User talk:Researcher99

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Bookmarks for Self

I am learning more about Wikipedia. Today I have found some more things to read more than once. I am creating this section to bookmark them in order to return for re-reading.

Sockpuppets (and related principles) - Arbitration policy
Wikipedia:Sock puppet official policy
CheckUser From Meta
Wikipedia:Sock_puppet/Proposal proposed
Wikipedia:Harassment proposed
Wikipedia:No personal attacks official policy
Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system guideline
Wikipedia:Refactoring
Category:Wikipedia proposals
Wikipedia:WikiHate - (POSTED: Researcher 19:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia:Civility - (POSTED: Researcher 20:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No one else should be posting in this section of my TALK page here. Researcher 19:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to Self about Bookmarks

Sockpuppets links

Recently, after I had noted how more than one User had made the identical lie on more than one TALK page (the DIFF here), I questioned that it seemed to me that they might possibly be the same person. The response that came back to me in the posts used a word which I had not heard before, Wikipedia:Sock puppet. I did not know what that was. It even took me a few minutes to mentally envision what that term could even mean. (Once I realized it, though, the meaning and term made sense, of course.) So, anyway, that caused me to personally go on an investigation at Wikipedia to find out more about that word. That led to the first 4 listed items in the section of my bookmarks above.

In Wikipedia's Arbitration Policy/Precedents, there is a section called, Sockpuppets (and related principles). While the other bulleted items in that section there were very informative, I specifically found that the second and third bulleted items quite interesting.

* For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

* "Proxy" edits on behalf of a banned user, or that assist a user in violating an arbitration injunction, are not permitted.

Not only does that first item above appear as the second bulleted item in that section, but it also appears as the last sentence on the Wikipedia:Sock puppet official policy page itself. Researcher 19:56, 21 September 2005

No one else should be posting in this section of my TALK page here. Researcher 19:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Civility link

As I took another re-read of Wikipedia:Civility today, I found the following paragraph from theWhen and why does it happen? section to be of particular interest.

In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize.

I relate to that explanation. From the way I see things, as being on the receiving end of so much distraction from real NPOV editing, that paragraph exactly describes how I have felt has been my experience at Wikipedia since April, 2005. Ever since then, not once have I been allowed to actually participate in the real fun of Wikipedia anymore. Unlike before April, now on any day that I have any time to spend at Wikipedia, I am instead forced to be exclusively dedicated to dealing with being abused. I am 100% prevented from doing the real NPOV work of the articles I had previously enjoyed sharing my research here. So as I read that line, it explains more to my perspective what has happened to me. I have been effectively driven off the articles I enjoy and came to Wikipedia for. From my perspective, that paragraph explains to me why. I do hope that the abuse will eventually be prevented and that Wikipedia can become fun for me again. Researcher 20:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one else should be posting in this section of my TALK page here. Researcher 20:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

OFFICIAL NOTICE: Nereocystis is PROHIBITED from posting anything on any of my personal User/TALK pages

I am so tired of being abused, harassed, and stalked by Nereocystis, so, I am placing this notice here on my TALK page. Nereocystis is hereby notified that they are prohibited from posting anything on any of my personal userpages, including this TALK page here. This NOTICE shall remain effective for as long as this NOTICE remains up on this TALK page (and which has not been removed by anyone but myself). If Nereocystis makes even one more post, no matter what it is, on any of my personal User or TALK pages, that action shall be deemed as deliberately intentional abuse and harrassment. The abuse has got to end. - Researcher 18:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Request for Advocacy

I have just read your request for advocacy as of today, but I notice from your talk page that you have already received a recent (non-commital) response from an advocate. I would be willing to serve as your advocate, but you would of course have to choose one of the two of us. Please respond to my talk page once you receive this message; if I am to serve as your advocate I would like to get started on sorting out the facts of the case as soon as possible. Audentis 14:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 23:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy article

I noticed that you got your timeline together - I would propose copying the language you want to change to the talk page - making the change there - asking for comments, and then replacing it in the article after discussion (or if no one objects after a day or two). I will reread the article in anticipation of working with you to get a NPOV version put in. Also - if a revert war reappears - the best course of action is to allow other editors who agree with you do the 2nd revert, etc, so that it is clear to any admins who is trying to force a non-concensus version of the article. Trödel|talk 20:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate the way in which you have tried to positively affect the hostile situation. (Also, yes, it was very exhausting putting that timeline together!)

I believe there is a bigger problem going on right now which would make it impossible to have a more honestly legitimate and informed "consensus" anyway, as long as the sneaky vandals remain. I posted my concern about the issue today in the polygamy TALK page:

Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals

(We should not reward bad behavior or allow misinformation)

Now another sneaky vandal, Nereocystis, has re-appeared to pretend to have a "consensus" with the sneaky vandalism of Ghostintheshell.

