Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence

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.

Agapetos angel has a history of disruption
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

 * 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:.
 * Sarfati's former employer Answers in Genesis, which recently split from Creation Ministries International, now Sarfati's current employer.
 * Ken Ham is a colleague of Sarfati at Answers in Genesis.
 * Many have raised concerns over the apparent POV of these edits:
 * Some people initially argued that Agapetos angel was not involved with Answers in Genesis since she was pushing strongly to have the financial criticism of AiG on the AiG page. However, on 3 March User:220.245.180.133 (who I allege below to be a sock or meat puppet, involved with Creation Ministries International, and believed by many to be Sarfati himself) edited Jonathan Sarfati to reflect that Sarfati is no longer with AiG but is with the splinter ministry Creation Ministries International:
 * It has been alleged that financial disputes were part of the cause of this recent split between AiG and Creation Ministries International.
 * A number of Agapetos angel's contributions Answers in Genesis, imply an intimate knowledge of what are normally obscure details about AiG's finances and salaries, and preceded the formal split, as well as display a particular viewpoint about AiG that is shared by Creation Ministries International:, , , , , , , ,

Edit warred at Jonathan Sarfati
Examples:
 * 05:18, 2 February 2006 UTC
 * 06:30, 2 February 2006 UTC
 * 07:09, 2 February 2006 UTC
 * 02:12, 3 February 2006 UTC
 * Agapetos angel's history at Jonathan Sarfati

Violated 3RR at Jonathan Sarfati

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

Rejected warnings about involved parties

 * 02:40, 2 February 2006 UTC
 * 03:10, 3 February 2006 UTC
 * 16:40, 6 February 2006 UTC
 * 05:30, 11 February 2006 UTC
 * 00:33, 6 February 2006 UTC
 * 02:21, 8 February 2006 UTC
 * 01:04, 6 February 2006 UTC
 * 10:29, 8 February 2006 UTC
 * 10:40, 12 February 2006 UTC
 * This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.
 * 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.
 * 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 over his objections to having his signature forged by Agapetos angel
 * Continuing the disputes instead of seeking to resolve them:
 * Intentionally filed a false 3RR violation:
 * 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:, , ,
 * Misrepresented statements made by William M. Connolley regarding her 3RR vio and block:
 * Implying User:58.162.255.242 was an unconnected editor:, Agapetos_angel has contributed from an IP in the same pool:

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:203.213.77.138, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242, User:58.162.251.204, User:58.162.245.148 and User:58.162.252.58 are sockpuppets or meatpuppets used by Agapetos angel or a Creation Ministries International associate in a attempt to mislead the community:
 * 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, 58.162.251.204, 58.162.245.148, 58.162.252.58 and  Agapetos angel
 * This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.
 * This item has been e-mailed with other evidence to members of the arbcomm mailing list.
 * Using misinformation and sockpuppets is in keeping with what administrators of iidb and TheologyWeb have said about Agapetos angel's patterns of behavior: ,
 * Admiting being connected to, or User:58.162.255.242:
 * In 2005 the Jonathan Sarfati article at EvoWiki was disrupted in a identical fashion by a related IP, 203.213.77.138, that also resolves to Australia: At the same time, 203.213.77.138 was making the same POV contributions to Wikipedia's Sarfati article:  If one were to run a similar comparison for this editor's EvoWiki and Wikipedia contributions to the respective Answers in Genesis articles, I suspect one would find similar results. The contributions of 203.213.77.138, giving the same "chess master" and "scientist" content undue weight, strongly suggests that the same person is behind 203.213.77.138 and the 220.245.180.*** block of editors here. This corroborates and compounds my allegation that the Jonathan Sarfati and Answers in Genesis articles are the subjects of a POV campaign conducted by involved parties, as others have suggested that Sarfati himself is using the 220.245.180.*** IP block to edit Wikipedia.

Agapetos angel has a proximity to the subjects
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

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

Exploiting intentional ambiguity to avoid constraints
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:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 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: ,

Agapetos angel has a history of similar disruption in other fora
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

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

Response to Agapetos angel's assertions
In response to Agapetos angel's claim that "FeloniousMonk has been the main source of conflict in this dispute", I say that Agapetos angel caused this event to escalate herself through the  edit warring detailed above and by further disrupting an article in which there is strong evidence that she has a personal stake, and through a long string of misrepresentations and misuses of Wikipedia's processes to avoid the limits placed on such editors by guideline, precedent, and convention.

Conflict of interest
To the claim that my administrative participation on the article was a conflict of interest, I had no interest in the Jonathan Sarfati article, never having participated at the article prior to 30 January: My presence there was always administrative in nature and in response to already occurring disruption that started on 27 January:. My watching over the article was in response to what I viewed as the disruptive activities of Agapetos angel. My edits on the article proper were largely limited to responses to Agapetos angel's edit warring and flouting consensus and NPOV: I never put forth a particular version of the article of my own and the few actual copy edits made were in trying to conform the article by removing dubious bits for discussion to the talk page, etc. My contributions to Talk:Jonathan Sarfati were by-and-large administrative in nature as well, reminding of guideline and policy, pointing out those claims that appeared to be exaggerated, etc.:  It has been Agapetos angel's reactions to the efforts of a number of different administrators, myself, Guettarda , KillerChihuahua , Duncharris, SlimVirgin  that caused this imbroglio, not the administrators who have sought to get her to follow policy and guideline.

Failure to follow WP:DR
The fact that I helped draft and endorsed Requests for comment/Agapetos angel belies the claim that I refused to participate in proper dispute resolution. I viewed Agapetos angel's ultimately rejected RFM as stillborn for two reasons:
 * The RFM was malformed, missing the central point of mediation: participation of the parties, instead asking the Mediation Committee to review and "mediate."
 * At the time the RFM was filed several parties were already aware the evidence that Agapetos angel was likely misleading the community about her proximity to the subject with the intent of side-stepping the guidelines and conventions that place restrictions on editors contributing to subjects in which they hold a personal stake. Genuine mediation is predicated on trust. In an environment founded on deception where no basis for good faith assumptions exists, there can be no genuine solution mediated.

