Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Summary
The evidence here presented tries to show User:Nereocystis' abusive behaivor unto User:Researcher99 in the respective articles mentioned before, but also to defend User:Researcher99's attitude and comments in the dispute.
I'll be adding more evidence whenever I'm able to do it. --Neigel von Teighen 20:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10 May
- [2]
- User:Nereocystis (from now on, referred as "Nereocystis") accusses User:Researcher99 (from now on, refered as "Researcher") to use two accounts without giving any evidence to prove it.
6 June
- [3]
- Nereocystis talks about to do actions "against" Researcher rather to talk about trying to get consensus.
7 June
- [4]
- User:Dan100 (sysop) (from now on, referred as "Dan") makes an archive of Talk:Polygamy where all the evidence presented by Researcher gets lost into a page that wouldn't be easy to access whenever it should be needed. I don't mean Dan should be punished somehow because of this, but it made that Researcher had to recall some messages from the archive for explaining his ideas, making the dispute hotter as Nereocystis would say that the posts should be re-archived.
10 June
- [5]
- Dan removes ((disputed)) saying that the dispute is over, which is absurd.
11 June
- [6]
- Dan removes again the ((disputed)) tag.
- [7]
- Dan puts the tag again after a warning by Nereocystis.
- [8]
13 June
- [9]
- Nereocystis admits he's "a bit gunshy" and expects reversions. If someone expects reversions, it's because he admits somehow he's going against the policies.
18 June
- [10]
- Dan admits he had been wrong about the little pause the dispute had.
- [11]
- Dan archives the discussion again in an inappropiate moment. Dan, as a member of the Harmonious Editing Club (as me, too), applied the refactoring guideline, but in the wrong situation and archiving all posts without consensus.
20 June
- [12]
- Dan calls Researcher a "troll".
8 July
- [13]
- Nereocystis deletes a totally NPOV paragraph.
10 July
- [14]
- Nereocystis votes "delete" in the AfD process of Anti-polygamy. Obviously, we can discuss if the article should have been or not deleted, but the problem is that he was who deleted the link that was a reason to keep the article. So, he lead the vote into an obvious deletion. Also, he talks about "the reasons mentioned above", which don't exist.
18 July
- [15]
- Nereocystis calls to vote against Anti-polygamy in Talk:Polygamy. We can't know if this post did change the vote (most probably, not), but it's something that isn't acceptable and that leads into a less transparent vote than it should be.
3 August
- [16]
- Certainly, a personal attack against Researcher ("we should include in the NPOV guidelines...").
4 August
- [17]
- Nereocystis adds an invalid site into the article.
5 August
- [18]
- Researcher reverts partially a disordering made by User:Uriah923. Notice that the revertion includes the addition of links disputed by himself. This shows that Researcher clearly wanted to easy the resolution process.
- [19]
- Researcher reverts (an explains why) Nereocystis' 4 August edit.
11 August
- [20]
- Dan deletes de Status Quo guideline from Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages saying it is m:Instruction creep (which doesn't apply in this case). As all we know, to implement this guideline was Researcher's proposal. It's very suspicious that one of the Polygamy editors that knew about the dospute and about Researcher's suggestion, deletes without discussing anything, as the page itself recommends.
7 September
- [21]
- Edit by User:Researcher99 that was intrepeted as a clear refusal to make a mediation attempt. But, the diff shows us that User:Researcher99's litteral words are "I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation, (...)" and, later, "((Maybe Mediation can work later though.)". Is that a total refusal to a mediation? Also, the words "(...) 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." don't say that Nereocystis is a terrorist, but that the mediation at that stage would have been useless.
8 September
10 September
- [23]
- User:Nereocystis says that is Researcher who's trying to refuse the mediation, although the answer he gave on 8 September.
13 September
- [24]
- Nereocystis again uses Researcher's post of 7 September on Talk:Polygamy, though all explanations.
14 September
- [25]
- Nereocystis says he wants to focus the mediation on the article, not in behaivor, which was the original idea.
28 September
- [26]
- This comment by Nereocystis is unacceptable: a total respectless comment in the mediation context.
7 October
- [27]
- Nereocystis calls himself as a pro-polygamist, incurring in a great contradiction with his actions.
- [28]
- Researcher explains with references why Nereocystis contradicts himself when saying that he supports the legalization of polygamy.
Posted: Researcher 00:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am posting this hurriedly under the specific instruction of my AMA advocate, Neigel von Teighen. I was working to make a brief Evidence listing here, according to Fred_Bauder's advice on 21:19, 7 November 2005. My AMA advocate has noticed that on 21:28, 7 November, 2005, the Proposed Decision discussion was already begun before I have had the opportunity to present my case and receive a fair arbitration. For that reason, Neigel von Teighen has told me to post all the DIFFs here now and we can work from there. All these DIFFs tell the whole story. (We are still waiting for official IP investigations and deleted article DIFFs, as I noted here.) In posting all these DIFFs this way so hurriedly, I am following my AMA advocate, Neigel von Teighen's specific instructions. I hope this is acceptable, as I am so trying to provide the needed Evidence and obtain a fair presentation of the events. Researcher 00:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Polygamy Dispute Background
Except for the current situation of dispute here, the polygamy article is a small minority article that rarely gets much editing attention. Usually, under normal circumstances, whenever it does get any editing attention, it is usually by some passing anti-polygamist. They typically make posts like this one here, this other one here, and this one too. These are of the milder types of anti-polygamy POV edits the article typically gets, and show why I had tried to create an additional (but now wrongly deleted) article for such arguments, anti-polygamy. As this external source reported, a May 2005 Gallup poll reported that there's a 92% unfavorable bias against polygamy in Western society.
This is NOT about me promoting a Christian Polygamy POV
I came to Wikipedia as an intellectual researcher who has spent years studying the topic of polygamy. Since the '90s, I have been deeply studying the news, websites, and arguments of various issues related to polygamy. To Wikipedia, I bring those years of studying Mormon polygamy, Muslim polygamy, and a new and very different form of polygamy that I discovered early on, a new movement called "Christian Polygamy." As this external source explains, that very new movement started in 1994. Over these years, I have watched as that movement has risen to prominence in the overall pro-polygamy defense. Before that new movement, anti-polygamists could easily discredit polygamy defenders as either being Muslim or Mormon. Most people could be easily persuaded to dismiss it too for those simple reasons. That's because, without counting the tiny minority populations of Mormons and American Muslims, most of America is either Christian or someone who spends their time with Christians, just like I and most of us do. However, the rise of Christian Polygamy changed all that. It brought a different background concept with it that even non-religious intellectuals could accept. It was realized that there are different reasons behind the differing forms of polygamy. Not only did anti-polygamists soon find their Bible arguments more difficult to defend, it was also not possible to dismiss those particular polygamy defenders as "only Muslim or Mormon." Even Western Muslim polygamists (e.g., here) and Mormon polygamists (e.g., here) recognized that Christian polygamists could defend and argue polygamy with better persuasive success. This also caused non-religious intellectuals to re-think their previous opposition to polygamy. Some have begun to acknowledge that polygamy just might not be as bad as they used to think after all. For these reasons, the new Christian polygamy movement has become the greatest threat to anti-polygamy activism.
That is why the anti-polygamists in this dispute at Wikipedia have tried to distract this dispute by calling me a "Christian polygamist." Even though I come only as an intellectual researcher, the anti-polygamists want to distract others so that they can try to undermine both my NPOV edits and the addition of this new movement that so threatens their POV agenda. So, their focusing on me as a supposed "Christian polygamist" POV editor is a straw man distraction, in order to attack the polygamy article with their anti-polygamy POV. Their last desperate anti-polygamy attempt to call the links to the media-credible proven sites as "link spam" (which they had never once claimed prior to this RfArb) is something they made up for the purpose of misleading Arbitrators away from the real issues and re-directed into mistakenty thinking that this dispute was ever about the newly-created deceptive ("link spam") issue when it did not. So, this dispute is not about me being a "Christian polygamist" (or about "link spam"). It is about their systematic agenda to obfuscate, distract, and attack me and the "Christian polygamy" portion of the article (as well as the rest of it). The anti-polygamists attack and misrepresent because the true facts threaten their own hostile POV agenda to misrepresent polygamy in the encyclopedia.