Among the issues I listed in that latest post I made to TALK about all this, Nereocystis has previously tried to unnecessarily sneak their anti-polygamists' hostile underage agenda into the polygamy wiki, while seeking to "distract" me as they battled for another sneaky vandalism issue about that particular case. An example of this can be seen as part of what I had to correct here.

Now Nereocystis "returns" back to the polygamy wiki to give their "consensus" with a fellow sneaky vandal, Ghostintheshell. You will note what Nereocystis has now recently said in reply to one of your posts in TALK. When you rightly noted in "Young Marriages"' the context that marrying teenage girls was common in the 1800s, I quickly affirmed your excellent point and explained how only a hostile anti-polygamy POV would otherwise try to hint that such an irrelevant statement was pertinent. But now the returning sneaky vandal, Nereocystis, has again tried to push the underage slant in their reply to you about that.

The polygamy wiki article is now such a mess. It needs to go back to the original STATUS QUO that occurred in either your first Rvs or my Rv-of-your-Rvs. Then we can all begin again, starting in TALK. That STATUS QUO method from the Wiki Guidelines for controversial topics is all that I had sought from the beginning of the entire ordeal. But it is clear that the two sneaky vandals want only the desctruction of the polygamy wiki, disqualifying them from even really being counting as valid "opinions" of "consensus" anymore anyway. You will note that neither of the two has ever made even one single attempt to accomodate anything with me. That defines and proves their intentions best. So, to allow them now is only to reward, welcome, and invite more bad behavior.

I am very grateful, though, to your seeking to help in this very frustrating situation. - Researcher 18:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Talk:Polygamy#Disputed

Please use the Disputed section of Talk:Polygamy#Disputed. This will allow us to reach an agreement on the content of the Polygamy page. Please do not make changes in controversial areas when we are trying to make changes. I have repeatedly requested that you use this section. So far, you have refused. Please change your practices. Nereocystis 22:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help

Sure, I'll be glad to be your MA for the Polygamy issue. I start a new (real-world) job tomorrow so it might be a couple of days before I have time to get up to speed on everything, but I'll do my best! Kurt Weber 21:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Congratulations on your new job. I very much understand the need for a few days to catch up. There is a lot of evidence and history to read through, so I do know it will take some time for you, on top of the matter of your new job. I appreciate your willingness to help. Researcher 10:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing polygamy

I think that we are making progress, though it may be a while before we agree on the wording of everything. Nereocystis 22:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try Wikipedia:Mediation for Polygamy

Since Wikipedia:Negotiation hasn't worked for resolving our differences with the Polygamy article, let's try Wikipedia:Mediation. Are you willing to try it? Nereocystis 20:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest a path for resolution by Sunday

Many times you have said that you are interested in resolving the issue of edit wars in Polygamy. You rarely comment on any strategy other people suggest. When you comment, you turn down proposals. Here are some of the suggestions you have not agreed to:

Please choose one of these suggestions, or create your own specific suggestion. Restoring to true status quo is not a specific suggestion. It must include specific text, even a link to one specific version of Polygamy past would be a start.

If you do not have a specific proposal by the end of the day Sunday, I will assume that you are not interested in resolving this edit war. Nereocystis

Please consider Uriah923's offer for help with polygamy article

I'm putting this suggestion here to make sure that you see it and it doesn't get lost in the Talk:Polygamy page.

Let's take up Uriah923's offer. He may be able to guide us through the process of conciling our versions of the document.

If you cannot agree to Uriah923's offer, please give me a 2 or 3 sentence description of what you need in order to be able to move forward. Nereocystis 21:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop modifying Nereocystis's indentations

