Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:31, 2 March 2006

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by FeloniousMonk

First assertion

Agapetos angel has a history of disruption at Jonathan Sarfati as part of a POV campaign at Jonathan Sarfati-related articles that includes ignoring WP:CON and resorting to edit warring and multiple 3RR violations. When her proximity to the subject matter was discovered and broached, Agapetos angel sought to mislead the community in an effort to side-step guideline and convention restricting contributions to articles in which editors have a personal stake. When pressed about involved parties and being chronically disruptive, Agapetos angel sought to silence myself and others with false claims of harassment. These actions are in keeping with an established pattern of behavior in which Agapetos angel misused other websites and lodged false claims against their administrators.

POV campaign at Jonathan Sarfati-related articles

1. The top 3 articles Agapetos angel has contributed to are Jonathan Sarfati-related. As of 23 February Agapetos angel has made 145 contributions to Jonathan Sarfati, 41 contributions to Answers in Genesis, and 30 contributions to Ken Ham: .
2. Sarfati's former employer Answers in Genesis recently split from Creation Ministries International, which is Sarfati's current employer.
3. Ken Ham is a colleague of Sarfati at Answers in Genesis
4. Many have raised concerns over the apparent POV of these edits: (diffs forthcoming)

Edit warred at Jonathan Sarfati
Examples:

5. Agapetos angel's history at Jonathan Sarfati

Violated 3RR at Jonathan Sarfati

1. Agapetos angel has been blocked 3 times for 3RR violations at Jonathan Sarfati:
2. I was the reporting party of two of these violations at AN/3RR:30 January 11 February

Rejected warnings about involved parties

10. This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.
11. This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.

Made false claims and personal attacks
Agapetos angel has attempted to use false claims and personal attacks to stifle opposition to her contributions.

1. Claimed that Guettarda had expressed "implied opposition" to her preferred version of the introduction , 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 despite repeated requests to move the material
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
4. Personal attacks and false claims against Guettarda over his objections to having his signature forged by Agapetos angel
5. Continuing the disputes instead of seeking to resolve them:
6. Intentionally filed a false 3RR violation:
7. In her posts to AN/I and RFAr Agapetos angel has consistently misrepresented herself and the issues in claiming she is simply being harassed. In each attempt, Agapetos angel commits lies-by-omission, leaving out relevant facts, such as that a number of different editors had been warning her and why, and that she has a history of disruption: , , ,
8. Misrepresented statements made by William M. Connolley regarding her 3RR vio and block:

Used sockpuppets/meatpuppets
It's likely that 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 are sockpuppets or meatpuppets used by Agapetos angel or a Creation Ministries International associate in a attempt to mislead the community:

1. The contribution history of each mirrors that of Agapetos angel: Dennis Fuller 220.245.180.133, 220.245.180.134, 220.245.180.130, 58.162.252.236, 58.162.251.204, 58.162.255.242, Agapetos angel
2. This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.
3. This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.
4. Using misinformation and sockpuppets is in keeping with what administrators of iidb and TheologyWeb have said about Agapetos angel's patterns of behavior: ,

Second assertion

Agapetos angel has a proximity to the subjects that by guideline and convention affects her ability to contribute to these subjects. Agapetos angel has attempted to game the system to avoid these limits to her participation.

Agapetos angel's gaming of the system started with her rejecting numerous calls to follow guidelines and conventions, followed by attempts to intentionally mislead the community into believing that she was not an involved party and hence free to edit such articles unfettered, and ultimately seeking to silence those who objected to her editing as an involved party with false charges of harassment.

Proximity to the subjects

1. This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.
2. This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.
3. This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.
4. This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.

Exploiting intentional ambiguity
Agapetos angel has repeatedly first implied she is not an involved party, then refused to clarify when presented with evidence that she is indeed involved while continuing to edit the articles:

8. Misleading the community, remaining intentionally ambiguous and hiding behind false privacy concerns is in keeping with what administrators of iidb and TheologyWeb have said about Agapetos angel's patterns of behavior: ,

Third assertion

Agapetos angel had a near identical issue that caused a lot of disruption for administrators at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (iidb) and TheologyWeb. Agapetos angel's actions there exactly mirror what she is doing now with false claims of harassment here and establishes a pattern of Agapetos angel going back to at least 2004 of using various online fora as platforms from which to launch POV campaigns and personal attacks, then hiding behind contrived claims of harassment and concerns about her identity when called on it. It shows that at iidb Agapetos angel made similar claims of harassment and engaged in maneuvers in a bid to silence or discredit those who enforce the rules when she was caught. Once again we see Agapetos angel using the same tools that she used unsuccessfully on iidb.

