Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agapetos angel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Temporarily delisted pending resolution of RFAr

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Agapetos angel has been disruptive at the article, Jonathan Sarfati. She has also been editing heavily the article of his employer Answers in Genesis, and the article of a colleague of his, Ken Ham. Agapetos is associated with Jonathan Sarfati in real life. Many of these edits have raised concerns over POV and the appropriateness of editors editing articles that they directly have a stake in.

This disruption consists of POV editing, multiple 3RR violations, edit warring, and misrepresenting herself to the community as an uninvolved party to these topics. Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AUTO, and precedent discourages editors who have a personal stake in a topic from editing those articles. WP:AUTO states "Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned. Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. Contribute on the talk page instead. Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself." Common sense would say that such caution extends to relations of article subjects as well.

Additional disruption has come in the form of misrepresenting the actions of others: forging the signature of an admin to a straw poll (and falsely attributing an opinon to him), personal attacks of the admin who challenged her misuse of his signature, and in filing a false 3RR filing.

Agapetos angel refuses to confirm who she is, dodging all direct questions and employing ambiguity to imply that she might not be to sow confusion, and continues to edit and edit war on the articles in which she holds a personal stake.

[edit] Disruption

  1. Edit warring at Jonathan Sarfati: [1] [2] [3] [4] Agapetos angel's history at Jonathan Sarfati
  2. The edit warring at Jonathan Sarfati included 4 3RR violations resulting in Agapetos angel being blocked three times [5]
  3. This edit warring resulted in the Jonathan Sarfati article being protected [6]
  4. Agapetos angel filed a misleading request to get the Jonathan Sarfati article unprotected [7]
  5. After Jonathan Sarfati was unprotected [8], Agapetos angel continued edit warring, again violating 3RR within 24 hours: [9] [10] [11] [12]

[edit] Bad faith

  1. Misrepresented herself to the community when confronted about the appropriateness of intimately involved parties editing articles in which they hold a personal stake [13] by repeatedly implying that she did not have a personal relationship to the subject of the Jonathan Sarfati, when she clearly does: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
  2. After being warned that involved parties should not edit articles in which they have a personal stake [19], Agapetos angel continued to heavily edit articles in which she has a personal stake:Jonathan Sarfati contribs to Jonathan Sarfati, that of Safati's employersAnswers in Genesis contribs to Answers in Genesis, and that of a colleague of Safati at Answers in Genesis Ken Ham contribs to Ken Ham. With these edits, Agapetos angel often attempted to bowdlerize criticisms, introduce POV, and was otherwise often not in line with WP:NPOV or consensus.
  3. Forged an admin's signature to a thinly-disguised straw poll to imply more support for her POV edits at Jonathan Sarfati than actually existed: [20]
  4. Filed a false 3RR violation [21]
  5. Argued when confronted with fact that no 3RR violation occurred [22]
  6. Despite the evidence that she is indeed knows Jonathan Sarfati's , Agapetos_angel refuses to confirm that is the case [23], and continues insist that she be allowed to continue editing the articles in which she holds a personal stake: [24], [25]
  7. Agapetos_angel continues to edit the articles: [26] [27] [28] [29]
  8. In an attempt to whitewash the article, Agapetos removed criticism of Sarfati, falsly claiming it was libelous: [30]

[edit] False claims and personal attacks

  1. Claimed that Guettarda had expressed "implied opposition" to her preferred version of the introduction [31], when he had not implied or expressed a preference for either the original or alternate versions.
  2. Insisted on keeping the allegation on the talk page [32] despite repeated requests to move the material [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]
  3. Claimed that she had provided "proof" to support her assessment when providing diffs which did not, in fact, show support for the assertion that Guettarda had expressed an opinion on proposed edits [38] [39]
  4. Personal attacks and false claims against Guettarda, an admin, over his objections to having his signature forged by Agagetos angel [40] [41]
  5. Continuing the disputes instead of seeking to resolve them: [42].

[edit] NPOV

  1. [43]
  2. [44]
  3. [45]
  4. [46]
  5. [47]
  6. [48]
  7. [49]
  8. [50]
  9. [51]
  10. [52]

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:FAITH
  2. WP:3RR
  3. WP:CON
  4. WP:NPOV
  5. WP:AUTO
  6. WP:BLP

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56]
  5. [57]
  6. [58]
  7. [59]
  8. [60]
  9. [61]
  10. [62]
  11. [63]
  12. [64]
  13. [65]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Guettarda 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jim62sch 09:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. JoshuaZ 14:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC) but only a weak endorsement. The current use of the separate page for Agapetos to suggest her modifications seems at this early stage to be possibly preventing serious issues. So at least in regard to her making NPOVy edits, that may be solved. The rest of the RfC still seems reasonable. JoshuaZ 14:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. FeloniousMonk 17:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. The editing/removal of other people's comments on Talk pages is also a violation of WP:VAND.(ESkog)(Talk) 12:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Per a discussion, I no longer feel that the vandalism policy is relevant here - however, I still agree with the basis for the summary. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

[edit] Outside view by Dennis Fuller

I believe there are no reliable sources to support the claim that Agapetos angel is Jonathon Sarfati's wife. The Florida high school alumni page that is used as the primary source of this claim can be easily edited and a look at the Google cache (not the existing page) shows that is has been heavily modified since January 25th, 2006.[66] The previous alumni page entry refers to Sherry L Dennard. A search of Google suggests that this is an uncommon name and belongs to a Florida real estate agent.[67] A look at Sherry Dennard's personal website suggests that she has been living in Florida for the last 25 years[68] and there are current listings for homes that are still on the market in her area.[69] To the best of my knowledge, there is no proof that Jonathon Sarfati is living in Florida and married to Sherry Dennard. A look at Jonathon Sarfati's page at the AiG website shows that he is still actively involved with the Australian office and has a full schedule of speaking engagements.[70] If he is living in Florida, that must be one rough commute.

I would also like to make one additional minor point. There is a difference between Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia guidelines. Agapetos angel should not be charged with violating guidelines which are being mislabeled as policy.

Just so you know, it says January 25, 2005... not 2006... a year is a long time. Sasquatch t|c 06:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. DennisF 16:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~

  1. FeloniousMonk 17:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC) You've got the facts wrong. The name person's last name was not Dennard, but Kloska, now Sarfati, of Brisbane, Australia: [71] Of course there's an easy way to settle this and spare the community further disruption, the subject of this RFC could just speak up as to whether she is indeed is related to Sarfati and stop playing coy, but that has yet to happen despite numerous requests and occasions where doing so would be appropriate and helpful.
  2. Jim62sch 01:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC) That would be the less embarassing route, for AA, for Dennis, for Sarfati, for the whole community. Y'know, it's funny how Google works...a page is cached each time it's viewed. I viewed it two days ago and yet the link provided by Mr. Fuller...well, you need to look at that one.

[edit] Outside view by ESkog

I am troubled by the connection of this RfC to the personal information of one of our users, which we usually strive so hard to protect. It seems to me that this information is nearly irrelevant to the diffs presented above - any user who acted in this way would require attention, regardless of personal relationships with anyone or anything else.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Durova 11:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.