I am using the standard indentation style defined in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Please do not modify my identation. Nereocystis 19:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Readers of my user TALK page here may note the above vandalism by Nereocystis, to which I responded in an ongoing TALK dispute, here. The fact is, the second bulleted item of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout declares that we are supposed to keep threads understandable. My use of indentation was to prevent the overwhelming confusion that Nereocystis adds with all their unindented posts on TALK pages. That Nereocystis would now vandalize my user TALK page with this attack reveals that they have been purposely trying to cause that overwhelming confusion by refusing to indent in so many in-depth threads. 23:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found a Wikipedia guideline page, Refactoring talk pages. I had not previously known that Wikipedia guideline existed until just now. That guideline fully explains and justifies the exact reason why I would add the indents in the TALK pages. Over and over again, I would find that Nereocystis had extremely confused the TALK pages by not indenting their posts in ongoing discussions. Their doing that made their TALK posts and the overall TALK pages so confusing to follow. So I would simply add indentations in what I now see was a good Wikipedia act on my part of Refactoring talk pages. As those Guidelines direct, I was only trying to make the TALK discussions readable. Now that I have found this Wikipedia page about Refactoring talk pages, and based on Nereocystis's anger about my following those guidelines, I now question even more that perhaps Nereocystis was deliberately confusing the TALK pages by that refusal to indent method they employed. From now on, I will not worry about whether or not it is wrong to indent for clarity anymore. Now I know that I am correctly following the Wikipedia Guidelines about Refactoring talk pages. Anyone who gets upset about that will be showing their refusal to make the TALK pages less confusing and their refusal to accept the Wikipedia Guidelines. I will not accept anyone trying to attack me or make me feel bad about my doing such a good thing, when all I am trying to do in such a case is to make things easier for everyone to understand. - Researcher 18:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, refactoring is often a good thing (though not always) but I prefer to follow the indentation policy in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Each contributor has their own indentation. In this topic, for example, I go back to the left margin, as described in this policy. That way, all paragraphs starting at the left margin are mine, all paragraphs starting with one indentation are yours. Your indentation style is to add more indentation with each response, moving further to the right with each response. It's difficult to fine who responds where, and continuing conversations move so far to the right, that there is little space left. Nevertheless, many people use this policy. I don't. Nereocystis 20:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Readers may note that Nereocystis is stalking me so immediately so quickly, and is again deliberarely trying to vandalize my TALK page here not using the indentations I said are required for normal conversation and understanding. (I have had toi fix their deliberately confusing non-indented post here in this thread here.) They defiantly act like they are thwe ones "qualified" to be the outer-most left margin, but they are only deliberately confusing all TALK when others start conversations. Even on my own TALK page, they have the arrogance to claim to be "qualified" to be the on the outer-left margin! Readers may read any of the TALK pages in which Nereocystis has been on with me, and where they do no indentation, it is very confusing to read thos TALK pages. That is their intent, to cause as much confusion as possible. There have not ever been any conversations in TALK that were so long in thread that using the normal indented-system (which most web-users are familiar with) would have made thigns span the right. It is clear that Nereocystis purposely wants to confuse TALK pages, and that they are defiant about it. Normal people always understand the indentation method, but Nereocystis wants only confusion, even on my TALK page. Nereocystis knows that they are not welcome on my own TALK page, but they harrass me even here, posting immediately after I make a post on my own TALK page. The abuse has got to end. Researcher 20:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment on Researcher99's conduct

I have been having problems with Researcher99's conduct since May. I have created an RFC page for him Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99. There needs to be one more person involved in the conflict who is willing to sign this page in the next 48 hours. I appreciate everyone's help with trying to resolve this conflict.

If anyone feels that my conduct needs an RFC, feel free to add me to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Nereocystis 17:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your forgot to sign the RFC. You may want to do so.

Researcher99, if you are willing to follow Uriah923's suggestions, we won't need to fight. Our previous discussion was going nowhere. Uriah's suggestion was reasonable, though wasn't my first suggestion. Nereocystis 20:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will not accept what I now see as an obvious set-up. If Uriah923 was as unbiased as they claim, there is no way they would have participated in the abusively unnecessary idea of the Requests_for_comment/Researcher99 page. By doing that, they furtehr persuaded me that I was right about their bias and refusal to listen to me. Maybe they can correct that mistake, but now I am doubtful that they are genuinely unbiased at all. Before Uriah923 interrupted the resolution process, the only reason that kept us from moving forward was your delay in one single little act of good faith, to allow the removal of an easy NPOV tag. What Uriah923 has now created is a monumental task that is in complete violation of the one-topic-at-a-time issue we had otherwise agreed. It will also fail because you are still unwilling to show even the sleightest of good faith acts, as your ridiculous refusal of the removal of the one NPOV tag and your refusal of the easy group marriage solution I offered. As long as you absolutely refuse to listen or to work with me under any circumstances, you are the one keeping resolution from occurring. Instead of vandalizing my userpage here with your obviously fake "friendliness," the more appropriate thing to do is to not change your actions of overwhelmingly abusing me and instead start being truly friendly in real actions. Researcher 23:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look for a new AMA. Your first choice seems to be too busy to respond to you. Unfortunately, in the volunteer community, some people don't follow through with their promises. Nereocystis 20:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Readers may note that I was already saying I plan on doing that on the abusively unneccessary Requests_for_comment/Researcher99 page. If Nereocystis wants to be as genuinely "helpful" as they pretend to be here, their actions will be to be patient (as I have been) instead of their aggressively continuing to taking fast action to cause one battle after the next. Researcher 23:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-polygamy article situation ARCHIVED

I created an archive so that a coherent record as to what happened with that attempted article.