A history of similar disruption

5. This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.
6. This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.

Evidence presented by Guettarda

First assertion

Agapetos angel (talk · contribs) has edited the Jonathan Sarfati article disruptively. This disruption appears to be compounded by her apparent connection to the subject matter. (diffs forthcoming)

Second assertion

Agapetos angel (talk · contribs) has engaged in a systematic attempt to manipulate policy and dispute resolution processes for the purpose of discrediting opponents in a content dispute. (diffs forthcoming)

Third assertion

Agapetos angel (talk · contribs) has insisted on attributing false opinions to other editors, including signing other editors' names to a straw poll. She has refused to remove false attributions and has reinstated struckthrough text. (diffs forthcoming)

Fourth assertion

Agapetos angel (talk · contribs) has engaged in systematic incivility, bordering on personal attacks, stemming from at attempt to resolve issues stemming from the third assertion. (diffs forthcoming)

Evidence presented by Agapetos angel

First assertion

There is a conclusive presumption of privacy on Misplaced Pages.

This presumption is based, in part, on:

1. Misplaced Pages:harassment, official policy - "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."
2. Misplaced Pages:Privacy_policy which directs contributors to "the official version of this policy":Foundation Privacy Policy - "Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym."
3. Special:Preferences - "E-mail (optional): Enables others to contact you through your user or user_talk page without the need of revealing your identity."
4. Misplaced Pages:Why_create_an_account?#Reputation_and_privacy - "You don't need to reveal your offline identity"
5. Supported by an admin's warning when I accidentally used a real name: - "Using an editors real name or other personal information without their specific permission can result in a ban."

WP:NPA and Misplaced Pages:Harassment are both official policies. Privacy violations were asserted on the basis of a single source which fails to meet Misplaced Pages’s reliability standard.

• Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.

Information is uploaded via a webform with no apparent checking mechanism for accuracy. Therefore, accuracy cannot be assumed. Furthermore, the information is not available from ‘multiple independent sources’. Sarfati’s biography does not name his wife and the source does not indicate any marital status or name a husband. FeloniousMonk drew a conclusion that is not presented in the source. This six_degrees_of_separation method could ‘prove’ that anyone is anybody. Then, FM and Duncharris took that information and posted it as fact with official-looking message boxes, on user talk pages, on talk of three articles, in edit summaries, and on the AN/I intended to stop the continuing harassment. As a result of a misconception by another editor, FM also contacted a person via telephone in a further attempt to track me down. As I pointed out in the RfAr, this goes far beyond harassment and policy violation into being very scary, reinforcing the need for privacy against determined editors with whom someone is in conflict.

The conclusive presumption of privacy means that I do not have to prove who I am or who I am not. Official policies and guidelines were violated by even the attempt to connect my user name to a real name, an email address, and/or a location. The focus should always be about content, not contributor. The fact that nearly all of the points that I’d been making all along in Talk were resolved as valid excludes any accusation of my pushing a particular POV (i.e., none of them were dismissed as POV pushing on the dispute page and most were instituted).

The others have tried to assert justification of their behaviour, but policy is extremely clear that there is no excuse. There is specific dispute resolution policy, and as administrators entrusted to enforce that policy, they have the responsibility to follow it (Administrator Precedents). Instead, these editors chose the avenue of harassment.

Second assertion

Guettarda (talk · contribs) has made the accusation against me of systematic incivility, bordering on personal attacks.

However, Guettarda's use the terms ‘trolls’ and ‘trolling’. and further use of the comment "deleted trolling" that accompanied the removal of a single post that I left on Guettarda’s user talk page shows that the incivility/personal attack accusation is without substance.

My usage of the term trolling was in response to Guettarda’s increasingly hostile and abusive messages on my user talk, (the first post accused ‘forgery’ and ‘deceitful behaviour’ ).

