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]