As to the claim that I should have emailed my warnings to Agapetos angel, I did try to send an email. Twice. But at the time I left my comments at User talk:Agapetos angel, 31 January and 6 February, Agapetos angel did not have an email address setup for Wikipedia.

Response to Durova's assertions
To the claim that Agapetos angel's contributions to Answers in Genesis are evidence that contradicts the allegations of POV campaigning and tendentious editing: Creation Ministries International recently split off from Answers in Genesis, apparently due to financial disagreements, and Sarfati is now at Creation Ministries International. Agapetos angel's contributions to Answers in Genesis show a focus on financial criticisms occurring at approximately the same time as the AiG/CMI schism. Editing Answers in Genesis while intimately connected to its splinter group Creation Ministries International is by definition a conflict of interest and a violation of the letter and spirit of WP:AUTO. Promoting the Creation Ministries International POV at Answers in Genesis while intimately connected to Creation Ministries International is by definition treating Wikipedia as a soapbox. The fact that Agapetos angel was not disruptive in so doing or merited a barnstar in a particular editor's view does not excuse either transgression.

Not all of Agapetos angel's earlier contributions to Answers in Genesis were harmonious. When NPOV concerns about her edits were brought to her talk page in December she deleted the comments as "drivel" and made a personal attack in the edit summary: Other similar incidents of dismissing the concerns of others:
 * Deleting concerns expressed over her edits at Jonathan Sarfati
 * Dismissing concerns expressed over her edits at Jonathan Sarfati

First assertion
has edited the Jonathan Sarfati article disruptively. This disruption appears to be compounded by her apparent connection to the subject matter. (endorse evidence presented by FeloniousMonk)

Second assertion
has engaged in a systematic attempt to manipulate policy and dispute resolution processes for the purpose of discrediting opponents in a content dispute. (Dealt with in evidence elsewhere and in discussions at the workshop)

Third assertion
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.

Agapetos angel signed other users names to a poll, and refused to remove my name from her poll/summary despite the fact that it misrepresented my opinion. She insisted on her right to include this information and claimed to provide "evidence" to support her position. The evidence did not show what she claimed it to say, and she refused my requests to remove the information. She should not attribute opinions falsely, and she should not have included me in a list of opponents if I requested removal from the list. Apart from the dishonesty of the allegation, this matter shows Agapetos angel attempting to assert absolute control over the content of discourse, in what appears to be some attempt to score "political" points.


 * Agapetos angel compiled support and oppose votes of her "consensus attempt" to which she signed the names of herself, User:Alai and User:Daycd as FOR the revised version and User:Guettarda as AGAINST the revised version:, with the parenthetical comment (implied).
 * User:Jim62sch took Agapetos angel to task for this ; in response to this, Agapetos angel made minor changes to the "poll" and calls it a summary.  However, the summary still looks like a vote.
 * User:KillerChihuahua comments on the poll, then realises that Agapetos angle has signed for other editors, and says that this is unacceptable
 * In reply to this, Agapetos angel says my entry was not intented to be a poll, but rather a summary. I am deeply sorry for the confusion that my posting caused and have (thrice) tried to format it so that it is obvious that it is a summary I have formulated, rather than a poll. However, I'd rather retain the bullets so that we can move forward. In this edit she de-linked the names in the summary/poll, but did not change the format.
 * KillerChihuahua replied That is not how it is done. Do not do this. If you want a poll, do it - strongly against my advice. But do not, under any circumstances, speak for another Wikipedian without their express consent.
 * When I (Guettarda) became aware of this, I instructed Agapetos angel to remove my name from the poll (or summary), and then struck out my name from her list, under the assumption that she would remove my name. While I was offended by her attempt to sign my name to the poll, I was much more offended by the fact that she had attributed an opinion to me that I had neither expressed nor on which I had formulated an opinion.  (The only opinion I had expressed about the proposed revision was to say that I was surprised that Agapetos angel's had been willing to accept unverified material in one place, but had insisted that such material be removed elsewhere in the article.)
 * Agapetos angel defended her poll/summary . KillerChihuahua instructed Agapetos angel to remove all names but her own from the poll, In response to this Agapetos angel eventually converted the poll to a paragraph , but in so doing she restored my name and deleted my strikethrough.
 * Because I had been so upset by Agapetos angel's false attribution to me (going so far as to sign my name to that false attribution), I avoided the page for two days. When I returned I was shocked to realise that, not only had Agapetos angel failed to remove my name from her poll/summary, she had deleted my strikethrough of my name and was once again falsely attributing a position to me.  In response to this I struck through the comments again .  (In the course of doing so I screwed up the formatting on first attempt, rolled back my edit , and corrected it.
 * I then told Agapetos angel once again to remove the false attribution . After two hours of trying to convince her to remove the false attributions I deleted her entire post ; since she was offended by my editing her comment, I saw no other alterative but to delete her entire misleading "summary".

After this,
 * Agapetos angel insisted that she had provided "proof" to support her position, but posts diffs under the heading "Accusations refuted by evidence". In this section she posted diffs which in no way address my accusation that she has falsely claimed that I am opposed to the proposed alterations, but instead document that I struck out, and later deleted, her accusation.
 * She posts further false claims in which she claims that my complaints are "false allegations". She claims that she has "- (diff - 15:30, 2 February 2006) - shown an example where you dispute the intro as it was proposed" - when in fact that diff shows me reverting POV pushing by an anon.
 * When I asked her to remove her accusations and apologise for them, she deleted my posts  moved the false accusations by Guettarda to a subpage.  So in addition to making false allegations about me, she has gone on to attack me with further accusations of making "false accusations" against her.  She also reverted my attempts to continue this conversation with aggressive edit summaries like 00:13, 11 February 2006 Agapetos angel m (→This is the "evidence" of False Accustion - need anti-trolling spray) and 21:47, 13 February 2006 Agapetos angel (removed, continued trolling)

Fourth assertion
has engaged in systematic incivility, bordering on personal attacks, stemming from at attempt to resolve issues stemming from the third assertion. (see above)

Privacy
There is a conclusive presumption of privacy on Wikipedia.