These were made after I apologised twice (6 Feb) that my actions were misconstrued:

(8 Feb)

(11 Feb)

(14 Feb)

I was subjected to repeated personal attacks of dishonesty, lies, lying, libel, etc. I tried to reason with Guettarda, but then after two warnings , I removed the posts as trolling because of the frequency and content of the messages (and that two posts were only to change the headers on my user talk, adding quote marks around the words proof and evidence) and archived them for review.

Guettarda (talk · contribs) has further accused that I:

attributed false opinions to other editors and refused to remove false attributions

I attempted consensus regarding the introduction of article:Jonathan Sarfati including an edit to the article. Guettarda rolled back to a previous version which changed the intro as well as the edit that 220* made. I assumed good faith that Guettarda's edit was not an abusive rollback, especially given the edit summary was specific: "rv to Alai - more accurate wording". Since Guettarda went back to Alai's version which was before mine, that action implied that my version also lacked 'more accurate wording', i.e., that there was an implied (inferred) dissent (disagreement) with that specific version.

The implication of disagreement was also supported by Guettarda’s subsequent breakdown and complaints regarding the intro .

Also, Guettarda’s repeated accusations of dishonesty were questioned both on my user talk page and on the article talk page. I still have not seen a direct answer to why these two factors (the rollback and the subsequent breakdown) did not imply disagreement/dissent and imply that Guettarda did not agree with the proposed consensus of the intro.

AskOxford lists imply/infer as 'commonly confused words'. Therefore, perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that Guettarda's dissent was inferred (rather than implied), but the accusation of attributing false opinions is incorrect either way because it was my own opinion, something that I made very clear. That my opinion of Guettarda’s dissent might be shown to be incorrect when finally addressed directly is another matter entirely.

Furthermore, the escalation of this dispute by Guettarda was entirely out of proportion to the event itself. See above section regarding trolling.

signed other editors' names to a straw poll.

I’d never conducted a vote or poll before. Evidently my attempt at consensus vote was a straw poll . However, the post below that was a summary in bullet list format. (NB my statement before that list: ‘So, from the people who have responded to this consensus attempt, we have the following 'votes' regarding the revision:’ which summarised the events up to that time).

Rather than being approached in a civil manner, I was accused of creating a (second??) straw poll by Jim62sch (talk · contribs),, and accused of forgery and of signing other editors’ names to a poll I discussed the misconception, then reformatted the text in question several times in different ways to make sure that Blind Freddy could see that it was a summary. I also apologised twice.

reinstated struckthrough text.

my original statement and Guettarda strikeout # 1

• KillerChihuahua became involved
• I stipulated it was not another poll, but a summary list AFTER the poll
• KillerChihuahua objected
• Guettarda strikeout # 1 made
• I replied again that 'poll' was a mistaken assumption
• I apologized for any misunderstanding caused by my formatting of the summary
• KillerChihuahua said "Never place names in a list like that, ever ever."
• Edited text in response to admin KC from bulleted list which removed strikeout # 1
• Guettarda: strikeout # 2 to my revised post
• Guettarda: rolls back above
• Guettarda: reinstates the strike out # 2 after fixing closing strike out tag
• Guettarda removes postings by several editors

That these accusations come after several attempts to rectify the situation and two apologies, and considering the abusive comments (see above) to which I have been subjected, I move that this be dismissed as vexatious litigation.

Third assertion

Jim62sch's comments regarding contributor and false accusations in toto constitute harassment. Misplaced Pages:Harassment includes repeated and targeted attacks against another editor.

3. Accusation - Retraction - Insult rather than apology
4. Accusation - Denial - Reality - Retraction
5. Accusation - Reality - Retraction(?)
6. Accusation - Reality - Statement that there would be no retraction or apology Retraction couched in further accusation

Summary:

As I pointed out, that Jim became subdued and participated in the moderation as a result of after the RfAr is not evidence that this harassment would not have continued. Jim also participated in the privacy violations and several attempts to get him to stop failed. AGF does not, therefore, apply (This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary).

