Case Opened on 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This case is a merger of "User:Researcher99 on the Polygamy and Group marriage pages" and "Abuses on Polygamy article", see Talk page for the original requests.

Case Closed on 02:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Researcher99 (talk · contribs) (initiating party through official AMA advocate Imaglang (talk · contribs) aka Neigel von Teighen)
Nereocystis (talk · contribs)

Statement by AMA advocate of party 1[edit]

Statement by Neigel von Teighen official AMA advocate of User:Researcher99 (see [1])

User:Researcher99 has been attacked constantly by User:Nereocystis in many polygamy related articles, but specially in Polygamy and in Talk:Polygamy with abusive behaivor including POV warring, unexplaine reversions and constant ad hominem attacks in his posts. Although all tries to solve the dispute through RfC (started by the other party), official mediation (started by us), Nereocystis has shown no intention to solve the dispute in a civil manner, so we request this arbitration to stop this abuse against Researcher. --Neigel von Teighen 15:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1[edit]

Researcher 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Polygamy Dispute Background for a better understanding of the polygamy topic, anti-polygamists, and this dispute.

Nereocystis is a proven anti-polygamist. No one who "support(s) the legalization of polygamy," would do what Nereocystis has done. In every way, Nereocystis misrepresents me and the real dispute. This dispute is not about me as a "Christian polygamist" POV editor or about "link spamming." This is about Nereocystis's hostile anti-polygamy agenda to game the Wikipedia process system to abuse me, so that anti-polygamists can freely sabotage the polygamy articles.

When I first encountered Nereocystis, I sincerely tried to accommodate their input. I also tried sincere accommodation with Ghostintheshell when they arrived in April. Identically, both refused any accommodation I offered, demanded sources when I did, obfuscated sources I cited, claimed I "refused" to TALK when I clearly sought STATUS QUO in order to TALK, used the announcement method, and did not know the polygamy topic. For these reasons, I believe that Ghostintheshell is simply Nereocystis or are anti-polygamists working together.

I have very much offered and proposed a number of ways to genuinely solve issues.

April 29, 2005 DIFF, with Ghostintheshell
June 30, 2005 Anti-polygamy article (archived here) created for NPOV and mutual fairness.
August 5, 2005 DIFF - comprehensive and very WIN-WIN resoluton offer.
August 26, 2005 DIFF - a WIN-WIN and NPOV resolution offer on the Talk:Group_marriage page.

Nereocystis has never offered/proposed even one resolution of their own to try to accommodate and work with me.

For that reason, they may have been unqualified to have so prematurely filed the "3rd Opinion" (here) and an "RfC" (here).

Rather than offer any of their own resolutions, Nereocystis perpetrated a very calculated and sophisticated exploitation of the Wikipedia process. (While I am a simple content editor, Nereocystis is a Wikipedia process expert.) As this June 6, 2005 post shows, they even admitted their clever intent to game the Wikipedia process system early on, with their ultimate intent "to request an action against" me. Nereocystis sabotaged my offers and the RfM my AMA advocate filed, and still turned around and lied, saying I "refused mediation." Throughout, they also advanced many different forms of abuse.

I always declared that we need to follow the Wikipedia Guidelines of restoring an article to STATUS QUO before TALKING. Nereocystis ignored that, instead aggressively and very quickly "running right over me," disallowing me to restore to STATUS QUO to then TALK.

Nereocystis knew they could usually count on that "92% of people" who view polygamy unfavorably (see this external source) to bring an anti-polygamy bias with them. So, Nereocystis regularly used the announcement method to attract others to join them. Such others would not follow the Wikipedia Guidelines of STATUS QUO, including the few recommendations/resolutions others suggested. Nereocystis would then lie, saying that I "refused" to solve the problems or to TALK, when I alone was the one who was always trying to solve the problem within Wikipedia Guidelines and WIN-WIN methods.

Kewp arrived very late in this dispute (after content discussion had ceased). Their involvement in this RfArb is virtually meaningless, except to prove how hostile that anti-polygamists are in seeking to sabotage the polygamy articles.

- Researcher 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2[edit]

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept and merge Fred Bauder 21:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 04:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and merge. Kelly Martin 15:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accept and merge Fred Bauder 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 13:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and merge. Kelly Martin 15:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles[edit]

Obsessional point of view

1) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes problematic.

Passed 7-0

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy

2) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not provides that Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda or advocacy.

Passed 7-0

Assume good faith

3) Wikipedia editors as a part of Wikipedia:Civility are expected to assume good faith, simply, to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.

Passed 7-0

Findings of fact[edit]

Researcher99's claims of expertise

1) Researcher99 (talk · contribs) claims to have "researched Polygamy for years" [2].

Passed 7-0

Researcher99's scope of editing

2) Researcher99 (talk · contribs)'s editing at Wikipedia has been almost exclusively limited to Polygamy, discussion pages related to that page, and user talk pages. [3]

Passed 7-0

Opponents

3) Researcher99 (talk · contribs) has taken the position that those who differ regarding editing of polygamy form a coherent "anti-polygamy" block, "Gangs of Sneaky Vandals" who use "anti-polygamy tactics" [4]. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Workshop#Gangs_of_Sneaky_Vandals, especially comments by others.

Passed 7-0

Remedies[edit]

Researcher99 banned from editing polygamy-related articles

1) Researcher99 is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to polygamy

Passed 7-0

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.