This presumption is based, in part, on:
 * 1)  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) 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) Why_create_an_account%3F - "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 [sic] real name or other personal information without their specific permission can result in a ban."

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

Guettarda
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. 

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 ,, 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.

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


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 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
 * 7) Accusation - Reality proof 1 - Reality proof 2 -

Summary:

As I pointed out, that Jim became subdued and participated in the moderation as a result of [correction:] 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 Wikipedia 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 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.

Google cache update: The Google cache dated 22 December 2005 shows the information was not the same as the February cache (but did match 25 Jan 2005). Google datacenter 64.233.179.104 (http://64.233.179.104/) is one of at least 20 datacenter locations now providing cache dated 22 December 2005. The January 2006 Google Dance was not instituted as Google was facing legal action regarding cache and copyright. The next Google Dance was February 2006, when the copyright issues were resolved. By then information had already been changed according to the February 2006 cache to which Jim refers. While the exact date of the change has not been determined, it is obvious that the timeframe is betweeen 22 Dec 2005 and Feb 2006, which coincides with the conflict on Wikipedia with these editors.

7. RfM submitted, RfM rejected. Jim's accusation is incorrect (again). I did not abruptly close the issue; it was rejected. I did not understand the procedure at that point, so I did not realise that I had to inform everyone myself. This seems to be the reason the RfM was rejected (failure to show parties agreed to mediate). This is evidence that I tried several avenues to get assistance, and unfamiliarity with the processes was as much of an impediment as process failure. (The RfC was the informal one that Durova performed)

FeloniousMonk (and Duncharris)
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 [sic] 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 Wikipedia 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 the single article post  but I didn't see a need to run to CheckUser)

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.

also participated in message box submission, catagory submission, and article disruption. I believe his inclusion in the RfAr was to stop his participation in those activities alone.

FM's 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.

FM gives four diffs as evidence of ‘POV campaign at Jonathan Sarfati-related articles’ which have nothing to do with POV
 * 1)  from an editor who was ‘perfectly happy’ to leave my edits.  He was complaining about the removal of his edits that violated NPOV, OR, and V
 * 2)  that same editor posted a copy of an email he sent to glbtjews.org (The World Congress of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Jews) in its entirety on my user talk.  That nonsense did not belong where it might be mistaken for my viewpoint (like Jim's misattribution of the Armstrong quote).  Like trolling, drivel has been used by other editors named in this RfA (e.g., Jim62sch on 8 December 2005 and Duncharris on 22 Oct 2004).
 * 3)  was a request to not mark major edits as minor. (The mistake was explained and corrected. )
 * 4)  relates to the removal of the ‘Scientist?’ subsection.  This has been validated as appropriate action by SlimVirgin (moderator on the dispute page).

FM states ‘alleged … financial disputes’ and provided a link that actually states ‘website content being subject to an international representative system of checks/balances/peer review’ and ‘other differences in operating philosophy’. Nothing there indicates any financial dispute.

FM accuses ‘an intimate knowledge of what are normally obscure details about AiG's finances and salaries’ and provides a list of diffs. Review shows that these details are not obscure, but present in the source material or easily found on Google.
 * 1) - Is FM indicating that Guidestar or USA’s IRS are ‘normally obscure’?  The AiG website linked to Guidestar who report the IRS 990.
 * 2) – The source article stated ‘The lawsuit was dismissed in February’.  How is that information obscure?  Information was posted directly from the sources.
 * 3) – Additional sources were requested; CSharp’s article was found on Google.
 * 4) – These are revisions of the material, not additions of new material.
 * 5) – More information found from Google
 * 6) – I provided no information here, but clarified that DennisF was incorrect based on the link that he provided.
 * 7) – This is not new information; it is a discussion regarding WP:OR.

FM give four examples of ‘Edit warred at Jonathan Sarfati’
 * 1) – This was not an edit war; this was the compromise attempt that was discussed in Talk.  (This is also the edit that Guettarda reverted, but claims that he had not expressed disagreement)
 * 2) – If Guettarda did not disagree with my edit to the header, but was only meaning to revert a POV by an anon, then my replacement of the text that he reverted was appropriate.  Either Guettarda rolled back my edit because he disagreed with it, or Guettarda reverted back too far and his disagreement as implied by that mistake.
 * 3) – FM claimed consensus where there was none.
 * 4) This is different than the previous edits, and was based on the editors who were participating in talk who decided to add the job description as a compromise.

(This also answers the repeated diffs FM used in the fifth assertion)

Diff bombing is not evidence.

Summary
Contributions to the Sarfati article by the other editors ( Guettarda,  FeloniousMonk,   Jim62sch,   and Duncharris.  ) shows that only Duncharris participated in the earlier stages of forming any sort of compromise on the article. The other three asserted WP:CON without participation (under those user names) in the changes prior to making the assertion. Furthermore, WP:CON states that ‘Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy).’ The assertion that the guideline WP:CON was violated is incorrect as it has been validated by the moderator (SlimVirgin) that removal of the subsection ‘Scientist?’ was appropriate because official policy was violated (WP:OR and WP:V). Duncharris apparently did not assert that WP:CON was violated, and had limited input in talk regarding the changes. He objected to the removal of the subsection but again, it has been confirmed that removal was appropriate.

The actions by these editors served no purpose in dispute resolution and were 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.

Additionally
Like Jim, I am tiring of answering these accusations.

Additional points I wanted to address are regarding Joshua's submissions to this page. He had not received, prior to posting here, the information that ArbCom received regarding the single source that FM provided as proof of identity (I've since emailed it to him). To clarify, evidence now shows that the source was changed during the timeline of the conflict (between 22 Dec 2005 and Feb 2006). This could have been easily accomplished through the web form upload that doesn't require an email address and evidently doesn't review the submitted information. (I make no accusation without proof regarding who made the changes, only stating that I did not upload the information)

Joshua also erroneously points out that FM 'conceded the matter'. While several editors showed FM that he was incorrect, FM did not concede the matter, as shown on the page that Joshua links. FM's two contributions to that section were Exactly where does it say all "Letters to Nature" are peer reviewed here? and ''Exactly. I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm saying we need something more definitive than that.'' Joshua may have mistaken 'I'm not saying it wasn't' for a concession, but FM's next sentence belays that conclusion because FM is still asking for more definitive proof. This proof, as Durova points out, is not necessary. Furthermore, it is contrary to WP:V that states editors are not supposed to verify material published by reputable sources. To require it before allowing the material to stand was contrary to policy.

