Can we at least have a clear summary up the top what the dispute is all about? I doubt anyone wants to wade through this badly disorganised page to work out what happened here. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm recused from this case, but if I were not I'd say that FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs), Jim62sch (talk · contribs), Duncharris (talk · contribs) and others say that Agapetos angel has been editing Jonathan Sarfati disruptively without disclosing a close personal relationship with Sarfati. She, supported to some extent by Kim Bruning and myself, claim that their conduct amounts to harassment. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this as the wording assumes some allegations as fact (begging the question) and did not cover that the harassment is the cumulative result of policy and guideline violations. agapetos_angel 08:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

(following paragraph copied from my talk page. WAS 4.250 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

She replaced Tony's summary with one that was substantially inaccurate. Tony is, as he himself says, one of her supporters. How is that "bullying"? Guettarda 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this diff [1] more carefully. Do you wish to stay with "replace" or would you like to go with the word "add"? WAS 4.250 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please spell out more clearly what you are trying to say? I don't follow your shorthand. Guettarda 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. Jim62sch 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the diff I provided a link to, I see that the version being altered (last edited by angel) contains both angel's summary and the summary FM accepts. What do you see? WAS 4.250 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Now I see she ALSO revised the other version! That is so totally unacceptable, it never occurred to me to check the two paragraphs for differences. So both sides are bullying and trying to control the summaries of the other. Ha! WAS 4.250 16:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for catching my mistake. I have removed my one sided accusation of bullying. I think all fair minded people will agree each side has the right to their own short summary. That's all I was trying to do, and you've helped me do that. Thanks, again. WAS 4.250 16:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So both sides are bullying and trying to control the summaries of the other - I don't agree with this assertion at all. I was not trying to control the summaries. If anything, Tony is a member of the "other side". Aa deleted Tony's summary (which, in my opinion, was a fair summary of the dispute) and replaced it with a one-sided summary of her own. I was not trying to present "my side's" summary. I think your characterisation is very unfair. Guettarda 18:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all fair minded people will agree each side has the right to their own short summary. (1) No, I don't agree and I don't think that's the way it works in arbcomm cases - each side can present a summary in their request section. If each person was allowed a summary, there would be 7 summaries at the top of the page (based on listed participants and people who have posted pleadings; and (2) each side? We have two summaries produced by the same side - one of which presents two sides of an issue, and one of which presents only one and ignores much of what is asserted by the other side. Guettarda 18:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were this process based on the rule of law, this RfAr would have been tossed as the initial complaint is no longer extant (in fact it was rejected [2]), and the proper procedures of dispute resolution have been bypassed. (No, this is no legal threat, this is an observation). As for the summary by Tony, it is far more accurate as it explains the situation in chronological order and presents both sides fairly. Jim62sch 22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Tony's summary (which, in my opinion, was a fair summary of the dispute) and replaced it with a one-sided summary of her own. I was not trying to present my side's summary. I think your characterisation is very unfair. I'm sorry for upsetting you. You are a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. You mean well. You had no intention of bullying. Intensions are not everyhing. Sometimes acting in good faith produces unfortunate consequences. Many seperate people all acting seperately can together produce results no one of them intended. A case I hestitate to bring up, and is a millions times as bad as this case could possibly ever be even if the worse were imagined is the case in Afganistan where dozens of soldiers individually kneed an innocent. No one kneeing killed him. All the kneeings together killed him. Fairness includes paying attention so ganging up doesn't occur.
2. I think all fair minded people will agree each side has the right to their own short summary. You disagree.
3. As for the summary by Tony, it is far more accurate as it explains the situation in chronological order and presents both sides fairly. I maintain a person has the right to present their case without having it reworded by their enemy. I have no opinions as to which, if any, side is more accurate. I am simply astonished that both sides see fit to rewrite the opinions of the other side. WAS 4.250 00:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I really have no idea what you are talking about. "Fairness includes paying attention so ganging up doesn't occur"? How does allowing one side to have two summaries prevent gaining up? How does your assertion that one side should have two summaries prevent ganging up? You are facilitating ganging up.
2. I think all fair minded people will agree each side has the right to their own short summary. You disagree If "all fair minded people...agree" can you show me an example? Can you show me in which other cases multiple summaries are used? Your implication that I am not a "fair-minded person" is quite an insult - and is unsupported by the facts, as far as I am aware of them. Instead of slinging insults, why don't you provide some diffs to disprove my assertion that multiple partisan summaries are no used in arbcomm cases?
3. "I am simply astonished that both sides see fit to rewrite the opinions of the other side". What? Tony provided a summary. Agapetos angel re-wrote his summary. "Both sides"? I find your assertion baffling. Guettarda 02:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I really have no idea what you are talking about. [...] I find your assertion baffling." I most humbly apologize for my poor communication skills. WAS 4.250 07:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ri) Tony said that I was 'supported to some extent' by him, so I did not see any issue in revising his summary. I intended no disrespect; however, I also did not intend to ignore a summary that I feel does not accurately reflect the situation. (Actually, I have not seen any rules that stated that I could not edit the summary; I'm sorry if I missed something and would have appreciated someone pointing out where I erred) This RfAr was brought not to address my behaviour, but to request assistance against the harassment by the admins and editor listed that was not being resolved by other means and was escalating. When SlimVirgin privately requested that I review the situation and consider dropping action against Guettarda and FM because of the possible severity of action that could be taken by ArbCom, I did as she asked. I agreed to drop Guettarda under the AGF that his participation might be viewed as action/reaction in an inappropriate manner that could be addressed under another means (or ignored). However, if Guettarda wishes to remain a participant in this RfA, then I request he add his own name back onto the list, or hereafter refain from making any changes ('Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request'.[3]) Reverts would only serve to inflame the situation, but I respectfully request that my summary be allowed to remain. Thank you agapetos_angel 07:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see that the discussion page is indicative of the problems encountered on other pages.

Additionally, Tony's account, as added by FM is far more accurate than the one by which it was temporarily replaced, especially in light of several requests from arbitrators; to wit:

"Accept after further thought and developments. This acceptance is to consider not only the narrow issue of privacy, but the behavior of all parties to this case. I'd like to ... expressly encourage all parties to make their case much more comprehensibly if/when the case is accepted, rather than the confusing way this one appeared. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)" (Emphasis added)

"Accept as above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)"(Emphasis added)

Accept per Morven. Mackensen (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)(Emphasis added)

"Accept to look at everyone's behaviour. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)(Emphasis added)

Given the overwhelming desire to look into everyone's behaviour, AA's behaviour is not precluded from examination, thus, again, Tony's summary was quite accurate. Attempting to recast the dispute in order to support the views of one party or the other shows bad form, a disinclination to act in good faith, and what could be construed as harassment in the sense that facts are being intentionally misrepresented. Jim62sch 13:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]