Original requests for arbitration:
If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Researcher99 has repeatedly refused attempts at resolving differences with User:Nereocystis on the Polygamy and Group marriage pages.
Most recently, on 30 September, Researcher99 refused mediation if it included a discussion of the text of the polygamy article.
Previously, I filed an RFC about Researcher99's behavior. Only Researcher99 and his advocate supported his version of the results. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99.
Researcher99 did not agree to attempts at resolving differences in the following edits:
Researcher99 refused to discuss the article and insisted that we discuss past actions:
Researcher99 has been repeatedly abusive toward Nereocystis.
Researcher99 is a Christian polygamist. His edits about Christian polygamy are POV, and he refuses to consider writing them in an NPOV format. He insists that his Christian polygamy group is the only such group, though there are others. See Talk:Polygamy/Archive 4#Possible theory about BFree, citation removal, and Love-not-Force URL for my research, and his response.
He engages in link spam. Researcher99 posts many sites which are hosted by standardbearer.com, which is a Christian polygamy group which I believe is run by Researcher99:
Researcher99 removes links to Christian polygamy sites which he disagrees with:
Nereocystis 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Statement by User:Researcher99's advocate Neigel von Teighen as it can be confirmed by [4]
User:Nereocystis has incurred in a long term abusive behaivor against User:Researcher99 (aka Researcher) in the Polygamy page and, specially, in Talk:Polygamy. This user believes that Researcher has been doing POV edits in the article and so it does think my 'client' about Nereocystis, but that is not the main point of this case. The discussion of either the content is POV or not has been totally displaced by abuses performed by Nereocystis as it can be shown by the list of diffs at the bottom of the statement. Thus, we're seeking the Wikipedia:Civility policy to be applied.
Preliminary evidence:
I have contacted User:Researcher99 by mail so he can send his statement soonly. Thank you. --Neigel von Teighen 23:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Please limit your statement to 500 words
I am out of time, today, to completely respond here, but I will come back and do so in the next day or so. I am also aware of the great difficulty for me to try to present this abuse situation in under 500 words, which I am not sure can really be effectively accomplished in this very comprehensive problem. One recent post I made does give a very brief insight into the abuse problem, this DIFF here. But there is so much more to report. Until I can come back and specify more, this situation still has mountains of evidence of the abuse to read, about the "running right over me." A serious chronology is provided in My Response to the RfC that was made against me. Please also see that RfC's TALK page. After that, please see my posts in the subsequent RfM. As one of my latest posts there comprehensively shows, no matter how many times I explain something, they "run right over me" anyway and even make outright false statements against me. There is so much abuse to report that I do not know how else to say it without laying down all the mountains of evidence. If deemed preferable, I would be glad to proceed on a step-by-step basis of smaller digestible chunks if that helps. While waiting for my subsequent reply here, understanding the situation all begins with the chronology given at My Response to the RfC. Researcher 20:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I am back to add more now. I will do my best to add what I can. Since a week ago Wednesday, the only contact I have had from my AMA advocate, Neigel von Teighen, has been one email they sent to me a couple days ago. It was only to let me know that Neigel von Teighen had made this RfArb. So, without their help at this particular moment, I will still try to offer some background and purpose for this RfArb.
I am not the kind of person who came to Wikipedia to practically live here. Instead, I am a different kind of user, I come only to provide expert knowledge of years of research into a little-known topic called polygamy. Unlike Nereocystis who seems to spend every waking moment at Wikipedia and cleverly knows how to manipulate the Wikipedia procedures to abuse me, I am not a Wikipedia expert. I am only a topical expert/researcher.
The polygamy article rarely gets much editing attention actually. The most attention it ever got at any one time is only when Nereocystis creates a controversy to call for others. They know that finding other anti-polygamists to join them is easy to do. They bring others to the article by creating things such as the RfC against me and previously inciting a very suspicious AfD of the anti-polygamy article I had tried to create as a resolution possibility. As we proceed here, I have many DIFFs to show the hostile anti-polygamy POV agenda and reasons why these suspicions are not unreasonable to ask.
I first encountered Nereocystis in the debate they created on the polygamy TALK page from 09:36, 29 December 2004 through 20:10, 13 January 2005. It was regarding their edit and my corrective adjustment while I was also trying to still accomodate some of what they had added. As the debate shows, while I was trying to accomodate them but with accuracy, they would have none of it. Finally, they "left" fo a few months.
Eventually, a "new" user showed up, called Ghostintheshell. (As I will show later, I believe that "new" user is the same as Nereocystis.) Pretending to be a "pro Muslim polygamy," Ghostintheshell instead was a sneaky anti-polygamist who deliberately pushed me into an edit war. As one who is not a Wikipedia expert, I mistakenly fell into my first and only error of WP:3RR. The only thing I had been trying to do was to return the article back to the STATUS QUO so that a discussion could then be had. Ghostintheshell would have none of it. They used outlandish obfuscatory tactics calling false things true and vice versa. On May 7, I posted a lengthy evidence of the chronology of the events, called, The Ghostintheshell Situation. The outline of that evidence may be read first by starting at the top of the Archive page here. In it, I explained the call for the Wikipedia Guideline to restore any contorvesial article to STATUS QUO and then to TALK, when things like that happen. In Section 1.2, I very clearly spelled it out, "Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed." That section there provides the principles of the "Don't Be Reckless" Wikipedia Guideline.
That "Don't Be Reckless" Wikipedia Guideline is the entire premise of what I have been calling for ever since.
Just as the TALK page was in that situation on May 7, 2005, Nereocystis came "back" on May 10, 2005.
The next day, Ghostintheshell made their very last post, admitting they had violated the WP:3RR by creating a new account to circumvent the temporary suspension. Later that very day, Nereocystis made their first edit again.
It is is very necessary to understand what Nereocystis knew was going on at that very moment. They knew that I was still in that situation with Ghostintheshell on the TALK page. They knew that the very lengthy The Ghostintheshell Situation was on the TALK page there and that I was still involved in solving that. Most importantly of all, Nereocystis knew that I was calling for the "Don't Be Reckless" Wikipedia Guideline to be followed, for us to first restore the article to STATUS QUO in order to then TALK about any changes.
Nereocystis ignored all that and began an editing rampage to the article. Since Nereocystis's first return back to the polygamy TALK pages and first editing the next day, they have been on a very aggressive strategy of "running right over me" and undermining every single thing I do. I came to spend my time helping Wikipedia on the topics I am an expert/researcher, but instead Nereocystis has so sabotaged everything I do that I have not been allowed to do anything but deal with this abuse, for almost six months now. It has so destroyed the fun of the Wikipedia experience for me, which is only to share my knowledge.
On May 16, I posted the evidence to TALK, Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals. On May 27, I explained how these were clearly anti-polygamists, with Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki.
Throughout, Nereocystis has undertaken an enormous effort to abuse me, by constantly "running right over me."
In my attempts to follow the Wikipedia Guidelines to restore to STATUS QUO so that we could then TALK, Nereocystis destroyed everything I did.
As we proceed, here's a list of just some more of things which they did:
I know there are more things to point out, but the list is starting to become overwhelming. I also need to be as brief as possible. I can come back and Wikify this more. I can also provide DIFFS as we proceed.
As I have only just recently learned the term "sockpuppets" here (the DIFF is here), I do believe a serious question of sockpuppets does very seriously apply to Nereocystis. While I may have only just learned the term, I have long been saying that I think Nereocystis might be others. I do believe an investigation needs to be made into the very suspicious similarities and behaviors of 63.167.159.194, 209.33.198.237, Ghostintheshell, Spatfield, and possibly even Kewp (from here and here) and other easily-found anti-polygamists ready to gang up on a minority expert.
All I have sought is the STATUS QUO according to the Wikipedia Guidelines, especially the "Don't Be Reckless" guideline. So, I have never refused anything. I simply want the Guidelines followed and the abuse to end. Instead, though, I have been the target of hostile anti-polygamists' abuse of "running right over me" and trying to make my experience so miserable that I eventually leave Wikipedia. I am hoping this can be resolved once and for all. I only want to get to the NPOV content-writing of the polygamy related articles, as that is what I know about.
I hope to hear from my AMA advocate soon. I hope I have done correctly here what I am supposed to do. - Researcher 20:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Another quick update of additional information.
Here is another example of what Nereocystis does to me. They tacticly overwhelm a situation with multiple issues or "questions" all at once and then unreasonably expect me to have the time to immediately answer all of them, knowing it is not possible for me. Then they turn around and misrepresent my inability to have the time to answer everything they as if it means I somehow ignored or rejected it. Here's an example from their Statement on this RfArb. They accuse me of supposedly "dropping out" of the Mediation request (when it was they who rejected the only one valid basis of the RfM.). As my edit-comments on a recent post I made to the RfM, explained, it is "Impossible to say I 'refused mediation' when I said SEVEN TIMES what this RfM is about." Despite that, they still "run right over me" even here and continue to make the false accusation again on this RfArb. They know that I can only respond with limited time availability. So, they cleverly accuse me of "dropping out" because I allocated my limited time to reponding here on this RfArb rather than on the RfM. If I had instead allocated it to replying to the RfM, then they just as abusively turn around and would accuse me of not answering the RfArb here.