Jim quoted a parenthetical remark I made to him in email. The context is that I told Jim that he should have emailed me and I would have answered (understood context: in email). This was to point out that the accusations he keeps making could have been addressed privately, rather than potentially damaging wikipedia's reputation and cause him embarrassment when he later has to retract them in public (see above). As I pointed out to Jim, these false accusations are mirrored around the world. Jim stated, "The deception on her part, and her refusal to answer such a simple question, is what really got people interested in finding out more." The public answer was given 14 Feb and the false accusation was retracted 15 Feb. However, even though I answered, the fact remains that privacy is granted by conclusive presumption. There is no requirement that anyone who participated in the dispute has to reveal anything about themselves. The statement that Jim makes about 'what really got people interested' is very revealing. The 'finding out more', ostensibly to resolve a dispute, was merely to undermine the opposition.

The fact remains, as with the others, that Jim did not follow WP:DR and his personal attacks constitute harassment.

Context:

1. My first exposure to Jim was his comment in talk that I "might want to stop obsessing over this" with an edit summary "obsession is a bad thing". As far as introductions go, an attack on the person, however mild, put us on the backfoot.

2. Jim's third post in talk (and my third exposure to him) includes in the statement "one wonders if there isn't some sock- or meat-puppetry at play here" which he later called an observation, not an accusation. The average reader would conclude that this was a veiled accusation, but regardless, it is still a personal attack as it is against contributor rather than contribution.

3. Jim, not involved in a 3RR report, (11 February) offers incorrect information as evidence ‘Agapetos_angel continued to place Chess above Scientist in all four edits’. On 14 February, he retracts (at my request) but would not apologize. Instead he comments that I was ‘pretending to be an injured party’ .

4. On 13 Feb, Jim twice (in the same post) accuses me of working full-time for Answers in Genesis, basing his accusations on a post I made on 9 Feb regarding a quote from Armstrong, an actual employee. Rather than just apologise and state it was a mistake, Jim compounds the issue (15 Feb) by making another accusation in the retraction.

5. Jim made the accusation (17 Feb) that "either Agapetos or 220 (Sarfati) blanked it". When it was pointed out that User:Zocky made the deletions , he responded with sarcasm instead of apology (This is a two-fold offence because he also accuses an anon user on an IP proxy of being Sarfati, who has not been shown to even have a Misplaced Pages ID).

6. Jim asserts (17 Feb) that there is "exposed illegal activity on the part of Agapetos_angel''" but doesn’t name or source this supposed illegal activity. I believe this is a violation of Misplaced Pages:No_legal_threats.

Jim62sch has made a very serious character assignations regarding 'illegal activity' which he now says was a 'statement of fact'. This is yet another repugnant example of the continued harassment to which I've been subjected. Participation on wikipedia, and this arbitration, are about activity on wikipedia. Furthermore, I have never done anything illegal. These character assassinations have to stop.

Update: Additional information and review have illuminated that this accusation was based on the faulty premise that Dennis F somehow altered a Google cache link. However, it is now obvious that this is incorrect. Google has different datacenters which can produce different cache/search results to different viewers, so the cache that Dennis saw was evidently different than the cache that Jim saw. I had no part in the activity that took place related to that misconception. Therefore, this is not only a completely inaccurate accusation in general, but another that was made against me that had no basis in fact. See About Google Datacenters for more information.

• When you open a browser window and type in www.google.com you are going to Google just like everyone else, right? Well - yes and no. Yes you are going to Google BUT which Google are you going to? That is the question. When you type www.google.com into your browser window today, www.google.com redirects you, behind the scenes, to www.google.akadns.net. It is at this latter location that you are then routed to the Datacenter/IP Address that is both close to you in proximity (area of the Country) and experiencing lower traffic at that time.

Also see: WebRankInfo's Google Data Centers Tool which allows 17 separate Google datacenters to be viewed with one search. Searching the cache:URL in question produces the same information in each of the 17, identical to what DennisF reported.