Anti-Polygamy Article, Talk, and VfD ARCHIVED

Researcher 18:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The official VfD for anti-polygamy is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-polygamy Nereocystis 19:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Readers may note how Nereocystis knows they are unwelcome here and yet they choose to more or less still vandalize my personal user TALK page with their needless input. They know that the Archive I made here already provides links to the LOGS anyway. They know they are considered an abuser and do not belong filling my TALK pages with unnecessary messages. Frankly, it shows me again that they are stalking me. Wherever and anywhere I post, they are there to hassass me with their abuse. Researcher 19:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can

I haven't been in the loop regarding Wikipedia or the AMA recently, as I've been wrapped up in research of my own, but I'll see what I can do. I anticipate being able to check this dispute at least twice daily. Alternatively, I can refer your request for assistance to another advocate. For the record, the subject under dispute is outside of my area of expertise. Metasquares 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very busy too, so I do understand your situation very much. Thanks for replying so quickly. Researcher 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading through the considerable amount of discussion on various related talk pages. Here's a summary of what I've gathered so far. I am stating this information as I understand it from the information on the talk pages; this summary does not represent my own opinion of the dispute. Please let me know if I've missed or misrepresented anything important - there's a very large amount of pertinant information to wade through, some of it conflicting with the rest: Metasquares 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are in agreement regarding the current content of the articles on polygamy and group marriage, but a dispute remains over the archiving of the talk pages of those articles and the NPOV tags above certain sections. Metasquares 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort, but that is not correct. Ever since Nereocystis returned a few months ago, they have been on a deliberate strategy of agressively destroying everything in the article, rv'ing my every correction, and refusing to obey Wikipedia Guidelines to let us put the article back to TRUE STATUS QUO and then we can rightly TALK from that position. They have now made so many destructions to the articles these past few months that I very much disagree with the articles' current condition. Researcher 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You initially welcomed Uriah923's participation as an unofficial mediator, but you now see him as an interloper in a resolution process that you proposed about a month ago. Metasquares 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My welcome did not authorize their subsequent actions in any way whatsoever. There is a difference between being friendly and otherwise authorizing a full-blown interference. While I have not been back to the [[polygamy] article since a day or so (very busy myself, too), the fact that Uriah923 posted on the RFC proves to me beyond all doubt that they were a biased interference and that my requests for some demonstration of good faith were accurate (in revealing how their inaction showed their bias). Since I saw no action, my instincts have since been proven correct, as Uriah923 has proven their bias for allowing Nereocystis to continue "running over me" in their abuse. So, yes, unless they have retracted that bias, now I see Uriah923's appearance as a set-up. They claimed to be unbiased, but by posting on the RFC, they proved my instincts were correct about thier hostile bias. Also, if they could not listen to me at that point, there is no way they would be willing to fairly listen me to during ay resolution itself. Researcher 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do not agree with the outline proposed by Nereocystis, and prefer to stick with the original proposed resolution, but the other parties involved are unwilling to follow the original resolution process. You have not (yet) submitted your own outline, presumably because you do not agree with the resolution process that Uriah923 has proposed. Metasquares 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not valid anyway. Accepting the outline is irrelevant for me at this point. It is not valid to begin with because I do not accept the premise behind its creation. That is to say, we were in a different resolution process before Uriah923's interruption. Since I did not accept that interruption, there is no valid premise behind the outline's creation in the first place because doing so came from the invalid, unaccepted interruption. Plus, they are going outside of Wikipedia Guidelines with that idea. Actually, it appears that I am the only one who respects Wikipedia Guidelines. As I have been saying from May 7, the Wikipedia Guidelines require the article being put back to TRUE STATUS QUO and discussed from there. Those specific guidelines do not call for allowing a full-blown re-write with editors who, not only do not know the topic, nor do they intend to let it be anything but filled with hostile propaganda, but who repeatedly "run over" the demonstrated topic-researcher/expert at just about every participation I make. So, the outline is not even valid for being created in the first place. For that reason, whether or not I accept the proposed outline is just irrelevant at this point. Researcher 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nereocystis and Uriah923 see you as being "extremely difficult to work with", while you see them as aggressive and relatively uneducated editors of the topic under dispute. Metasquares 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They only say that about me because I will not work without a true WIN-WIN and GIVE-GIVE approach between the participants. Instead, it is always whatever they want no matter what, no matter how much proof I provide, no matter what I do. It's intense bullying. At every opportunity to show an act of good faith I have offered, little ones even, Nereocystis has refused. Also, when I even offered Uriah923 a way to show some good faith to show me their unbiased intent, they also refused. Instead, they always leave it so that Nereocystis always gets the destructions they desire, but I am never allowed to positively contribute, and they are not even knowledgeable about the topic. Researcher 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute has not yet entered formal mediation. Metasquares 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Due to some very suspicious actions, I am not ready for that until I find a willing AMA who is truly unbiased and wiling to really rad al the evidence to see the truly suspiciou activities too. Researcher 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is (was?) a separate but related dispute between you and Ghostintheshell. Metasquares 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the timing of the situation and the exact same methods of operation, such as deliberate obfuscatory tactics, I am convinced that Nereocystis is Ghostintheshell.