This is About their attacking, abusing, and pushing a hostile Anti-polygamy POV
In Nereocystis's post to RfArb here, they claim they are not an anti-polygamist, saying, " I am not an anti-polygamist; I support the legalization of polygamy." However, they, along with other anti-polygamists in this dispute, have clearly proven to be very aggressively anti-polygamy.
Three of the surest signs of an activist anti-polygamist are the following.
- Focus on pushing the "underage marriage" issue.
- Focus on the Tom Green case
- Promoting anti-polygamy sites that are very limited in their scope
Pushing "underage marriage" is an immediate tell-tale sign of a hostile anti-polygamy POV. Pro-polygamists have repeatedly opposed the child rape issue. Tom Green is only one of a small number of polygamy related criminals who got caught doing crimes not about polygamy. For example, Tom Green had committed welfare fraud and child rape. As this external source shows, polygamists have nothing and want nothing to do with Tom Green. They even call him the "polygamy Tim MacVeigh," that's how despised he is by pro-polygamists. Tom Green is not a legitimate representative of polygamy. The fact which anti-polygamists hate to accept, though, is that there is not one recent example of any non-criminal polygamist being convicted solely for polygamy or even multiple co-habitation. Anti-polygamists insist on promoting Tom Green, though, despite his irrelevance as a complete criminal. They also push hard for anti-polygamy sites that really do not contribute honest information about polygamy. In a May 27, 2005 post I made to Talk:polygamy page, I provided a detailed explanation of these issues and how they pinpoint a hostile anti-polygamist.
It is explicitly evident that those "disputing" me here are hostile anti-polygamists, grinding their POV axe against me.
No matter how many times that Nereocystis claims to "support the legalization of polygamy," the evidence clearly proves that to be an obvious lie. Their extremely aggressive abuse toward me repeatedly also makes it obvious that they are no pro-polygamist. As Arbitrators read the sequence of events in this RfArb and see every action taken by Nereocystis, asking this following question becomes self-answerable: "Is this what someone would do if they really 'supported the legalization of polygamy?'" The answer becomes obvious: no way.
Because I have been intelligent enough to see all this, I have become the target of their systematic exploitation of the Wikipedia process system to abuse me as their way to either make me want to leave Wikipedia or to get others to cause my removal. When Nereocystis returned "back" to the polygamy article on May 10, 2005, the situation at that time was my calling for the Wikipedia Guidelines of restoring to STATUS QUO so that we could then TALK. I have repeatedly said that ever since. There was never any mistake about that. Solving the dispute was that easy. Follow the Wikipedia Guidelines of starting from STATUS QUO to then TALK. Rather than being civil or working with me, though, the anti-polygamists have routinely "run right over me," edited the article with anti-polygamy agenda, ignored the Wikipedia Guidelines of STATUS QUO, rv'ed my every edit to try to get back to STATUS QUO, lied by saying I supposedly refused to TALK, come up with new "dispute" after another to keep my time being wasted, make me explain issues over and over, immediately sabotaged and encouraged the wrong idea of getting the anti-polygamy article that I had created to be wrongly deleted, refused or sabotaged my genuinely WIN-WIN and NPOV resolution offers, used, the announcement method to draw others to their agenda, lied to others about me and the situation, repeatedly claimed the lie that I was ever refusing to find a resolution.
This prolonged series of attacks over all these months is not a matter of their making simple mistakes that they might say, "Oh boy, I guess I made a mistake. Sorry. I won't do it again." This was a prolonged, deliberate non-stop set of attacks against me, solely to get me out of Wikipedia because I am such a qualified expert on the topic that threatens their POV agenda. It was not some unintended little mistake.
While there is currently a 92% unfavorable view of polygamy in the West, that makes me a very valuable resource of information to fill in the blanks for the benefit of this encyclopedia on polygamy related topics. However, that fact is not acceptable to the more activist hostile anti-polygamists, of course.
So we are now here at RfArb to address the abuse. As I have always said, I have always wanted to get to where we could TALK about content. Knowing that this has been a systematic abuse that brought us to this point here, it is clear that without addressing the abuse, more abuse would prevent TALK from ever happening.
So here we are.
Summary
This Summary has been stated as my official "Statement by party 1" on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy page.
23 November 2004
- 05:57 [29]
- Nereocystis makes their first post to polygamy article, editing the mis-named Psuedo Polygamy section by adding the anti-polygamists' POV about Tom Green, where it really did not need to be added. Nereocystis also put the completely unnecessary "underage issue" into the edit, which is something that only a very hostile anti-polygamist or very naively mis-informed person would do.
29 November 2004
- 12:49 [30]
- Six days later, after I NPOV the section here, and re-name the Pseudo Polygamy section to Multiple Divorce & Marriage for Polygamy here, I provide correction to the edit made by Nereocystis while trying to accommodate their input to exist too.
29 December 2004
- 09:36 [31]
- Nereocystis makes first post to polygamy TALK page, subtly pushing anti-polygamists' spin about Tom Green, in order to try to force that man's case more into the article than it needs to be.
- 09:37 [32]
- Nereocystis returns to edit the polygamy article. They remove important NPOV clarification and re-assert the Tom Green issue. For the second time now, they again add the unecessary "underage issue" into this section where it has no applicability. To do that a second time is something that only a very active and hostile anti-polygamy POV would push.
- 21:17 [33]
- I again make an accommodating edit to try to correct Nereocystis's edit. For the second time now, I try to further accommodate their input by placing some of their newest additional content into it, despite my now being alarmed by their pushing the anti-polygamy agenda of the "underage issue" twice. My edit comments explain, "This is not the "Tom Green" wiki."
- 21:35 [34]
- On the TALK page, I politely try to explain how the content they are adding does not apply to the particular subsection. (The debate then proceeds from there uninterrupted until January 13, as seen here.)
3 January 2005
- 20:05 [35]
- While inaccurately pushing the Tom Green issue which is something that only anti-polygamists push and which does not even need to be overly advanced in the article's particular subsection there anyway, Nereocystis makes their first lie of claiming that they "I also think polygamy should be legal".
13 January 2005
- 09:35 [36]
- Even though I had already given a reference, and I had also proved they were trying to make a mountain out of a molehill so that the requests for sources was a straw man and does not apply to the subsection in question anyway, Nereocystis falsely implies that none of the facts that were given to them had been given, as they abusively state mutiple times, "Give me a reference."
13 January 2005
- 14:47 [37]
- I make the last post in that conversation (which can be read in etirety here.) I provide yet another link and showg how, no matter how I tried to accommodate Nereocystis, they refused all my attempts to work together anyway.
24 March 2005
- 06:14 [38]
- Ghostintheshell's history shows they began their Wikipedia account first posting, showing very experienced wikifying rather than simple new-user posting knowledge.
25 March 2005
- 19:41 [39]
- 63.167.159.194 adds anti-polygamy site.
30 March 2005
- 18:11 [40]
- 209.33.198.237 adds other anti-polygamy site.
27 April 2005
- 13:07 [41]
- Ghostintheshell makes their very first edit to the polygamy article. They complete delete out all references to Muslim polygamists in the Mormons & Muslims - Aggregate in Communities subsection. (This edit is then immediately followed by two more Muslim-related edits made by IP: 4.252.26.12, which is probably the same person.)
28 April 2005
- 00:07 [42]
- I rv'ed the edit, as preparation to then come back to accommodate their edit the next morning when I had more time.
- 10:06 [43]
- The next morning, after seeing that Ghostintheshell had immediately rv'ed the rv, and had begun outlandishly claiming POV, I made the rv once more, to immediately next be followed by trying to accommodate Ghostintheshell's input too.
- 15:59 [45]
- Discovering that Ghostintheshell had again rv'ed the edits, including my attempted accommodtions for them, I posted to the TALK page to explain.