Reply regarding FM

FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) accuses a supposed POV campaign at Jonathan Sarfati-related articles, using the ranking of articles as evidence. This commits the fallacy of joint_effect, because it not only ignores common interest, but it also ignores that intense participation can be (and was) directly related to intense dispute. FM contributes mainly to creation, evolution, and intelligent design articles but evidence of his interest is not evidence of any affiliation. I also made 16 contributions to Organ donation and 15 contributions to CSI: Miami. There was no need for more, as there would not have been need for more on Jonathan Sarfati had such a hostile environment not been created. The accusation that there was a POV campaign is silenced by the fact that, when the disruptive and hostile environment was removed with the creation of a separate dispute page, the points I had been trying to get addressed were resolved in just over one week with no further need for the dispute page. Request for adherence to policy is not a POV campaign.

In fact, there were no complaints on the dispute page that I was pushing a certain POV, but rather most of the points I’d been making all along in the original talk were validated. The main point I’d been trying to resolve was that a subsection (previously ‘Scientist?’) violated WP:V and WP:OR. The moderator, SlimVirgin, concurred The section that replaces it still has criticism but it is accurately sourced criticism. Therefore, the points I made about adherence to policy (especially when a person is living) were valid and instituted.

Unlike the reports FeloniousMonk filed against me, the 3RR that I filed was accurate. It very specifically pointed out that there was not a 4th revert (by both the n/a after # 4 and the phrasing of the complaint). FeloniousMonk edited just inside the 3RR (gaming the system). Conversely, FeloniousMonk reported 3RR against me twice where the diffs he provided were not evidence of 3RR, but of separate edits. The last was while he was editing just as heavily.

FeloniousMonk alleges that I ‘misrepresented statements made by William M. Connolley regarding her 3RR vio and block’. This refers to a now retracted contention that Jim made. William M. Connolley stated ‘The chess bit in indeed wrong’ and I later stated ‘including the one on the 3RR (that even the 3RR admin, who is not sympathetic to me at all, agreed was false)’. WMC said 'indeed wrong'; I said 'agreed was false'. As wrong and false are synonymous, and I did not indicate it was a direct quote of WMC, there was no misrepresentation.

Every user named on this RfAr has posted under their IP at one point or another. I am neither 220 nor DennisFuller nor all those 58*. users and they are not my sock/meat puppets. user:Alex_Law has stated that User:220.245.180.133 and User:220.245.180.134 are ‘of a tpg.com.au proxy server’. This was already pointed out to FM as well as Alex Law’s statement that they ‘have many thousands of customers in the region served by this proxy (and the similarly numbered twins).’ I tried to correct where I posted under my IP, and I did point out that I knew one of the 58* users, indicating that I was cleaning up the mess made on Answers in Genesis (while the criticism was valid, the manner in which it was expressed was not). Conflict like this is bound to call attention, especially as Misplaced Pages is one of the first hits on Google. That others rang in on this dispute is not evidence that any of us are connected on either side. (For example, user:rainbowpainter is suspicious for her single article post but there is no need to CheckUser to complain because someone chose that as their first post under a user name)

FeloniousMonk has been the main source of conflict in this dispute. His conflict-of-interest participation as an admin by issuing 'warnings' when he was embroiled in the dispute was pointed out several times. He also inflamed issues by posting in a manner that was confrontational and disruptive rather than resolution seeking. I personally attempted to move talk back to the subject matter several times where FM would then continue to make the issues about contributor. He never questioned the participation on the 'side' that agreed with him, but rather attacked those in a personal manner that disagreed. His actions were most severe in the attempts to violate my privacy, and he did this in a manner that did not follow WP:DR policy. He posted official looking message boxes that gave misleading messages and disrupted article Talk with repeated accusations that were also placed in edit summaries. His failure to email me is unexplained, and his failure to use my usertalk page was blamed on the conflict with Guettarda in which he tried to involve himself. He fails to mention that I discussed issues with him on my talk page when he made it clear that he was speaking to me in an official capacity rather than just Guettarda's friend. He ignored that I twice apologised for the misconceptions, admonishing me to apologise where no apology was necessary (i.e., for stating that Guettarda's accusations were false and calling his repeated spamming of my talk page 'trolling'-see above). He also failed to involve an impartial third party (not one of his friends) or to file a RfC when discussion broke down, choosing to instead cause public disruption.