Also, I've not called anyone 'anticreationist', so I also object to the us vs them dichotomy that Joshua's phrasing indicates. While disagreeing with Joshua on occasion, I do not consider our dealings to be disruptive in nature. We have, in fact, attempted to work together from different approaches to make the article meet wiki-standards. If Joshua will recall, I offered to help him find appropriate criticism when he was attempting to re-write 'Scientist?' to meet WP:V and WP:NOR. We also worked well together on the dispute page (which is why his claims of POV and bias are puzzling now as it was not mentioned on the dispute page). One example is the same section Joshua linked, where I agree with him in the second post of the section. Other examples where Joshua and I agreed are here, here, and finally (and especially) here where I commended Joshua for a job well done with phrasing. The points on the dispute page were nearly identical to the ones on the article talk page, so I am confused about the sudden change of commenting about my supposed POV and bias.

Joshua was correct that the 'Request for Calm' section was part of the removal of harassment, but I want to further clarify that Durova's post was not harassment, but rather a request that all parties look at the article objectively. This was immediately followed by several accusations based on misinformation (one has been retracted by Jim).

I have no comment on the rest because I could give a toss who someone is off-wiki, including JoshuaZ or any of the other editors. If an editor is disruptive, then WP:DR is the proper avenue; harassment is not.

Lastly, I commented on inappropriate behaviour when it was directed at me. I am not an administrator and should not be warning others for behaviour that is not directed to me. (If I did that to anyone, I apologise because it was inappropriate.) It is an incorrect assumption that I agreed with behaviour or support editors who acted disruptively by nature of not commenting on their behaviour.

NOTE
While others will continue to add evidence, it is unlikely that I will be adding much. There is far too much going on in my REAL LIFE for me to be trying to answer every little accusation, or to combat every perceived slight (note that I said perceived, not alleged, thus not casting aspersions on AA, merely noting that while she has taken umbrage at certain things, they are things to to which I would not take umbrage as I noted here).

First Assertion
Agapetos made the accusation that Rainbowpainter was a sockpuppet belonging to me,noting that Dunc had placed a sockpuppet tag on my page.

When I informed her that Rainbowpainter is my wife, she then changed her assertion to meatpuppet..

Even after Agapetos was informed by Dunc that the sockpuppet tag had been a joke, and after I had explained that Rainbowpainter is in no way my meatpuppet, after FloNight informed her that she wa engaging in a violation of WP:POINT and noted that AA was disrupting the process, and after FM pointed out that my admission of Rainbowpainter's relationship was the proper thing to do, and after being taken to task by Rainbowpainter, who is a not a party in this case and to whom the courtesy of WP:AGF should be extended, she has persisted in this baseless accusation, in one case implying that another editor had so defined Rainbowpainter,,,

Rainbowpainter is not, nor has she ever been, nor will she ever be an ipsi facto or de facto meatpuppet. Period. Continuing to insist otherwise shall constitute WP:H.

Second Assertion
Agapetos stated that "FeloniousMonk, Duncharris, and Jim62sch disrupted Jonathan Sarfati, Answers in Genesis, and Ken Ham by posting accusations and misinformation in article and talk rather than following proper dispute procedure."

While it is possible that Agapetos was simply careless in her wording of this allegation, I am inclined to believe, in light of her previous baseless allegations, as well as her behaviour on the faux straw-poll issue, that she has intentionally engaged in misrepresentation of fact. A careful study of my edit history indicates no activity on either the Ken Ham or the AiG article or discussion pages.

Third Assertion
Identity issues that would preclude her from editing the AiG or Sarfati pages relating to an Amazon book review, and an Australian blog have been e-mailed to Arbcomm. Pattern of edits, syntax of writing, subject matter are all consistent with Agapetos. Jim62sch 11:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

edit warring


 * Agapetos has claimed that she tried to engage in an RfM. However, the brevity of that attempt indicates that it was not made in good faith, and was likely more procedural than anything else.  In this link we see that she proposes the RfM at 19:28 on 1/30/2006, is responded to by FM at 19:50 on 1/30/2006, and then [she] abruply closes the issue at 20:07 on 1/30/2006, a mere 17 minutes later without even bothering to wait for any other editor(s) to chime in.
 * Additionally, at no point did Agapetos inform anyone of the RfM, the closest she came was a comment left on my user page that mentioned an RfC.  There was no RfC that I could find -- possibly because there was none.  Now, she might have meant RfM, but her post on my talk page was an hour before she opened the RfM, so even that had yet to be prepared.

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.
 * NOTE, since AA is fond of distorting what is said: she neglects to mention that she has been asked repeatedly whether she is related to Sarfati. She has refused to answer.  And yes, AA, when one is deceptive, it most certainly does raise an alarm in others, this is known as human nature.


 * 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 Wikipedia 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''" [110] but doesn’t name or source this supposed illegal activity. I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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. She fails to note that a number of editors felt that that was precisely what she was doing.  In any case, just to make 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

...

RfC on Answers in Genesis
I first encountered User:Agapetos angel when I responded to a request for comment at Answers in Genesis. What I found there were a couple of editors who were highly critical of the organization and had constructed an article section that violated WP:NOR. Specifically, they quoted some Kentucky newspaper articles out of context in a way that attempted to construct allegations of financial misconduct against the organization out of what was actually a local controversy about a proposed development plan. To the best of my knowledge, all of Agapetos angel's actions at this article were appropriate.