- 22:38 [47]
- After Ghostintheshell first rv'ed my accomdating edits again, Ghostintheshell then makes their first TALK post. While using outlanding accusations of POV, they make the absurd claim that Muslim polygamists in the West are "either so rare or, far more likely, non-existent". They announce their attack is against Christian polygamy. (This becomes even more germane throughout the larger case here.) With that, they begin their edit war against me which I never wanted.
- 23:55 [48]
- Ghostintheshell makes two very significant actions in a TALK post. 1. They repeat that their subtle attack is to undermine the Christian polygamy part of the aricle. 2. They allege, You are unable to back up your sources.
29 April 2005
- 01:59 [49]
- Through all this, while distracting me in dealing with their edit war against me, Ghostintheshell sneaks in anti-polygamy links. The edit-comment claims, Additional links for NPOVing.
- 02:35 [50]
- Ghostintheshell repeats the accusation that I am unable to cite sources and re-states the absurdity that there is no Muslim polygamy in the West. They said, "Finally, you still have not revealed any sources for your information concerning Muslim polygamy in the West, which is NON-EXISTENT."
- 14:20 [51]
- I reach out with a deep-self-searching of how Ghostintheshell might have misunderstood an NPOV edit I made in the polygamy article. I offer a way for clarity to try to diffuse any confusion. (My next post immediately afterward then gives this post its own subsection heading. "2nd Section: Way for Resolution.")
- 17:41 [52]
- Among my TALK posts, I try to explain the actual situation for Ghostintheshell, pleading with them to let us proceed through the Wikpedia Guideline of starting from STATUS QUO to then TALK.
- 18:51 [53]
- I posted two cite-sources to prove that there are Muslim polygamists in the West.
30 April 2005
- 08:50 [54]
- After pushing me into their edit war, we were both temporarily suspended for the mistake of WP:3RR. (It was my first and only time I made that mistake, not knowing the rule.) But while I obeyed the rules from that, Ghostintheshell broke them and created a new account. Ghostintheshell posted, using their new username TheRedandtheBlack, trying to obfuscate and undermine the cite-sources which disproved their absurd assertions of no Muslim polygamists in the West.
- 09:09 [55]
- As TheRedandtheBlack, they posted once more, again trying to obfuscate and discredit the clearly valid sources cited. Trying to finesse a nuance that does not exist, Ghostintheshell was trying to suggest that Muslim polygamists as only monogamous activists who seek its legalization in the West. As userTheRedandtheBlack, they obfuscated, saying "because they are trying to have it legalised, that they are actually engaging in such a practice."
7 May 2005
10 May 2005
- 19:15 [57]
- Ghostintheshell uses the announcement method on the Talk:Islam page, to try to enlist help. They admit they do not know much about Muslim polygamy.
- 21:57 [58]
- Nereocystis makes their first post to polygamy TALK page since January, immediately attacking me again with wildly false assertions.
- 22:20 [59]
- Nereocystis edits their previous TALK post to further aid the false suggestion that I had not cited sources when I had done so.
11 May 2005
- 01:15 [60]
- Ghostintheshell makes their very last post (although I did not realize that at that time). They defiantly admit to breaking the rules by creating another account.
- 21:02 [61]
- Nereocystis comes in again just to attack me with a false accusation.
- 21:05 [62]
- Nereocystis begins the process of trying to confuse other forms of polygamy with Mormon polygamy, by defending the POV that falsely suggests that "Joseph Smith introduced the practice of polygamy" when he the man really only introduced it to his own Mormon believers.
- 21:10 [63]
- Nereocystis again brings up the hostile anti-polygamy POV agenda of the "underage issue." While doing that, they again bring up the anecdote of Tom Green again. To keep pushing those two issues is something that only hostile anti-polygamists do to promote their hostile POV agenda.
- 23:01 [65]
- Nereocystis begins the process of overwhelming the TALK pages with manufactured "disputes," knowing that I am still waiting for the Ghostintheshell situation to be reeolved, waiting fora return to STATUS QUO.
12 May 2005
- 17:31 [66]
- Nereocystisadds "Dubious" tag to the segment in the polygamy where they want to advance their anti-polygamy POV with Tom Green.
- 18:24 [67]
- On the TALK page, Nereocystis continues their obsession with pushing the Tom Green issue, as only a hostile anti-polygamist POV would be about so minor an issue.
13 May 2005
- 04:09 [68]
- Nereocystis takes up where Ghostintheshell left off, continuing the process of further incrementally deleting parts of the How Polygamists Find More Spouses section.
14 May 2005
16 May 2005
- 19:30 [70]
- Nereocystis pushes "group marriage" connection to polygamy, saying they got their information from group marriage article. They also again push the "underage marriage" propaganda.
- 19:56 [71]
- Nereocystis adds the "Disputed" tag to to the top of the polygamy article, because they had manufactured so many "disputes".
17 May 2005
- 17:35 [72]
- Nereocystis pushes their invented idea of "homosexual polygamous marriages."
19 May 2005
- 08:17 [73]
- Nereocystis makes it clear that they intend for the invented idea of "homosexual polygamy" to be a listed "form of polygamy" in the polygamy article.
- 08:29 [74]
- Nereocystis sneaks an anti-polygamy link back in. They create a new site-description for that cited link which had never previously been mentioned by anyone else. The description is so excessively anti-polygamy POV that only an anti-polygamist activist would use such language to desribe that site.
27 May 2005
- 20:04 [75]
- 66.251.68.222 anonymously pushes "Nereo's" invented idea of "homosexual polygamy."
- 23:54 [76]
- On Talk:polygamy page, I post the important information piece, Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki. In it, I provide information and sources showing how to quickly identify anti-polygamists, even when they pretend to be "pro-polygamy." Among those, it notes the pushing of "underage marriage" as a tell-tale sign of a hostile anti-polygamist. It also notes the anti-polygamy links being sneaked in while distracting with the other disputes. This is a very important post for Arbitarators to read.
5 June 2005
6 June 2005
- 22:42 [79]
- Nereocystis uses the announcement method to bring others to the polygamy article and TALK page by calling for a 3rd Opinion. They fraudulently misrepresent my activities in order to deceive others into not reading the actual evidence on the TALK page in order to see what is really going on. Of course, Nereocystis never mentions the fact that that I had been waiting for a restoration to STATUS QUO according to Wikipedia Guidelines at the time when Nereocystis had "returned" to go on an editing rampage to further destroy the article.
- 22:55 [80]
- Nereocystis reveals that they are setting up to go through the technical protocols to get an action against me. This was very premature, especially as they never once sought to accomodate anything with me nor offered a resolution to work together with me. This post made so early on (back to the 3rd Opinion,) shows it was Nereocystis's purposeful intent to set me up for them to go through the steps to get me removed, all while they ignore the Wikipedia Guidelines of STATUS QUO to then TALK.
7 June 2005
- 22:22 [81]
- Dan100 hides all the evidence pieces by the archiving the TALK page.
10 June 2005
15 June 2005
- 06:34 [83]
- Nereocystis, knowing that they had overwhelmed the TALK page with their "disputes" and that I was in opposition to all of their mis-information, aggressively acts as if my not answering every individual item means the issues were "resolved." Nereocystis aggressively removes a co-habtiation dispute is if had been "resolved" in their favored, when it was not. Hides it by deleting.
- 06:35 [84]
- One minute later, Nereocystis does the same aggressive hiding of a supposedly "resolved" issue. This one is about "underage marriage," which is one of the most hostile anti-polygamy POV agenda to push by any anti-polygamist.
17 June 2005
- 16:09 [85]
- I post an important evidence-piece, "Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki," explaining how the overwhelming amount of supposed "disputes" were simply manufactured by Nereocystis as part of their tactic to destroy the polygamy article with mis-information. I plead for the Evidence to actually be read and I offer detailed solutions for how the problem can be resolved, expecially repeating the call for Wikipedia Guidelines for STATS QUO to be followed.
