User talk:Agapetos angel/messy

NPOV?
How can any of this be considered a NPOV violation? It take far more time and space to answer each claim than it took to post diffs and assert they are NPOV violations. I believe it is sufficient to show details that even the first one is way off base as an accusation and just briefly explain others.

First one:

These are the changes that were made:


 * Corrected wiki-link to Spectroscopy
 * Moved paragraph up from the 'Writings' header to the 'Biography' header (details were about person, not writings)
 * Updated information from AiG bio regarding family
 * Added a paragraph break
 * Removed unnecessary phrase 'In addition to his religious work,'
 * Provided sources and information for Chess Olympiads (number, place, links, etc.) as that was neither attributed nor sourced previously (failing WP:NOR); added Junior Championship information with source
 * Added a paragraph break
 * Moved Criticism section to bottom, as styled in many other bios (first information about the subject, then criticisms)
 * Added header to cover Books & Biography and article subsections ('Bibliography')

Quick answer on the rest:


 * - (last one was adding tags as a stop gap measure because editors kept reinserting the WP:V violating text)
 * Major WP:V and WP:OR violations in that section needed to be deleted per WP:V because subject of article is living
 * See here for how I was correct in removing this text per informal dispute moderator:
 * I asked 'Therefore, in light of the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it and ... unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information, is my point that the section violates policy and should be removed until such time that it no longer violates policy valid?'
 * SlimVirgin responded, 'I agree that it should be removed until a source is found.'


 * 
 * not NPOV violation but rather an attempt to work with PK, et. al., to meet WP:V. This is from last Aug, when I had first started here, and the section still does not meet WP:V and WP:NOR.


 * 
 * See talk for the article. How is any of this NPOV?  It’s the intro to the article and reiterates what is in the article (with the exception of the ‘job title’ which had been pretty much agreed upon in talk, but then dropped later.)  This seems to be used as complaint padding.


 * 
 * Not NPOV violation! This is one of many rollbacks that reintroduced errors, removed valid links, and generally annoyed nearly everyone on all ‘sides’ of the disputes.  I  re-rolled the article, but retained Guettarda’s change (‘removed what G. complained about, but rv to last acceptable version’) to prevent the article from being even more messed up.  (See talk where Alai also complained)


 * 
 * Rolled back one of FM’s many ‘rv to consensus version’ claims. This is also not NPOV violation; FM changed away from this so-called consensus version many times, so how can there be a consensus?  WP:CON used as a weapon meaning ‘my preferred version at any given moment’.


 * 
 * Duncharris, uninvolved in Talk, made sweeping commentary in edit summary. My point was valid.


 * 
 * What is NPOV about this? Again, without commentary rather than just bland accusations, there is no way to give a definitive answer.  However, I will point out that this was being discussed in text and this was not a NPOV, but rather a bold edit that was used to incorporate all the discussion up to that point.

Policies

 * WP:NPOV
 * refuted


 * WP:3RR
 * first was violation of conflict-of-interest by participating admin
 * others disputed

Guideline, not policy

 * WP:FAITH
 * failure to show how this was broken
 * claims of 'bad faith' are a violation of AGF! **


 * WP:CON
 * failure to prove CON existed
 * negated by edits away from supposed CON version


 * WP:AUTO
 * unproven, nothing in the WP:V failing source states that the person is Jonathan Sarfati's wife (or even a relation)
 * violation of conclusive presumption of privacy


 * WP:BLP
 * unproven, nothing in WP:V failing source states that the person is Jonathan Sarfati's wife (or even a relation)
 * violation of conclusive presumption of privacy

** 'There will be people on Wikipedia you disagree with. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project. There will be some people you find hard to work with. That doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project either; it means they annoy you. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent.' (emphasis added)

It is violating WP:FAITH, then, to assert 'bad faith'.

Purported evidence
(...of trying and failing to resolve the dispute)

These diffs are mixed up between different disputes. I have reshuffled them under the appropriate reply.

WP:V & WP:NOR
Removal of WP:V & WP:NOR violations of a living person

I removed the text in compliance, yet it was replaced repeatedly, and I was admonished and blocked. I had never encountered the dispute resolution process, and as such, it took me forever to find the right avenue for assistance on this matter. Yes, I was increasingly frustrated, but with good cause. The dispute moderator (see above and sourced here) has now affirmed that I was correct all along, that the offending section HAD to be removed until such time that it met WP:V and WP:NOR.

Ironically, FM's comment after all these weeks of going around in circles with him and the others was 'Sources will be provided. It's a simple matter' If it was 'a simple matter', why didn't FM do so when the objection was first raised (or raised for the nth time)?

Is this evidence of trying and failing to resolve dispute? To argue with an editor for weeks on an issue, then claim it was easy to comply with the request?


 * 

Sarcasm
Sarcasm was not viewed as an attepmt to resolve anything


 * 

Guettarda dispute
Related to a disagreement with Guettarda which will be discussed in another response.


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Pertaining to privacy violation
This appears to be CYA.

Note that this was posted 16 minutes before this supposed 'effort' that tried and failed.

Note 'I'd rather not make this public'? Yet this was posted an hour-41 later!

How is that evidence of a failed attempt at dispute resolution?

My first response to this wasn't until here and here when I first saw all this mess (time between spent looking for KC's admonishment, and formulating my words in a civil manner before posting).

Rather than taking it to dispute resolution at that point, the material I deleted as a personal attack was replaced and the situation was escalated from PA to just plain harassment, culminating in a phone call by FM, to a woman who shared the name that FM tried to associate with my user name, in attempt to track me down.

This really goes far beyond harassment into really scary. I only 'know' FM from my contact with him here (AFAIK) which has been increasingly hostile towards me. That he would phone someone to track me down can only lead to the conclusion of complete loss of objectivity, complete disregard for policy regarding dispute resolution, and completely inappropriate behaviour from an Admin entrusted to follow the rules he is enforcing with others, not to mention that he did this after he asserted in multiple (many!**) places on wiki that the information was fact, including referring to me by that name even after I tried to bring the talk back to a neutral point.

**(three articles, in the AN/I, on the RfA, on user talk pages, in article talk pages, on a discussion board, message boxes he reposted after deletion by another admin, etc.).

These are NOT evidence of dispute resolution, but evidence of harassment


 * 
 * 

Not evidence of failed resolution
These three completely baffle me because SV opened the dispute page, and we are all working together to come to resolve on several issues. Where is the failure? I think this was a case of jumping-the-gun.


 * 
 * 
 * 

WP:VAND removed by Eskog
WP:VAND - refuted by being user's own talk page


 * 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)
 * No, it doesn't violate WP:VAND if it is your own talk page. Ten posts, in one day by the same person, with increasing hostility was way too much.