Having answered dozens of RfC requests, I honestly wish more responded as well as this group of people. They agreed to set aside their views on the very contentious issue of young earth creationism and focused on the technical aspects of proper citation and editing. The result was a much better article, one that would not have satisfied WP:NPOV and WP:V without Agapetos angel's constructive input. I have awarded only two or three barnstars during my entire time as a Wikipedia editor and one of them was a collective award to the editors at this article. I was that impressed.

RfC on Jonathan Sarfati
Shortly after that award Agapetos angel asked if I could comment on Jonathan Sarfati. I had not been aware of that conflict. What I found there appeared at first to be a similar dynamic. Both Answers in Genesis and Jonathan Sarfati promote young earth creationism, a viewpoint that was distinctly unpopular among the other editors and that, in my opinion, affected the objectivity of their editorial choices.

For example, Mr. Sarfati holds a Ph.D. in chemistry. There was a controversy over whether to characterize him as a scientist or as an author of general readership books who holds a doctoral degree. I suggested listing his scientific publications in the article, which would give readers enough information to reach their own conclusion. Agapetos angel provided links to abstracts of his articles.

It would be unusual for anyone to achieve a Ph.D. in chemistry without accumulating a short list of publications in peer reviewed journals. The list was in line with my expectations: a few studies in physical chemistry unrelated to evolutionary biology and all more than a decade out of date. Nonetheless, the other editors erected extraordinary standards of evidence for including that list in the Wikipedia biography: every article had to be checked to ensure that it actually existed, and then every publisher had to be checked to ensure it had a peer review process. These procedures would normally apply only to someone who had been disgraced on chargres of academic dishonesty. In Mr. Sarfati's case the scrutiny appeared wholly due to his politics. These objections were raised in a hostile and sarcastic tone. From User:Felonious Monk: "Seems to me you've fallen for AiG's claims. Claims which have been shown time and again to be exaggerated. There's nothing their list you provide here that proves he's actually published in peer reviewed journals. And of course everyone knows answersingensis.org is a much more reliable source than PubMed or Elsevier. No." 

Similar issues surrounded Mr. Sarfati's career as a chess player. He is former national champion of New Zealand and continues to play at near peak level almost two decades after his career high. Anti-creationist editors proposed cutting and downplaying the article's discussion of his role in the New Zealand chess community. Here's an example from User:Alai, one that overlooks Mr. Sarfati's former championship and the unusual duration of his high ranking while the author assumes bad faith:
 * "We're writing about him because he's a YEC [young earth creationist], and as a YEC, because that's what his notability is, to at a conservative estimate 99 parts of 100, not because this is some strange agenda of ours. Come to that, it's why you are writing about him, not because of a desire to document the top eleven NZ chess players."

There may be another layer of unconscious bias to that statement. While chess is a minor competitive endeavor in North America, it is a major sport in Eastern Europe. Western national champions enjoy substantially more fame there than in their home countries. So yes, it's quite realistic that visitors would search for Mr. Sarfati as a chess champion.

Although personally I disagree vehemently with the creationist views of Answers in Genesis and Jonathan Sarfati, this is no excuse for circumventing normal editorial standards. Surely the case for evolution is strong enough that it can withstand their best challenge.

My distinct impression has always been that Agapetos angel was not trying to push POV but to counter it. That impression was strengthened after I posted to the Talk:Jonathan Sarfati under the heading "Request for calm" and cited the collaboration at Answers in Genesis as evidence of Agapetos angel's willingess and ability to collaborate constructively. User:Felonious Monk responded by carrying the conflict over to Talk:Answers in Genesis. My post, and much of the surrounding discussion, has been deleted and excluded from the Jonathan Sarfati archives. 

The following example from Agapetos angel demonstrates maturity and balance in the face of these provocative attacks:
 * "Hypothetical reader # 1, interested in Chess, comes to article looking for information regarding Sarfati+chess, and finds no mention in the intro outside of the poorly worded afterthought and a chopped up Chess section. Is it wrong to say that # 1 could miss that this is the same person that is advertised to give blindfold chess exhibits in domestic and international conferences and chess clubs? Especially if they had no interest in the EvC debate?
 * "Hypothetical reader # 2, interested in the evolution v creation debate (or things that relate to it), comes to the article looking for information regarding Sarfati+YEC, and finds primary focus of nearly the entire article on YEC writings, YEC publications, links to rebuttals of YEC articles, etc., with chess as a prominent, but secondary focus. Is it an honest, 'address [of] the point in terms of some objective metric" to say that # 2 would have more than sufficient information presented to recognize that this is the same person who addressed this or that point, along with the means to find out more if they so choose?"

Summary
I do not know whether Agapetos angel has a conflict of interest. If there is one it is reprehensible, but fails to rise to the level where arbitration is necessary. This editor has responded admirably to article-oriented RfC and has observed a higher standard of conduct than those who pursue this RfA. It troubles me that some of them are administrators.

I close this unsolicited statement by affirming that my only contact with Agapetos Angel has been at these two talk pages and our respective user talk pages, which anyone is welcome to review. I have not had any contact with Agapetos Angel since mid-February. My only contact with Agapetos angel has been at Wikipedia. I have no connection whatsoever to Jonathan Sarfati or Answers in Genesis (nor, frankly, would I want one). Durova 22:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up
As I have stated before, my observations have been limited to RfC at two articles. If the participants conducted themselves differently in other situations, or if a larger context casts a different light upon their actions, then I cannot comment. In my experience it is quite rare for someone to make such a good impression in all my interactions on one contentious article, and be truly worthy of arbitration on a related issue. It is not for me to judge whether this is an exception to that general rule.