- 17:40 [86]
- I respond to Dan100, pointing out how they hid the important evidence. I then answer their request for what I want. 1.) The hidden TALK evidence restored. 2.) Article restored to STATUS QUO according to Wikipedia Guidelines to then TALK.
18 June 2005
- 17:29 [88]
- Another Mormon-editor, Tom Haws, makes a proposal that addresses none of the problems. It does not address the abuse problems, calling for "forgetting the past." It completely neglects the Wikipedia Guideline requirement of first restoring of STATUS QUO. It calls for seven editors to agree to participate.
- 17:31 [89]
- Dan100, replying to my June 17 reply. In addressing my request for STATUS QUO, Dan100 completely ignores the Wikipedia Guidelines on the issue, acting as if the Wikipedia Guidelines do not matter. They fraudulently try to re-define the dispute as if it is only a "content-dispute."
20 June 2005
- 09:11 [91]
- Nereocystis uses their common tactic of lying about me despite the facts. They obfuscatorily claim that I "still" not said what needed to be done, when I had specifically stated what needed to be done in my June 17 reply to Dan100.
- 10:45 [92]
- Dan100 thinks I should be considered a troll. Even though I had spent so much time in trying to carefully lay out evidence and ask for Evidence to really be read, and even spelled out what needs to be happen. They use the deliberately obfuscatory tactic of fraudulently implying a faslehoood about a proven fact, as Dan100 implies that I had not offered any solutions when I had specifically done that very thing.
21 June 2005
30 June 2005
- 16:26 [94] (This is from Archive. Arbitrators should view logs of the wrongly deleted anti-polygamy page.)
- In my attempt to help in trying to resolve the problem, which really boils down to anti-polygamists trying to use their POV to distort the neutral polygamy article, I create a new article, Anti-polygamy]. (Before it was later deleted, I had saved and then later archived that article, it's TALK page, and AfD discussion here. The article's final contents appear in the first section, here.) Arbitrators are asked for access to show the actual DIFFs here.
- 16:38 [95]
- With an edit that explains the difference between netural polygamy and the undisputablly NPOV fact that anti-polygamy is a non-neutral agenda, I make (as my last one of 18 well-explained/commented edits) an edit to the polygamy article. I add the wiki-link to the then-newly created anti-polygamy article. My edit-comments state, "Anti-polygamy is a non-neutral agenda. Started this simple way to bring readers to THAT new resource if that is what they seek. Now, anti-polygamy should refrain from this wiki."
- 18:15 [96] (This is from Archive. Arbitrators should view logs of the wrongly deleted anti-polygamy TALK page.)
- On that new article's TALK page, I explain the necessary purpose of the new article.
1 July 2005
- 17:00 [97]
- Nereocystis sees that only Nereocystis and Tom Haws had voted "Support" for Tom Haws's June 18 incomplete resolution offer. (Even Dan100 did not vote.) Nereocystis makes mysterious statement about not wanting their "vote to count double, including GhostintheShell." They act aggressively, breaking their word from before (about not making major edits), obfuscatingly lies about my intent for the article's text, and declares their aggressive intent to just "move on" anyway.
- 17:16 [99] (This is from Archive. Arbitrators should view logs of the wrongly deleted anti-polygamy TALK page.)
- Only one day after the anti-polygamy article had been created, Nereocystis sabotages it. On the now-deleted TALK page, Nereocystis hints for someone else to delete the article, by saying this false and completely obfuscatory statement on the now-deleted TALK page, I don't understand this article. Is there any value to the article at all. I'm tempted to think that it should be deleted. It is extremely POV and mostly incoherent.
4 July 2005
8 July 2005
- 16:11 [101]
- To polygamy TALK page, I post the evidence/appeal, titled, The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN. It calls for Admins to help, showing how Nereocystis had broken their word, and how The_Anome had started playing games with the now-deleted anti-polygamy article. It also says that I was next going to try to get things back to STATUS QUO to then allows us to TALK.
9 July 2004
- 03:01 [102]
- Nereocystis edits polygamy article to hide/delete the wiki-link to the new article, obfuscating with a clear lie as Nereocystis deceptively calls NPOV as POV. In their edit-comments, Nereocystis calls the indisputably NPOV deleted sentence, remove anti-polygamy paragraph, too POV.
- 03:09 [103]
- Nereocystis edits polygamy article to remove important NPOV explanations that most polygamists do not do the things being mentioned in certain sections of the polygamy article. Nereocystis aggressively inserts the "underage marriage" issue again by removing important details, as only a hostile anti-polygamist would do.
11 July 2005
- 01:05 [107]
- Nereocystis removes important explanation to understand the background-differences between various forms of polygamy. By removing this important detail, anti-polygamist seeks to make all forms have the same appearance, so as to present hostile anti-polygamy POV to all.
- 01:41 [108]
- Nereocystis further attempts to confuse polygamy article readers by re-labeling headers to suggest that Mormon polygamy and "Non-Mormon Polygamy" are two forms of "Christian polygamy" when Mormon polygamy has nothing to do with Chistian polygamy at all. By doing this delibeate sneaky attack on the article, an anti-polygamist seeks to have any mentions of Christian polygamy to be confused with examples of Mormon polygamy. So, when they push their few exampls of underage marriage propaganda that have only happened in a few exmaples of Mormon polygamy, the anti-polygamist seeks to deceive readers into thinking that its all the same, all "Christian polygamy."
18 July 2005
- 14:59 [109]
- Tom Haws begins Wiki break, will no long be around for the next several weeks.
- 17:54 [113]
- I respond to Nereocystis's use of the announcement method by explaining the need for the anti-polygamy article. I create new TALK subheading, For NPOV, the difference between neutral term vs. non-neutral POV agenda/debate MUST be Separated.
- 19:47 [114]
- I request AMA assistance from Kmweber. I also ask if they can help get a moratorium to keep the article from being deleted until this can be addressed.
- 21:44 [115]
- Kmweber says they'll help. (While I very patiently wait for them for the following weeks, I actually never hear from Kmweber again.)
19 July 2005
20 July 2005
- 00:20 [117]
- Just as others have done before when Nereocystis creates a controversy in order to bring other users to the polygamy article, StopTheFiling comes from the Anti-polygamy article's AfD to start making POV claims against a section related to Christian polygamy. Of course, they were seeing the article after Nereocystis had been sabotaging the section so as to make it look exactly that way. (If the article had not been incrementally attacked, the section would have had much less appearance as StopTheFiling was claiming.
- 01:02 [118]
- I post a comprehensive evidence to the polygamy TALK page, titled, "Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof." This is a very important post for Arbitrators to read. It shows the suspicious things with the AfD of the Anti-polygamy article and the very aggressive acts by Nereocystis.
- 19:54 [121]
- Nereocystis unnecessarily adds an additional NPOV tag to a Christians related subsection of the polygamy article.
21 July 2005
- 14:44 [123]
- Nereocystis acknowledges one of the commercial SPAM finally, after I had made numerous previous edits about it with detailed explanations. They "play dumb" about another spam they keep rv'ing, knowing I had explained myself every time I tried editing the spam out. They very aggressively give me 48 hours to respond to their actions, knowing that sometimes I need more time than that.
25 July 2005
- 14:12 [124]
- Nereocystis replaces one of the commercial with an actual link to where the original of it had been available for free years before, truthbearer.org. Arbitrators should note that it is Nereocystis who is willingly adding the book link to truthbearer.org here. I had not done so, even while removing the commercial SPAM that stole it. I had always been concerned that if I had done that, that I might be consideed spamming which is not something I do. Unfortunately, Nereocystis also put back another invalid reference ("book") yet again, after I had attenmpted to remove it so many times with detailed explanations.
26 July 2005
- 17:56 [125]
- On the polygamy TALK page, I address the invalid references, in a TALK post titled, "books," I comment/explain both of those "book" situatons.
- 17:58 [126]
- Removed other invalid site again. My edit-comments explain clearly, "removing unfound self-published book" It is absurd that has so repeatedly pushed a self-published supposed book that cannot be found even on its own supposed site.
- 19:27 [127]
- I added the "dubious" tag to the Tom Green reference in the article, because its application to that section is not correct.
- 19:34 [128]
- I added the "dubious" tag to the two "anti-polygamy" links.
27 July 2005
- 18:53 [130]
- After Nereocystis had made two offensive TALK posts suggesting to teach me about NPOV, after they had obfuscatingly tried to justify "anti-polygamy" sites that I had explained do not belong, I repsond with a TALK post, edit-commenting, Those 2 hostile POV links must be removed - Nereocystis now obfuscates in the reverse! Accuracy and NPOV require those hyperbole POV ads removed. My response shows that, in addition to Nereocystis previously calling NPOV as POV, now they were calling POV as NPOV.
28 July 2005
- 20:25 [131]
- Nereocystis makes the extremely offensive "suggestion" (insulting my intelligence) of asking me to post and debate the STATUS QUO, as if I am too stupid to realize that the point of STATUS QUO is not to debate it, but to start FROM it in the first place.
29 July 2005
- 06:06 [132]
- Nereocystis rv's the unfound book back into the polygamy article again. Despite that I had repeatedly explained the reason for deletion is that that "book" cannot be found anywhere (not even on its own supposed site), Nereocystis offensively obfuscates here, saying in their edit-comments, "restore book by Butt since no reason has been given for its deletion."
- 17:11 [133]
- Nereocystis offensively asks, as if they didn't know, "what is the status quo?"
- 18:45 [134]
- Nereocystis comes up with another abusive attack. They have known I have not agreed with their input about the Tom Green mention. Despite all that past, they offensively say they will remove the "dubious" tag that I had added because I had supposedly not mentioned my opposition specifically on the TALK page.
3 August 2005
- 20:52 [135]
- Nereocystis comes up with a brand new abuse to waste my time in their attacking "debates." Nereocystis re-organizes the Extended Links section of the polygamy article into subsections. Nereocystis creates the ridiculous subsection, "Truth Bearer/Standard Bearer sites."
- 23:27 [136]
- On Talk:polygamy page, I provide URL showing that sites are simply hosted on a community webhost as can happen in many niche topics. This shows that it is asburd to suggest sites are the same. (In a strange occurrence at Wikipedia, this post inadvertently gets deleted while I make my next post.)
- 23:56 [137]
- I make a post on Talk:polygamy page, responding to Nereocystis. They had come up with a new attack to asburdly call the truthbearer organization as one "group" among many supposed Christian polygamy "groups", as Nereocystis tried to invent "other groups" that do not exist. I say, Even the MormonPolygamy.com web-sites's link page lists the truthbearer site and the other valid sites, not listing any invalid fringe sites as Nereocystis is trying to add. Nereocystis is unwilling to cite the sources of any media accountability with any of the occassional fringe sites they now want to seek to add. The burden of proof, to show that any supposed fringe sites are valid and qualified on the topic, is on Nereocystis, but they cannot do it because any such one-man sites are obviously not legitimate and have no verification of action and media accountability. (When I make this post, it seems that my previous post's portion gets deleted. I did not intend that at all. Even Nereocystis says in a post the next day confirming that those kinds of weird things as deletions seem to be happening right then at Wikipedia.)
4 August 2005
- 04:23 [139]
- After my explanation, Nereocystis makes the ridiculous change to, Site hosted by Truth Bearer/Standard Bearer.
- 11:35 [140]
- On Talk:polygamy page, I post about my exhaustion with Nereocystis's bullying and extreme aggressiveness. I note how they create mnew battles before others are resolved, overwhelming everything. I also say, "Nereocystis has been to my personal Wikipedia page and therefore knows that I am awaiting to hear back from a requested MA who has accepted to help. They know that's what I am planning and trying to do to get te problem solved. But Nereocystis refuses to stop sabotaging the polygamy article in the meantime with newer and newer destructions.
- 13:20 [141]
- On Talk:polygamy page, I point out that Nereocystis is trying to add unproven sites. In the post, I say, Wikipedia:Cite sources to prove such a site is a "group" and valid. Where are the other links from polygamy sites? Who else ever refers to it as a "group?" Where and how much media accountability do they have which proves they have demonstrated their proof of their existence as a "group?"
- 13:40 [142]
- On Talk:polygamy page, I post, syaing in the edit-comments, External links organization - Organizing by webhost is absurd. Here's my accommodation for now on Links Re-organization, though. It explains the absurdity of trying to list sites by the webhost, there is no Wikipedia Guideline suggetsing that idea. I offer a good faith accommodation on my part and ask for good faith back.
- 13:47 [143]
- I correct it again with greater modifications, saying in the edit-comments, Better organization and NPOV for now, until TRUE STATUS QUO is restored and TALK the occurs.
- 14:31 [144]
- Nereocystis, adds two invalid sites, calling them "Christain polygamy sites."
- 17:19 [145]
- Nereocystis, without timestamping their edit, aggressively tries to push me into responding. Knowing that I am not usually able to editing on Weekends, they post on a Thursda night giving me an ultimatum to come up wiht a solution "by Sunday." Their items list for me "to do" only "runs right over me," ignoring the exact issue I have said from the beginning, the STATUS QUO comes before TALK. This was not a proposed solution because it did not address the STATUS QUO issues I have had since their "return."
5 August 2005
- 13:11 [146]
- On Talk:polygamy page, I post an explanation of why the two sites being added by Nereocystis are invalid one-man sites. One of the sites is proven to not even be Christian and the other site does not even have links inside it to anything about polygamy from its front page. Neither site is linked by other polygamy sites, nor mentioned by media. Invalid one-man sites like that have no validity for being in an encyclopedia. I further say that I am preparing to post a resolution offer which, when we get through it, will allow the opportunity for me to further provide details about any other questions that Nereocystis might have about such sites. I ask for good faith so that we can solve the larger issues to get to such other issues.
- 17:06 [147]
- I post the very WIN-WIN offer, Researcher's Offer for RESOLUTION. (I also make a few edits right afterwards making typo-corrections.) This post offers a very important explanation of the situation, makes a very workable proposal, as well as a demonstrated GIVE-GIVE approach for all. Having offered to give so much on my part, the proposal only asks for a little, inconsequential single act of good faith from Nereocystis.
11 August 2005
- 11:27 [148]
- Dan100 sneakily removes the STATUS QUO paragraph from the Wikipedia Guidelines. Until I later discover this fact in October, 2005, no one else had caught it, as there is no other TALK or proposal about making the deletion before or afterward.
- 19:46 [149]
- Nereocystis begins to sabotage the resolution. Knowing that I had only said that proven content experts should be spoken to with respectfulness rather than the abuse, Nereocystis makes the lying implication that I was somehow demanding something or that my proven expertise had been unproven when the offer showed how it had been proven. Then they addthe guarantee to sabotage the resolution: they will only do the one unconsequential good faith act for "1 week." They knew that if they just filibuster the process for another week, they could put it back iun anyway. So, they knew I could not accept such a ridiculous "1 week" requirement which would let them sabotage it from the start.
12 August 2005
- 00:06 [150]
- Before we had gotten to that step in the resolution process, Nereocystis aggressively hijacks the Tom Green subtopic issue that was supposed to "my" dispute according to the resolution offer we were discussing. This was very aggressive and premature because, not only were they "running right over me" to deceptively re-define the hijacked subtopic dispute into something completely different, but they had not yet allowed us to get there yet by showing one little act of good faith (of removing the ridicious NPOV tag in the article).
15 August 2005
- 21:15 [151]
- Nereocystis acknowledges my complaint that they had overwhelmed the TALK pages with so many "disputes" that it was impossible to address them all. Nereocystis agress with me that it is best to only deal with a single issue at a time.
