAS 4.250 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anyone will assert "revert" does not mean "reversion". Zealotry makes for poor judgement. WAS 4.250 23:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are pointing, WAS, but I apologise if my mistake of synonymous use of revert/rollback was confusing. Hopefully the context reflected what I meant if I used the wrong word (again). agapetos_angel 01:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, I found it. I thought you were refering to something I said. Understand now agapetos_angel 01:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above to be evidence of the truthfullness of "Intended to have 'and/or reverts' there" and thought it worth mentioning due to claims to the contrary. The discussion in no way maintains a sharp distinction between the two. I find zealotry as thick as trees in a forest in this case, and I don't want to single out anyone for only seeing this mess from their point of view. For example, just now you made a reply that looks to me like you interpret an innocent remark to indicate you did something on purpose, where I read no such thing into it. They indicate something you wrote could be interpreted as whatever, not that you intended it to be interpreted that way. Wikipedia is not supposed to used as a battleground, but zealotry blinds judgement and everyone is absolutely positive they are in the right. WAS 4.250 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, WAS. I was actually agreeing with DavidD, not (mis-)interpreting his remark. I appreciated his reply, and I've reworded my answer so that it's clear that I was agreeing with him. Thank you for pointing out that lack of distinction on the RfA. Evidently I am not the only one that confuses terminology on occasion. agapetos_angel 01:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Agapetos,

You and JoshuaZ were involved in a discussion at my page. I left another comment at my page asking what the deal was. Could you take a look at that comment and help me out?

Thanks!

In Him,

standonbible 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel, can you show me where the source says Slater won the award? [9] Sorry if it's obvious and I'm somehow missing it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's posted in the article. Source agapetos_angel 11:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't see it. Would you mind cutting and pasting the sentence that says she won an award? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(also answered in article Talk) I gave a different source (easier to understand) and you reverted it (again). Please explain agapetos_angel 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why on talk: it's because it relies on self-description. You used a German article as your source initially. Could you please say which sentence of that article indicates she won the award? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing talk with other references. One is from a library, the other from a school. Both show that Opening Skinner's box won the award for 2005. This time, there is a translation link also. agapetos_angel 05:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you won't answer the question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering the question. As I said in talk on the article, I was provided an English ref to solve the problem of you not being able to find support in the one I provided originally. Since WAS pointed out the English link wasn't appropriate, I found two more (non-English, sorry) source, and this time gave you the (rough) translations as well as the original so you can see that the information on the award is valid. I also answered your question regarding the original source that tells of the award. I thought it was obvious, but it would have also been helpful to wait a moment and check the article talk before expressing your curiousity. It takes more than a few minutes to gather and post information. agapetos_angel 05:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need translations, AA. The first German link you reverted to did not say the book had won the award. That is why I asked which sentence you believed said that, in case I was missing it. You've at last provided that sentence on the talk page, and it in fact did not say the book had won, which is why I made the source invisible in the first place. And I asked you this days ago, so I don't know what you mean about it taking more than a moment. Please don't simply restore sources that other editors have questioned until you know for sure (and can explain how you know) that they're appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ri) SV, you said 'Could you please say which sentence of that article indicates she won the award? (05:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)), I answered you that I was editing talk, then you said 'I'm curious as to why you won't answer the question' (05:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)), which is only about 6 minutes between asking and saying that I won't answer the question. I said I was working on the answer. I realised today that it actually said shortlisted (proposal list), and noticed that WAS said that the English source wasn't sufficient. I overlooked the original said proposed, rather than won. People make mistakes. I found two other sources to validate it actually won. agapetos_angel 06:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (apologies, thought it was reverted, but realised Wiki actually didn't take today's new edit with the new sources for some reason; I'll leave it to you to reword, but would appreciate you including it after I tracked down all those sources) 06:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you above on April 7, three days ago, where that source said she had won the award. You responded several times but without answering the question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently there is confusion because I thought you couldn't understand the source I provided, not realising I'd misread it, so I provided another. That was not intentional failure to answer your question, but rather an attempt to clarify the answer with what I thought was a better source. WAS pointed out it was a sister, where your reply was more vague. I've provided two other sources now that state that science book of the year was won, so it should be included back in the article. BTW, I did not 'simply restore sources'; I provided a different source. Please don't reprimand me for something I didn't do. agapetos_angel 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Agapetos angel and SlimVirgin are clearly doing their best. I ask both parties to recognize this fact and refrain from comments like "Please don't reprimand me for something I didn't do." Forgive and forget? Move on? Please? Yell at me instead? WAS 4.250 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved on and already said that SV can reword it; I only asked that she retain it with the new sources. I did not, however, appreciate the reprimand against edit-warring, especially with the RfA in process where it is likely to be picked up at face value and used against me. I didn't restore the source, I provided a different one to assist what I recognised as the problem with the first one (that it wasn't in English). That I was not correct in that assessment, and that the second one was also not helpful, is secondary to the fact that I needed to clarify that I was not guilty of edit-warring and was actually trying to help. I have no problem with SV. agapetos_angel 00:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AA, I agree with 4.250 that we should move on, but you should stop misrepresenting what happened. You provided a source in German that did not back up your edit. I read German, so the language was not the issue. The issue was that the source didn't say what you claimed it did. Giving you the benefit of the doubt (thinking maybe I was somehow missing something), I asked you, I believe, three times and perhaps more, to cut and paste the sentence you were using as your source. You wouldn't do it, and you still haven't done it. The issue is not the second English-language source. The issue is that you were willing to use a source that, I can only conclude, you hadn't actually read. I'm sorry to have to write so frankly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SV, this is a big mess where one need not exist.