I think that the first step in resolving this dispute is to agree upon a resolution process. To that end, I would like to hear the viewpoints of Nereocystis, Uriah923, and perhaps Dunkelza, and, if necessary, arrange an IRC chat between the four of you where I can identify what is holding up dispute resolution progress. Is that acceptable? Please let me know what you would have me do. Thanks. Metasquares 03:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latter two are later-comers to the scene. Nereocystis is the real bully, simply exploiting the easily-found temporary anti-polygamists on a regular basis to further bully me. As has happened with other temporary anti-polygamist editors before them, they will probably also leave soon too. The only valid resolution process is the one in which we were in prior to Uriah923's interruption and Dunkelza's subsequent involvement. Since they are all willing to join Nereocystis in running over me and ignoring my well researched contributions, there can be no resolution until the bullying tactics are stopped. Without truly approaching things from a WIN-WIN and GIVE-GIVE approach, the problems will only continue. I say that the Wikipedia Guidelines should be followed. The article should be restored to the pre-April TRUE STATUS QUO as I have said as far back as May 7, and TALK should then proceed from there. Wikipedia Guidelines really SHOULD be followed, as that would fulfill. Then, one issue at a time can be discussed on the TALK pages. (It must be that way because Nereocystis purposely uses that overwhelming too-many-issues-at-once tactic to bully me too.) However, I should not be bullied anymore. No more running over me. Politeness would be appreciated. I seem to be the only one around this topic who genuinely respects the true Wiki way. I am hopeful that you or any AMA who accepts my request will be able to help this happen.

I will not be able to get back now until Friday. I look forward to seeing what you or any other AMA might say. Thank you. Researcher 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Assistance

Hello, thanks for the note. I'm willing to assist you, however, I am really not able to look at anything until tomorrow - I'm on a business trip. I'll let you know. Conradrock 20:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm off tonight and tomorrow too, so I understand. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you Researcher 20:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back from Wiki Break tomorrow (Wed. 9/7)

It looks like I will likely be away for the long three-day Labor Day weekend. If not sooner, I should be back by Tuesday. (I know there's a lot of reading for some to do, but that should be okay anyway, I hope.) Researcher 20:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was supposed to be free enough to be back today, but I got caught with some things that just would not allow me any more time here today than this one post. Also, there is a lot for me to consider about choosing an AMA here, too (which I appreciate from everyone). I will respond more tomorrow. Thanks. Researcher 20:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMA (Take 2)

As requested, I shall additionally assist with this case, having spent a deal of time leafing through archives and links. What I believe to be most crucial currently is a degree of conciseness, to obtain a bulleted dossier on issues still requiring resolution, and to debate fact of the present situation rather than past grievances. I shall admit that over the past hour and a half I have learned a great deal more about polygamy than I ever would have in "normal wiki" mode. --Lejend 21:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We are getting nowhere because all parties involved are too focused on past wrongs rather than progressive work towards resolution. Let bygones be bygones. Metasquares 13:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Metasquares, for your time in considering this issue. When one is being stalked and not allowed to ever contribute or correct the deliberate falsehoods being advanced in a controversial article, the ability for letting bygones be bygones is thwarted. The current version of the polygamy TALK page and all its "outline" discussion is illegitimate, because it is the result of an unapproved takeover. As I read them, in controversial topics such as this, Wikipedia Guidelines call for restoration to TRUE STATUS QUO and then TALKING. It does not allow destruction and takeover to occur in order to then let bygones be bygones. If only it could be as simple as doing as you suggest. Unfortunately, the anti-polygamists refuse to let it be so. Thanks again for considfering my AMA request. Researcher 19:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your advocacy request

Before I accept to be your advocate, I'd like some little, but relevant evidence (the RfC evidence is too long and useless) that could show me:

That you tried to resolve the dispute civily.
That shows some behaivor against the policies by the other party.
Evidence that could be use against you by the other party.