- 22:05 [152]
- Despite the fact that, in our polygamy TALK discussions in late July, I had filled in the blanks where only an expert could, Nereocystis very offensively seeks to deny that. They continue to try to invent "groups" that do not exist, depsite that I had already answered it and had said I would answer more when we get through to that part of the resolution. At the end of their post, Nereocystis adds this eye-opening statement: My great-grandfather spent time in prison because of his polygamy. It's entirely unreasonable, as you know, and didn't help his wives, children, the country, or the world. If that is true, then their actions with me show that they utterly detest polygamy, maybe because of their ancestry as some people don't like their parents, etc. Otherwise, that claim is highly unlikelyto be true because almost every single one of Nereocystis's actions has been that of a sneaky vandal hostile anti-polygamist. If they're not an anti-polygamist and are an actual descendant of a polygamist, then they have no reason to have so profoundly fought and abused me here at Wikipedia. Something is simply not logically flowing here.
16 August 2005
- 16:31 [153]
- Uriah923 enters the polygamy TALK page and makes a biased "offer" to arbitrate. Their language (such as, "EXTREME VERBOSIY" in all capitals) shows their unwillingness to read all the evidence and to even be hostile to its necessity. They also completely ignore the Wikipedia Guideline for starting from STATUS QUO, while offering to arbitrate on the article's content.
17 August 2005
- 03:25 [154]
- On group marriage TALK page, user Dunkelza cites un-usable references. Their first citation leads to a copypage of Wikpedia's polygamy article. The cited link is being cited to wrongly justify a "group marriage" connection to polygamy argument. Abusrdly, the copypage site had gottne its incorrect information by copying the wrong "group marriage" information from the Wikipedia polygamy article in the first place. That wrong information in the polygamy article had come from Nereocystis' May 14 edit and COGDEN's June 10 edit, which I was never allowed to have corrected.
18 August 2005
- 15:34 [156]
- Uriah923 immediately acts aggressively "running right over me" to then hide all the Evidence of the TALK page by archiving it and taking over the entire discussion.
- 16:55 [157]
- I immediately explain that I did not authorize the hiding of the Evidence or the takeover of the situation.
- 18:10 [158]
- Making an indented reply to my last reply, Nereocystis also "runs right over me." Nereocystis praises Uriah923 for making that unauthorized aggressive "good step" ("running right over me" and ignoring my concerns about the real problem).
- 22:48 [159]
- On group marriage TALK page, Nereocystis offensively tries to turn the table backwards and ridiculously accuse me of using their tactic of "overwhelming" TALK pages, when I was only trying to deal with this one issue on this one other page. They also use that as a subtle announcement method to draw Dunkelza over to the polygamy TALK page, knowing that I considered its then-current condition as invliad and unauthorized.
21 August 2005
- 13:31 [160]
- Kewp makes ther first polygamy-related postings. They edit the polygyny article, by deleting NPOV-accurate word, "timely," in a pro-polygamy link-description and sneaks in an anti-polygamy link there.
- 13:45 [161]
- Kewp edits the polygyny article with unsupported speculation of extreme anti-polygamy POV.
22 August 2005
- 04:09 [162]
- Kewp makes their very first post to the polygamy article (on the TALK page). This first post immediately starts pushing the "underage issue," which is only advanced by the extreme anti-polygamy POV agenda's activists.
24 August 2005
- 20:05 [163]
- When I get back to Wikipedia and the polygamy TALK page, I discover that Nereocystis praises Uriah923 had completely "run right over me," having started a complete re-write which I had never accepted. I ask Uriah923 to help me see they are capable of being able to listen to me, if I am to trust their part in any arbitration.
- 20:48 [164]
- On group marriage TALK page, even though Nereocystis had fully accepted without comment Dunkelza's August 17 useless source citations (and other similarly useless citatons) on more than one occasion, went to an extreme investigation to try to undermine a couple of sites I had cited who happen to share a common webhosting service. Nereocystis makes outrageous accusations. The edit-comment arrogantly says, Yes, group marriage is polygamy.
- 21:24 [165]
- Uriah923 openly admits they "ran right over me," completely ignoring everything I had been concerned about.
25 August 2005
- 00:01 [166]
- Nereocystis "runs right over me" in re-writing my August 18 solution for the group marriage article. They had first changed it on August 22 to just say "marriage," which could have been neutral enough for both of us. By this August 25 edit, though, they were going back to their agenda. While we continue the dispute of that single issue, the solution in that one paragraph that I had offered was general enough that Nereocystis did not have to insist on subverting the article with their intended agenda. Doing that here was just offensive bullying.
- 20:11 [167]
- On group marriage TALK page, I post evidence response, titled, Nereocystis's double-standard. It further provides proof of the established media credibility of the sites I had cited.
26 August 2005
- 17:43 [168]
- On group marriage TALK page, I propose a genuinely WIN-WIN way to solve the "group marriage" dispute.
- 23:21 [171]
- Noticing that Kmweber's history showed that they had been posting again, I made a quick post to them. I let Kmweber know that I was still patiently waiting for their AMA help.
28 August 2005
- 17:01 [172]
- Nereocystis creates a RfC against me. They fraudulently misrepresent my activities, knowingly lying to suggest that I was "unwilling to resolve disputes." (Five minutes later, Nereocystis also copies this misrepresentation on the RfC User Conduct page too.) Technically, the RfC might possibly be able to be said to have not been qualified to be called in the first place. That would be because Nereocystis did not once ever offer a single resolution themselves in order to try to resolve the matter at any time. Additonally, no one had ever offered any resolution offer that genuinely reached out to my "side" of the disputes regarding my call for the Wikipedia Guidelines of STATUS QUO. In most negotiations, one-sided "offers" that do not offer middle common ground in good faith are not considered genuine offers. As well, in every resolution suggestion I had made in genuinely trying to find common workable ground to solve the problems, Nereocystis sabotaged my effort every time.
- 17:13 [173]
- Nereocystis uses the announcement method to draw the fellow anti-polygamists there to sabotage me on the RfC. At this point, Nereocystis knows that the following users were "with them." Kewp had just appeared in the previous week. Dunkelza had been drawn to the polygamy article from the group marriage article recently. The biased Uriah923 who had "run right over me" to offer a one-sided proposal that did not address the Wikipedia Guideliness was there too. Nereocystis knows that these three would be too willing to join Nereocystis in ganging up against me on the RfC. To get them over to the RfC, Nereocystis even explains how to act and the need to do so in order to help them sabotage me on it.
29 August 2005
- 20:36 [174]
- I update my post to User_talk:Kmweber, hoping they will be responding soon to give their AMA help.
30 August 2005
- 23:48 [175]
- Since I was not hearing from Kmweber, I make the first of eight new consecutive AMA requests, AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed, on the TALK pages of 8 different AMA advocates. Audentis, Conradrock, Lejend, Wally, Metasquares, Imaglang, Pedant, andToby Bartels
2 September 2005
- 19:08 [176]
- I respond to the request by AMA advocate, User:Imaglang, for details on the situation, showing how I had tried ways to resolve the case.
- 19:56 [177]
- On Talk:polygamy page, I post evidence, "Proof: Hiding Evidence of abuse form this TALK page." The edit-comments explain, Proof of more hiding the evidence on this illegitimate TALK page version. All must wait until the AMA can assist in the situation.
- 20:06 [178]
- Nereocystis extremely aggressively "runs right over me" by creating a "Polygamy/Rewrite" article to start a new re-write of the polygamy article. Nereocystis knows that the entire polygamy TALK page and the idea of a complete article re-write are not valid at that point, because I did not accept the "run right over me" actions by Uriah923.
- 20:33 [179]
- On Talk:polygamy page, Nereocystis hides my alert-notice I had originally placed at the top of the page for all new users to quickly know the entire TALK page is currently under dispute. Nereocystis moves that to the bottom of the page as very aggressive act, hoping that anyone else who arrives at the TALK page will join Nereocystis in the then-invalid TALK discussion they were having, after having "run right over me."
9 September 2005
12 September 2005
13 September 2005
14 September 2005
- 00:23 [183]
- On the RfC TALK page against me, I post the evidence-piece, titled, Proof of Lies & Ganging Up against Researcher. Providing DIFFs, I show how Nereocystis and Kewp told the same lie on two completely separate pages, both citing the identical DIFF as their supposed justification. Nereocystis, 20:25, 9 September 2005 on the polygamy TALK page and Kewp 07:07, 12 September 2005 on the RfC/Researcher TALK page both cited the same post from my TALK page, 19:14, 7 September 2005. However, after I had made that post they both cited, I had also made another later post at 20:05, 8 September 2005, outwardly declaring that I am seeking discussion with an AMA and am open to Mediation. They both had tried to tell a lie that I supposedly "refused" to proceed to Mediation and they went to "run right over me," despite the fact that the DIFF they misrepresent to justify their lie was made after a post I had made on that same TALK page of mine proving otherwise. This post is an important read for Arbitrators.
- 00:29 [184]
- Even though User:Imaglang / Neigel von Teighen, had been actively working as my AMA advocate to this point, and both of us had been in communication for the days beforehand too, I make the first public post officially thanking them for their guidance as my AMA advocate.
- 18:07 [185]
- On the Request for Mediation page, after my AMA advocate had filed the RfM, Nereocystis immediately demands that the announcement method be used on the Talk:polygamy page, and that their fellow anti-polygamists be allowed to join Nereocystis in ganging up against me. Nereocystis also tries to "run right over" Neigel von Teighen by offensively acting as if the AMA advocate had not already specified the purpose of the RfM, even though Neigel von Teighen had made it clear that the RfM was about addressing abuse.
- 20:05 [186]
- On the RfC TALK page, I post another evidence-piece, titled, Last Responses present more Lies, Cause Suspicion. It shows how the responses that followed the Proof of Lies & Ganging Up against Researcher post earlier on that RfC TALK page had presented more lies. It also shows how that gave me reason to ask, "Could it be that Nereocystis is Kewp?" This post is also an important read for Arbitrators.
15 September 2005
- 00:51 [187]
- Nereocystis immediately seeks to sabotage the RfM. Pretending to be concerned about article content, Nereocystis tries to claim they care about "article content" and then they seek to re-direct the Mediation to focus on "article content" instead of the real issues of abuse. Nereocystis then suggests "forgetting the past" as a crafty attempt to prevent the Mediation from actually getting to the reason the RfM was filed in the first place. The larger purposeof this craft tactic was so that Nereocystis could sabotage the RfM so as to then later say the lie that "I" supposedly refused the very Mediation my AMA advocate had requested for me.
2 October 2005
- 15:31 [188]
- On the RfC/Researcher TALK page, Nereocystis uses the announcement method in order to draw anyone who had joined them in ganging up agaist me in that RfC to furtehr join Nereocystis to gang up against me on the new RfM page. Nereocystis tells them about the RfM and fraudulently implies the complete lie that I supposedly needed to be "convinced" by my AMA advocate to "accept" Mediation. (Nereocystis knew I had always said I was open to that possibility.) Nereocystis fraudulently misrepresents the purpose of the RfM to falsely suggest that I "refused" Mediation because Nereocystis's attempts at hijacking the RfM away from addressing abuse is not being accepted. Nereocystis knowingly misrepresents my involvement with their crafty idea that they supposedly want to discuss text but I "refuse" that.
4 October 2005
- 06:35 [189]
- Kewp creates a new tiny article, Thomas Arthur Green. This tiny stub of an article tells about the convictions of Tom Green, but does not accurately present the true aspect of the sentencing. In typical anti-polygamist obsessive agenda, Kewp makes sure to include the "underage marriage" issue in the article. Even though there could be some use for such an article, the fact that Kewp is the one to create it adds further proof of Kewp's anti-polygamy obsession as well as connection and similarity with Nereocystis.
7 October 2005
- 10:49 [190]
- Nereocystis posts their statement to the RfArb. Nereocystis claims, " I am not an anti-polygamist; I support the legalization of polygamy." Responding to sockpuppet issues raised, Nereocystis also makes the very mysterious statement, "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." While Kewp may have been in recent contact, it is very myusterious for Nereocystis to have "communicated" with one of the other two. Consider the timing, 21:57 Nereocystis's very first post "back," at 21:57, 10 May 2005 and GhostintheShell's very last post ever, at 01:15, 11 May 2005. Also, Spatfield's history is so empty that that user name is very suspicious. If Nereocystis has "communicated" with either of those two, the suspicion of possible sockpuppets is actually increased.
10 October 2005
- 23:36 [191]
- On the Talk:polygamy page, Nereocystis uses the announcement method to inform fellow anti-polygamists about the next step, the RfArb requests. By not admitting Nereocystis's sabotage of the RfM, Nereocystis lies by saying the Mediation "failed." Even though my AMA advocate was the one to file the RfArb, Nereocystis then deceptively lists their own secondary, reactionary RfArb first as if Nereocystis's RfArb was the legitimate one.
11 October 2005
- 08:47 [192]
- Nereocystis edits the tiny article, Thomas Arthur Green, that was only just created the week before by Kewp. While there could be a place for such a small article, it is significant that Nereocystis edits this very tiny article, but they had fully sabotaged and assisted in getting the larger, more detailed anti-polygamy article wrongly deleted in July.
15 October 2005
18 October 2005
- 15:53 [194]
- Kewp rv's removal of Mormon links, protecting two anti-polygamy links.
19 October 2005
- 18:43 [195]
- Kewp correctly rv's previous removal of categories, but does not fix two very anti-polygamy POV edits made earlier that day at 02:32 and on 04:28.
For proceeding in this RfArb, My AMA advocate here has made, on my behalf, a request to get the vitally important DIFFs for the wrongly deleted anti-polygamy article I had created, possibly by undeletion. (Until that happens, Arbitrators may use my previously-made archival of the former article, its TALK page, and its AfD archive here.) My AMA advocate has also begun the process of officially requesting IP investigations for some very suspicious occurrences and user similarities. We are waiting for both of those requests to come back so that we can proceed.
I am only at Wikipedia as a content expert/researcher to share my rare expertise in a very misunderstood and attacked topic. I am not here as an advocate. I am here to provide information for an NPOV encyclopedia. I am hoping that this RfArb will lead to the positive conclusion of all this. I genuinely want to just get back to the fun of real knowledge-sharing again with an end to the anti-polygamy attacks and abuse.
I ask the ArbCom to please consider all this necessary Evidence. Thank you. - Researcher 00:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibreak, starting October 19 - November 9
I will be away from regular Internet access from about Wednesday, October 19, for about 3 weeks, until about November 9, perhaps a bit sooner. It is unlikely that I will be able to respond during that time. Sorry for the delay. Nereocystis 03:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
Over the past few months, Researcher99 has refused to discuss the text of the polygamy article with Nereocystis. He reverts changes which have been discussed on Talk:Polygamy. He attacks Nereocystis, accusing Nereocystis of sockpuppetry, abuse and vandalism. He has refused mediation, both unofficial and official. He fills Talk:Polygamy with lengthy, repetitive, meandering posts. He engages in link spam, pushing his web sites, and sites which are hosted by him. He posts POV sections on Christian polygamy, and refuses to consider alternative wording.
First contact
16:53
[196]
Added many web site hosted by standardbearer.com:
- pro-polygamy.com
- truthbearer.org
- christianpolygamy.info
- anti-polygamy.com
- 2wives.com
Some of the sites he added are hosted elsewhere. This was an anonymous edit, but performed slightly before Researcher99 first appeared, and the comment was written in Researcher99's style. This issue is open to question.
Prosecution of Tom Green in Utah
This is my first disagreement with Researcher99. Again, the issue could be debated, but Researcher99 did not provide citations, despite multiple requests.
29 December
14:17
[197] Researcher99 changes polygamy article to state that Tom Green conviction was due to welfare fraud.
11:30
[198] Nereocystis asks for a reference for the Tom Green claim.
20:10
[199] Researcher99 replies, but doesn't provide reference.
13:05
[200] Nereocystis requests citation for Tom Green claim.
18:29
[201] Researcher99 provides reference that about Utah Attorney-general to article on his web site posted a short while earlier. Quote does not answer question about reason for Green prosecution. Attorney-General did not prosecute Green.
22:56
[202] Nereocystis provides additional citations, requests relevant citations.