However, I must comment on one matter raised by User:JoshuaZ. He asserts that my statements contradict my endorsement of an outside view on the RfC:. There is no contradiction at all. The outside view I endorsed states it is disturbing that editors searched for personal identifying information about User:Agapetos angel. Since I never observed bias in this Agapetos angel's edits, it follows that I considered those inquiries intrusive. An articulate and responsive defender of an unpopular view can be a great asset to collaborative NPOV writing.
 * I've been asked to clarify: now that I read again I can understand how someone would interpret a contradiction. If Agapetos angel forged a signature on a poll, or otherwise violated policy, then editors can review that without regard to personal identity.  I observed no policy violations firsthand and defer to others regarding the matter.
 * To the best of my knowledge, Agapetos Angel's edits were constructive - indeed essential - to building an NPOV article at Answers in Genesis. Autobiography is a guideline that discourages a different kind of editing, one that distorts or eliminates factual information.  An undisclosed conflict of interest would be reprehensible, but this is guideline rather than policy, and I fail to comprehend the weight that some editors attach to the matter.  Actual policy violations should outweigh this slight accusation. Durova 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The conflict at Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop tempers my defense. Agapetos angel's accusations there are out of character with what I observed previously. While I'm new to arbitration, it's obvious that only Agapetos angel's behavior is under scrutiny in this action. This is not the place to propose sanctions against anyone else. That gives the impression of aggressive contentiousness and lends credence to the accusations - not a wise move when one's best hope is to get the case dismissed. Looks like I was mistaken here. I apologize for the confusion. Durova 04:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

...

Evidence presented by JoshuaZ
I was trying to stay out of this AfD, however I feel that certain comments of Durova omit possibly critical information. I have four points related to Durova's comments and three other points. Also note that I have had some contact with Felonious since the start of the AfD regarding identifying 220.* and related evidence. Also, I have never been involved in an RfA before, so if I have made any egregious errors, please let me know.

Alai and other editors good faith
Durova accuses Alai of assuming bad faith when he said to Agapetos that "We're writing about him because he's a YEC [young earth creationist], and as a YEC, because that's what his notability is, to at a conservative estimate 99 parts of 100, not because this is some strange agenda of ours. Come to that, it's why you are writing about him, not because of a desire to document the top eleven NZ chess players." However, this conclusion did not require any bad faith on Alai's part, merely a glance at a list of what mainspace articles Agapetos has contributed to  shows many edits to creationist and creationism related pages and none to chess related pages (aside from the Sarfati page). It is thus misleading to use Alai's comment as evidence of bad faith.

Removal of "Request for Calm"
Durova noted that the section "Request for Calm" was removed and not archived. Note that this section was removed by Slim in response to Agapetos' claims that the section constituted harrasment .

Felonious and Sarfati's credentials, and good faith
Durova claimed that Felonious set too high a bar for Sarfati's scholarship to be included. In fact, other editors involved in this dispute, such as myself, who generally support the AfD told Felonious that he was setting the bar too high, and he then conceded the matter. Thus the "anticreationists" who attempted to work with Agapetos in fact were a reasonable continuum of individuals, willing to compromise and inform each other when one was wrong. Also note that while Felonious did set a very high bar, this is arguably a reasonable reaction to the general tendency of creationists and intelligent design groups to exxagerate their scientific credentials and the level of peer review of their works.

Contrasting behavior
User:220.245.180.133 engaged in continual insults of other editors  , large scale removal of other peoples comments with no notification and essentially threatening other Wikipedians with stalking. Despite all this behavior, Agapetos, unlike the above editors, did not once tell 220 that 220 was in violation WP:NPA and other rules. These are strong examples of Agapetos' general behavior, invoking wikirules if and only if they help her and her allies.

Durova's earlier opinion of Agapetos
I'm confused by Durova's defense of Agapetos above, especially her comment that "My distinct impression has always been that Agapetos angel was not trying to push POV but to counter it." This seems to contradict Durova's earlier endorsement of this outside view in the RfC:.

Early defence of Agapetos
In Felonious' first assertion, "Agapetos angel has a history of disruption", point 5, he mentioned that certain editors initially defended Agapetos. as probably not being connected to AiG. These editors made this argument since she was in favor of strongly critical, arguably POV, edits on the AiG page. In fact, I was one of those editors, and Agapetos actually thanked me for it: . This is further evidence of the length that Agapetos went to maintain the charade that she had no connection to Sarfati.

Evidence that 220.245.180.* is Jonathan Sarfati
First, note that there appear to be multiple people using the IP address 220.245.180.133 and the surrounding addresses 130,131,132 and 134. See for example 220's claim here:. In fact, this is consistent because the time which the vandal edits have large time gaps separating them from the edits of 220.* to creationist pages. See for example the most recent page of contributions here. Taking this into account, a striking pattern emerges:

Almost all the edits are creationism (especially AiG) related and/or chess related. Examples of the chess edits are    

The chess edits are consistent with a good player with extensive knowledge of the history of the game. This is a suspicious combination, given that Sarfati is a creationist and an avid chess player. The user also shows knowledge of Sarfati's area of study and appropriate technical terminology:. 220.* and Agapetos also so intimate familiarity with Sarfati's chess rating. (this is incorrect per a comment by Agapetos, so I am removing it).

The writing style of 220.* and Sarfati are very similar. See for example: and many of 220*'s edits in this short subsection are almost identical to what Sarfati says in this essay. Both 220.* and Sarfati are fond of using the same ad hominem attacks, "known atheist," "well-known atheist," "antitheist" and "anti-theist" See the above citations as well as:     .

Finally, the last stylistic element: 220.*'s attack on "activist judges legislating from the bench" here is almost identical to a comment Sarfati makes in this essay where Sarfati says "they need activist judges to legislate liberal policies from the bench" . The edit as a whole is susbtantially similar to what Sarfati asserts in that section of the article and is almost identical in tone when this edit is included. Sarfati makes a very similar aside here:. Note also that both 220.* and Sarfati in the prior citation bring up the subject of "activist judges" when it has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. Also, here is one more example where Sarfati uses almost identical wording:.

220.* promoted AiG even when it had little to do with the topic at hand. Examples are  . Then, as soon as the CMI break occured, 220.* hastened (as cited in Felonious' evidence) to change the Sarfati article to refer to CMI. The user also goes out his way to defend Sarfati. An example is here:. 220.* has no other modifications to that talk page or interaction with that user as far as I can see.