As for FM’s begging-the-question accusation (‘using misinformation and sockpuppets is in keeping with what administrators of iidb and TheologyWeb have said about Agapetos angel's patterns of behavior’) I am not a member of iidb, or Theologyweb (which isn’t even linked in the accusation). Does FeloniousMonk take credit for every use of a similar id or posts on the internet under his IP? {omitted to protect FM's privacy} Google reveals that various users on different forums use Agapetos as their user id (from both genders) over a span of many years. I’m frankly very tired of this insistance on attacking contributor rather than content, the main reason that the dispute became so inflamed. This is just another example of what has been going on for weeks now. I've been subjected to minor absurdities of complaining that I know a lot about chess (when the AiG events page provided the current information) or science papers (when FM provided the website information, but was unable to get the results that I found easily) to these more recent irrational attempts to connect me to other people in an attempt to discredit me.

Daycd/David D. pointed out (regarding FM's insistence about lack of peer-review in Nature despite proofs to the contrary), that 'FM needs to step away from this argument since he is losing his objectivity'. I think there is sufficient evidence that FM's objectivity was lost in the very early stages of his participation on Jonathan Sarfati and these latest accusations that have no grounding in reality are just more evidence to the same.

Summary

The actions by these editors serve no purpose in dispute resolution and are not steps included in the WP:DR policy. Therefore, ostracising an editor with harassment through repeated personal attacks and attempts to violate the presumption of privacy must be deemed inappropriate behaviour. Thank you for hearing this case.

Evidence presented by Jim62sch

First assertion

This section will be for a discusion of AA's behaviour

edit warring

Second assertion

Agapetos seems to misrepresent a number of facts, leaving out the relevant precursors to certain posts.

• For example, she notes that "My first exposure to Jim was his comment in talk that I "might want to stop obsessing over this" with an edit summary "obsession is a bad thing" . As far as introductions go, an attack on the person, however mild, put us on the backfoot."

However, she failed to note an earlier, related post, that explained to her that she was engaging in edit-warring WP:Edit Wars , noted that she needed to discuss her issues on the discussion page (as she had requested of Guettarda), and that her edit-warring and refusal to adequately discuss the issues was hurting her cause, and that she was, in my opinion, going overboard regarding the use of what some consider to be weasel words (yes, I just used one, but as I do not for a fact know that all editors view "some" as a weasel word, I cannot state this any other way). In any case, while one may quibble over the tone of what I wrote (I tend to be very direct, sarcastic and ironical), there is, to my eyes no way that such can be seen as harassment -- it was constructive criticism.

• Re the following: "Jim's third post in talk (and my third exposure to him) includes in the statement "one wonders if there isn't some sock- or meat-puppetry at play here" which he later called an observation, not an accusation . The average reader would conclude that this was a veiled accusation, but regardless, it is still a personal attack as it is against contributor rather than contribution."

This followed what I took to be a rather accusatory comment that appeared to be in violation of WP:NPA when AA noted that "Jim, you are missing the point. I started this discussion. Please read this section to see who is discussing and who is not..."(Emphasis added). I responded, noting that I did not understand precisely what that meant (I wanted clarification). Additionally, I was sloppy in my asterisk placement in the sock-puppet observation, as the asterisk should have been after both 220's not after AA. Also, I explained that Melbourne was of interest, that no one knows her IP, and that IP's can sometimes be misleading anyway based on the ISP.

• Re "Jim, not involved in a 3RR report, (11 February)..." I was asked to add information in accordance with this request by William M. Connolley, and added the information. That I made a mistake in regarding the chess section was caused by the same confusing nature of the 4 edits that had required William to ask for more information. As noted, I did retract the chess section observation when I realized that it was wrong, but I did not apologize as I felt the retraction was enough of a mea culpa. In addition, I did not feel that her accusations of harassment were valid given the apparent close relationship with the subject.

I should also note in this issue, that AA had pointed out to William M. Connolley that the chess section observation was incorrect, which he knew, but to which he responded, ":: The chess bit in indeed wrong, but the 4th edit is a revert. Please get over this, and return to productive edting. William M. Connolley 23:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)." " (Interestingly, "get over this" sounds like "stop obsessing over this" in tone).

Finally, William made this interesting observation, "Blocked (I thought I'd said that before... hmmm) William M. Connolley 20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)."

• Re "On 13 Feb, Jim twice (in the same post) accuses me of working full-time for Answers in Genesis..."

