This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Duncharris (talk | contribs) at 09:22, 16 February 2006 (→Description: ooh, speilling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:22, 16 February 2006 by Duncharris (talk | contribs) (→Description: ooh, speilling)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 14:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
- Agapetos_angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
Description
Agapetos angel has been disruptive at the article of her husband, Jonathan Sarfati. She has also been editing heavily the article of his employer Answers in Genesis, and the article of a colleague of her husband, Ken Ham. 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, not her actual status as the wife of Jonathan Sarfati. Misplaced Pages 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 Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself."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 the wives 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 that she is Sarfati's wife, 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.
Disruption
- Edit warring at the article of her husband, Jonathan Sarfati: Agapetos angel's history at Jonathan Sarfati
- The edit warring at Jonathan Sarfati included 4 3RR violations resulting in Agapetos angel being blocked three times
- This edit warring resulted in the Jonathan Sarfati article being protected
- Agapetos angel filed a misleading request to get the Jonathan Sarfati article unprotected
- After Jonathan Sarfati was unprotected , Agapetos angel continued edit warring and again violating 3RR within 24 hours:
Bad faith
- Misrepresented herself to the community when confronted about the appropriateness of intimately involved parties editing articles in which they hold a personal stake by repeatedly implying that she did not have a personal relationship to the subject of the Jonathan Sarfati, which turns out is her husband:
- After being warned that involved parties should not edit articles in which they have a personal stake , Agapetos angel continued to heavily edit articles in which she has a personal stake: that of her husband Jonathan Sarfati contribs to Jonathan Sarfati, that of her husband's employer Answers in Genesis contribs to Answers in Genesis, and that of a colleague of her husband at Answers in Genesis Ken Ham contribs to Ken Ham. With these edits Agapetos angel often attempted to bowdlerize criticisms, introduce POV, and were otherwise often not in line with WP:NPOV.
- 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:
- Filed a false 3RR violation
- Argued when confronted with fact that no 3RR violation occurred
- Despite the evidence that she is indeed Jonathan Sarfati's wife, Agapetos_angel refuses to confirm that she is Sarfati's wife , and continues insist that she be allowed to continue editing the articles in which she holds a personal stake: ,
- Agapetos_angel continues to edit her husband's article and that of his employer:
False claims and personal attacks
- 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.
- Insisted on keeping the allegation on the talk page despite repeated requests to move the material
- 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
- Personal attacks and false claims against Guettarda, an admin, over his objections to having his signature forged by Agagetos angel
- Continuing the disputes instead of seeking to resolve them: .
NPOV
Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
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 ~~~~):
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.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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.