12:06
[203] Researcher99 again does not provide citation.
02:35
[204] Nereocystis asks for a reference, again.
07:47
[205] Researcher99 says he does not have to provide reference, but does provide reference to a web site with which Nereocystis believes he is associated, truthbearer.org. Nereocystis suspects that the article quote Researcher99.
Editing war heats up
Nereocystis reentered the polygamy article, adding a disputed section to the talk page, and making some edits. Researcher99 did not discuss any topic in this section. However, Researcher99 accuses me of sneaky vandalism, and more.
16:03 [206] Nereocystis introduces disputed section of talk article to discuss areas under question.
10:31 [207] Nereocystis adds dubious tag to Tom Green paragraph.
07:42
[208] Researcher99 complains that Nereocystis's edits of polygamy are sneaky vandalisms.
12:56 [209] Nereocystis adds disputed tag to polygamy.
13:31
[210] Nereocystis requests discussion on talk page, asks Researcher99 for citations.
3rd opinion requested
Nereocystis requests a third opinion, which was offered. Other editors made suggestions. Researcher99 turns down all suggestions.
16:40
[211] Nereocystis requests Third Opinion.
15:30
[212] Dan100 provides 3rd opinion, suggests brevity, description of desired changes by Researcher99.
16:07
[213] Hawstom agrees with Dan100
09:09
[214] Researcher99 posts extremely long article accusing Nereocystis of sneaky vandalism, does not mention suggested changes.
10:31
[215] Dan100 repeats request to focus on issues, reduce mention of sneaky vandalism.
7:07
[216] Researcher99 responds, but doesn't state suggested changes.
04:40
[217] Researcher99 continues attacking Nereocystis's behavior, no discussion of text
10:29
[218] Hawstom suggests forgetting past conduct, editing and discussing, starts poll
10:43
[219] Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative
Nereocystis suggests mediation, other solutions
Nereocystis continues to suggest the Researcher99 join in mediation, or any other solution.
14:11
[220] Nereocystis suggests Association of Member Advocates for Researcher99, mediation or arbitration. No response from Researcher99
POV Christian polygamy section
17:22
[221] StopTheFiling suggests that a section on Christian polygamy is POV.
18:08 [222] Nereocystis agrees.
18:51
[223] Researcher99 disagrees with POV, calls StopTheFiling anti-polygamist, mostly for other posting.
03:07
[224] Researcher99 accuses Nereocystis of sneaky vandalism, sockpuppetry, but doesn't address POV.
13:02
[225] Nereocystis adds NPOV tag, asks for specific suggested text from Researcher99
13:26
[226] Researcher99 attacks Nereocystis, refuses to consider modifications.
13:56
[227] StopTheFiling further explains views, denies anti-polygamy bias, agrees with Nereocystis.
16:55
[228] Researcher99 attacks Nereocystis, does not suggest preferred text.
14:30
[229] Nereocystis posts rewrite of Christian polygamy section.
12:20
[230] Researcher99 does not like suggested rewrite, does not suggest alternative, attacks Nereocystis.
12:32
[231] Nereocystis asks for Researcher99's suggested rewrite.
13:03
[232] Researcher99 does not provide his suggested version.
10:30
[233] Nereocystis provides another rewrite, tries to address Researcher99's issues.
14:58
[234] Nereocystis suggests mediation. No response from Researcher99.
12:48
[235] Nereocystis provides another rewrite.
11:14
[236] Researcher99 refuses rewrite, does not provide his version, attacks Nereocystis.
15:15
[237] Nereocystis suggests modification based upon Researcher99's comments.
16:56
[238] Researcher99 attacks Nereocystis, does not provide alternative text.
17:48
[239] Nereocystis thanks Researcher99, asks for alternate wording.
4 August
06:20
[240] Researcher99 does not provide alternate text, attacks Nereocystis.
13:41
[241] Nereocystis suggests mediation on Researcher99's talk page. No response from Researcher99.
16:56
[242] Researcher99 states that Nereocystis is vandalizing his talk page.
17:28
[243] Nereocystis suggests mediation.
Researcher99 suggests solution
Researcher99 suggests a solution, but wants me to acknowledge his proven expertise in polygamy.
06:16
[244] Researcher99 removes links to Christian polygamy sites which he disagrees with.
10:10
[245] Researcher99 insists that Nereocystis defer to Researcher99's proven expertise.
13:54
[246] Uriah923 offers unofficial mediation.
9:55
[247] Researcher99 wants to discuss past.
16:06
[248] Researcher99 does not provide outline; postpones conversation for a few days, past deadline for outline.
12:14
[249] Researcher99 compares Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist.
Mediation
We attempt mediation.
16:14
[250] Researcher99's AMA advocate starts mediation.
[17:42
[251] Mediator Andrevan asks Researcher99 what he expects from mediation; question is unanswered.
13:03
[252] long rambling post by Researcher99 accusing Nereocystis of fake graciousness, refuses to discuss content
9:06
[253] Mediator asks Researcher99 what he expects from mediation; Researcher99 does not answer.
13:02
[254] Researcher99 refuses to join mediation if it includes a discussion of the text of the polygamy article.
13:25
[255] Mediator asks for explanation of what Researcher99 wants from mediation. Researcher99 does not answer.
Nereocystis 17:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Researcher99
I don't know exactly what Researcher99 will say yet, but I will be away from the Internet for a while.
I do not use sock puppets. I did edit one article anonymously, but it wasn't related to polygamy. It is possible that I accidentally edited other articles anonymously, and I am willing to consider charges on an item-by-item basis.
In most of my edits on the polygamy page, I either:
- wrote something on the talk page before the edit, and waited for a while before editing the article itself; or
- wrote something on the talk page immediately after my article edit.
In most of these cases, Researcher99 did not reply on the talk page.
There are probably a few times where I failed in this practice. Either I considered the edits trivial, or I screwed up. I think that I screwed up very few times. If Researcher99 mentions specific edits where I failed, I will look at the charges and respond to them, apologizing when appropriate.
Defending myself against other charges will have to wait until my return. Nereocystis 05:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The charges against me are a little hard to follow. Most of the diffs posted support my view that Researcher99 is unwilling to work on resolving the issues. I'll let the arbitrators decide those issues. However, I'll respond to a few items.
22:54 [256]
I did originally vote to delete anti-polygamy. A few minutes later, I deleted that vote, and decided to let others make the decision. Of course, voting for deletion is a legal move. Nereocystis 22:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10:28 [257] As Imaglang says, I did mention that there was an AfD on anti-polygamy. However, I did not suggest which way people should vote. I mentioned the vote so that people interested in the polygamy article could make a decision on the article.
10:50 [258]
Here, I explain the reason for the announcement and request that the vote be left open longer than usual so that people can decide.
13:25 [259] Researcher99 accuses me of lying.
Summary
I have been watching and participating in the dispute relating to the Polygamy articles for almost 3 months. Over this period of time, Researcher99 has been unwilling to discuss the contents of the Polygamy article in any way, preferring instead to throw around groundless accusations of abuse in posts that are incredibly long, melodramatic, and almost impossible to comprehend. While Nereocystis has provided most of the relevant evidence against Researcher99, I am going to provide a few pieces of evidence that I think are relevant for the arbcom to consider.
September 3
- Revision as of 04:56, 3 September 2005
- Researcher99 places a notice on the top of the talk page saying, in all caps, "ALL DISCUSSION IN SUBHEADINGS BELOW THIS ONE ARE NOT LEGITIMATE" and "This entire TALK page is not valid, being the result of an unapproved takeover"
September 8
- Revision as of 04:14, 8 September 2005
- Researcher99 says "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.)"
September 9
- Revision as of 05:05, 9 September 2005
- Researcher99 again refuses to start mediation, this time saying he is "open to mediation" but with a list of qualifications, saying that he can't "commit to anything" until a variety of his requests are met, including dropping the RfC ("only one step among many that are needed").
- Researcher99 calls Nereocystis "a dysfunctional, patently abusive individual"
September 10
September 12
September 14
September 15