Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy

message: ==== Involved parties====
* User:Researcher99
* User:Nereocystis
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
notification of Researcher99
; Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
*6 June 16:40  Nereocystis requested 3rd opinion.
*18 June 10:29  Hawstom suggests forgetting past conduct, starts poll on resolving differences.
*16 August 13:54  Uriah923 attempts informal mediation.
*7 October 19:14 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99
*13 September 23:14 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis Researcher99's AMA advocate started the mediation, then Researcher dropped out of mediation. 13 September
If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
==== Statement by party 1 ====
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:
:18 July Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative
:18 July Nereocystis suggests Association of Member Advocates for Researcher99, mediation or arbitration. No response from Researcher99
:28 July Nereocystis suggests mediation]. No response from Researcher99.
Researcher99 refused to discuss the article and insisted that we discuss past actions:
:August 5 Researcher99 suggests resolution, insists that Nereocystis defer to Researcher99's proven expertise.
Researcher99 has been repeatedly abusive toward Nereocystis.
:16 May created Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
:29 September Researcher99 states that being polite is abusive here:
:7 September Researcher99 compares Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist
:29 September Mediator asks question about what Researcher99 wants; question is unanswered
:30 September long rambling post by Researcher99 accusing Nereocystis of fake graciousness, refuses to discuss content]
:1 October Mediator asks Researcher99 question which is not answered
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:
#http://www.pro-polygamy.com Pro-Polygamy.com
#http://www.lovenotforce.com
#http://www.christianpolygamy.info
#http://www.truthbearer.org
#http://www.anti-polygamy.com
#http://www.2wives.com
Researcher99 removes links to Christian polygamy sites which he disagrees with:
*removed 2 links to Christian polygamy groups
*Talk:Polygamy/Archive 4#Invalid links
Nereocystis 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Researcher99]] on the [[Polygamy]] and [[Group marriage]] pages 

message: 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:
:18 July Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative
:18 July Nereocystis suggests Association of Member Advocates for Researcher99, mediation or arbitration. No response from Researcher99
:28 July Nereocystis suggests mediation]. No response from Researcher99.
Researcher99 refused to discuss the article and insisted that we discuss past actions:
:August 5 Researcher99 suggests resolution, insists that Nereocystis defer to Researcher99's proven expertise.
Researcher99 has been repeatedly abusive toward Nereocystis.
:16 May created Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
:29 September Researcher99 states that being polite is abusive here:
:7 September Researcher99 compares Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist
:29 September Mediator asks question about what Researcher99 wants; question is unanswered
:30 September long rambling post by Researcher99 accusing Nereocystis of fake graciousness, refuses to discuss content]
:1 October Mediator asks Researcher99 question which is not answered
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:
#http://www.pro-polygamy.com Pro-Polygamy.com
#http://www.lovenotforce.com
#http://www.christianpolygamy.info
#http://www.truthbearer.org
#http://www.anti-polygamy.com
#http://www.2wives.com
Researcher99 removes links to Christian polygamy sites which he disagrees with:
*removed 2 links to Christian polygamy groups
*Talk:Polygamy/Archive 4#Invalid links
Nereocystis 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by party 1 

message: * Accept and merge Fred Bauder 21:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0) 

message: Statement by User:Researcher99's advocate Neigel von Teighen as it can be confirmed by 
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:
*  (Sorry, this diff is an edit made by another user not involved in the dispute! --Neigel von Teighen 22:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by advocate of party 1 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by party 1 

message: 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:
:18 July Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative
:18 July Nereocystis suggests Association of Member Advocates for Researcher99, mediation or arbitration. No response from Researcher99
:28 July Nereocystis suggests mediation]. No response from Researcher99.
Researcher99 has been repeatedly abusive toward Nereocystis:
:16 May created Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
:29 September Researcher99 states that being polite is abusive here:
:7 September Researcher99 compares Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist
Nereocystis 08:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by party 2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved third party [[User:PurplePlatypus|PurplePlatypus]] 