• Firstly, you said 'Please don't simply restore sources that other editors have questioned until you know for sure (and can explain how you know) that they're appropriate'. Is it possible that you confused me with Mccready who reverted without change? I did not restore a source; I provided a different source. I need to clarify that this was a mistaken statement because of the RfA. I was not edit-warring, as that implies, but trying to provide a source.

(Req for source -> Filled that req -> Provided a different source)

• Secondly, your conclusion about me not reading the original source is erroneous. Please note that I said 'I overlooked the original said proposed, rather than won. People make mistakes'. You are correct that the source didn't say what I mistakenly thought it said. However, that does not mean that I did not read it. This is admittedly a minor, but annoying, issue because if I had not read it, I would not have known to include it as a source in the first place.
• Thirdly, you said '... to cut and paste the sentence you were using as your source. You wouldn't do it, and you still haven't done it.' Here is where I cut, pasted, and explained, and here is where you later replied to me concerning same.
• Finally, my sincere apologies for misunderstandings that caused me to reply incorrectly. When you said 'can you show me where the source says Slater won the award?', I pointed to the source. It is now obvious to me that you meant where in the source; I mistakenly thought you'd overlooked that there was a source supplied and were asking for a source to accompany the insertion. When you asked where it said she won the award, I thought you meant that you didn't understand German and trying to help, I provided an English source instead. WAS pointed out why the English one wasn't reliable (saying 'relies on self-description' didn't make sense to me at the time because it wasn't Lauren Slater's website; WAS clarified that it was her sister's website). So I provided two better sources to attempt rectify that entire issue, rather than revisiting the original source, because by this time, I recognised that I'd misread it. Frankly, I was doing several things at once, and just skimmed over 'vorschlagsliste'. When I realised my mistake, I found you sources to show it was selected.
• Conflicts aside (and we both made mistakes), can we please now drop this and get back to editing? I gave you two sources, which appear to be valid and reliable (I could be wrong). If you see they are ok, please re-insert the information. Actually, I personally feel that the criticism related to Skinner's daughter is far more justified than promotion of the award, but we have to be NPOV in the article and show both because both are verifiable. agapetos_angel 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, SV, I noticed that your revert took out other information that I added and sourced. (The Best American Essays/Most Notable Essays of 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.^[1]) Please replace this into the article. Thank you. agapetos_angel 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to take the liberty of responding to thoughts you might or might not have when arbcom rules with regard to a case you are in. Arbcom does not do "punishment" as a matter of policy. They don't do "fair" in the same sense that Wikipedia doesn't do "truth". Wikipedia tries to do verifyable as a way of getting as close to truth as can be hoped for. Arbcom makes rulings based on judgements of what is best for wikipedia. Therefore, volunteers who contribute a lot to the improvement of wikipedia are not run off if it can be helped. People who who contribute a lot to the improvement of wikipedia except in certain articles are often forbidden from editing those articles. And people who have obeyed every rule and still managed to disrupt wikipedia are banned if they are not useful to wikipedia's goal of creating a free verifyable encyclopedia for every person on the planet. If God can let the rain fall on the just and unjust alike; surely wikipedia can do good without punishing those that richly deserve it, confining itself to merely preventive measures. Cheers. WAS 4.250 18:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:TreyHarris#Please revisit Anne Garrels:

