Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Researcher99

message: Okay, Researcher99 just spammed the Talk:Polygamy page by posting his RFC response on THAT page as well.  I removed it from that inappropriate place, but will leave his response here, where it belongs.  This is another example of Researcher99 hijacking legitimate article discussion to grind his personal ax.  Such activity is highly counterproductive and MUST STOP.
Also, for the record, I am not upset that Researcher99 doesn't like my citations, but rather that he doesn't present any NPOV evidence of his own.  I agree that my citations aren't always the best quality, as it is difficult to find entire bodies of text that show group marriage as being included in the broad category of polygamy.  Instead, I cited study guides and other academic snippets where group marriage is shown as a subcategory of polygamy.  In the process, I have consistenly maintained an NPOV.  We should all be avoiding (as much as possible) information provided by political groups like "Christian Polygamists", "Anti-Polygamists" , and "Polyamorists".  
Researcher99 has instead insisted on using the definitions provided by said Christian Polygamists, rather than scientific definitions from Anthropology, Sociology, or Zoology.  I believe that Researcher99 should focus that POV work on a Christian Polygamy article and bring only appropriate scientific evidence to the general NPOV polygamy article. Dunkelza 20:08 August 30, 2005 (EDT)
:In defense of Dunkelza's references, Researcher99 merely asked for an existence proof.
::The article currently declares a false statement, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "true polygamy."
:and
::The article currently also declares another false statement. It makes up a new word, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "polygynandry."
:In both cases, a handful of references proving that the terms are used as described is sufficient to handle Researcher99's claims. Later refererences improved on the initial references. Nereocystis 17:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dunkelza's response to Researcher99

message: I will only respond to a couple of items.
Yes, Researcher99 and I did discuss a possible resolution. As one of the conditions, Researcher99 wanted me to defer to his expertise.  I was unwilling to do this. After nearly 2 weeks of discussion which want around in circles, I was ready to quite.  Uriah923's offer to mediate came at a fortunate time. After nearly 2 weeks of discussing Uriah923's mediation, Researcher99 wasn't any closer to agreeing. He wanted to discuss past insults from months ago (which this RFC is also doing, oh well). It was too late to revert to the previous discussion between Researcher99 and me. We had 2 discussions lasting nearly 2 weeks each without ever discussing the text of the article.  Add in the previous attempts, and it was clear that Researcher99 wasn't going to come close to appropriate wiki behavior.
I suggest that Researcher99 find a mentor who can help him through the use of collaboration. This  will allow Researcher99 to contribute without causing undue pain to others.
I do look forward to a Christian Polygamy article, but that has to be done carefully as well. There are a number of people or groups who consider themselves Christian polygamists. Researcher99 considers only his group thetruthbearer.com, to be legitimate Christian polygamy. Nereocystis 00:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nereocystis's response to Researcher99

message: Since the RfC was created, Researcher99 has engaged in questionable behavior.  This section lists the questionable behavior.
*7 September, 2005 Researcher99 refuses mediation, also compares Nereocystis with terrorist and rapist.
*8 September, 2005. Researcher99 places his disputed at top of Talk:Polygamy, places NPOV tag on Talk:Polygamy.
Nereocystis 00:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More disputed behavior by Researcher99

message: As further proof that I am being ganged up on, here is proof of how Nereocystis and Kewp have both told the identical lie about me, on 2 separate TALK pages.
In the following proofs, they both cited from the same DIFF of a post I made, this one.
At 20:25, 9 September 2005, on the polygamy TALK page, Nereocystis posted the following very aggressive post, completely "running over me" yet again:
Researcher99 has decided against mediation again. I suggest that we ignore his postings while his RFC continues, unless they are about the article, and try to work on improvements to the article. It's going to be a painful process. Nereocystis 20:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your plans, Researcher99.  I hadn't realized that you are still considering mediation.  Have you changed your mind on mediation? Are you willing to go with mediation for our dispute? Have you chosen AMAs? If so, please list all of your official AMAs? Nereocystis 00:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Researcher99, what I posted about you was not a lie, you said "At this beginning stage, I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation, as it is much like suggesting the idea of negotiating with a terrorist or like asking a rape victim to let the rapist just talk to them to work out their differences."  You are comparing the people that you would ostensibly be in mediation with to terrorists and rapists.  Unless you are talking about yourself, this comment can only taken as a direct attack on the other parties involved in this discussion.  For you to say that I am lying or to call it "abuse" is disingenuous, and wholly unreasonable.  I will not respond to any of the other allegations in Researcher99's last post , because they can only be described as ludicrous.   Kewp 08:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof of Lies & Ganging Up against Researcher

message: It appears that Kewp must be thinking they are Nereocystis (maybe they are the same person?).
In my 20:05, 8 September 2005 post I made, I had only said,
* The larger overall issue is that I am targeted at every step, stalked to every post, and prevented from doing anything for the value of Wikipedia, all by Nereocystis.
In the past post I made which they both cite from me so much (which disproves their lie), I had only said, 
* Nereocystis often says many things, but then they come back with abuse anyway. So their pretend willingness for Mediation is an act to be distrusted. At this beginning stage, I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation, as it is much like suggesting the idea of negotiating with a terrorist or like asking a rape victim to let the rapist just talk to them to work out their differences.
Obviously, my comparison references and discussion about Mediation possibilities at a later time only applied to Nereocystis.  What is even more ironic is that in  Kewp's original post where they told the proven lie against me, they themselves quoted that I was only talking about Nereocystis.  
Why should Kewp think they were being identified that way in their latest posts (here and here)?  After all, they were not even involved in any of the discussion with me during anything, until they arrived at the end of August to unwaveringly support every abuse perpetrated by Nereocystis against me, very late into this months-long situation.
It is so odd that Kewp would think they were being identified that way.  It is so perplexing  that it makes me wonder if it might possibly be because it was actually Nereocystis making those posts but had forgotten they were using the Kewp username at the time they posted.
Given how both Kewp and Nereocystis have told the identical clearly-proven lie on two separate TALK pages, and that now Kewp made this post and this post, thinking that my quotes applied to them too, I wonder if Nereocystis is  Kewp.
If true, that would not surprise me, considering that it very much appears to me that Nereocystis was Ghostintheshell.  (FMI about that specificially: readers may see: The Ghostintheshell Situation (7 May 2005) and Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals (16 May 2005).
Of course, this is only a suspicion about Kewp .  I am simply noting how very odd it is that Kewp would be posting as if they are  Nereocystis.
Clearly, it is those who advance obvious lies about me who are the ones who refuse the principles of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Civility.  To accuse me (as in here and here, with the former one updated here) of rejecting those principles proves that they are the ones rejecting the principles themselves.  To suggest that the act of my pointing out the obvious lie somehow means that I reject those principles is undeniably another obvious lie itself they are advancing against me.
I am hopeful that, with the help of my AMA, these kinds of lies and abuse will come to an end, and I will truly be treated with the principles of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, and Wikipedia:Civility, and honesty.
Researcher 20:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Could it be that [[User:Nereocystis|Nereocystis]] <i><b>is</b></i> [[User:Kewp|Kewp]]?

message: On 13 September, 2005, one of Researcher99's AMA convinced Researcher99 to accept mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis. As of October 2, 2005, Researcher99 has refused to allow the mediation to include a discussion of the text of polygamy.  It appears that the mediation will not work. Nereocystis 15:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above post by Nereocystis is another lie, which has been answered and proved on the related RfM page.  It shows once again how Nereocystis cleverly invents lies about me and then completely "runs right over me," even after I had explained something seven times.  Researcher 19:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempts at mediation failing