Thus, 220.* edits primarily in Sarfati's areas of interest, demonstrates detailed knowledge of said areas, has a similar writing style and set of ad hominem attacks as Sarfati, and goes out of his was to promote and defend Sarfati. Given this pattern of edits, I am forced to conclude that 220.* is Jonathan Sarfati engaging in a campaign of self-promotion and promotion of his associated ministries.

Defense of Dennis Fuller
Felonious has listed DennisF as a suspected sock puppet of Agapetos. I am uncertain of whether Dennis is a sockpuppet of Agapetos or not. However, a number of edits seem to show Dennis and Agapetos in conflict. Examples include: and.

Summary
My views on this matter are somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, I think that most of Agapetos' comments and arguments, as POV and biased as they often were, helped lead to a better version of the Sarfati page, largely because it pushed other editors to go and track down sources. On the other hand, Agapetos' continual invocation of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, which occured almost always only when they aided her POV, together with a complete failure to in any way inform 220.* that he/she was in violation of the rules, contitute unacceptable wikilawyering. Furthermore, I am now convinced that Agapetos is, in fact, Sarfati's wife. Given my earlier defense of her, this leaves me feeling used and upset. I hope the above evidence clarifies matters. JoshuaZ 18:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A brief response to Agapetos' new evidence
Since Agapetos and others seem to want this to go quickly, I will attempt to make this response as brief as possible. While I think that most of the evidence speaks for itself, I would like to clarify two minor but significant issues. First, Agapetos is correct in that I found a substantial fraction of her edits to be, in fact, useful and cooperative. As I said, above, my views on this are somewhat conflicted which is one reason I waited so long for becoming involved in the process. I certainly hope that whatever the final decision of the arbitration committee is, that Agapetos continues to edit Wikipedia, since she has shown herself to be a capable editor, and I may solicit her advice on AiG/CMI related articles in the future. Second, I used the term "anticreationist" not in response to Agapetos' use but in response to Durova's use. Durova used "anti-creationist" above with a hyphen. I'm sorry if my lack of consistency with the hyphen led to any confusion in this regard. Aside from these issues, my earlier comments and summary still stand. I would particularly like to emphasize that I find Agapetos' sockpuppeting and use of me as a shield to be reprehensible. JoshuaZ 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A brief response to Durova's new evidence
It is possible that I misinterpreted Durova's endorsement of the outside view addresses earlier. I thought she was endorsing the entire outside view, which stated about Agapetos that "any user who acted in this way would require attention, regardless of personal relationships with anyone or anything else." JoshuaZ 05:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

AiG and Wikipedia
Just recently, an AiG affiliated individual standonbible (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) stated that he was asked to make POV edits to AiG by his compatriots. See. The claim is consistent with other edits made by the user, and furthermore his edits are similar to edits which had been pushed by various pro-AiG editors. AiG is thus actively asking people to edit in a pro-AiG fashion. JoshuaZ 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A brief response to Standonbible's evidence
I am slightly puzzled by Stand's statement that the only edit he was encouraged to make directly by AiG was to the Dawkins matter, since after making exactly two edits (the Dawkins edit and the edit about the "secular" scientific community) he stated that "Several of the edits were personally requested of me by the head of the AiG Answers" Department.. I have slight difficulty reconciling that statement with Stand's presentation below given that "Several of the edits" sounds strongly like more than one. JoshuaZ 15:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence provided by Benapgar
This discussion on the Usenet group talk.origins may be of interest to this hearing. --Ben 00:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence provided by Alai
My comment here are probably going to very much echo those of JoshuaZ's, the general thrust of whose evidence I'd very much endorse.

I've been in two minds for some time as to whether to add to this page, as while I've been involved in the Sarfati page, I was not directly party to the "personal data revelations" dispute, which seems to be the original thrust of this arbitration, and nor do I have the energy and inclination to provide copious diffs, which I imagine are amply covered above. Equally, I haven't found AA as problematic to deal with as some others seem to. If it doesn't seem too much like faint praise, I've found her probably the most reasonable creationist editor to deal with that I've encountered here, and our interactions seem to me to have been broadly civil, productive, and characterised by good faith on both sides. For example, I offered to provide assistance if she felt she was getting a rough deal on 3RR violation decisions, which she seemed to be highly concerned by at the time, and on a number of occasions found myself in agreement with her on compromise/neutral rewordings, in the middle of being "blue on blue" reverted by others of the non-creationist contingent. I also feel there was a breakdown of civility latterly on that page, and some hasty edits in the aftermath, such as the adding of JS's wife's alleged name to the article space, on the basis of weak verification, and absolutely no indication of notability of this data. (Not that this would have been the very first non-notable fact to be included in this article, mind you.) This was probably done in part due to the "heightened atmosphere" at the article by that point, but I equally suspect it then further contributed to it.)

My main concern at this point, however, would be that WP's privacy and harassment policies not be interpreted so broadly as to entirely trump its (frankly already amazingly weak and ineffective) guideliness on autobiography and editing by closely involved parties. The logic of a case put here seems to be that anyone may make any WP:AUTO-flouting edits they wish, as long as they don't choose to disclose their own identity, and that on the contrary, others are to be sanctioned if they do anything to uncover such actions.

I must also confess that much of my personal motivation to comment here is to respond to Durova's evidence, which I would take issue with on a number of points. I'd like to thank Joshua for responding to her characterisation of my comment as bad faith, a matter which I attempted to discuss with Durova outside this RfAr, at some length but little success. Not only does this comment require very little "assumption" on my part, it certainly was never intended to imply any "bad faith" whatsoever on AA's part, and is explicitly a similar assertion as I was making about the nature of the interests of all editors of the article (at least to that point). That remark was made in the context of discussing the appropriateness of the relative weight of coverage of JS's various hats, and is no more and no less than a request the people acknowledge said relative notabilities, as evidenced by the interests of those editing it. At no point did I "overlook" JS's former championship, and I explicitly argued that it be included. Rather, the issue was one of relative prominence of the chess material as a whole, and of the inclusion of clearly far less notable facts, like chess club captaincy (of a club that no-one has suggested is in any way notable, in any way other than that JS captains it). I don't think that arguing for inclusion of the notable facts, and exclusion of the non-notable is in any reasonable sense "downplaying" anything. Durova also uses terms such as "anti-creationist", and elsewhere, "evolutionist", that I wouldn't choose to apply to myself. I feel a little assumption of good faith is due in my direction, too.