The anti-polygamists have been "outed" despite their claims to the contrary. It is necessary to read the entire section of the evidence-piece, titled, Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki. Before reading it, please review its entire outline of subheadings at the top of the page there. It is Section 3 there. Second, it will be necessary to see the entire activity of how the anti-polygamy article was sneakily deleted immediately from very suspicious means. The suspiciously deleted anti-polygamy article, its TALK page, and the VfD discussion are all archived here. (By "suspicious," I refer to the whole issue of its being called for deletion, not just that it got deleted.) Third, for additional data on the suspicious maters surrounding the deleted anti-polygamy article, it is also essential to read the entire evidence piece, title, Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof. Like the above piece, it will be helpful to first read the outline of subheadings at the top of the page there. It is Section 1 there. As those all show, it is a common tactic of anti-polygamists to pretend to be "pro-polygamy" specifically with the purpose of attacking polygamy. In addition to those necessary pieces of evidence to read, I will be able to provide additional DIFFs, proving anti-polygamists.
At this point, I have run out of further time to add any more here. I might possibly have more time later today. If not, then I will try to come back after the weekend, at the start of next workweek. (Weekends are always tough for me.) Researcher 20:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I am back again, with more information. I hope I am doing this right.
In addition to those necessary pieces of evidence to read about the anti-polygamiosts proven, I will be able to provide many additional DIFFs, proving anti-polygamists. For now, here are some more quick examples of even more that I will be able to provide as we proceed. Only two hours after I had pleaded for Admins to help in that situation, in my polygamy TALK post, "I am being oppressed by Anti-Polygamists," and only a half hour after I had fully explained "Tom Haws, you seem to approve my idea, when understanding what I actually created," then User:Nereocystis did what only an anti-polygamist would do. They announced "anti-polygamy up for deletion" on the polygamy TALK page. They did that fully knowing that, despite their clever fake graciousness, such an announcement would likely get more easily-found anti-polygamists to vote against the anti-polygamy article. So, obviously, no one who would genuinely "support the legalization of polygamy" would ever have responded to the previous two posts I had made that day by ignoring them and instead making that announcement to help the anti-polygamy article get deleted. (Truthfully, it does not take a genius to realize that anyone who truly "supports the legalization of polygamy" would never been involved in helping the anti-polygamy article get deleted anyway. They certainly would never have made this anti-polygamy edit here, calling obvious NPOV as POV, and sabotaging the anti-polygamy article with it. ) In addition to this example, I will be able to provide further proofs as we proceed in this RfArb. It is for these reasons that I have warned that Nereocystis has been a "sneaky vandal" who acts like they are supposedly pro-polygamy in order to sneak in their hostile POV misinformations and attacks as if "justified." Another post where I had pointed this out may be observed in the July 8 evidence-post I made to polygamy TALK, labelled, The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN. (It is Section 3 when using the outline at the top of the page there.) Also, by Nereocystis's claiming that they are "not an anti-polygamist" and that they "support the legalization of polygamy," when they very obviously are an anti-polygamist who opposes polygamy with a hostile POV, all provides more proof that they definitely lie, even right here on the RfArb. -- Researcher 19:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
As I await for further assistance here (and have only heard from my AMA advocate a couple times this last week), I am sorry that it has been absolutely necessary to list out so much evidence. Unfortunately, Nereocystis has learned to exploit the fact that most other users are not willing to really read through all the mountains of the evidence so as to instead just support whatever Nereocystis tells those other users to believe. That places me in a no-win situation. I am attacked either way. For example, on this RfArb, when I had made my initial small Statement that was under 500 words, another hostile user was quick to exploit it by saying this RfArb was "completely frivolous." But when I then added more of the mountains of the evidence here, that same hostile user came back and attacked me for "exceeding the 500 word limit." The mountains of links I have provided lead to numerous DIFFs. If I were to re-post everything in those evidences here, then I would be further attacked for then posting 10s of thousands of words. Such attacks allow me no way to get the information across one way or another, if they were so correct about me. Of course, I do understand that many people do not have time to read everything and I do not enjoy spending this time putting it together either. However, if anyone is not willing to read all the mountains of evidence that are essential to seeing the whole situation honestly, then they are not really able to be fully informed enough to make any opinion in the first place. But that doesn't seem to stop some users from doing that anyway. Nereocystis cleverly knows and exploits this fact about other users, though, especially in easily enlisting biased anti-polygamists. I am so hoping that there will be a true and honest analysis of the mountains of evidence of the overwhelming abuse that Nereocystis has heaped upon me, and that true NPOV content editing in my topic expertise can be the basis of my time spent at Wikipedia from then on. I am so exhausted from all this abuse, when all I want to do is share my expertise and knowledge in NPOV. -- Researcher 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Please limit your statement to 500 words
AMA advocate preliminary evidence #6 (currently visible as [7]) is stated a bit stronger than I usually prefer, but Researcher99 consistently refuses to answer direct questions and often refuses to provide references.