WAS 4.250 11:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Jimbo says that if an anon removes inadequately sourced negative information from the biography of a living person, it is not to be replaced without adequate sourcing. WAS 4.250 14:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has closed. Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing

User:203.213.77.138 has been blocked as being related to this decision, while not being listed as a party to it. I have not looked into this, but I bet the blocker thought their behavior was similar enough to be considered a puppet. Admins have wide latitude in order to allow maximum freedom for "everyone" to edit, while at the same time actually making progress towards a good encyclopedia. Lots of mistakes get made. Lots of good progress gets made. It is amazing the system works at all. WAS 4.250 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde did not follow the Arbcom decision by blocking this editor for one month, rather than up to one week [10]. While Clyde might be excused for not knowing the facts, user:FeloniousMonk is fully aware, being a party to the RfA, of the decision. However, he unblocked, then reblocked for the same amount of time, posting notice on the Talk page of the article [11]. This is yet another example of admin abuse, that I tried to have addressed in the RfA, that still continues. agapetos_angel 12:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC) The fight is supposed to be over. Both sides are supposed to go back to making the encyclopedia better and stay away from whatever caused the problem in the first place. People that seem to want to turn Wikipedia into a battleground wind up getting banned and declaring themselves victims of an unjust system. The Wikipedia system doesn't try to be just. It tried to make progress towards an encyclopedia. Create an article. Provide a reference for an unreferenced fact. Wikipedia needs lots of help. WAS 4.250 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to report this situation, please go to

WP:AN/I

, not your arbitration page. You will likely get a faster response there.

In addition, just because someone's an anon doesn't mean they should be treated as second-class editors - please

assume good faith

. 01:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC) -unsigned by 69.117.7.84-

I'll respond on your page, but for the record, I am the one reporting that the anon was 'treated as second-class editor', not the one treating him/her in that manner. agapetos_angel 06:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Who's on first?) I believe 69.117.7.84 feels "treated as second-class editors" by agapetos_angel's revert and edit summary comment accompanying said revert. WAS 4.250 12:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon in question was not 69*, but rather 207.156.196.242, an IP that is often used to vandalise Wikipedia (including blanking; See the talk page of that anon). It was not an assumption of bad faith to assume it was another instance that needed to be reverted. 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No dunderhead can misinterprete the nature of such a notice. Kindly take it in context: "The user specified is under probation and has edited this page inappropriately. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page." Obviously the "this page" in question is the article. Johnleemk | Talk 05:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(replied on his talk) Thank you for this well-reasoned and kindly phrased reply. My comments were intended to point out that the wording of the notice should perhaps be changed to the more appropriate wording of 'this article' rather than erroneous 'this page' as the notice now reads. agapetos_angel 06:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The wording is based on that of a template, so it would make more sense to propose amending the template instead. Johnleemk | Talk 06:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(replied on his talk) Consider it proposed. agapetos_angel 06:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)