As noted, when I learned that I had missed the quotation marks, I retracted that portion, however, as other evidence from a public source had surfaced regarding Agapetos' relationship with the subject of the article (the evidence of which is noted here: ) I included a comment that rightly indicated the proximity of Agapetos to the subject. Thus there was no compounding of any issue, merely a restatement of fact, one that Agapetos has seen fit to repeatedly and intentionally skirt, knowing that an admission of the truth would preclude her participation in the article.

In an e-mail to me (3/1/2006), Agapetos stated parenthetically, "(I would have told you that I've never been employed by Answers in Genesis.)" She was pressed on this issue a number of times on the Sarfati talk page (cites to come), but refused to answer. The deception on her part, and her refusal to answer such a simple question, is what really got people interested in finding out more.

• Jim made the accusation (17 Feb) that "either Agapetos or 220 (Sarfati) blanked it". When it was pointed out that User:Zocky made the deletions , he responded with sarcasm instead of apology (This is a two-fold offence because he also accuses an anon user on an IP proxy of being Sarfati, who has not been shown to even have a Misplaced Pages ID).

Yes, the initial comment was sarcasm, and that is all. However, the second comment, which was also sarcasm, was clearly self-deprecating in nature, i.e., directed at myself, and thus not an offense of any kind, unless an admonishment of one’s own behaviour is not allowed. In all honesty, Agapetos' point on this is rather baffling.

Second, given that the 220 IP address is from Australia, and writes in a style (both in terms of syntax and grammar) that matches Sarfati's known writings, this was hardly a leap in logic. As for the assertion that Sarfati has no Wiki account, well, most anons don't, do they? Given that fact, the second assertion that Sarfati has not been shown to have an account is a bit curious.

• Jim asserts (17 Feb) that there is "exposed illegal activity on the part of Agapetos_angel" but doesn’t name or source this supposed illegal activity. I believe this is a violation of Misplaced Pages:No_legal_threats.

Nope, no legal threat, statement of fact. The source was not named due to the protection of the innocent party (who knows nothing of Misplaced Pages or Agapetos)

The item in question will be e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.

Note, the page that linked Agapetos' name to someone other than Sarfati appears to have been a legitimate cache somewhere on Google's system, but, that does not mean that something was not intentionally done to cover up an identity. These items have already been mailed by FM.

• Re "As I pointed out, that Jim became subdued and participated in the moderation as a result of the RfAr is not evidence that this harassment would not have continued. Jim also participated in the privacy violations and several attempts to get him to stop failed. AGF does not, therefore, apply. The fact remains, as with the others, that Jim did not follow WP:DR and his personal attacks constitute harassment."

Actually, my involvement on the Sarfati talk page ended 21:20, 16 February 2006. I was not informed of the initial RfAr until 13:07, 17 February 2006, thus Agapetos' assumption is without merit, as she engages in speculation. For her to assume that she can predict the behaviour of an editor, or have special knowledge of their future intentions is specious. Finally, most of the alleged privacy issues are being handled by FeloniousMonk, although one still remains.

Cites of non-harassment shall be forthcoming.

• Re "Jim62sch has made a very serious character assignations regarding 'illegal activity' which he now says was a 'statement of fact'. This is yet another repugnant example of the continued harassment to which I've been subjected. Participation on wikipedia, and this arbitration, are about activity on wikipedia. Furthermore, I have never done anything illegal. These character assassinations have to stop."

If Agapetos' wishes that these issues be out in public, then so be it. We (FM and I) were e-mailing the other info due to the previous privacy concerns, thus Agapetos cannot have it both ways. Either everything is out on the table, or we need to take the route we have taken. See FM's issue of sock- meat-puppetry re Dennis F. I request that Agapetos that the person whose name was inserted in place of Agapetos never attended the school in question, does not know Agapetos, and could, if she wished, file charges for misrepresentation. The decision on how to handle this is Agapetos'.

• Agapetos presents an interesting take on the events regarding the fake straw poll. Sher fails to note that a number of editors felt that that was precisely what she was doing. In any case, just to maske sure that everything was covered, I offer this: (probably best to go right to left on the links, it'll make more sense). And the beginning of the mess

...