I don't need too much to decide. I only want some diffs that could help me to understand a bit more the confuse situation in there, because I really don't understand it very much and I really want to (this is the kind of disputes I like!). Answer me on my talk page. --Neigel von Teighen 23:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the case. I'll gather some evidence by myself, but if you could send me some diffs (not just the link) and mail it to me, it would be very useful to "win" the ongoing RfC (anyway, I have never heard that such a request for comment ever closed a dispute! Usually, the disputes are resolved in mediation or arbitration).

I've been revising the dispute and saw a mistake you did that have turned the whole thing in a serious situation. Never accept mediation of unofficial mediators, despite the good faith the mediator could have. The best is to make a request on the Mediation Committe, where all mediators had to pass a vote to become part of the committe, thus they're more confiable than unofficial mediators (the same occurs with unofficial advocates).

If, for some reason, you can't send me an e-mail through the link I gave you, my address is i m a g l a n g @ y a h o o . c o m (delete all spaces; they're used for avoiding spambots to get the addresses) --Neigel von Teighen 22:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

sorry, I can't advocate for you on polygamy, I'm too invested in the subject matter. Pedant 07:11, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Polygamy dispute (your advocate)

I've talked to Nereocystis and he agrees in making an official mediation on the dispute. I'd like you to consider it and tell me what's your decision, so we can decide what to do.

I seriously recommend you to accept the mediation and not to wait that the dispute gets into an arbitration. Anyway, I told Nereocystis that before the mediation could be done, the RfC against you should be withdrawn so there's no obstacles in getting some agreements.

I'll stay in contact --Neigel von Teighen 19:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nereocystis has also agreed to a chat with you if you want to pursue that. I think that formal mediation is probably the most prudent step at this stage of the game. Metasquares 20:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem an odd request, but I do require you to back up a statement for me. The point that might be considered most important is that you have repeatedly claimed that you have researched the topic of Polygamy for years, however we currently have no way of proving that. Although Wikipedia works upon good faith, it is considered good manners to cite sources for academic views: if an academic is a contributor to the article, then should he not cite his own qualifications? I ask this merely to give weight to the allegations of experience within the area, and to affirm any content of the Polygamy article as originating for a valid and well-researched source. (Due to problems with my internet connection, I am taking a WikiBreak of until October, however I will post and assist when possible until then.) --Lejend 12:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Advocacy Request

I would like to speak to you regarding your request for advocacy, based on my examination of the details of the dispute - assuming of course that you are still looking for an advocate. (The offer of official mediation is something you should seriously consider.) If you are in fact still looking for an advocate, you choose the chat medium and let me know when you'd be available via my talk page. Audentis 06:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

About mediation

Hi! Nereocystis agrees to get the Polygamy dispute through a mediation and he's waiting for your answer (any of your advocates including me can tell him, if you want). If you agree (take a look into this page for further information about the process), please tell me and all your advocates you requested help and we can request the mediation.

I also talked to Metasquares and we did agree in many points, and I saw there is some coherence and agreement in our thoughts that make me feel much better on the situation. What do you think? If you like to reply me, you can do it here --Neigel von Teighen 23:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, it has been very kind and helpful. I have sent you an email, as you suggested earlier. Nereocystis often says many things, but then they come back with abuse anyway. So their pretend willingness for Mediation is an act to be distrusted. At this beginning stage, I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation, as it is much like suggesting the idea of negotiating with a terrorist or like asking a rape victim to let the rapist just talk to them to work out their differences. (Maybe Mediation can work later though.) Currently, though, no matter how much a single issue might get resolved in Mediation, the abuser, if not stopped, will only continue to deploy further stalking, attacks, and abuse afterward. I want to succeed in going forward, not to be back here in this problem over and over again. So, while we might end up there at Mediation eventually, I first need to have some things addressed with the help of an AMA. I believe in the Wikipedia Guidelines, even though it seeems to appear that I am among the extreme minority of those who really believe in that. I very much appreciate your help. Thanks. Researcher 19:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that we're trying to get the RFC withdrawn as a prelude to mediation. That was one of your concerns, correct? Metasquares 01:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that effort, thank you, and I do hope it continues. However, the outrageously unnecessary RfC against me is but one of a number of abusive attacks from Nereocystis. Another example is the very suspicious sabotage of the deleted "anti-polygamy" article I tried to create as another possible proposal for solving some of the issues in the overall problem. Their telling such outright lies, as I showed on your TALK page, is another example. These examples and more are simply individual examples of the overall agenda to destory everything I do so that I leave Wikipedia and that they can then feel free to fill the polygamy article with their deliberately hostile and/or sneaky-subtle anti-polygamy POV propaganda. (I have never ever encountered such a dysfunctional, patently abusive individual as Nereocystis. I never allow this kind of human dysfunction toward me in my real life. So, when I turn to Wikipedia rules to prevent the abuse, instead the rules have seemingly been ignored and it has only prolonged for months on end.) The larger overall issue is that I am targeted at every step, stalked to every post, and prevented from doing anything for the value of Wikipedia, all by Nereocystis. I need to have a discussion directly with a listening-AMA before I can commit to anything. I am open to Mediation, but only after I have some real discussion from some AMA who has read ALL the facts and now can clearly see the reality of Nereocystis's prolonged abuse toward me and toward my every edit. So, I agree that the RfC against me needs to be removed, but it is only one step among many that are needed. The abuse HAS to come to end. Researcher 20:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation accepted

