Misplaced Pages

User talk:Agapetos angel

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agapetos angel (talk | contribs) at 00:57, 16 February 2006 (→ Personal attacks: cache). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:57, 16 February 2006 by Agapetos angel (talk | contribs) (→ Personal attacks: cache)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

No more red-link!

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)

Answers in Genesis incorporation information

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: and . Calcol 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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)


False accusations

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)

The section entitled 'This is the evidence of False Accustion' 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)

Lampchop

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

Personal attacks

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)

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)
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)
'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)
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)

Response

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 ,

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 .

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 , 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)

Jonathan Sarfati

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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

Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay , Chairman, 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)
Thank you. Email sent agapetos_angel 13:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Jonathan Sarfati

You're blocked (again) for WP:3RR on Jonathan Sarfati. William M. Connolley 19:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Regarding the 3RR block

After the ongoing confict with FM, let's just say I'm not surprised. Were you are aware that I reported him for his behaviour and that he's been 'warning' me despite conflict-of-interest?

Accusation: "Agapetos_angel continued to place Chess above Scientist in all four edits"

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

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 day-age creationist teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross, who attempts to harmonize 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 ...".
    • 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)

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).

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)


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)


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)

Admin response

Notice

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Reported

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)

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 Misplaced Pages.Jim62sch 11:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

retraction

See User_talk:Jim62sch#Please_retract

Filing an RFC

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)


Heya, keep your head down

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)

Thank you agapetos_angel 13:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
William M. Connolley 17:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is appropriate. David D. (Talk) 17:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe just the link to Misplaced Pages: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).
Yes that seems fine. David D. (Talk) 19:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

(copied from WP:AN/I) AA, I've set up a subpage at Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/dispute, which I'm willing to use as described if that would help to end the dispute. Let me know if you'd like to give it a try. If you do, please be very specific i.e. give me the actual sentences you would like to add, with the sources; and quote the sentences you'd like to see removed, with your reasons. But if you'd rather not take this route, no worries; it's just a suggestion. Cheers, SlimVirgin 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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 03:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I answered on WP:AN/I. agapetos_angel 05:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
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 15:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

minor edit

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

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)
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)