Durova herself seems to me to have been unique in arguing for large notability of Sarfati in the area of chess; everyone else seems agree he's much more notable as a creationist (in which area he cruises past the standard "author" guidelines), and very much less so as a chess player. Numerous clearly more notable chess people have not a single mention on WP; I can find very few articles at all on those of equal or lesser notability. (Perhaps the Russian language wikipedia has articles on all 4000 FIDE Masters and every recent-decades NZ national champion; if my Cyrillic were any better I might check.)  Unless this is in fact symptomic of a systematic bias in favour of the creation-evolution debate, and against chess, that seems to me fairly strong evidence that an argument in favour of "equal treatment" of him in both capacities is not in fact reasonable. (That being about the approximate status quo in the article's lead section at the time.) While at the time I'd no inkling of any possible personal involvement on the part of any of the editors, with the benefit of hindsight this seems very much symptomatic of what ones sees in many "sympathetic POV" biographies:  background trivia of a favourable or neutral nature tends to creep in, more critical material is either unsourceable, for marginally notable types, or is problematic to include due to "reputability"-of-sources considerations, in a way that's rarely applied to the more favourable material. While I'm as in favour as the next person of wikipedia not getting sued, I think we have to be wary of our biographies turning into dust-jacket pieces.

Evidence provided by Standonbible
Quote from JoshuaZ:

"Just recently, an AiG affiliated individual standonbible (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) stated that he was asked to make POV edits to AiG by his compatriots. See [298][299] [300]. The claim is consistent with other edits made by the user, and furthermore his edits are similar to edits which had been pushed by various pro-AiG editors [301][302]. [303]AiG is thus actively asking people to edit in a pro-AiG fashion."

As Standonbible, I would like to point out that these allegations are completely unfounded. When I casually informed Mr. Bodie Hodge of Answers In Genesis about certain factual inconsistencies in the Wikipedia article on [Answers In Genesis] regarding the interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins, he explained to me exactly what had happened and encouraged me to set the factual record straight. This is not my opinion and it is not the opinion of AiG; it is fact. I would like to ask JoshuaZ how saying that "Since then, the company that did the actual recording has released the uncut audio, showing that Dr. Dawkins' allegations were unfounded" is POV.

The only other request that Mr. Hodge made was that "If you see the article saying that we believe something we don't really believe, then change it if you get a chance." Again, this is not POV personal opinion. This is fact about what AiG believes. Any other edits that I made were characterized by "AiG pointed out that" and "AiG believes that."

I do admit to making one POV edit: I changed the words "majority of the scientific community" to "secular, naturalistic scientific community." Even I might consider these to be pretty interchangeable, I can see that this was POV and I apologize. However, this edit was unrelated to the conversation I had with Mr. Hodge. The only requests he made are those listed above.

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any further questions you may have.

In Him,

standonbible 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Further Response to JoshuaZ

Recent quote from JoshuaZ:

"I am slightly puzzled by Stand's statement that the only edit he was encouraged to make directly by AiG was to the Dawkins matter, since after making exactly two edits (the Dawkins edit and the edit about the "secular" scientific community) he stated that "Several of the edits were personally requested of me by the head of the AiG Answers" Department.[304]. I have slight difficulty reconciling that statement with Stand's presentation below given that "Several of the edits" sounds strongly like more than one."

As I explicitly stated on this page, Mr. Hodge asked me to:


 * Explain the facts regarding to the Dawkins case.
 * Correct any factual inaccuracies regarding AiG's beliefs.

I made more than two edits, Joshua. I corrected the facts relating to the Dawkins case, I made the admittedly POV statement regarding the "secular" scientific community (which was unrelated to any request from AiG), and I also changed another part of the "secular scientific community" sentence because it misrepresented facts and AiG's beliefs. The edit was along these lines (minus the admittedly POV statement regarding the "secular" scientific community):

"Answers in Genesis has written at a number of articles about natural selection. [54] They state that "...It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information.", citing one example of natural selection removing genes for short fur in cold climates.[55] The mainstream scientific community admits this but holds that mechanisms such as gene duplication and polyploidy can work with natural selection to increase genetic information.  AiG, however, contends that as no example of this increase can be seen today, such is mere speculation."

I have only been a registered Wikipedian for a couple of days (although I have edited AiG's article in the past, which incidentally constitutes other "requested edits" that were, however, non-POV). But it seems to me that the crux of the NPOV policy is that as a respected encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not include personal opinion stated as fact. That is what blogs are for. Personal opinion can be stated as long as it is obvious that it in fact is personal opinion and not scientific fact.

I am afraid that some supporters of evolution have automatically labeled any facts that are detrimental to their theory as personal opinion stated as fact. The edit I made above is obviously detrimental to evolution. However, there is not one single solitary personal opinion that is stated as fact. Note the statements made:


 * The mainstream scientific community admits that natural selection removes genetic information. This is a fact (previously it said that the scientific community disagrees) but as I pointed out:
 * The mainstream scientific community holds that gene duplication and polyploidy, along with natural selection, can increase genetic information. Another correct statement.
 * AiG contends that such is mere speculation. Perfectly correct. This is the contention of AiG.
 * No example of gene duplication and polyploidy uniting with natural selection to increase genetic information can be seen today. This is scientific fact regardless of whether it looks bad for evolution or not.

So just because something looks bad for evolution does not mean that it is Personal-Opinion-Stated-As-Fact. I think that those who are attacking Agapetos Angel are just labeling her facts as personal opinions. Check and see. Make the distinction so that you don't make a fool of yourself.

In Him,

standonbible 16:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to resolve false Wordhawk post

Hey, I have asked several times for the nonsense about my starting a Wordhawk entry to be removed.

No one has bothered to do so.

I am now saying: Do so immediately. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Robert Knilands