Hello, I have assigned User:Andrevan to the mediation filed. I am waiting for his reply, but please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#.5B.5BUser:Researcher99.5D.5D_in_dispute_with_.5B.5BUser:Nereocystis.5D.5D_and_others. Thanks, R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response made on the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis page. Thanks. - Researcher 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you decided to drop out of the mediation?

I haven't seen a definitive response. Please clearly state that you are refusing the mediation, if you are refusing. If you are accepting, please make that clear.

The user talk page is for communicating with users. This is not abuse, it is an attempt at communication. Since you aren't responding to my questions on the mediation page, I am explicitly asking you on this page. Please answer. Nereocystis 04:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request against Researcher99

I have filed a request for arbitration against Researcher99. Please respond to it. Nereocystis 06:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moved from userpage

Dear Researcher99 -

"If you have not yet studied it for years"... but... what happened to Socratic modesty? (This actually also concerns everyone else in the ongoing Polygamy discussion!).

- jhez —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.243.86.27 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance

Researcher,

Please forgive my intolerable tardiness in replying to your request - I moved cities not very long ago and have been completely disoriented settling into my new situation, as I continue to be so. For this reason I'm not in a position to take on your case. I very deeply regret this, and if the situation changes in the near future I will be more than happy to alive. I'm sorry to have kept you waiting so long, and I wish you the best of luck on your dispute.

Yours,

Wally 05:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy has been accepted; it is a merger of the two requests. A brief statement of the case would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy. Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence Fred Bauder 17:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy case. →Raul654 02:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamy "Decision" was a "Summary Judgment & Execution" made without ever hearing all the facts

On 02:52, 15 November 2005, the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy "decision" was made to push out a rare proven topic expert on polygamy, while giving free reign to a hostile proven anti-polygamy editor to misinform Wikipedia readers with propaganda POV. Unfortunately, the anti-expert motivated "Decision" was made completely without any consideraton of the facts or fairness whatsoever. Truly, the evidence testifies (to any honest observer) against the making of this "Summary Judgment and Execution" where considering the facts had never been allowed or performed.

Polygamy Arbitration front page

On the main Polygamy "arbitration" page

They ignored or never read the Statement by Advocate of party 1.
They ignored or never read my Statement by party 1.
Nereocystis did not even make a Statement by party 2.

Evidence page

On the Evidence page,

They never transferred the Evidence presented by User:Imaglang (aka Neigel von Teighen) to the Workshop page for discussion,
They never transferred the Evidence presented by User:Researcher99 to the Workshop page for discussion,
They only transferred the (posted October 18, 2005) Evidence presented by User:Nereocystis to the Workshop page for discussion.

Workshop page

On the Workshop page,

They immediately made biased posts about the situation before I had even had my opportunity to present anything, as the entire posting history of the Workshop page shows, entirely skewing the discussion against me before I was able to present anything.
They created an obviously pre-biased Analysis of Evidence that only went up to May 12, 2005, only using input exclusively from the Evidence presented by User:Nereocystis, completely ignoring all the history and abuses committed against me repeatedly after that date, which I was raising and they prevented from the decision process. More than 100 DIFFs of the entire story in my Evidence take place after May 12, 2005. That date was when the abuses really intensifed thereafter. But none of this was put on the Workshop page or ever allowed to be discussed or considered.

Evidence TALK page

On the Evidence TALK page

They knew I was seeking guidance as I was trying to find a way to present the overwhelming amount of Evidence within a suggested but unrealistic 100-DIFF limit. They knew I had asked for a good way to solve that problem here but they never responded to my idea about it.
They knew that there were Items Still Pending in Preparing Evidence, including waiting for official IP investigations about possible sockpuppets and the DIFFs of a wrongly deleted Anti-polygamy article (which I personally has archived here for the record). (My AMA advocate had requested the info on 20:44, 28 October 2005, from David Gerard. I had offered the more specifics in my polite reminder that we were still wating for that information, in my post on 19:16, 7 November 2005 to David Gerard. He never commented or replied.)
In his 21:19, 7 November 2005 post Fred Bauder suggested that not presenting very very little of my Evidence would somehow be "in my best interest."

Proposed Decision page

On the Proposed decision page,

Not even 10 minutes after suggesting to me that I should not present much of my Evidence, Fred Bauder began with his 21:28, 7 November 2005 post to start the next few posts leading to the Summary Judgment against me and calling for final votes against me. This was making a decision before I had even posted the Evidence!

Proposed Decision TALK page

On the Proposed decision TALK page,

They ignored or never read the important post made by my AMA advocate about the premature aspect of voting before evidence had been presented or discussed.
Fred Bauder makes a post showing their bias, demonstrating why they really should have recused themselves from the Arbitration in the first place.
Fred Bauder makes a post with two exactly opposite-conflicting points, "Today I looked at your new evidence, looked at all the four pairs of diffs. I don't think they form a basis for modification of the proposed decision. It is fundamental to Wikipedia that all significant viewpoints be fairly presented." If one had looked at the post, they would see it applied to two specific username accounts, while Fred Bauder was trying to make it out to be a universal reference of all Wikipedia editors. (It also was not "new" evidence, because I had made the similar point in my Statement by party 1.) Their premature proposed decision actually sought my "Summary Execution." That results in only anti-polygamists being allowed to wrongly mis-define the polygamy articles. So their pushing me out here utterly denies the opportunity for all significant viewpoints to be fairly presented, only permitting the anti-polygamy propaganda and POV to continue.

Seeing the end coming without any fairness having ever been applied in any form whatsoever, I made two last posts to the Proposed decision TALK page.

My 19:53, 14 November 2005 post, "Summary Execution" without hearing ALL the Evidence & not "assuming good faith" toward experts undermines goal ofIt is fundamental to Wikipedia that all significant viewpoints be fairly presented
My 21:51, 14 November 2005 post, (/Some comments/ - Nereocysytis's specific actions are not that of one who supports legalization of polygamy. (I made one last post afterward to fix a broken wiki-link from my previous post.)

I proved that Nereocystis is a hostile anti-polygamist

In that last informative post there, I listed out many examples of how it is indisputable that Nereocystis is an anti-polygamist who was lying when they claim to support the legalization of polygamy. Those proven lies were ignored though. A "Summary Judgement and Execution" of my involvement in my field of proven expertise was "decided" instead.

After the "Decision," Nereocystis's first edits proved I am correct again

After the "decision" was finalized, what did Nereocystis do?

Nereocystis's very first edit to the polygamy article was to assist the anti-polygamy web-sites they support. They immediately proved me right, they are anti-polygamists pushing their agenda. That would definitely not be the very first action of someone who really support(s) the legalization of polygamy.

On the group marriage article, they did the same thing, proving me right. Even despite how my last informative post proved that even the Encyclopedia Britanica confirms that I am correct that polygamy is only either polygyny or polyandry, Nereocystis's very first first Talk:Group_marriage post and their first "Group marriage" article edit was to deceive readers by suggesting that group marriage is supposedly a form of polygamy when it is not.

Undoubtedly, I have been proven correct. Nereocystis lied when claiming to support the legalization of polygamy. Yet Nereocystis is allowed to remain, deceptively destroying the polygamy article and real meaning with their hostile anti-polygamy POV, while I am "executed" with a "Summary Judgment" without being allowed to present my Evidence, just because I am a proven expert about polygamy.

If injustice not rectifed, Wikipedia is just a community of anti-experts

If the extreme injustice of this "railroading" of a "Summary Judgment and Execution" is not rectified, then I am left to conclude that Wikipedia is not really an encyclopedia anyway. If that is the sad case, then I realize that Wikipedia is instead just a community of non-experts and anti-experts who hate us content-topic experts. Those anti-experts have simply created a false "Arbitration" process to just quickly push us out, never allowing us proven experts a fair process at all. I would like to see Wikipedia be legitimate, but if this is not fixed, then anti-experts have only sabotaged it and they themselves are bringing on its eventual demise as nothing more than another passing fad. That would be unfortunate. It's out of my hands, though. I did my best to help Wikipedia.

Researcher 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments to be posted here, please)

Any comments to this post above should be posted in this section here, please.
Thank you. - Researcher 18:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]