AMA advocate preliminary evidence #8 (currently visible as [9] shows that I suggested mediation, and many other steps for resolving our differences.
Unfortunately, I don't know quite what I am being accused of.
We did try mediation in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis. However, the mediation fell apart when Researcher99 refused to allow a discussion of the content of the polygamy article, as suggested by the mediator.
Researcher99 did not agree to attempts at resolving differences in the following edits:
Researcher99 has been repeatedly abusive toward Nereocystis:
Nereocystis 08:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not an anti-polygamist; I support the legalization of polygamy. I consider Researcher99's claims otherwise to be a personal attack, though perhaps a mild one if it weren't repeated so frequently.
I don't use sockpuppets. I once made an anonymous edit, though it wasn't on a polygamy-related article. I'm willing to check specific edits to determine whether I accidentally made other anonymous edits. I am not Ghostintheshell, Spatfield, or Kewp. I have communicated with 2 out of the 3 of these and each has verified that they are not me. Researcher99 seems to believe that everyone who disagrees with him is one of my sockpuppets.
I am not sneaky. I make my edits publicly.
I did revert many of Researcher99's changes, and requested that he explain the changes on the Talk:Polygamy page:
I discussed deleted the anti-polygamy article, but I did not vote on the deletion of the article; I preferred to leave the vote to people not involved in the polygamy dispute. I was not sneaky. `
I am a relatively new user going over the RfA page basically just to see how everything works. I have not edited any articles related to polygamy or otherwise interacted with Nereocystis, Researcher99 or anyone else who I am aware of being involved in this dispute in any way.
Having said that, it appears to me that this case (unlike the immediately above one, against Researcher99) is completely frivolous. At the moment, the "preliminary evidence" links above are visible as 3 through 10. I don't see the slightest evidence of abuse by Nereocystis toward Researcher99 in any of them, and in fact several of them point to evidence of the reverse. It is not at all clear what Neighel or R99 thinks is inappropriate about any of them. I see good-faith edits, wholly appropriate requests for references, and quotes of abusive statements by R99. (It seems like a lot of disruptive or otherwise low-quality editors take being asked for references as a personal attack, which I find mind-boggling.) Only the one currently labeled #7 seems slightly questionable (in general, I strongly feel non-lawyer editors, which I assume all parties are, should not take positions on legal disputes in article space - note that the version Nereocystis was replacing was no better in this respect). One slightly iffy edit hardly seems grounds for an arbcom case.
This being the case, I would be interested in the reasons why two arbcom members so far have accepted the case; personally my instinct would be to reject it on the grounds that no evidence of wrongdoing has been presented and that the whole case is almost certainly retaliatory in nature. Obviously everyone on the arbcom knows vastly more than I do about Wikipedia arbitration, and so there could easily be something I am overlooking. If this is the case, I look forward to being educated on it (in some venue such as the RfA talk page, or my own talk page - this page is not for discussion, though I notice there is some here and there anyway). PurplePlatypus 07:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I should add that I posted the above before R99 posted his statement. However, it would have changed little had this not been the case. R99 has not, as far as my admittedly incomplete check could determine, actually pointed to any abusive behaviour towards him, and has in fact arguably pointed to some by him. Most of his links are not to actual evidence of abuse, or indeed even to other people's edits at all, but to lengthy and nearly incoherent rants written by himself. If there were abuse, he could point to the actual abusive edits and they would speak for themselves. Where's the beef? While R99 has exceeded the 500 word limit by a factor of nearly four (update: now closer to five), he does not appear to have actually said anything. PurplePlatypus 05:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
While I assume this will be obvious to all, I will state for the record that R99's characterization of my statements here is entirely false. I have checked many of the links he and his advocate have provided, and not one of them pointed to clear abuse of R99, while several pointed to clear abuse by him. That is the entire basis of my complaint; he has not posted mountains of evidence, he has posted mountains of text in which he claims to have been abused, but the diffs he and his advocate have given don't bear out his claims. I have checked out far more of the links he has given than he seems to realize - all of those of his advocate, of which zero point to anything outside the bounds of acceptable Wikipedia activity, and about half of his own prior to today.
It must be admitted that R99 does seem to have great difficulty stating his case clearly and concisely. If he thinks this has unfairly tainted my or anyone else's judgement of him, I suggest that he
I do not want to become involved in this case, but let me just say that as a mediator between Researcher99 and Nereocystis, I found Researcher to be the more uncooperative. He would not participate in the mediation except to make repetitive accusations of abuse on the part of Nereocystis. Andre (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)