message: :I have been involved with the dispute on the Polygamy page for almost two months.  From what I have seen, Researcher99 is a very difficult person to work with, he is disingenuous about his actions and extremely dismissive of other editors (not limited to Nereocystis) who come to the polygamy page.  
:Particularly disturbing is his edit to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Researcher99 on September 15 .  In this edit, Researcher99 responded to separate comments that Nereocystis  and I  had made expressing our concern over this edit  that Researcher99 had made refusing mediation and comparing other users to a rapist and a terrorist. In his response to my concerns, Researcher99 whitewashes the fact that he had made an incredibly offensive post by choosing to ignore it and instead accusing me (and Nereocystis) of "lying" because Researcher99 had made a subsequent post  in which he said he was "open to mediation," a statement which I hadn't seen, due to my carelessness and anger at the fact that he used the words "rapist" and "terrorist" to describe another user , an action for which Researcher 99 has never apologized.
:In his same September 15th comment , Researcher99 wrote "Could it be that Nereocystis is Kewp?" and alleged that I was a sockpuppet of  Nereocystis.  He repeated this baseless accusation here .  Researcher99's advocate, Neigel von Teighen also alluded to my being a sockpuppet here .  Researcher99 never amended or withdrew his comments about my being a sockpuppet.
:When Neigel von Teighen posted the Rfa against Nereocystis  his first piece of evidence against Nereocystis, was, in fact, the same post that I, Kewp, had made earlier concerning Researcher99's comment comparing other users to rapists and terrorists. I requested that Neigel von Teighen clarify this matter , but he has so far ignored me. It seems to be another attempt to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, and a disingenuous attempt at obscuring the matter at hand. Nereocystis  has already mentioned this above, but I wanted to comment on the matter since my actions were listed under "abuses performed by Nereocystis," which is totally incorrect. --Kewp (t) 09:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neigel von Teighen has subsequently removed my edit from the list of alleged "abuses performed by Nereocystis."  However, Researcher99 has just repeated the allegation above, again with no real proof.--Kewp (t) 06:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Outside party [[User:Kewp|Kewp]]

message: * Accept and merge Fred Bauder 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0) 

message: 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)
replies: text: I appreciate that Andre had tried to help in the Request for Mediation that my AMA advocate requested.   I ask all Arbitrators to read it thoroughly through to see what actually happened.  We had asked for Mediation, repeatedly describing the only valid basis that we were asking it for. We needed the abuse to be dealt with.  Nereocystis sabotaged the process in using their Wikipedia-process-expertise by trying to turn the Mediation into something that we had not asked.   It was another example of how Nereocystis abusively "runs right over me."  Since Nereocystis actually refused the Mediation we had specifically asked for, they deliberately made it impossible to go forward.   Nereocystis did that while cleverly trying to invent the idea that I was somehow refusing the very mediation that I, through my AMA advocate, had requested.  In the last post at the RfM there, my DIFF, , said in the edit-comment, "honestly, not trying to be uncooperative."  In the next post I made just prior to that last one, my DIFF, , said in the edit-comment in response to Nereocystis, Impossible to say I "refused mediation" when I said SEVEN TIMES what this RfM is about. That proves it is THEIR lies, it is THEIR "refusal," and proves how they gang up to "run right over me.)  Because we were never ever allowed to get to the point of the Mediation in the first place because of Nereocystis's clever tactics, I do not know how it is accuarate, fair, or unprejudicial to view me in that situation as anything but trying to find a fair process for resolving a situation of abuse I have been enduring for about 6 months now.  Honestly, I am not about trying to make accusations of abuse. Instead, I am only trying to get it resolved so that it stops.  I am only a topic expert/researcher who wants to share their knowledge, but instead I am routinely being "run right over" by the clever tactics of Nereocystis's Wikipedia-process-expertise.  I am hopeful that, after I have successfully figured out how to correctly compile the evidence here in the right way, that this will eventually lead to an end to the abuse. Researcher 19:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments