Talk:Polygamy/Archive 4

Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof
By Researcher 01:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Because Nereocystis IS the real problem, reporting evidence proving that fact is not a "personal attack"
The problem in the current dispute is more than a simple matter regarding dispute of content. It is far much more than that. Rather, it is that Nereocystis is the problem.

Nereocystis, following the abuse and sneaky vandalism of Ghostintheshell (who is likely the same person) committed additional sneaky vandalism to the polygamy article and always refused to follow the Wikipedia Guideiness of TALKing first in this controversial topic. Whenever I asked and tried to get the article back to TRUE STATUS QUO and then have true TALK, they never "allowed" it, never willing to ever follow the Wikipedia Guidelines.

After I was first mistakenly drawn into Ghostintheshell's self-declared edit war, I have tried to avoid ever again making the 3RR mistake (which I had not realized at that time) when the first sneaky vandal (handle) Ghostintheshell was around and initiated the first sneaky vandalisms destroying the polygamy article. Instead, I learned from that only-once-made mistake and subsequently tried to use patience as my ally. I only tried to make corrections toward TRUE STATUS QUO every one to two weeks, as I patiently waited for assistance from Admins to deal with the sneaky vandals.

Despite my patience, my every attempt to edit the article back to TRUE STATIS QUO to have a real TALK afterward has always been refused by the proven sneaky vandals, as they rv'ed my every attempt. Then they would obfuscate and deceptively accuse me of supposedly not wanting to TALK! It was they who were destroying everything I do, never once demonstrating a single act of good faith or accommodation to me (ever), and then they were shockingly trying to deceive readers and Admins here with the outright lies of their obfuscations about me.

I have recorded the chonologies by posting all evidences of fact
Beause the true facts speak for themselves, I have diligently recorded the chronologies which always prove the abuses and sneaky vandalisms.

So, clearly, when Nereocystis (who I have serious reasons to believe is Ghostintheshell) commits further proof and evidence of their hostile POV, attacks, even lies, it is precisely because they are problem that such evidence is necessary to point out.

After all, if there was no real evidence, how could all these numerous and comprehensively-reported evidences which I have put together even be possible to be written in the first place? It is the fact that the evidence is so voluminous and numerous which is what further proves the necessity to address the real problem, the sneaky vandals, particularly Nereocystis.

This all proves that reporting chronologies is not a "personal attack"
What this all means is that because Nereocystis. is the problem, reporting the proof of that fact is in no way a "personal attack." Actually, it is the abuse I have received with my every attempt to get the article back toward TRUE STATUS QUO that is the personal attack, as my every edit is clearly being targeted.

This post shows Nereocystis's increasingly reckless aggressives
As time has progressed, Nereocystis has gotten increasingly aggressive. At this point, that agressiveness has become outright reckless and extreme.

This post will show how recklessly aggressive Nereocystis is in acting to quickly destroy anything I do. It once again proves that Nereocystis is never willing to actually TALK before they take action.

That fact is evidenced by their immediate actions in the two following proofs.
 * 1) Nereocystis's instantaneous suggestion for the deletion of the anti-polygamy article quickly after it was first created.
 * 2) Nereocystis's hasty mis-use of Tom Haws's poll to unilaterally decide to "move forward."

The next two sections of this post here will detail those two proofs of Nereocystis's reckless aggressiveness.

Nereocystis immediately suggested the newly created solution of the anti-polygamy article be deleted
In a sincere attempt to provide a solution for the ongoing dispute, I had created a new article, called Anti-polygamy. It was clear to me that the problem in the ongoing dispute with the sneaky vandalisms was that the neutral anthropological polygamy article was being infested with hostile anti-polygamy POV. So, I realized that, if we could provide a way for the POV to be treated with real NPOV while still not infesting the neutral polygamy article with the anti-polygamy POV so destroying it lately, we could have a workable solution for all concerned. After all, it does not necessitate any great requirement of intelligence to easily see that polygamy is a neutral anthropological term and that the "anti-" part of anti-polygamy proves that the term, anti-polygamy, is obviously a non-neutral agenda and debate. (Only an obfuscating anti-polygamy propagandist would try to deny that obvious fact.)

Despite my sincere attempt for resolution with this new article, the hostile anti-polygamists made it immediately evident that they do not want any open exposure of their POV whatsoever. Instead, they want to deceive Wikipedia readers by infesting their hostile and subtle anti-polygamy POV into the main polygamy article so that they can act as if their POV is "authoritative." As soon as I had created that possible solution for the ongoing problem, Nereocystis was immdiately and very aggressively trying to wipe out and prevent the article from even existing.

Here is the sequence of events showing that extreme aggressiveness.

Anti-polygamy article created as possible means of resolution
At 16:26, 30 June 2005, I created the anti-polygamy article for the very first time.

At 16:38, 30 June 2005, I returned to the polygamy article and posted a quick edit to link to the newly-created anti-polygamy article. My comment-line stated, "Definitions - 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." The content of the edit itself was quite simple and pure NPOV:  "While polygamy is a neutral term as per the definitions above, anti-polygamy is not neutral at all. The important distinction is that anti-polygamy is a non-neutral agenda."

At 16:46, 30 June 2005, I posted a quick explanation and purpose of the new article on the anti-polygamy TALK page. After working on it for almost an hour, I was finally finished by 17:13, 30 June 2005, in creating the beginning of a working "anti-polygamy" article.

Nereocystis immediately wanted Anti-polygamy article deleted
The next day, Nereocystis at 17:05, 1 July 2005, wiped out the edit. Their comment-line used the obfuscatory tactic to say I did things I did not do: "rv Researcher99's changes, which he refuses to discuss on talk page.". Of course, Nereocystis knows full well that it is they who are refusing to TALK, as proven by the very act of so immediately destroying my new attempt here to solve the overall problem, by creating the new anti-polygamy article.

Three minutes later is when the whole past-reported situation involving The_Anome making changes to the anti-polygamy and also polygamy articles occurred. Even though the link to the anti-polygamy article from the polygamy article had just been removed by Nereocystis, a new previously non-involved user suddenly managed to find the article anyway and began re-titling and seriously distorting the anti-polygamy article. (For the sake of attempting brevity as much as possible and not duplicating past-reporting evidence, readers may read the past-reported segment to see what happened there as well. As shown in the last paragraph of that past-reported evidence segment, Nereocystis showed up at the anti-polygamy TALK page one minute after The_Anome completed their own distortions of the anti-polygamy article.)

At 17:16, 1 July 2005, one minute after The_Anome finished making all their edits/posts, Nereocystis made a post there, saying, "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."

The new anti-polygamy article had not even been one day old and already Nereocystis was outright suggesting/hoping that someone "would delete the article."

That was a very aggressive act, proving once again that Nereocystis is never willing to seriously TALK before acting.

Instead of trying to build up the brand-new article as Wikipedia Guidelines direct, Nereocystis was, instead, already calling for its utter destruction within a day after the article's original creation.

Also, by suggesting that the clearly outlined anti-polygamy article was somehow "incoherent," Nereocystis was employing the identical obfuscatory tactic that had previously been frequently used by the "now-absent" Ghostintheshell. That is, the tactic is that of making an obviously and outrageously false claim about me or something I wrote, even though the reality clearly shows the claim is absurd and obviously false. It is the use of that identical obfuscatory tactic that further causes me to believe that Nereocystis is Ghostintheshell.

Timandkids provided example of why Anti-polygamy necessary
Anyway, three days later, at 03:49, 4 July 2005, a Wikipedia newbie (as seen here), named, Timandkids, started a short series of posts over the next few days about one point they were making.

Their new posted edits actually proved the validity and necessity of what I was trying to accomplish with the creation of the new anti-polygamy article.

The comment-line for their first edit stated, "Adding note that Christians must be in obediance to the laws of men." That argument was one of the standard anti-polygamy arguments that is sometimes suggested by Christian anti-polygamists, an argument to which pro-polygamists also can easily answer.

But technically, Timandkids's edit and its argument do not actually inform Wikipedia readers about polygamy whatsoever. Rather, it only informs readers about one of the anti-polygamy arguments that exist in the anti-polygamy debate.

The serendipity of the occurrence of that new edit by Timandkids provided a perfect example of why the new anti-polygamy article was necessary. Such a non-topically contributing edit such as that is not accurately applicable for placement in the polygamy article. It does not actually inform readers about polygamy at all. Yet it is perfect for placing in the new anti-polygamy article, with a subsequent pro-polygamists' response in that anti-polygamy debate.

Eight days later, I again tried restoring Polygamy toward TRUE STATUS QUO
On July 8th, I returned. Seeing what had happened since my last edits on June 30, 2005, I put together the further evidence in a comprehensive TALK post at 16:11, 8 July 2005, titled, The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN. I listed out all my past wiped-put edits, provided a quick explanation of the new anti-polygamy article, and stated that I was going to try for what would be the third time in the previous month to start getting the polygamy article back to TRUE STATUS QUO.

At 16:33, 8 July 2005, I made a TALK post reply to Tom Haws. In the comment-line, I explained, "A good example for moving this to new "Anti-polygamy" wiki." It explained how the recent edits by Timandkids provided a perfect example of the need for the anti-polygamy article.

After all that, I then tried once again to make the several edits for starting to restore the polygamy article to TRUE STATUS QUO in order to then TALK about the ongoing dispute from there. I made edits 16:42, 8 July 2005 through 16:58, 8 July 2005. As I was proceeding more from there, apparently, Nereocystis had already aggressively jumped in again and wiped out all those edits.  Not realizing they had done that aggressive act, I was still continuing to edit for restoring to TRUE STATUS QUO. I made posts 17:01, 8 July 2005 through 17:31, 8 July 2005.

The next to last of my edits there (and still not realizing that Nereocystis had once again wiped out some of the earlier parts of that work), I repeated the linking of the anti-polygamy article from the polygamy article. The content I had only slightly modified from my previously attempted version. In that latest version, I wrote, "While polygamy is a neutral term as per the definitions above, anti-polygamy is not neutral at all. The important distinction is that anti-polygamy is a non-neutral agenda and debate." (I had added the "and debate" part there in order to more clearly clarify for everyone else what I was really trying to accomplish with that new article.)

Finally, in the last of those edits I made there, I posted the pro-polygamists' response to Timandkids's anti-polygamy argument. At this point, though, I was not moving their edit to the anti-polygamy article because I did not want to actually interfere with someone else's post that way until the anti-polygamy article was more fully established. In the comment-line, I explained, "For NPOV balance, added pro-polygamist's response to an argument which should more appropriately be moved to new 'Anti-polygamy' wiki anyway".

Tom Haws mis-interpreted the purpose of Anti-polygamy article
Within the next hour, Tom Haws returned and made a TALK post.

On 18:19, 8 July 2005, Tom Haws merely expressed his initial perception of what he thought regarding the use of the anti-polygamy article, even though it turns out that his initial perception had mis-intrerpreted my explanations and was not what the anti-polygamy article was actually about or for. So, he was simply expressing a reasonable opinion without having had all the information to specifically know that the article was not about the things he was thinking at that time.

In his comments, Tom Haws explained, "Splitting articles on POV lines is discouraged. Breaking out an anti-polygamy article, if done with a proper understanding of Wikipedia policies and objectives, can be useful if there is enough content to discuss the anti-polygamy movement. But creating an anti-polygamy article as a holding tank for antagonistic views is inappropriate. We are encouraged to seek to represent all views fairly in NPOV articles rather than keeping parallel POV articles."

While that had simply been a guidance based upon a then-present mistaken perception about the anti-polygamy article, it was not an overt authorization for Nereocystis to do anything yet about it.

Nereocystis exploited Tom Haws' mis-interpretation; Removed link to Anti-polygamy again
Despite that, rather than waiting for me to also participate in that discussion, and accordingly allow me to provide my clarification as to what the anti-polygamy article is really about, Nereocystis immediately deleted the explanation paragraph and link on the polygamy article linking to the anti-polygamy article, deleting it only a few hours later at 03:01, 9 July 2005.

The line which Nereocystis deleted simply said, "While polygamy is a neutral term as per the definitions above, anti-polygamy is not neutral at all. The important distinction is that anti-polygamy is a non-neutral agenda and debate." That is an undoubtedly pure NPOV statement.

Nereocystis again used identical obfuscatory tactic as now-absent Ghostinthshell
Despite the obvious NPOV of such a factual article content sentence there, Nereocystis used the comment-line in their deletion to declare, "remove anti-polygamy paragraph, too POV, see talk page". They were claiming jiustification to delete a pure NPOV statement for it supposedly being "POV."

That kind of deliberately false comment-line was the identical obfuscatory tactic used by (who I genuinely believe is the same person), Ghostintheshell.

As shown in numerous linked examples in the the segment of the past evidence post about Ghostintheshell's comments when making rv's, the obfuscatory tactic of claiming that a visibly NPOV content was somehow being "POV" as their justification to falsely delete legitimate content was a common tactic of Ghostintheshell. This is one of the various reasons (among others) as to why I genuinely believe that Nereocystis is the same person as Ghostintheshell.  Use of that obfusctory tactic was identical.

Nereocystis falsely self-justified aggressive act
At 03:25, 9 July 2005, Nereocystis then posted to TALK to explain why they deleted that content line. Nereocystis claimed, "As Tom Haws has explained, splitting the anti-polygamy site from polygamy is an attempt at splitting off all of the POV from the main article. This is a bad idea. Let's discuss it before bringing this section back."

That was an aggressive act. Nereocystis wrongly exploited Tom Haws's opinion before Tom Haws had had all the information. Nereocystis had once again wiped out an important content, not even allowing me to give the needed clarification that Tom Haws actually needed.

Nine days later, I showed Tom Haws the mis-interpretation and how he does seem to approve the Anti-polygamy article
Nine days later, at 16:53, 18 July 2005, when I came back and saw how Tom Haws had misunderstood the purpose of the anti-polygamy article and how he had actually made a statement that would approve of the article after all, I made a comprehensive explanation post for him. In the comment-line of that TALK post, I explained, "Tom Haws, you seem to approve my idea, when understanding what I actually created". For the sake of brevity, and rather than repeat that important post here, all readers here are encouraged to fully read that comprehensive post I made to Tom Haws there. It seeks to provide even further understanding of the purpose of the new anti-polygamy article, which does seem to line up with what Tom Haws had indicated he would approve.

Other suspicious acts had also occurred
I also discovered some other suspicious situations had occurred.

Past-Reported Evidence had been sneakily deleted from TALK
At 15:24, 9 July 2005, only half a day after Nereocystis's aggressive act, someone ANON, from IP: 70.176.232.214, had removed specific past evidence I had posted to the polygamy TALK page about the suspicious acts previously occuring at the anti-polygamy article.

Suspicious "Spatfield" called for "Vote for Deletion" of Anti-polygamy article
I also discovered that a very suspicious act had also happened to the anti-polygamy article itself.

At 16:42, 9 July 2005, some other Wikipedia user named, Spatfield, had placed the anti-polygamy article up for a "Vote for Deletion." This call was exactly what Nereocystis had specifically asked to happen to the anti-polygamy article only one day after it was first created.

In Spatfield's subsequent explanation post at 16:48, 9 July 2005,, this other suspicious user declared, "I find this article to be POV and it's very premise is non-sensical to me, Anti-polygamy does not sound like a good title for a 'debate' on polygamy. Furthermore, no other pages currently link to it."

This call for a "Vote for Deletion" was and is suspicious for two reasons.
 * 1) That user has not made any edit anywhere throughout Wikipedia since November 7, 2004 and has not made any other topical edits since then (as of this writing)
 * 2) They made the call for the "Vote for Deletion" of the anti-polygamy article hours after Nereocystis had removed the only Wikipedia link to the article.  As their explanation post admitted, that means they had no real way of finding that page through normal means.   If they knew that there was no link to the anti-polygamy article, this raises the reasoned suspicions and questions, asking, then how did they find it and why were they looking for it?

If, perhaps, they "just happened" to have found the link to it through the polygamy TALK pages instead, then they could see there was an ongoing dispute occurring. If that were even the case (although not likely, but still), they had no basis to make that call for a "Vote for Deletion" as that would interfere with the ongoing dispute issue here. However, since they did not suggest that they found the article that way in their explanation, it is very suspicious and is very likely that there may be some connection between Spatfield, Nereocystis, The_Anome, and the ANON at IP: 70.176.232.214 who had sneakily removed specific past evidence I had posted.  They could very well be the same person too, possibly Nereocystis.

(Regardless, it all fully demonstrates the concerns I raised when I asked for solution in my May 16, 2005 post titled, "Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals.")

When I returned again on July 18, I discovered the call for the "Vote for Deletion." I subsequently made an explanatory post there, titled, "For NPOV, the difference between neutral term and POV agenda/debate MUST be Separated."

Proof #1 of Nereocystis's Aggressiveness
As the example of this first section (of this post) proves, Nereocystis quite evidently has acted extremely aggressively to destroy anything I do and to hide the anti-polygamy agenda and debate from Wikipedia readers. Only one day after the anti-polygamy article was first created as a proposal to solve the current dispute, Nereocystis acted very aggressively, quickly suggesting for someone to delete the article, leading to a suspicious new user to wrongly initiate a "Vote for Deletion." As well, when Tom Haws expressed a misunderstanding about the anti-polygamy article but presented no outright authorization, Nereocystis exploited that mistake, refused to wait for my clarification in TALK, and aggressively removed the link to the anti-polygamy article from the polygamy article.

These are nothing but acts of sheer aggressiveness in hostility.

Yet, this is not the only example of that aggressiveness.

===Nereocystis immediately misused Tom Haws's Poll to instead do whatever they want===

In a separate attempt to find a way for achieving resolution, admin Tom Haws offered one possible way. It was an understandable attempt. From my persective, though, as good an attempt as it may have tried to be, the particulars were not able to address the real problem of the ongoing dispute. When I finally voiced my honest reasonings, however, Nereocystis immediately jumped on it. Falsely mis-applying what Tom Haws had suggested, Nereocystis aggressively exploited it to wrongly self-justify "moving forward" to do whatever they wanted to do in the situation.

Here is the sequence of events showing that extreme aggressiveness.

What Tom Haws actually called for in his possible resolution poll
When Tom Haws first suggested the poll on June 18, 2005, he only called for a "roll call to be sure there are seven or more editors present and alert, including Researcher, Ghostintheshell, and Nereocystis."

Besides the fact that I now seriously believe that Nereocystis actually is Ghostintheshell (based on Ghostintheshell's disappearance at the same time Nereocystis returned to the scene, with both using identical obfuscatory tactics, etc.), the more visible issue here is that Tom Haws had actually called for a poll of seven or more poll votes, not three.

On June 20, 2005, Tom Haws explained, "Help was requested here, and it's hard to understand exactly what the problem is without seeing it in action. 7 is optimistic, but I want to get all the key players plus two or three outside observers watching before we start this up again. There is no use in trying to resolve this with only three unless two adversaries agree that the third is impartial."

The 3 Important facts about what Tom Haws addressed there
Three important facts are clear about all.

First, Tom Haws was talking about my request for help, as I am the one who asked for the help in dealing with the sneaky vandals.  It was not Nereocystis.

Second, Tom Haws called for seven or more to be polled and active, not just the three.

Third, Tom Haws added that, without agreement among the adversaries from there, the resolution would not be ready to begin.

Yet, Nereocystis aggressively responded by "Moving Forward"
Yet, only an hour and half after I finally posted why I oppose the specific possibility offered there as one possible way for resolution, right away Nereocystis jumped on it. Instead of waiting for the seven or more total poll votes, Nereocystis aggressively called it a "2-1 poll failure" as justification to "move forward" and to do whatever they want to do anyway.

But without my agreement, Tom Haws had said it was not a resolution
As well, with the third point, Tom Haws had clarified that, without agreement among the adversaries, his particular offered way for possible resolution would not be successful. Without support for the poll from all, including myself, another means would have to occur.

Since I had to Oppose the specifics of the offered proposal there, Tom Haws had already indicated that the offered resolution possibility that he was making was therefore NOT a resolution.

Nereocystis had no justification to act so aggressively
All of this shows that there was no justification for Nereocystis (or anyone) to act on the poll results (even if seven or more had voted). That is because I had voted to "Oppose" that particular proposal for specific reasons.

So, clearly, for Nereocystis's instantanous reaction to "move forward" and do whatever they want to do anyway is another example of how truly hostile and aggressive they are.

Proof #2 of Nereocystis's Aggressiveness
As the example of this section section (of this post) proves, Nereocystis quite evidently has again acted extremely aggressively to find ways to immediately destroy anything I do and for them to do anything they want in infesting the polygamy article with their hostile anti-polygamy POV.

All of this aggressiveness is yet another proof of how Nereocystis has truly never really been willing to TALK anyway.

Above posted by Researcher 01:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am being oppressed by Anti-Polygamists
By Researcher 15:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Added to all the other evidence of how anti-polygamists are trying to destroy everything I post, I discovered that someone has just recently tried to hide the evidence even more deceitfully.

On July 8, 2005, I laid out more evidence, titled, "The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN". The next day, someone ANON fully deleted the specific evidence that it spelled out.  They were trying to prevent people from seeing how truly oppressed I am here.

A little more than an hour after that, someone then made an extremely hasty call for a "vote for deletion" of the anti-polygamy article, knowing that a bigoted yet uniformed anti-polygamy POV majority would be glad to do anything to prevent polygamy from being truly NPOV presented. I had created that anti-polygamy article as a means of solving the anti-polygamy POV so destroying the neutral polygamy article, but instead of discussing that solution, I get so attacked!

It is bad enough that Nereocystis has unilaterally wiped out my every work THREE TIMES without ever justifying the edits or following the Wikipedia Guidelines of STATUS QUO and then TALK in controversial topics, and that no one is willing to stop that proven sneaky vandalism yet. Nereocystis does not even know about important things on polygamy while I bring a wealth of knowledge that is not even being allowed to be heard. I have not done anything wrong while Nereocystis is allowed to violate rule after rule, even got caught lying, and they still are being allowed to destroy everything I try to contribute. That's not right!

These latest attacks of unapologetic POV are just wrong! Really, it has to stop.

When I first asked for help about these problems, System admin Tom Haws told me on May 16, 2005, "Don't get discouraged. If need be, we can ban editors for blatant misbehavior. And we can help you in discussions of content if need be." But that has not ever happened yet.

Instead, I have been repeatedly abused and the alarms I sounded about the anti-polygamy sneaky vandals would do to me in my original pleading, they have done. I have given my sincerity to Wikipedia by being patient all these months understanding that solutions can take time. But the longer this goes on into month after month without any of that help being given to me, the more I am instead being attacked and oppressed. It is becoming discouraging and a fulfillment of the May 7, 2005 Foxtrot warning about Wikipedia I had previously mentioned.

PLEASE ADMINS, help! I have been showing my true patience for these past months in asking for a solution, but instead of getting any help yet, the anti-polygamy attacks are only getting worse. PLEASE HELP!

Researcher 15:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN
By Researcher 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

ADMINS PLEASE HELP!
As I have been asking for over two months now, this wiki desparately needs assistance in preventing the sneaky vandals from destroying it and from rv'ing valid edits from being made.

I have repeatedly asked that we follow the Wiki Guidelines of starting from STATUS QUO for such controversial topics. Yet every time I try to get the wiki back to that point so that a real conversation can THEN begin, the sneaky vandal Nereocystis comes in and destroys the work, as an outed anti-polygamist who has been admitted to not even knowing fundamental elements of this subject. THEN, they advance the proven-disingenuous claim of wanting to TALK, when they are the ones refusing to TALK from within the Wiki Guidelines. As I have repeatedly said, if they want to TALK, they should follow the Wiki Guidelines and let us TALK from the STATUS QUO position, not after their sneaky vandalism. (Numerous evidence has been provided about all this.) But Nereocystis has never even once been willing to work or TALK about anything I have done, instead only destroying my work at every single opportunity to a complete destruction, no matter how many times I even tried to accommodate their additions. They are a one-way POV anti-polygamy agenda, intent on using sneaky vandalism to deliberately mis-inform wiki readers about the neutral term of polygamy.

Nereocystis caught breaking word
Now there is even further proof right here on the TALK pages of Nereocystis's total dishonesty in presenting falsehoods. One need only look to how quickly Nereocystis broke their word.

On 09:02, 20 June 2005, Nereocystis said, "Without Researcher99's support, we will end in big edit wars, constant reversions, and calls for blocking editors. With Researcher99's support, polygamy may look better. I'll try to avoid major edits for a while, while waiting for Researcher99's support. I may continue to make less controversial changes, if I can figure out what those are." But no sooner had I returned 10 days later to make the valid corrective edits again, Nereocystis outright broke that word to hold off. While I might not know about elsewhere, but where I come from, that's called lying, plain and simple.

TWICE now, Nereocystis has wiped out entire valid work
Once again, the repeatedly outed sneaky vandal Nereocystis has destroyed all the valid work I have done. Twice, now, they have completely removed all the valid work I did.

1. All the completely valid edits I made from 19:09, 6 June 2005 through 20:20, 6 June 2005 were wiped immediately wiped out by the outed sneaky vandal, Nereocystis. 2. When I made those important edits again, providing full explanations of their undenmable validity, the sneaky vandal did it again. Every edit I made from 14:24, 30 June 2005 through 16:38, 30 June 2005 was again wiped out by Nereocystis.

Look at each of my 18 valid edits being wiped out
In that second attempt of those edits, I made the reasonings even clearer as I made them. Here is the list of thos last edits that were wrongly wiped out by Nereocystis.


 * 1) 14:24, 30 June 2005 (→Forms of polygamy - Again, Polygamy is not group marriage.)
 * 2) 14:45, 30 June 2005 (→Group marriage - Created subsection with greater accuracy and brevity)
 * 3) 14:54, 30 June 2005 (→External links - Remove ANON commercial SPAM ad for book previously online for free from other site. ANON posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=13530246&oldid=13529954)
 * 4) 14:59, 30 June 2005 (→Bibliography - Removing SPAM ads also posted by the same ANON. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=next&oldid=13530246 NOTE: tiny inapplicable self-pub books not valid Biblio)
 * 5) 15:02, 30 June 2005 (→External links - Joseph Smith is NOT the "founder" of MODERN polygamy - he was only that for MORMON Polygamy.)
 * 6) 15:04, 30 June 2005 (→External links - Remove link here so as to then move it to the Mormon section as it is more specific and should be there.)
 * 7) 15:05, 30 June 2005 (→Mormon polygamy - Moved WivesOfJosephSmith.org to this more applicable Mormon section)
 * 8) 15:10, 30 June 2005 (→External links - ANON not really Jewish Polygamy. When some other site is about this, tho, THAT would then apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=13735676&oldid=13735596)
 * 9) 15:15, 30 June 2005 (→External links - Per TALK, Removed link due to Scope & Scale SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Tapestry_Against_Polygamy)
 * 10) 15:17, 30 June 2005 (→External links - Removed link due to Inflammatory Generalization & Self-admitted Irrelevance. SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Hope_for_the_Child_Brides)
 * 11) 15:21, 30 June 2005 (→Patterns of occurrence - Corrected false & hostile-implication over-generalization)
 * 12) 15:28, 30 June 2005 (→Mormon polygamy - Clarifying that most modern polygamists oppose anecdotal "connections" and that "all" polygamy is not necessarily Mormon polygamy.)
 * 13) 15:39, 30 June 2005 (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy - To keep this paragraph on-topic with its subheading)
 * 14) 15:42, 30 June 2005 (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy - Removed content not applicable to the subheading title, as prep for move of applicable portion to another section)
 * 15) 15:44, 30 June 2005 (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy)
 * 16) 15:54, 30 June 2005 (→Mormon polygamy - Relocate appropriate segment that was removed from "Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy" section)
 * 17) 15:59, 30 June 2005 (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy - Removed unnecessary sentences, for simplicity of this Subsection's actual CONTEXT. This is not a "Tom Green case" wiki.)
 * 18) 16:38, 30 June 2005 (→Definitions - 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.)

I tried to accomodate by creating a new wiki: "Anti-polygamy"
That last edit was a new idea of mine, sincerely attempting to provide a place for anti-polygamists to present their agenda debates, yet including pro-polygamist responses in order to keep it NPOV. It does not take a genius to realize that polygamy is a neutral anthropological term while anti-polygamy is a decidedly non-neutral agenda. For that reason, it is clear that the polygamy term needs its own wiki as the anti-polygamy agenda and debate needs its own wiki. So, with that last new edit, I was trying to provide a solution even for the agenda items of anti-polygamists to be presented along with the actual "anti-polygamy debate."

Nereocystis wiped it all out
I ask one and all to look at each of those edits and to follow the details/explanations/urls included. There is definitely no legitimate basis whatsoever for summarily wiping out all of that valid work. But Nereocystis has done that to me, not once, but twice!

Only one day after I had re-made those demonstrably valid corrective edits, Nereocystis then, at 17:05, 1 July 2005, wiped out all that work yet again.  They added the falsehood, "rv Researcher99's changes, which he refuses to discuss on talk page." (I never refused to TALK. I had asked for it from the very beginning, but that sneaky vandal has never been willing to accommodate any of my work whatsoever except only to totally destroy my work. It is only now that I will only TALK according to the Wiki Guidelines of STATUS QUO position for controversial topics, with anyone who is honest and proves they will work with me, not only destroy all valid work and destroy the wiki with mis-information.)

Just 3 Minutes later, The_Anome "appeared"
Then, just three minutes later, a new person suspiciously showed up on the scene, The_Anome. and then makes an edit to the "Definitions" header of the polygamy wiki. About that section, The_Anome asserted, "good, this appears to be a stable-ish version, rm-ing top hdr so first section is above TOC." The heading change is not a big deal, but to claim that section is "stable-ish" three minutes after Nereocystis had wiped out my work, which included that section being corrected (by me) on the "group marriage" issue, that is a problem, and it makes that edit suspicious (especially after seeing what happened next). At first glance, one might suspect that The_Anome may not have realized that so fresh an Rv had just occurred. But if that were the case, The_Anome's edit would have been made based on my last edited version prior to it being Rv'ed again. Additionally, The_Anome's anti-polygamy POV becomes obvious by what The_Anome did next.

After making that edit in the polygamy wiki along with the the "stable-ish" claim, The_Anome next went over to the new Wiki I had created, Anti-polygamy. (If The_Anome had only seen the Rv'ed version, they would not have seen the link to that new wiki I had made. So, to have seen that link is to have known about it outright.)

As the evidence shows, it was only one minute later that The_Anome went to the other new wiki and changed the name in order to limit and reduce the purpose of that new wiki. Instead of Anti-polygamy, they changed it to Opposition to polygamy. As the TALK page at that new wiki and the introduction section of the article explained, the purpose of that new wiki was to report on how "Anti-polygamy" is a non-neutral agenda (as opposed to the neutral anthropological term of polygamy) and to have a place for reporting issues relevant to the "anti-polygamy debate."

Two minutes after that, The_Anome then further sought to minimize that by removing the important explanatory section of the difference between polygamy and anti-polygamy. Another two minutes later, The_Anome made a post to the TALK page there, saying, "This is seriously POV: I've reworded the intro, and added an NPOV header."

Three more minutes after that, Nereocystis showed up there on that same TALK page, saying, "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."

The_Anome and Nereocystis proven as Anti-Polygamous POV
Only deliberate POV anti-polygamists seeking to prevent wiki readers from knowing that polygamy is a neutral anthropological concept while anti-polygamy is a non-neutral agenda would make those obviously false claims. The point had very clearly been made in the original version I had made in creating that new wiki, but the POV anti-polygamists were trying to change the name and hide all that so to then then "pretend to act innocent" in asking "what is the point" of the wiki.

The timing of those two obvious anti-polygamist POV posters (Nereocystis and The_Anome working together at the very same moments) is highly suspicious, much in the same way that it appears that the now-gone Ghostintheshell is probably the same person/group as Nereocystis.

Once again, Nereocystis is here being outed for the hostile anti-polygamy POV agenda on this wiki. Even after I tried to provide a place to provide such anti-polygamy ideas (with that new wiki), because those agenda-ideas do not belong in the polygamy wiki itself, Nereocystis is still trying to make sure that wiki readers do not get to know the true issues. As their last quote shows, Nereocystis's intent for all that is to try to get it or keep it removed, so that wiki readers are not so informed.

These 2 very serious evidences call for Nereocystis's removal
Anyway, that outed sneaky vandal has now been clearly proven


 * 1) to have lied about not editing so the discussion could proceed
 * 2) to have twice Rv'ed very valid and explained edits to the polgamy wiki.

I continue to ask the ADMINS to please remove the proven outed POV anti-polygamist sneaky vandal, Nereocystis, so that the wiki can be edited by serious NPOV researchers.

Near STATUS QUO, my re-made edits should be kept intact. THEN, we can have an honest discussion about any/each issue
I am putting these edits back in place once again. If any serious discussion is to occur here at TALK, the edits I make must be kept intact while we discuss each of the issues. With those kept intact, then we can TALK first about which ever of the above-listed 18 edits needed to be discussed for subsequent revision. But we must start any TALK from the STATUS QUO position, not after sneaky vandalism.

I am hopeful that when I check back here in a bit that the Admins will have had an opportunity to have finally solved this very serious problem.

Thank you.

Researcher 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Please consider Talk:Polygamy
Please consider joining the roll call and poll in Talk:Polygamy. Voting either for or against the proposal could move us forward in resolving the conflict. Nereocystis 17:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to resolve disputes, please look at Dispute resolution. You might want to get a member advocate. Nereocystis 19:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

3rd Opinion
Okay, first thing I want to say is that this Talk page as I found it frightened me. It was very, very, long! I've archived most of it as it was a mangled mess and took forever to load. So from now on I beg for brevity!

I'd really like to hear from Researcher what it is he wants to change, and then from other folk why they resist these changes. Please, stay cool, don't start replying to each other, just make your cases and let them speak for themselves! Dan100 22:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dan. I, too, will love to see that.  Tom Haws 23:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dan. It does seem to have calmed down for a while. I hope that the calm remains.  I put the disputed tag back into the main article, because the text of the article is still disputed, even if the disputes have been resolved. I'll start making the changes to the main article soon.  It may take me a few days to a week to make all of the necessary changes, then remove the disputed sectionl.  After that, I will try editing for style. Thanks, Dan. Nereocystis 17:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By moving the important warnings and proofs of the numerous sneaky vandalisms done to this wiki by Ghostinthshell and Nereocystis over to the Archive 2, everyone is now less informed of seeing the real problem and the numerous itemized destructions they have caused. As this keeps going without correction back to STATUS QUO, Nereocystis has continued to make even more and more destructions. How many times do I have to list out the numerous destructions and wait in what seems to vain for someone to stop their vandalism, only to hear someone to ask me agin to list out all the numerous problems again? And even when I do, we hear that reading all the problems is too much to read and it is removed from public reading? Truthfully, there is no real or legitimate dispute here. Nereocystis is an anti-polygamist sneaky vandal who does not follow the Wiki Guideines, who has manufactured the supposed "Dispute" by creating all their sneaky vandalisms. I have also repeatedly pointed out the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Throughout.2C_I_sought_Wiki_Guidelines:__STATUS_QUO_until_TALKed. WIKI GUIDELINES REQUIRE STATUS QUO]], but instead Nereocystis keeps being allowed devastate the wiki with their numerous sneaky vandalisms.  Those big sections I posted really need to come back here to TALK, otherwise it is proverbially like giving credibility to the terrorist, while the honest citizen has to waste time over and over repeating the proven crimes the terrorist committed. What do I want? 1.) The critically important wanrings moved back to the top of this TALK page. 2.) The article back to STATUS QUO as according to the Guidelines. THEN and only then can a real and factual discussion about the sneaky vandal's supposed "disputes" can be made. Please help. Thank you. Researcher 11:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I sincerly regret it, but after lurking for a few weeks, I am still clueless about this big conflict you are taking about. I am going to have to carefully read the essentials, I guess.  Please tell me if I am correct that the Sneaky Vandalism section is what I need to read.  Tom Haws 16:35, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Tom Haws, I very much appreciate your attempts to help here. Yes, the EVIDENCE needs to be read.  There is no legitimate basis for discussion with Nereocystis who has made it clear that they are not here to make a positive contribution.  Please read on this TALK page, the Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki.  That will also outline three very important evidence-pieces which Dan100 has subsequently hidden by archiving.  (Due to his allegations of "troll" and other comments here, I now also distrust Dan100's obvious partiality, unwilling to actually address the evidence of the destructions that Nereocystis/Ghostintheshell has done.)  The other three pieces (now-hidden in Archive) that need to be read as evidence are:
 * # The Ghostintheshell Situation
 * # Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
 * # Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki


 * Those three are outlined and then linked in the "Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki" section on this TALK page here. So, you will want to read that first, and then, when finished, click the links there to read the three now-hidden evidence-pieces (in the Archives).


 * Over and over, Nereocystis has made it clear that they are out to destroy anything I do, while adding non-applicable propaganda to the polygamy wiki. As I mentioned in the "To understand this situation, the Evidence MUST be Read First" subsection of the "Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki" section on this TALK page here, Nereocystis even recently wiped out every edit I made yet again.


 * "All of my edits made from 19:09, 6 Jun 2005 through 20:20, 6 Jun 2005 were once again attacked by the sneaky vandal. Less than 2 hours later, Nereocystis proved my point and utterly wiped out all of the work I had just done at that time. Nereocystis then used that false premise they concocted of suggesting the need to 'TALK' first, even though it was Nereocystis who had been the one to ignore that very call from me in the first place!"


 * Over and over, I have shown how Nereocystis does not even know the topic. This is someone who tries to assert that group marriage is polygamy, tried to push "gay polygamy," does not know who the national polygamy advocate is, tries to push the specifically-anti-polygamy-only propaganda of trying to connect polygamy to underage marriage, insists on making the polygamy wiki about Tom Green, and has been outed by the evidence as a clearly POV hostile anti-polygamist seeking to pervert the wiki from accurately informing the readers.
 * There is SO much evidence, yet when I post it all, Dan100 comes in and tries to hide it by archiving it and then asking me to list out the evidence yet again! The problem is I have been repeatedly abused by Nereocystis/Ghostintheshell (probably one and the same person/group) who does not know this topic and is outright trying to sabotage it, and I have been awaiting ADMINS to remove the abusers so the wiki can be restored.
 * I understand the need for Admins to take time in their actions. For that reason, I am not willing to be here everyday like I used to.  Otherwise, until this is solved by the ADMINS and the abuser(s) Nereocystis/Ghostintheshell (probably the same person/group) stopped, they will only continue to abuse me here.  I am not willing to put up with abuse.  So, for now, I only come back every week or two, looking with hope to see if the ADMINS have solved this yet so that I can be free from abuse to bring my wealth of research on this topic to the benefit of the wiki.  So, please, I earnestly ask you, please read all the evidences.  (To not do so says that all that a sneaky vandal has to do is commit numerous attacks that are too many list so that, when they ARE listed, the one listing them can be falsely accused of being "too voluminous" in listing out the evidence!  Also, for others to attack me for putting all that linked EVIDENCE together without their even reading the EVIDENCE is like attacking a material witness and their overwhelming evidence while choosing to deliberately ignore all the evidence presented.)  So, please, DO read the evidence.   It IS important.  I would very much appreciate that.  When an Intellectual Researcher such as myself can be valued instead of abused by those who do not know the topic, I will be glad to be here frequently again.   I look to the ADMINS to solve this very serious problem.  Thank you, truly.  Researcher 30 June 2005 14:07 (UTC)

I have been participating, and I don't understand the conflict. I have asked for another Third Opinion. Researcher99's editing frequency is low enough that some people thought that the conflict was resolved. It isn't, obviously. I would like to discuss the disputes, topic by topic, under Talk:Polygamy. So far, there has been little discussion there. Please. I'm willing to back my most recent edits out and discuss the changes, but they have to be discussed. I made the latest round of changes after Dan100 encouraged me to make the changes after a lengthy quiet period. Like Dan100, I would like to see a list of proposed changes, and a reason for each of these changes. Nereocystis 18:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Short analysis. Researcher99 and I disagree on the text of Polygamy. Furthermore, we disagree on how to resolve this dispute. This is where outside help is needed. How should we resolve our disagreement? Nereocystis 19:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And there was me, thinking this had settled down nicely... Dan100 (Talk) 17:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for moving forward and roll call of present and alert editors
OK. I have now read much of the history. Here are my recommendations: - Tom Haws 17:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) Roll call and poll (7 supporters needed).
 * Forget all personal issues and allegations of past misconduct so we can focus anew on content.
 * Do a roll call to be sure there are seven or more editors present and alert, including Researcher, Ghostintheshell, and Nereocystis.
 * After roll call, start again to Be Bold within the 3RR rule and Discussion context. All seven editors agree to pay attention and evaluate each edit carefully.
 * If editing gets hot, all seven editors agree to give weigh in on their preferred content.
 * As always, seek to build and defer to consensus.
 * Support Even if I do say so myself. Tom Haws 17:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Please. GhostintheShell hasn't been around since early May, It is worth trying to get him/her involved again, but it may not happen. Researcher is sometimes quiet for a few days.  I suggest allowing at least a week for him to respond. Nereocystis 18:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While I appreciate the intent for resolution (which I very much want), the problem here is that this does not solve the real problem. Wiki Guidelines require going back to the STATUS QUO, not starting from the sneaky vandals destruction before TALKING.  I now believe that Nereocystis is GhostintheShell.  Nereocystis has summarily wiped out every edit I make without any justification and without TALKing first as according to Wiki Guidelines.  Nereocystis has never once demonstrated a single good faith act toward anything I have done, thereby showing they have only one POV intent, to wipe out my edits and make subtle falsehoods about polygamy so as to deliberately mis-inform Wikiepedia readers.  Nereocystis has been caught lying when they said they would refrain from edits and only wiped my edits out again.  As such, there is nothing to be trusted from anything with Nereocystis.  I would be glad to TALK and work with anyone who is serious and sincere, but the history has proven that Nereocystis is a deliberately hostile anti-polygamist sneaky vandal who will only oppose anything I do.  I have provided numerous evidence, only to see anti-polygamists try to hide it.  I have offered an anti-polygamy solution for NPOV all around, and even that has been targeted for destruction by anti-polygamists. The history of the abuse I have received here can not be "just forgotten," because to do that would be to reward the abuse and motivate more from other anti-polygamists.  I have offered solutions and situations under which I will gladly TALK, because they follow the Wiki Guidelines of restoring to STATUS QUO on controversial topics, but my offerings have been ignored.  While I  appreciate the attempt for resolution, even this poll disappointingly suggests that we abandon those Wiki Guidelines and just allow the abuser to have their way before we TALK.  That is just unacceptable.  All this suggestion does is reward the abusers and asks the one abused to "just take" it.  Those kind of conditions are not legitimate for forming any real genuine consensus.  I will just be abused again and the polygamy article will be sneakily vandalized again.  As such, I am still awaiting an impartial Admin to solve the problems or perhaps move in the direction I proposed in creating the anti-polygamy article.  I am not trying to be difficult and I genuinely appreciate the attempt for resolution with this poll.  But the problem is that the poll ideas do not solve the real problem which is: anti-polygamists in general and Nereocystis specifically.  While I am open to suggestions, the fact remains that, without solving that real problem, nothing is really being resolved here.  Researcher 17:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Seven editors? Where'd that come from? You won't find seven editors active on one page anywhere on WP.

Nereocystis is free to edit the article as he sees fit within WP policies and guidelines. Researcher is free to object if he feels Nerec is breaking those rules - that's what I've invited him to do below. Dan100 (Talk) 21:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

7 editors is a bit optimistic, but we'll take what we can get. Lds/polls, which has some relationship to polygamy, sometimes gets 7 votes. 3 votes would be good, including Researcher99. Without Researcher99's support, we will end in big edit wars, constant reversions, and calls for blocking editors. With Researcher99's support, polygamy may look better. I'll try to avoid major edits for a while, while waiting for Researcher99's support. I may continue tomake less controversial changes, if I can figure out what those are. However, it has been nearly 2 weeks since Dan100 requested a description of the changes which Researcher99 wants to make. I still haven't seen the description. Nereocystis 09:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There does come a point when you have to start regarding an editor as a troll. If all an editor wants to do is kick up a fuss on the Talk page without putting forward suggestions or attempting to compromise with others, there's no point in feeding him. Serious editors must continue edit the article as they see fit and revert the troll. Dan100 (Talk) 10:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Help was requested here, and it's hard to understand exactly what the problem is without seeing it in action. 7 is optimistic, but I want to get all the key players plus two or three outside observers watching before we start this up again. There is no use in trying to resolve this with only three unless two adversaries agree that the third is impartial. I agree, we'll take what we can get, and there is no hurry at all. I have a page dispute (Human) that has been going on for 8 months and I haven't even viewed the page for over a month. Patience and faith. Tom Haws 15:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99 isn't a short-lived troll, it if is a troll at all. S/he has been active on polygamy since November 2004, a few days after my first edit, though s/he probably started anonymously a few days earlier. If s/he is willing to talk, life will be easier. Without agreement, there will be edit wars, people giving up in frustration, or banning. Sooner or later, I will start editing again. Nereocystis 19:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've just checked Researcher's contributions - he seems to edit at roughly ten day intervals. I don't think that should stop the progress of an article. So I urge Nere to continue his work, and if Researcher objects, he'll have to present a more coherent argument (as I have invited him to below) and also stick around for more than just one day! Other than that, what is there to say? Dan100 (Talk) 20:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99 made massive changes on the article page again. He has also written an anti-polygamy article which doesn't really make sense. Since Researcher99 refused to discuss the changes on the talk page, and since I disagree with a large number of the changes, I reverted all of his changes. Strangely enough, the latest polygamy changes don't show up in my watchlist. Are there bugs afoot. Where do we go from here? Nereocystis 1 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? Researcher99 has read this section. He has quoted my hopes for his support. However, he has not given his support to Tom Haws's suggestions. He hasn't opposed the suggestions either, but has ignored them. Unfortunately, he is continuing to engage in edit wars without discussion. I'm not happy with continuously reverting his ill-advised changes, but I don't see any alternative, until he is willing to engage in a resolution to the problems. I will try to write up a description of why I don't like most of his changes, but it may take a few days. I may find that a couple of Researcher99's changes are acceptable, but most of the changes don't fit in this article. Nereocystis 8 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

I'll pause in my reverts for a while. As I said, some of Researcher99's suggestions are sound, though may require editing. However, his edits on Polygamy are particularly bad and include incorrect information, without citation. I'll provide specifics when I get a chance. Perhaps tonight, perhaps this weekend. Nereocystis 8 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

After a couple of days off, I continued editing, reverting many, though not all of Researcher99's changes, with explanations on the talk page. Nereocystis 19:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers should note the falsehood being made in that above post here. Nereocystis posted that here on July 18. They imply that "after a couple days off" they were rv'ing my "changes" (knowing that I am not making changes, but am only trying to get back to TRUE SATUS QUO in order to THEN be able to TALK).  As Nereocystis knows though, I had not made any edits since July 08, which is 10 days prior to that above post by Nereocystis.  So, Nereocystis is here trying to imply their supposed "need" to rv my supposed "changes" when they know I had not even re-attempted any edits at all (trying to get the article back toward TRUE STATUS QUO) for 10 DAYS.  It appears we have yet another lie from Nereocystis. This kind of repeated lie-telling proves yet again why it is impossible to have an honest discussion with them. Researcher 13:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I was wrong on the timeline. I'm sorry for any confusion this has caused. I waited 10 hours before modifying Researcher99's edits again, explaining each change I made on the talk page. Yes, I was catching up on the history of my edits, which I had missed commenting on here. I am following the Wikipedia policy Explain reverts. It would be nice for Researcher99 to do the same. Remember, you are explaining to everyone who reads this page, not just to me. I'm try to following the policy on no personal attacks. Please read this. Let's discuss content, not the contributors. As long as you discuss me and not the content, we cannot advance the article which we are both interested in improving. Nereocystis 17:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The votes has failed, 2-1 in favor, with Researcher99 opposed. I count this as a failure since Tom Haws and I wanted Researcher99's support to consider a success. In spite of the failure of the vote, I will attempt to move onward in the lines of Tom Haws's suggestions:


 * Forget all personal issues and allegations of past misconduct
 * Continue to Be Bold within the 3RR rule and Discussion context.
 * Explain changes on the talk page.
 * As always, seek to build and defer to consensus.

I hope not to stray from the guidelines often. The last item is a goal, but is unlikely to work since we don't have Researcher99's support to talk. Unfortunately, this strategy is likely to lead to reverting many of Researcher99's changes to the status quo, which is the text which has been around for while, without Researcher99's changes. I will try to explain my reversions. If anyone has an opinion on the text, let's discuss. I plan to avoid responding to personal attacks, though I'm willing to explain the reasons behind my motives. If Researcher99 continues changing without talking, I will consider moving down the list for Dispute_resolution, to Mediation or Arbitration. Nereocystis 19:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers may observe here how Nereocystis has lied yet again.  The STATUS QUO is not per the edits made by the sneaky vandal!  Instead, the true STATUS QUO goes back to BEFORE the sneaky vandal made their destructions, back before I first made my appeal for help on this matter months ago, and even before that in the Ghostintheshell Situation.  It is Nereocystis who is refusing the TRUE STATUS QUO and who is wiping out every truly-valid edit I make.  The fact that Nereocystis  would not even wait here for Tom Haws to see my various input in this poll today before going back on an editing rampage is further proof of how aggressive Nereocystis is in all this.  Nereocystis had previously claimed that I was not willing to answer the poll and then the instant I did, they took it on their own to do whatever they wanted anyway.  A total set-up, intended only to falsely self-justify their fursther abuse of me.   Once again, I have been abused, proving that there is never any act of good faith with Nereocystis whatsoever.  This all simply amounts to more personal persecution from a clear anti-polygamist trying to destroy the polygamy article.  Admins, Please help! Researcher 19:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99, please feel free to suggest something specific other than Tom Haws's suggestion. I don't have another solution. I haven't made any changes to the article since your vote. I may soon. Waiting for administrators to strike me dead doesn't seem like a good solution, at least not for me. Again, concentrate on the text, avoid personal attacks, and tell us your suggestion for solving the problems. Please. Nereocystis 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers may note the false implication Nereocystis made there about not making changes since my vote. As they very well know, I had not attempted any new edits during that time anyway!  In fact, as of ths writing, I had not made an edit since my last attempt on 8 July 2005.  So, making the implication of their supposed "not making changes" is another lie.  It is not a personal attack to point out when someone is making a known lie. As I have always been calling for as the easy solution from the beginning, when we can get the article back to the TRUE STATUS QUO, which is pre-sneaky-vandalism by Nereocystis and by what I believe is their alter-name Ghostintheshell, then this TALK page is the place for discussing whatever disputes are real after that.  Until the TRUE STATUS QUO is restored without interference from the sneaky vandal Nereocystis, we are still left with an article filled with anti-polygamy POV of sneaky vandalisms and no legitimate TALK can occur.  I might consider re-attempting some edits again later to start to move the article back to TRUE STATUS QUO.  If I do and if the sneaky vandal so much as touches any of them afterward, it will prove even more that their above false claim to "not make changes" was an outright lie - another one. Researcher 11:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please tell us the exact text of the true status quo, as you see it. Without the text, there is nothing to discuss. If you make changes contrary to my changes, then I will revert them and discuss them on the talk page. Please see Edit summary. If these changes already appear on the talk page, then I may not add additional information. If I agree with your changes, I will leave them in, as I did with a number of your 8 July 2005 changes. Nereocystis 18:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

New suggestions
I have 3 options for the next step in the resolution. The first 3 require the agreement of Researcher99; the third does not. Other suggestions are welcome:


 * 1) Researcher99 could find a member advocate from Association of Members' Advocates. This is probably the best solution. The advocate can assist Researcher99 in expressing his preferences, and perhaps direct the discussion a bit.  This option requires Researcher99's participation.
 * 2) Researcher99 and I, along with any other interested parties can participate in Mediation. Mediation requires that all of us are interested in find a positive solution. This option requires Researcher99's participation.
 * 3) Researcher99 and I, along with any other interested parties can participate in Arbitration. Arbitration requires that all of us are interested in find a positive solution. This option requires Researcher99's participation.
 * 4) Researcher99 could request that I be banned. Please ask an advocate for help on this.  I would object.  Waiting for administrators to act won't work. If your attempt to ban me fails, please stop threatening this action. This option requires Researcher99's participation.
 * 5) I could ask that Researcher99 be banned. I probably won't unless he hits the 3R limit. His personal attacks on me are tiresome, but I'll ignore them for a bit longer.  This option does not require Researcher99's participation.
 * 6) I will continue to edit and explain my edits. I will revert when the edits don't meet my standards.  I'm willing to discuss the text of edits, but will try to avoid responding to or participating in personal edits. This option does not require Researcher99's participation, but could benefit from his participation.

My challenge to Researcher99 is to choose one of the above, or make another suggestion. Nereocystis 21:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki
By Researcher 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I had written previously, my fears and concerns about sneaky vandals futher destroying the polygamy wiki has only continued to come to pass and even worsen. After one sneaky vandal named, Ghostintheshell, committed sneaky vandalism, they were soon followed, like a tag team, by another and more destructive sneaky vandal, named, Nereocystis, committing numerous destructions to the polygamy wiki. (On a side note, that tag team might very well be the same person, but that's not the point of this post here.)

Through the process of this situation, I have presented extensive evidence, here in TALK, demonstrating their sneaky vandalisms. Without seeing all that evidence first, one cannot possibly understand what has really happened here in this wiki. Unfortunately, though, all of that crucial evidence was re-located to Archive2 by Dan100, who thought the entire TALK page was getting too lengthy. What Dan100 may not have realized was that, by doing so, the most important proofs and warnings about the sneaky vandals was thereby inadvertently hidden, while keeping a manufactured and false set of supposed "Disputes" by the sneaky vandal named Nereocystis.

The so-called "Dispute" was manufactured after Sneaky Vandalism
When reading the crucially important evidence, it becomes clear that the supposed "Disputes" manufactured by Nereocystis came after Nereocystis had sabotaged the wiki with an editing rampage. As the crucial evidence shows, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Throughout.2C_I_sought_Wiki_Guidelines:__STATUS_QUO_until_TALKed. Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed.] (I have said it numerously, frequently re-iterating this point that All the Sneaky Vandalism should be Rv'd back to STATUS QUO so that it can be TALKED first.) But instead, Nereocystis came in with an editing rampage, destroying the wiki further with exhaustingly numerous sneaky vandalisms.  After causing so much destruction, that was when Nereocystis manufactured the idea of there being supposed "Disputes" here and so concocted the subsequent false notion that they supposedly want to follow the Wiki Guideines to TALK about the "Disputes." Rather than follow the actual Wiki Guidelines of getting back to STATUS QUO before TALKing, as I had long been calling for, Nereocystis was "suddenly" willing to TALK only after they had committed all their destruction and sneaky vandalisms.

To understand this situation, the Evidence MUST be Read First
So, the sneaky vandal has created a false premise, in order to justify preventing corrections to their sneaky vandalism. My fears about that were proven yet again after I had sought to even make a few more corrective edits, knowing that there were numerous more edits to eventually make. All of my edits made from 19:09, 6 Jun 2005 through 20:20, 6 Jun 2005 were once again attacked by the sneaky vandal. Less than 2 hours later, Nereocystis proved my point and utterly wiped out all of the work I had just done at that time. Nereocystis then used that false premise they concocted of suggesting the need to "TALK" first, even though it was Nereocystis who had been the one to ignore that very call from me in the first place!

So, to really understand the situation here fully, the evidence which has previously been posted here in TALK really MUST be read first.

For simplicity, I will simply provide the outline and applicable links to each of three archived postings of all of that crucially important evidence.

1. The Ghostintheshell Situation (outlined)
This first section of evidence was posted 00:57, 7 May 2005. It provides the full story and timeline of the first of the sneaky vandal tag team, Ghostintheshell (who most likely is the same person or group as Nereocystis.) To understand Nereocystis's recent actions, it is crucial to understand how Nereocystis "returned" to the wiki at the end of the situation with Ghostintheshell.

Here is the outline of that first section of evidence.


 * The Ghostintheshell Situation
 * Why this timeline
 * Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed.
 * Ghostintheshell breached MANY Wiki guidelines
 * Unknowledgable & Short-Term vs. Knowledgable & Long-Term
 * --> Ghostintheshell
 * --> Researcher99
 * Begins with Subsection, "How Polygamists Find More Spouses"
 * Ghostintheshell Arrives & Declares Intent for Edit War
 * Trödel Arrives, Rv's to STATUS QUO, says NPOV
 * Trödel Returns, Again Rv's to STATUS QUO
 * Trödel Returns, Makes Rv's but with duplicative content
 * Ghostintheshell AGAIN Declares Intent for Edit War
 * Trödel Rv's to duplicative version and 3RR-block occurs
 * Final Posts
 * Evading the "Block," Ghostintheshell Becomes "TheRedandtheBlack"
 * 2 days later, I ask for patience to prepare this outline
 * Admin Visorstuff affirms Muslim polygamous families in West exist ("Issue#2")
 * All 3 of Ghostintheshell's "Issues" Already Resolved
 * Ghostintheshell was a "Ghost - in - the - shell" -- NOT REAL

Click here to read that entire section in Archive2.

2. Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals (outlined)
This second section of evidence was posted 14:42, 16 May 2005. It points out Nereocystis's "return" to the wiki, as a tag team sneaky vandal to follow Ghostintheshell (who most likely is the same person or group as Nereocystis.)  It shows the editing rampage that Nereocystis had begun. It points out the real problem and need for a solution that sneaky vandals will now prevent any intellectual researcher such as myself from making edits, as they will simply destroy any legitimate work people like myself would do for the polygamy wiki.

Here is the link and outline of that second section of evidence.


 * Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
 * (We should not reward bad behavior or allow misinformation)

3. Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki (outlined)
This third section of evidence was posted 23:54, 27 May 2005. This comprehensive section provides a crucially important warning for all wiki contributors to understand the tactics of anti-polygamists. It provides the detailed evidence completely "outing" Nereocystis as an actual hostile POV anti-polygamist, pretending to be for polygamy only as a disguise so as to fully destroy the wiki with erroneous information, i.e., sneaky vandalism. (Hostile anti-polygamists and Nereocystis obviously do not want this crucially important warning and "outing" to be readily visible to polygamy wiki contributors. Yet it is imperative that it be visible and understood.)

Here is the link and outline of that third section of evidence.


 * Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki
 * Setting this Warning to Help this Controversial Wiki
 * "Polygamy Imposters" - Anti-Polygamists Often Pretend to be "Pro-Polygamy"
 * Forcing "Underage" issue "Outs" the "Polygamy Imposters" as Anti-Polygamists
 * Normal Polygamists oppose "underage" issue
 * Normal Polygamists try to be heard by media
 * Media Bias denies Normal Polygamists from being heard
 * "Underage" issue is only Anti-Polygamy Propaganda
 * Unqualified "Anti-Polygamy" Sites Sneaked in to the Polygamy Wiki
 * "Anti-polygamy" links first appeared
 * Sneaky Vandals Sneaked the removed "anti-polygamy" links back in
 * Ghostintheshell
 * Nereocystis
 * Anti-polygamy "tag team" successfully destroyed polygamy wiki
 * Why those "Anti-polygamy" sites are not qualified
 * Tapestry Against Polygamy
 * Scope
 * Scale
 * Hope for the Child Brides
 * Inflammatory generalization
 * Self-admitted Irrelevance
 * Pushing these "Anti-polygamy" Sites promotes "Underage" Propaganda
 * All the Sneaky Vandalism should be Rv'd back to STATUS QUO
 * Ghostintheshell's supposed "issues" were Resolved anyway
 * Nereocystis's Edit-Rampage Manufactured "Disputes" to Falsely Justify STOPPING the Wiki
 * Wiki Guidelines call for STATUS QUO anyway
 * For Wikipedia's Sake, We Must Stop the Sneaky Vandals
 * Foxtrot Comic Equally Notes Wikipedia's "Sneaky Vandal Problem"
 * So, I share my Intellectual Assets to Protect Wikipedia
 * Intellectual Researchers must not be Sabotaged by Sneaky Vandals
 * Let's Solve This and Protect Wikipedia's Future

Click here to read that entire section in Archive2.

Sneaky Vandals Preventing Legitimate Edits and Don't Really Want to TALK
One subsection of that last section repeated what really needs to occur. It also shows why.
 * All the Sneaky Vandalism should be Rv'd back to STATUS QUO
 * Ghostintheshell's supposed "issues" were Resolved anyway
 * Nereocystis's Edit-Rampage Manufactured "Disputes" to Falsely Justify STOPPING the Wiki
 * Wiki Guidelines call for STATUS QUO anyway
 * For Wikipedia's Sake, We Must Stop the Sneaky Vandals

As I have long been saying, allowing the sneaky vandals to continue, it makes it impossible for intellectual researchers like myself to stop their sabotage and to help the wiki be valuable. As I warned, any edit that someone like myself will make will be sabotaged. Nereocystis proved my very point on that yet again after my last activities here two weeks ago, when they once again wiped out all of the work I had done to the wiki, immediately after I had done it.

Nereocystis Proven Disingenuous about "TALKING"
Nereocystis has no intention of actually wanting to follow the Wiki Guidelines, despite their "suddenly" new and absolutely disingenuous calls for wanting to TALK about their manufactured "Disputes" first.


 * 1) Nereocystis has not once stopped in their outrageous editing rampage of destruction to the wiki, continuing on week after week with more and more edits throughout all of this.
 * 2) If Nereocystis truly believed in wanting to TALK first, they would be advocating that we follow what I have been calling for in the first place:  to get back to the STATUS QUO that existed before their editing rampages of sneaky vandalism rather than afterward, as they now "suddenly" demand.

That second item there really proves the heart of the matter here.

If Nereocystis genuinely wanted to follow the Wiki Guidelines and TALK first, then they would be fighting FOR what I called for originally: that we should return the wiki back to the REAL STATUS QUO before all their tag team sneaky vandalism and then we can honestly start TALKING from there. But because Nereocystis only wants to do that after all their sneaky vandalisms while trying to act as if I am somehow not wanting to follow the Guidelines, it proves their disingenuousness completely.

Because of all this, it is useless to TALK with such an "outed" hostile anti-polygamist POV sneaky vandal such as Nereocystis. (Besides, their supposed "Disputes" were only manufactured after the fact, anyway!) So, time has proven that TALKING has proven to be useless with them. I've tried before and it has only yielded this overwhelming consumption of my time as they play these sneaky anti-polygamist tactics. For me, to do so now is like trying to negotiate with a terrorist. It simply cannot be done. They have made it clear that they will accept nothing short of continued destruction of the polygamy wiki.

Mentally Unhealthy and De-Motivating to TALK with Unapologetic Abusers
Also, it is mentally and emotionally unhealthy for anyone to let others cause such a constant state of abuse as these sneaky vandals have caused, as in my experience here recently. Once an abuser is absolutely proven to be an unapologetic abuser, they are never worth my time. I am too healthy for that. Truly, intellectual researchers such as myself are not motivated to put up with it or to want to return to the wiki if that is all that can be expected to occur. So this is not only about me. This is about how all other mature, emotionally healthy intellectual researchers such as myself will ultimately decide whether it's really even worth their time to offer any quality help to Wikipedia. If allowing abuse to continue is the policy, Wikipedia loses.

For Wiki Sake, These Solutions Need to Happen
Truly, if nothing is done, then more and more of us mature intellectual researchers will instead start choosing to avoid Wikipedia. After all, mature and healthy people have no desire to sustain protracted periods of abuse.

So, for the sake of the polygamy wiki, therefore, the following really needs to happen.


 * 1) The Wiki Guidelines about "not acting reckless" in this contorversial topic must be followed.  That requires TALK discussions to start from the STATUS QUO position - not after someone else has committed sneaky vandalism.
 * 2) The original STATUS QUO of the polygamy article needs to be restored without attack from sneaky vandals.
 * 3) The entire Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki section should be restored to a prominent position in this TALK page, so as to warn and educate all contrubutors on how to spot anti-polygamists with hostile POV trying to edit the wiki destructively.
 * 4) Sneaky vandals, such as Nereocystis, need to be removed from contributing further.
 * 5) Then the rest of us who want to make honest legitimate contributions may be glad to do so, without having to deal with much more mentally-unhealthy abuse.

It is my sincere hope that this situation can be resolved and that Wikipedia will once again be the great value I had once thought it to be!

Researcher 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the first thing that linking to 'sneaky vandalism' a dozen times is not going to help your case. It just looks... a little odd. Keep cool and calm.


 * The second seems to be that the issue you are upset about here is that someone edited this page. Well, that happens on wikis. "Be bold" is not a suicide pact.


 * Finally, if you have a content related dispute here, please concentrate on that and that alone. You can only object to edits or existing content if they break the core content rules of Neutral point of view, Verifiability and Cite sources.


 * If you do wish to make objections under those policies, please keep them brief and clear. Writing vast reams of text does you no favours. Dan100 (Talk) 17:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I support all that Dan100 has said. Tom Haws 03:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Changes
I will list changes which I make here, along with an explanation. This might make editing the polygamy article easier.

Reverting Researcher99's changes
Researcher99 recently make a large number of changes. For months, I have been trying to engage Researcher99 in discussion about these changes. It has refused. I disagreed with many of the changes, and reverted. I am willing to provide more details for the reversions, if anyone wants the details. Nereocystis 1 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Researcher99 has made his changes again, and refuses to discuss the changes, and hasn't joined Tom Haws poll, either for or against. Nereocystis 8 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)


 * For all readers: the above Nereocystis post was made after I provided a full explanation of what needs to happen. In that post of mine, it exposed how it is Nereocystis who has been wiping out all my valid work due to their outed hostile anti-polygamy POV. There is not a single legitimate valid basis for the sneaky vandal to be summarily wiping out so many quality edits.  So there really is no doubt.  I have called for Wiki Guideines to be followed from the beginning and seek a real solution to Nereocystis's sneaky vandalism. - Researcher 8 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

Current proponents and critics
I removed references to opinion of Christian fundamentalists and Human Rights Activists. I want specific examples of the people who fall into these categories along with their opinions. I left in LDS opposition, and will try to find a reference to justify leaving it in. I know that this isn't 100% consistent. I also removed the line:


 * Compare monogamy and concubinage.

I don't know what it means; it doesn't seem to belong here, and probably doesn't belong anywhere. Nereocystis 1 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Christian opposition to polygamy
The legal section Polygamy refers to the legality of polygamy. Some Christians opposition to polygamy does not effect the legality of polygamy. The best place for the opposition of some Christians opposition to polygamy is under Polygamy. Yes, you're right, it is difficult to figure out what goes where. We're working on organization now. Also, it is very important to remember that not all Christians oppose polygamy, even where it is illegal. We have to work on NPOV here, which has been a real problem in the past. It would be helpful if you provide a reference for Christian opposition to polygamy. What type of Christians follow these rules? Is it primarily the fundamentalists? I previously removed a section for proponents and critics because it claimed that Christian fundamentalists are opposed to polygamy, but didn't provide a reference. This changes make it easier to understand why some Christians oppose polygamy, but a reference would be very nice. Nereocystis 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

Bible-believing
Hi, Timandkids! Welcome to Wikipedia. I apologize for reverting your edit. But it was kinda biased, though I can see your point. What might work better is to say something like "some Christians, based on XYZ statement in the Bible, feel a duty to avoid polygamy regardless of their personal beliefs about it." I'm sure you can do better that that, but hopefully you get the idea. If this is confusing, you might try reading WP:NPOV. It's really a great article. Tom Haws July 8, 2005 04:20 (UTC)

Hi, Timandkids. The point is okay to make. But we have to use unloaded language. Many Christians would be offended to be excluded from the description Bible-believing, but wouldn't agree with your conclusion. Therefore we have to modify the phrasing to reflect that point of view. Tom Haws


 * This is the very type of exmaple of anti-polygamy argument paragraph (being made by Timandkids) that was in my mind when I had first first created the new Anti-polygamy wiki. Their paragraph is not rally abot polygamy the neutral term of polygamy, but rather it is about the non-neutral agenda and debate of anti-polygamy.  Because of that, that kind of anti-polygamy argument paragraph really would be more appropriately moved to that other wiki there, Anti-polygamy.  Then, the pro-polygamy response to that  "anti-polygamy debate" (such as found at the "Law of the Land" page at BiblicalPolygamy.com) could also be presented.  Doing that also simplifies the two wikis ("polygamy the neutral term" vs. "anti-polygamy the non-neutral agenda and debate") as it separates the issues into more concise and readable chunks. - Researcher 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

We have a section for proponents and critics. It's very reasonable to state opposition to polygamy here. I prefer quoting a specific critic, rather than saying "some Christians" oppose polygamy. Timandkids tends to use POV language, but we can try to correct that. Similarly, Researcher99 tends to use POV language. I don't see any advantage to the Anti-polygamy article. There isn't a coherent topic there yet. Nereocystis 8 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)


 * For all readers: With all the vast amounts of evidence and pure NPOV I have provided, it is no surprise that an outed anti-polygamist would attempt to falsely accuse me of things I have not done (e.g., POV) and to seek to discredit the Anti-polygamy wiki as supposedly "incoherent." Any intelligent brain can easily understand what that other wiki is truthfully about. And such an intelligent brain can also easily see that the anti-polygamy agenda and debate is far too distracting to be used on the main polygamy wiki.  All readers here should realize that it is a matter of course that a hostile POV anti-polygamist like Nereocystis would seek to prevent their hostile non-neutral agenda from being moved to its own wiki to present the anti-polygamy debate on its own.  Such a hostile anti-polygamy POV wants only to continue to distort the true neutral term of polygamy, rather than be exposed for the non-neutral agenda which their anti-polygamy really is. This is just more proof that this proven sneaky vandal, Nereocystis, needs to be removed from further destroying the wiki.  I hope the Admins can solve this very serious problem.  - Researcher 8 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

A few points to consider: --Tom Haws July 8, 2005 18:19 (UTC)
 * I have lately noticed that some newer users tend to use the term "wiki" to refer to articles or areas of Wikipedia. I have heard "Mormon wiki" previously, and here I am hearing "Anti-polygamy wiki".  In my mind this diminishes the gravitas associated with the project of building an encyclopedia.  To help us maintain the proper attitude toward our work, I respectfully request that we refer to articles  as such, and to Wikipedia as such, or as the Encyclopedia.
 * Splitting articles on POV lines is discouraged. Breaking out an anti-polygamy article, if done with a proper understanding of Wikipedia policies and objectives, can be useful if there is enough content to discuss the anti-polygamy movement.  But creating an anti-polygamy article as a holding tank for antagonistic views is inappropriate.  We are encouraged to seek to represent all views fairly in NPOV articles rather than keeping parallel POV articles.
 * Personal attacks are not appropriate at Wikipedia, and we are admonished to assume good faith. I urge all editors present to focus their attention away from each other and toward the article in their comments.
 * Finally, I agree with Nereo's comments about the two articles and I appreciate his efforts to follow Wikipedia standards. I also appreciate R99's dedication to this subject and his willingness to invest significant time and effort toward improving this corner of Wikipedia.  We can find ways to represent all views fairly in a single article.  We must do it.  Let's keep trying.


 * Tom Haws, above, you wrote, "* Splitting articles on POV lines is discouraged. Breaking out an anti-polygamy article, if done with a proper understanding of Wikipedia policies and objectives, can be useful if there is enough content to discuss the anti-polygamy movement.  But creating an anti-polygamy article as a holding tank for antagonistic views is inappropriate.  We are encouraged to seek to represent all views fairly in NPOV articles rather than keeping parallel POV articles."


 * It appears that you did not understand what I did in creating tha anti-polygamy article. It also appears that Nereocystis hastily jumped on your misunderstanding to delete the link to that new article for what you otherwise seem to be approving.


 * To assist your understanding here, I was not dividing into two articles on POV lines. Rather, I was dividing between the neutral anthropological polygamy and the non-neutral agenda and debate of anti-polygamy. Information about polygamy/polygamists is not a POV, it is neutral anthropological information.  Anti-polygamy is pure POV, as is the POV response of pro-polygamy.  For two articles, the first (polygamy article) would be completely NPOV by having no POV for such an obvious neutral term.  The second (anti-polygamy article) would also be completely NPOV by having both POV sides of the debate presented.


 * Accordingly, I see your next quoted sentence therefore as actually showing your approval for what I was seeking to get started. An anti-polygamy article could very much become a sizable article of its own, and it would be very relevant too. For example,  if you analyze it directly, TimandKids edit did not actually inform the Wikipedia reader about anything about polygamy itself.  Rather, all the edit did was show one argument in the anti-polygamy debate.  But that still does not actually inform about polygamy itself.  So, that edit should not really be in a neutral anthropological polygamy article.  However (and further showing that I have always been dedicated to true NPOV), I do see a valid place for Wikipedia readers who choose to investigate "why" some people disagree with polygamy: the anti-polygamy article I created. In that kind of anti-polygamy article, TimandKids anti-polygamy POV argument could be presented and the resulting pro-polygamy argument/response (as the edit I tried to make about it) could also be presented.  That would be both POVs presented in the non-neutral anti-polygamy agenda/debate article, while the neutral NPOV anthropoligical polygamy article only informs about polygamy/polygamists itself.


 * When searching to understand about polygamy, people want to know about polygamy and polygamists. People already know there are anti-polygamists. So when they are looking for information about polygamy, they do not need to be distracted with the anti-polygamy agenda and debate at that point.  But if they want that information too, then they can proceed to the anti-polygamy article too.  Because that would allow both sides of POV, the Wikipedia reader, who chooses to research that extra anti-polygamy information too, would also be educated about both sides of the debate.  But until they seek that out, the non-neutral anti-polygamy POV distraction has no real valid place in the neutral anthropological polygamy article itself.


 * Your concern about article size is also not a problem in any way. (Currently, the single polygamy article is so long, filled with anti-polygamy agenda POV, that when you edit the entire page, a red-font warning tells you that it is already too large.)  As well, the "Proponents & Critics" section in the polygamy article can not sufficiently address or identify the complete anti-polygamy agenda and debate.  Even if it could (which it cannot), it would have to be so much volume that it would overdominate the polygamy article in general, making the article even longer than it already excessively is.


 * An anti-polygamy article would also not be too short. For an example of Bible arguments alone, take a look at BiblicalPolygamy.com. At one point or another, anti-polygamists would post the anti-polygamists  arguments they present (just as TimandKids recently did).  And all the pro-polygamist responses to the specific arguments (as you can see there are many of them at that above web-site) could be added too.  Considering the many pages of response arguments at that above web-site, for just one example for my point here, the anti-polygamy article will not be short of content, at all.  There are that many pro-polygamy responses because they are responding to that many attempted anti-polygamy arguments.  Plus, there are other arguments that are not even Bible-related too, so you know the anti-polygamy article will eventually attain quite a size of its own.


 * So I was not creating parallel POV articles at all. It is not accurate to think of it as polygamy vs. anti-polygamy. Rather, polygamy is neutral and the anti-polygamy debate is the non-neutral Anti POV vs Pro POV.


 * For these reasons, I was genuinely providing a valid solution for all concerned with this second article creation. (Well, it would be received as valid for all except by the purposely hostile anti-polygamists who want to hide their agenda and therefore make up deceptive excuses to not allow the second article.)


 * Since this solution I offered falls within the parameters to which you yourself were here approving, it is my hope that you can stop the hastily-made "call for deletion" of the anti-polygamy article. I also hope that you will also stop the anti-polygamists from continuing all their personal attacks, including the summary-deletion of every edit I make to the polygamy article.


 * I really would like to be able to edit without the never-valid rv's coming from hostile anti-polygamists who openly do not even know this subject matter. Despite how many times my edits have tried to accommodate even the anti-polygamists, I have never received such a good faith act back to me from them.  (While Nereocystis's "apology" below is the very first time they have ever indicated something postive toward me, their "words" mean little until a true good faith action supports positivity toward me.  As long as my multiple edits are not restored and THEN we TALK, as according to Wiki Guidelines, such "words" remain empty and do not qualify as "good faith acts." While the "apology" is a good start, it is still a start without substance, at this point.)  But no, I have never received any accomodation or good faith act from the anti-polygamists.  This all proves that it is they, not me, who are the personal attackers, the ones violating Wiki Ettiquette, refusing the Guidelines of STATUS QUO for controversial topics, and refusing to allow me to edit anything.


 * So, no, anti-polygamists have made it impossible to present polygamy in a single article fairly without their hostile POV agendas infesting it. As such, the only true NPOV solution is to have the two articles as I have proposed. It's the truest NPOV method available, and everyone can have a valid voice.


 * If the anti-polygamists had followed Wiki Guidelines and actually TALKED with me instead of destroying or deleting everything I do, this intent for the newly-created anti-polygamy article would have been immediately realized. But then again, their hostile POV and personal attacks against me never wanted to TALK or act in good faith with me in the first place, because their outed agenda is to sneakily mis-inform Wikipedia readers about polygamy.  My solution of two articles moves to preventing that and yet still allows even anti-polygamists a voice too.  True fairness and NPOV for everyone.


 * I am hopeful, Tom Haws, that you will begin to free me from the oppression of the POV anti-polygamists. There is nothing "fairly represented" about having all my truly-valid edits summarily wiped out and no one protecting me from such obvious personal attacks. It would be nice to be allowed to actually provide my wealth of knowledge here again.


 * If you can help, I truly thank you.


 * Researcher 16:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

TimandKids addition, as edited, discusses a POV against polygamy, which is appropriate to discuss when it is labeled as a POV. That's why it is listed under critic and proponents. Researcher99's addition to this section are quite reasonable. The entire paragraph may be too wordy, but I don't see how to change it yet. I apologize for my earlier comments about Researcher99's POV. I will try to limit my comments to very specific passages which are POV, rather than calling all of the changes by a person POV. Nereocystis 8 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Anti-polygamy
I deleted this paragraph:


 * While polygamy is a neutral term as per the definitions above, anti-polygamy is not neutral at all. The important distinction is that anti-polygamy is a non-neutral agenda and debate.

As Tom Haws has explained, splitting the anti-polygamy site from polygamy is an attempt at splitting off all of the POV from the main article. This is a bad idea. Let's discuss it before bringing this section back. Nereocystis 9 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

Mormon polygamy
I changed this section:


 * Another major concern has recently arisen with the discovery in a very small number of Mormon polygamy groups that some women were brought into these polygynous relationships prior to the age of consent, meaning that some men may be committing statutory rape.

to this:


 * Some Mormon polygamists marry women prior to the age of consent.

The sentence is shorter, and clearer. "A very small number" is somewhat misleading. There are at least 3 or 4 of the Mormon polygamist groups which marry prior to the age of consent.

This paragraph:


 * In 2005, the state attorneys-general of Utah and Arizona issued a primer on helping victims of domestic violence and child abuse in Mormon polygamous communities. (The primer addressed no other forms of polygamy.) Enforcement of other crimes such as child abuse, domestic violence, and fraud were emphasized over the enforcement of anti-polygamy laws.

was turned into:


 * In 2005, the state attorneys-general of Utah and Arizona issued a primer on helping victims of domestic violence and child abuse in Mormon polygamous communities. Enforcement of other crimes such as child abuse, domestic violence, and fraud were emphasized over the enforcement of anti-polygamy laws.

I removed this sentence:


 * (The primer addressed no other forms of polygamy.)

which is unneccessary.

I deleted these paragraphs:


 * Most modern polygamists and polyamorists oppose such other crimes, and they frequently point out that it is hostile propaganda to illogically connect such anecdotal situations as if representing all forms of polygamy.


 * Taking that context even further, it also should be noted that, while Mormon polygamists did (and do) practice polygamy, Polygamy does not equal Mormon Polygamy. There are various other forms, including Christian polygamy, Muslim polygamy, secular polygamy, etc. While some of the above legal situations may have occurred within a handful of specific Mormon polygamy groups, those situations are not representative of other forms of polygamy, nor even representative of all other groups of Mormon polygamy.

This sounds extremely POV.

The polygamy article lists a number of different forms of polygamy, many of which are not Mormon. There isn't a need to state that not all polygamists are Mormon. We don't need to repeatedly state that most polygamists don't do X.

Nereocystis 9 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy
I reverted this paragraph:


 * Since only one wife is married to the husband at any one time, no law was being broken and so this type of polygamous family unit could be overt about their relationship. In 2001, however, the state of Utah in the United States convicted Tom Green of criminal non-support and four counts of bigamy for having 5 serially monogomous marriages, while living with previous legally divorced wives. Having used that system of multiple divorce and marriage to defraud the state's welfare system, his cohabitation was considered evidence of a common-law marriage to the wives he had divorced while still living with them. As that case applies only to Utah, it is therefore not a nationwide precedent on common-law marriage and polygamy. However, it does show the risks in using the system of multiple divorce and legal marriage and why many polygamists avoid it.

to this:


 * Since only one wife is married to the husband at any one time, no law was being broken and so this type of polygamous family unit could be overt about their relationship. In 2001, however, the state of Utah in the United States convicted Tom Green of criminal non-support and four counts of bigamy for having 5 serially monogomous marriages, while living with previous legally divorced wives. His cohabitation was considered evidence of a common-law marriage to the wives he had divorced while still living with them. That premise was subsequently affirmed by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Green, as applicable only in the State of Utah. Green was also convicted of child rape and criminal non-support. In 2005, the state attorneys-general of Utah and Arizona issued a primer on helping victims of domestic violence and child abuse in polygamous communities. These states are emphasizing enforcement of crimes of child abuse, domestic violence, and fraud over the enforcement of the crime of polygamy. The priorities of local prosecuters are not covered by this statement.


 * Deseret News article about Tom Green

The reverted version was listed under disputes for quite a few weeks without comment. If change is desired, please discuss it on the talk page.

This clause is incorrect and does not have any trustworthy citation:


 * It was Green's crime of criminal non-support which initiated the case in that one state.

Researcher99 provides a reference of an interview with Mark the Founder of a ministry, perhaps truthbearer.org, where the founder says that Green was prosecuted because of criminal non-support. It is not clear who "Mark the Founder" is, or why one should trust his view on this issue. I don't consider this a valid reference for resolving the question of why Tom Green was prosecuted. However, I am willing to listen to a reason why I should trust Mark the Founder, and why this should be believed over the word of the prosecutor in the case.

David O. Leavitt was the prosecutor in the Tom Green bigamy and child-rape cases. He is no longer the Juab County Prosecutor, but he states the reasons for his prosecution of Green. While Leavitt mentions government support, he claims that it is not the reason for the prosecution. Look at this ReligionNewsBlog article:


 * I agree that not all polygamists, sexually or otherwise, abuse children. I understand that some don't scam the government. But the harm to society and to innocent individuals is so great that even the exceptions cannot be justified. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1879 rejected polygamy, stating that monogamy is the only acceptable form of marriage because it preserves our culture and our families.

In another page which claims to be from a Reuter's article, Leavitt says:


 * whenever someone confesses to commission of a felony on national television in my jurisdiction I'm going to prosecute him

These two quotes provide evidence that Green's prosecution was not because of criminal non-support, but because:


 * 1) Green publicly talked about his polygamy
 * 2) Anyone guilty of polygamy should be prosecuted.

Can Researcher99 provide evidence which support his view?

Nereocystis 9 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

See pro-polygamy web site http://www.mormonpolygamy.com/Fundamentalist_Mormons.html question "Isn't polygamy against the law?" for a discussion of the legality of polygamy. It is not POV to point out that polygamy is against the law. My great-grandfather spent time in jail due to his polygamy. Stating this does not make me or him an anti-polygamist. It is a silly and dangerous law, but it is the law. Nereocystis 18:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Mormon fundamentalists - aggregate in communities
I deleted the following section:


 * Due to the Mormon revered texts of Doctrine & Covenants 132 and subsequent pronouncements making polygamy an "appointment" for obtaining religious rewards in heaven (D&C 132:40), women in such fundamentalist Mormon communities often marry polygamously as a requirement for their path toward becoming better off in the afterlife.


 * Historically, it was this implicit lack of choice for women in the specifically fundamentalist Mormon polygamous situations, that caused many anti-polygamists to inaccurately equate all polygamy in general as somehow being against women. With such added hostility from Western society for such "no-choice-for-women" premises, Mormon polygamists find it simply easier to aggregate into their own private separated communities and retain their privacy.

D&C132:40 does not require all women to submit to polygamy, though parts of D&C 132 do require Emma Smith to submit to polygamy. While some of the Mormon fundamentalists seem to force polygamy upon the women, not all of them do. Many Mormon polygamists, past and present, oppose such forcing of polygamy upon women, so let's not list it here. The second paragraph is particularly POV and opposed to Mormon fundamentalist polygamy.

If these sentences were reworded to say that some Mormon fundamentalist women are pushed into polygamy, with references, I would accept the sentences. In fact, a section on polygamists finding more spouses should probably mention forced polygamy as one method, but only if it fairly treats all Mormon fundamentalists. Nereocystis 01:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved Catholic opposition to "Proponents and opponents" section
I moved this section from Polygamy to Polygamy:
 * Today, the Catholic Church clearly condemns polygamy; the Catechism of the Catholic Church lists it in paragraph 2387 under the head "Other offenses against the dignity of marriage" and states that it "is not in accord with the moral law." Also in paragraph 1645 under the head "The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love" states "The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection. Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive."

My image of the article is that the Polygamy section mentions religions which practice polygamy, and the Polygamy section mentions opponents. However, this division may be artificial. Perhaps "Polygamy and religion" should be changed to "Practicing polygamists". If "Polygamy and religion" includes sections on opposition to polygamy, then "Proponents and opponents" should have a pointer to the former section. Help is welcome here. Nereocystis 01:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy
I moved "Patterns of occurence" and "Polygamy and religion" under the section "Polygamy worldwide". I don't know if this really makes sense. There may be too much under one heading. "Polygamy worldwide" really should be rewritten a bit, with a reference to the original work which includes the report of 850 of 1170 societies practice polygamy. I perused this article once, and thought it was interesting. Religions definitely should be included under societies. Please comment if this seems odd, or even if it doesn't. Nereocystis 01:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Polygamous societies & Ethnographic Atlas
I found a more direct reference to Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, and took data derived directly from the Ethnographic Atlas, about monogamous and polygamous societies. I also split out societies with occasional polygyny from societies with more frequent polygyny, which gives a more accurate indicationof the frequency of polygany. Nereocystis 14:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Christians consider polygamy sinful
I deleted this sentence:
 * Polygamy is considered sinful by most Christian denominations; second marriages are considered unlawful and cohabitation between a man and a second wife is adultery.

Opposition to polygamy should be in Polygamy. However, it needs a citation. Name at least one Christian denomination which has this belief, along with a supporting citation. This area is very controversial. Some Christians support polygamy, some oppose it, some are neutral. Well-documented opinions about polygamy are welcome.

I think that this is already covered in the following paragraph:


 * The illegality of polygamy in certain areas creates, according to certain Bible passages, additional arguments against it. Paul of Tarsus writes "submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience" (Romans 13:5), for "the authorities that exist have been established by God." (Romans 13:1) St Peter concurs when he says to "submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." (1 Peter 2:13,14) Pro-polygamists argue that, as long as polygamists currently do not obtain legal marriage licenses for additional spouses, no enforced laws are being broken any more than when monogamous couples who similarly co-habitate without a marriage license.  The "Law of the Land" page at BiblicalPolygamy.com provides and addresses more details on that specific issue.

Nereocystis 20:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Citations restored to proper places
Researcher99 moved and deleted some citations. I restored them. Before deleting the citations, please explain in detail why the removed citation are inappropriate for this article. I don't understand the explanation in your comment, and would prefer to keep discussion of content on the talk page. Citations generally belong at the end of the article. Cite_sources. We can discuss whether the citation belongs, but it has to be discussed. Nereocystis 14:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Researcher99's changes again. Why do you consider this citation to be spam. If you tell me, I might agree with you. Explain the reasons for your other changes, on the talk page, please. Nereocystis 22:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Here again, readers may observe how Nereocystis is acting extremely aggressive and acting like they "own" this article. Anyone can clearly see that a book for sale is a commercial SPAM.  To say "I don't understand the explanation" that is just another example of Nereocystis using the identical Ghostintheshell obfuscatory tactic, once again convincing me that they are Ghostintheshell.  Not only is that commercial SPAM, it also is selling something which has been available for free online for years before that self-publisher copied the book for re-publishing and trying to sell it through Wikipedia. (The book is free online ate one of the other listed sites in the External Links section.  See: the book online here.  Here's an interesting page I found at that self-publisher's book-publishing web-site about it.  It further shows how deceitful that self-publisher actually turns out to have been.  I had thought about possibly changing the link to the free online version, but because the main domain (TruthBearer.org) is alreeady linked there, I was thought it best not overdue the links on the large site, so I opted not to use it. I do think it's valuable, but I was showing restraint.  The same ANON who posted their copied commercial SPAM also created and added the supposed additional "Bibliography" section.  Readers may notice how they added self-published books. Just because someone uses the now easy-to-use self-publishing systems to create books on demand, that does not qualify them as valid bibliography.  Bibliography issues should really only include proven books of serious bibliographic value to be listed that way on a Wikipedia article, not any mere self-publisher.  In addition to double-listing their commercial for the above copied book for sale (the one which is free elsewhere online for years before anyway), the ANON also included another un-credible self-published book that can not even be found on the self-publisher's own site from any links through its front page.  (Readers may type in the domain name front page of the other book I removed and you will not find that book or anything about polygamy throughout the "bfree.org" site.)  So, the ANON was listing an un-credible self-published book that even the author is no longer marketing.  No polygamy websites lead to that self-publisher's book for sale either.  none of the polygamy sites even link to the site, actually.  That shows how un-credible the site really is.  Besides, it is not even being made for sale through any means. That certainly is not a valid bibliography.  While I question other listings in that ANON-created "Bibliography" section (or the entire section), I only sought to remove the obvious SPAM and irrelevance there.  But Nereocystis seems to think they "own" the polygamy article. Instead of looking into all the problems of that section, they instead purposely target the NPOV sections I was involved with and they rv my every valid attempt to clean that other matter up because they are aggressively targeting everything I do. When a mere sub-topic link is added to the very top of the list that only applies to a specific Mormon polygamy issue, and it makes an outlandish claim about Joseph Smith, Nereocystis ignores that, instead targets the issues involving the NPOV content I was involved with, and instead rv's my every attempt to move that sub-topic link from the top of the list to its more accurate sub-topic location.  Anyone can easily see that a site about Joseph Smith's wives is such a sub-topic type of site that it does not qualify to be near the top of the External Links list, but that it belongs more connected only to the specific Mormon Polygamy section. When Nereocystis is the one who could not justify their rv's, they instead aggressively rv my corrections to remove the obvious SPAM etc.  Nereocystis could have easily followed the comment-lines I made, and then checked out the resources themselves.  It is obvious. But rather than check things out, they just once again acted aggressively to rv any edit I make as if they think they "own" the polygamy article. Researcher 00:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the reasons for your changes. If I understand correctly, you would not mind restoring the Campbell book with a link to the free download at truthbearer.org. The original link allowed at http://www.lulu.com/content/111883 allows a free download as well, but requires logging in, which I consider more painful than a straight link, though lulu.com is a nicer-looking site than truthbearer.org. One link is enough, but both links should not be removed unless you have good argument for not listing the book at all.


 * The self-publisher was only trying to exploit Wikipedia to sell something it stole off the original location of the truthbearer.org site. With the approriate link now in place, then the book is acceptable for placement, ecause it does not try to use Wikipedia for commerce nor reward the self-publisher's theft.  The book's actual publisher information is not correctly listed though.  The book was actually published in 1869 in Boston. Researcher 17:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You mention another book which is not credible. Which book is that? Why is it not credible? Is it the book by Butt which you deleted. I will place the reference back in place unless you give a clear explanation of why you deleted the link.


 * Apparently, the following explanation I made before was ignored. I will repeat:  In addition to double-listing their commercial for the above copied book for sale (the one which is free elsewhere online for years before anyway), the ANON also included another un-credible self-published book that can not even be found on the self-publisher's own site from any links through its front page.  (Readers may type in the domain name front page of the other book I removed and you will not find that book or anything about polygamy throughout the "bfree.org" site.)   So, the ANON was listing an un-credible self-published book that even the author is no longer marketing.  No polygamy websites lead to that self-publisher's book for sale either.  None of the polygamy sites even link to the site, actually.  That shows how un-credible the site really is.  Besides, it is not even being made for sale through any means. That certainly is not a valid bibliography. [Emphasis added.] Without even being able to find any link to the book for sale on the site's own page from its own front page and inward through their links, citing it as a bibliography does so without valid proof of the book's existence.    Researcher 17:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet again, Nereocystis has ignored the repeatedly provided evidence that the alleged "bfree" book is not even findable. They are unable to Cite sources of the book's existence. The book is not even available on the author's own web-site.  In fact, that web-site does not even have anything about polygamy on it!  Yet Nereocystis keeps putting it back as a Bibliography?  It's absurd.  No other polygamy sites even link to that web-site either.  Yet, Nereocystis keeps putting that listing back over and over and again.  This is more proof that Nereocystis is unwilling to follow Wikipedia Guidelines or work through anything.  Researcher 17:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please name the book which you have doubts about. I have asked you many times which book you are talking about.  Please, name the book. Nereocystis 04:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers may note the inflammatory waste of time that Nereocystis employs here. They have outright pushed the unfindable book back into the article at least five different times, but then act like they do not know about it here.
 * * 22:09, 6 June 2005 Line 157
 * * 17:05, 1 July 2005 Line 162
 * * 16:59, 8 July 2005 Line 162
 * * 22:03, 20 July 2005 Line 170
 * * 06:06, 29 July 2005 with the comment-line saying, "Bibliography - restore book by Butt since no reason has been given for its deletion"


 * In every delete I made on that unfindable supposed "book," I fully explained the reason (e.g., that it was unfindable). I've also explained here in TALK over and over again (e.g., in the paragraphs just above here).  The last edit of those five listed  edits there from Nereocystis was even an individual edit, only dealing specificially with that one alleged "book."  So Nereocystis definitely knows what this is talking about.  For them to "ask" yet again here is more proof that they are only here to harrass me (and destroy Wikipedia) and not make a positive contribution or discussion to the article. Researcher 19:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please tell me, are you complaining about the book by Butt? Yes or No.  Nereocystis 19:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to combine external links and bibliography into a section called "References" myself. Some of the references are links, some are books. This is one of the standard methods of combining references. See Cite_sources for a discussion of the topic.


 * No citations throughout the polygamy article are being made from the listed books, which is why I question the Bibliography section at all. However, I do not agree for them to be mingled with the web-site listings. Researcher 17:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the outlandish claim made by the site about the wives of Joseph Smith? I am willing to change the position of this link in the references, if you would prefer. I will also consider removing the link completely if we add an appropriate "See Also" link in the Mormon polygamy section. Joseph Smith is important in US polygamy history, since he was responsible for biggest group of US polygamists in the past, and probably still in the present. However, a see also link is sufficient here. In fact, the Plural marriage link may be all that is necessary.


 * The original edit of that site outlandishly claimed Joseph Smith as the founder of modern polygamy, which is wholly false. He was only the founder of Mormon polygamy, but not modern polygamy whatsoever.  Christian polygamy is only about 10 years old, and that could perhaps be called as "modern polygamy" in calling Mormon polygamy "old polygamy" - but that would equally not be accurate.   So, it is  a completely anti-polygamy agenda POV to try to make all polygamy defined by an exclusively Mormon "founder." Researcher 17:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

For the topics above, I will wait 48 hours before making the modifications I suggested above. If there isn't a response in that time, I will assume that my changes are acceptable. If there are additional comments, I'm willing to discuss them for a while before making a change, which I hope will be agreeable to all.

The NPOV stays until this issue is resolved. As the NPOV dispute, if you say it is NPOV and I say it isn't then there is a dispute. That doesn't necessary mean that it is NPOV, but it probably is. Please read the article. Nereocystis 14:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I made the bibliography and citation changes mentioned above in the article. Nereocystis 14:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have made the corrections as explained above. Researcher 17:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the name of the book which you call un-credible. Please name the book. Nereocystis 18:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

External links organization
I tried to split the external links into groups, depending upon primary topic. Four of the sites listed are owned by standardbearer.com. I placed those together so that it is clear that the sites are owned by one source, rather than being independently operated web sites. I hope that I organized the links correctly. Please mention here if my organization is mistaken. Nereocystis 20:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99 reverted my change without an explanation. If an explanation is not provided, I will set it back again. Please suggest a different organization, if this one seems incorrect. Nereocystis 01:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I found your comment, which you later deleted, perhaps accidentally. There seemed to be some problems with wikipedia yesterday. I accidentally one of your comments, which I later restored. Anyway, I changed the external links organization to reflect your comments. If you think that the Truth Bearer is unnecessary, delete it for now, and we'll discuss it later. Nereocystis 07:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did make a number of TALK posts yesterday which explained my rv. I am glad to see the assertion that I had somehow not explained it has been corrected. Researcher 13:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no Wikipedia Guideline that suggests the absurd idea of organizing links based on their webhost. Websites can change their hosting providers at any time.  That is just too variable.  So it is just ridiculous and not NPOV to organize links that way.  It is good to see the attempted possible good faith act here to allow a correction to be made without yet another aggressive act to follow it.  While I still await restoration to TRUE STATUS QUO in order to THEN start having a legitimate TALK, I will offer the following accommodation and make some changes to this latest re-organization instead of rv'ing it.  This can be considered my offer of a good faith act.  However, after that, this matter needs to be left alone until we get to resolving the overall issues.  So, Nereocystis should equally do a good faith act here and accept this good faith accommodation until the matters are resolved.  They have just offered to do that here, so now I await to see if they told the truth or lied in making that offer.  If the accommodation I am about to make to the article is still changed by Nereocystis, however, then that bad faith act will motivate complete rv'ing again.  Such a bad faith act will fully prove that Nereocystis is only out to destroy the polygamy article, to be a bully, and is never willing to TALK or follow Wikiquette.  I hope they spoke truthfully.  Researcher 13:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Returning back here a day later, I am glad to see the good faith act by Nereocystis of not destroying the section.  Such a good faith act was necessary in order to proceed. While Nereocystis has mistakenly added two invalid links, I am still now very willing to (after I remove those links in order to start fresh) offer more opportunities for mutual good faith acts between us so that we can get these issues resolved.  If such good faith acts can continue, I would be glad to TALK directly with Nereocystis and address their questions (as best I can) whenever they come up with them.  It is my hope that this process can continue this curtently positive path that has just started.  Researcher 12:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggested changes
In this section, I plan to suggest changes and gather responses. After a week or so, I will free to make these changes if there are no responses. Please follow dispute resolutions guidelines. Discuss the text, not the editor. Nereocystis 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge Polygamy and Polygamy
Both of these sections are related to how people practice polygamy. The Polygamy section includes quite a bit of information beyond finding spouses. Does anyone object to merging these sections. If not, I will create a suggested rewrite. I suspect that the combined sections will be shorter, removing some repetition and POV. I hope that I can be fair, but would like other people's input to my rewrite. Nereocystis 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers should note that all actions by Nereocystis have been under dispute since they arrived, destroying the polygamy article with numerous sneaky vandalisms. So now Nereocystis seeks to destroy this particular subsection, having this subsection as their latest target for their sneaky vandalism. That would seem to provide further evidence that Nereocystis is highly likely the same person as the previous sneaky vandal Ghostintheshell who had originally started all the sneaky vandalisms (as followed by Nereocystis) with destruction of that particlar subsection.  Also, nothing Nereocystis has done here in that time since has ever been "fair."  Until the article is restored back to TRUE STATUS QUO and the overall problem itself may then be resolved (as I have been calling for since the "Ghostintheshell situation"), all edits by Nereocystis are disputed and should be halted, particularly this one.  So now we're full circle back to Ghostintheshell, just as I had always thought from the beginning.   Researcher 10:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Prosecutions of polygamists
I plan on updating Polygamy. I will concentrate on US cases, because I know how to find them. There have been a number of recent prosecutions. I want to emphasize cases where people are being charged with bigamy, though perhaps with other crimes added as well. This prosecutions are interested for many reasons:

Nereocystis 21:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To a polygamist, it is important to keep track of prosecutions to understand the risk of prosecutions for one's own crimes.
 * To a civil libertarian, it is important to follow laws which reduce civil liberties.
 * To neutral parties, it is interesting to understand the legal state of a fairly umcommon practice.
 * To people strongly opposed to polygamy, I'm sure it's important for some reason.

Denial that all polygamists have certain behavior
Researcher99 often states that many polygamists are against certain things practiced by some polygamists, for example statuatory rape. Do we need a section which states something like this:


 * Many polygamists are against the following:
 * marrying women younger than the age of consent.
 * opposition to women
 * forced marriage
 * no-choice-for-women

I'm not sure that we need it, but I don't want to same comments repeated in the article. This could reduce some of the repetition of denying what some polygamists do. Nereocystis 9 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

I think that may be a good idea. Tom Haws July 9, 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Anti-polygamy article considered for deletion
The anti-polygamy article is being considered for deletion. If you have an opinion on the deletion of the article, vote soon. I'm skipping a vote, but want people interested in polygamy to be aware of the vote for deletion. The vote ends soon. Nereocystis 17:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This situation is another example of anti-polygamist persecution, sabotaging Wikipedia. Instead of learning what the real issue of the article is about and discussing it on the TALK page itself, anti-polygamists chose to quickly try to delete it in order to hide their POV agenda. Their actions violate the Wiki Guideones on the issue. On that vote page, I had already posted the following section. Researcher 17:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

For NPOV, the difference between neutral term vs. non-neutral POV agenda/debate MUST be Separated
Reposted to this TALK page here by Researcher 17:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

When I started the anti-polygamy article, I did so with the full invitation for anti-polygamists to add their views there as well. That was the point, actually. So, I had only started the anti-polygamy article, but fully expected others, including anti-polygamists, to bring their views there too. If anti-polygamists thought it was too POV there, they were welcome to build upon the article (not delete or destroy) and to simultaneously await any pro-polygamous response too. Instead, however, anti-polygamists who are afraid of their agenda being so exposed in such an open debate of their itemized presented arguments and tactics like that have responded by trying to hide and undermine that altogether. This very "vote for deletion" page is a pure example of that, anti-polygamists trying to prevent their agenda from being so exposed because they are not confident enough that their views and exposed tactics will be able to "win" their debate. Instead, they want to hide behind the seeming "authoritativeness" of directly infesting the neutral anthropological polygamy article with their POV and mis-information.

It is, of course, fully expected that anti-polygamists would oppress a minority by wanting to prevent Wikipedia readers from learning about the tactics and debate about anti-polygamy. Like I just said, they want the "freedom" to misrepresent polygamy as if authoritative rather than have their debates exposed for what they are.

Again, it must be understood that Polygamy is a neutral term but anti-polygamists continue to infest the Polygamy article with their POV. Nereocystis has repeatedly been outed as a hostile anti-polygamist on the Polygamy TALK pages. (Anti-polygamists have further tried to hide those "outings" by "archiving" all the evidence about the "outings." As well, an ANON editor deliberately tried to hide the evidence I had recently presented about what anti-polygamists did to my original version of the anti-polygamy article, by removing the specific segment of evidence from the TALK altogether!]) Therefore the outed anti-polygamist Nereocystis is here attempting to appeal to a hostile anti-polygamy POV majority in order to prevent the real issues from being exposed.

Anti-polygamy is obviously a non-neutral agenda. To obtain true NPOV in Wikipedia, polygamy should not be infested with the obvious POV of anti-polygamists as has been happening.

Instead, for true NPOV throughout the issue, anti-polygamists can have a place at the anti-polygamy article to itemize their agenda points and views by putting them in the more appropriate anti-polygamy article. Then pro-polygamists can also list their refutations of those items. That way, both articles are truly NPOV.

In that way, the neutral anthropoligical polygamy article can teach Wikipedia readers what polygamy really is about without the distraction of the agenda of anti-polygamy POV. If the Wikipedia readers want to also see the anti-polygamy view and debate, then they can go to the anti-polygamy article and get that information too. (When I created the anti-polygamy article, I created an immediate explanation and link to it on the anti-polygamy article.)  Wikipredia readers should not be distracted with the agenda of the anti-polygamy POV and propaganda, unless they seek it directly.

What I have created with all this also allows true NPOV on the anti-polygamy article too. As already explained, anti-polygamists can place their reasons for their agenda and pro-polygamists can respond. Balance, NPOV. In the same way, pro-polygamists can point out the tactics of anti-polygamists and anti-polygamists can respond. True NPOV.

Polygamy is the neutral anthropological term. Anti-polygamy is the non-neutral agenda and debate. True NPOV accross the board.

In addition to the NPOV issue, the polygamy article itself is already too long. Whenever one makes an edit to the full polygamy article, they get the red-font "too long" message. The reason that the polygamy article is too long is because it is too infested with anti-polygamy agenda. So, by moving the agenda and debate to its own anti-polygamy article, the length can be kept within Guidelines.

Lastly, the POV of those wanting to delete or prevent this solution is easily observable as hostile anti-polygamy POV itself. To refuse to allow the anti-polygamy article, as the needed solution to the anti-polygamists destroying the polygamy article, is the same thing as a KKK majority refusing fairness and NPOV to African Americans on a Wikipedia article about African Americans. It is the same thing as contining to allow KKK editors to imply all the worst ideas against African Americans as if authoritative rather than allow their POV agenda and debate be openly exposed for review of all Wikipedia readers.

So, for true NPOV, article-length, and true fairness to an oppressed minority, a legitimate encyclopedia must separate the neutral anthropological term of polygamy from the non-neutral agenda and debate of anti-polygamy. Anything less than that is bigoted POV and has no place in a legitimate Wikipedia.

Researcher 13:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - Yep, I know...
The only reason I'm not putting a neutral tag on this (the version I'm currently looking at, which may change) is because I want to go home now. Yes, I read most of the debate (though I have to say I still don't understand exactly what Researcher's contention is, as his edits are often just as POV as those he's complaining about). Anyway, I have a problem with the following phrases in particular, and would hope to get some consensus before stepping into the poo. I checked out the website, and while it seems to be a good resource of polygamous activism, it is also very biased, as it should be considering what it is. It being referenced on this site wouldn't be such an issue if it wasn't for the fact that the current phrasing suggests that this group is THE source and that other viewpoints regarding the subject are simply wrong. I would support something that points towards the group's efforts in legalizing polygamy, or even another trusted source stating that this site is influential in the goings-on of christian polygamy. As currently written, however, it reads like an ad for Christian polygamy, and that shouldn't be here anymore than an ad for Jewish monagamy.
 * LoveNotForce.com sets the "standard of Christian Polygamy."


 * For readers to understand the difference between Christian Polygamy and other forms (such as Mormon polygamy, etc.), it is important for them to know what has come to be defined as the standard. How that standard came to be established is reported on another web-site, History of the Christian Polygamy Movement. It was quite an ordeal when that standard finally got established in that new movement.  The Love-not-force standard is a surprisingly positive model of polygamy, in what is a relatively new movement (Christian Polygamy).  To seek to remove that essential standard which has been estabished in that young movement, and to deprive readers that way from knowing about that established standard, is far more POV than the listing could ever be considered.  I would even say that removing it would actually be specific anti-polygamy POV, trying to deliberately deprive readers from knowing about positive information.  Honestly, for true NPOV, the listing really must stay, or the reader is left completely uninformed. Researcher 01:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The average reader of Wikipedia would not know that about the site you just mentioned, which is nowhere in the article (it might be in external links). Mention this information and it'll be less POV - as it stands now, it is POV and despite your desire for true NPOV, it will not be as is. StopTheFiling 20:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * The link about the Christian Polygamy movement's history is provided in the External Links of the Wikipedia article. As the history shows, there really is only one established organization for Christian Polygamy, TruthBearer.org.  The values of that "Standard of Christian Polygamy" (love-not-force) orginated in that organization.  TruthBearer.org's media page provides many pages of some of the media sources using that organization.  You will not find any other organized and media established credibility anywhere on the internet regarding Christian Polygamy.  So, that was not some "ad" of one specific viewpoint.  Actually, yes, it is THE source on that young new movement. That's why it is truly NPOV and the NPOV tag needs to be removed.  Researcher 19:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This statement needs to be removed altogether. It sounds like a thesis for an interesting research paper. More importantly, I cannot see how the phrase these "pro-woman" models of polygamy have emerged to break down the mistaken stereotypes of polygamy in general. is NPOV. It is not. It'd be nice to keep it in somehow, but it really sounds like the start of a term paper, which is original research and NPOV.
 * With Christian polygamy's "love-not-force" standard and secular polygamy's "free choice" paradigm, these "pro-woman" models of polygamy have emerged to break down the mistaken stereotypes of polygamy in general.


 * You have stumbled upon the results of a subsection which has long been sneaky vandalized and is part of the current problem being disputed. So you are not seeing the actual subsection in which that paragraph is completely applicable.  It should be left alone while the dispute is being addressed.  Regarding your thoughts about NPOV, yes it is very much NPOV, because they have both "emerged" and their unique models of polygamy do very much break down the mistaken stereotype of polygamy in general when people learn of them.  That is, too often, people wrongly confuse "polygamy in general" with specific or forms or stereotypical notions of polygamy.  When you realize the "in general" aspect of that sentence, it is much more visible that the sentence really is NPOV and completely correct.  So this also really needs to stay, for true NPOV.  Again, I would even say that removing it would actually be specific anti-polygamy POV, trying to deliberately deprive readers from knowing about positive information.  Honestly, for true NPOV, the listing really must stay, or the reader is left completely uninformed.  Researcher 01:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I will concede that this section has probably been deprecated due to frequent edits. However, I still do not see the need for the statement. This article should not be promoting or discouraging polygamy one way or the other - it sounds like a lot of this stuff could go in a polygamy movement article, which might address some of the problems you seem to be finding. StopTheFiling 20:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the problem in the first place. Nereocystis has been nit-picking destruction piece by piece, so that now important paragraphs like this one become bait for calling for their removal.  This particular larger subsection was first attacked by Ghostintheshell who was then immediately followed by Nereocystis. They are most likely the same person, having destroyed the article with their anti-polygamy POV agenda.  Orginally, it was all part of a larger subsection explaining how the different forms of polygamists find more spouses.   It was in that context that the paragraph was NPOV.  But now that the article and subsection have been destroyed by Nereocystis / Ghostintheshell, it appears otherwise, enabling anti-polygamists to call for its further removal.  This is what I have been warning about for 3 months now. Researcher 19:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please copy the text of your preferred version of this section into the talk page. It's easier to discuss exact text, rather than a description of something which used to exist. Nereocystis 19:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers may note the obvious obfuscation here. Knowing the article has been destroyed, rather first being brought back to orginal TRUE STATUS QUO, as according to Wikipedia Guidelines, and then TALKING, instead  Nereocystis tries to imply that there is a fair discussion based upon the post-destruction version.  That is not possible.  There seems to be a deliberate "deafness" to what has been clearly repeated that we need to first start by getting back to TRUE STATUS QUO and then TALKING, which is what existed before Nereocystis / Ghostintheshell destroyed it.  TALK comes after restoration to TRUE STATUS QUO. Researcher 20:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, these are the problems I saw glaring at me when reading this. Otherwise, the rest of the article isn't bad and it's mostly NPOV (could use a little copyedit and wiki though). It's just this one section I'm having an issue with. StopTheFiling 00:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, I am suspicious of your hostile anti-polygamy POV here. For you to have suggested that the offer for resolution of the Anti-polgamy article was made "out of spite" in your post at the suspiciously made call for "Vote for Deletion" of the anti-polygamy article demonstrates to me a decidedly hostile anti-polygamy POV. When a person tries to offer a means of resolution, there is no way an honest NPOV would accuse it of being made "out of spite."  So, when I see your comments here trying to delete important data about the established standard of Christian Polygamy, your anti-polygamy POV does become highly suspect for me. Researcher 01:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I am very confused as to how you can infer that I have a hostile anti-polygamy POV from what I've written here. It's none of your business whether I am or not, really, but for the record I am more or less a social libertarian. I've been sort of following what's been going on, and that's what I got from the article you wrote. Since you've brought it up, I'd also like to add that a lot of your own edits have been very POV, and you've been rather vague as to exactly what your issues with the article have been. I second Nereocystis's suggestion, and again, a polygamy movement article might be the way to go. I will admit that the words "out of spite" was a bit harsh, but it was clear you created the article because people weren't agreeing with your edits. I appreciate that you are a student of polygamy, but I fear that your years of study may have blinded you to the fact that an opinion is still an opnion, even if well-informed. StopTheFiling 20:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to polygamy. Your help is much appreciated.

The section you mention is the worst of the POV which is left. That section was written by Researcher99, I believe. His POV seems to be Christian polygamist. I suggest tackling this next in Talk:Polygamy, which includes a suggestion for merging this section with another section. Researcher99 might be willing to discuss the changes with you. He sometimes skips wikipedia for a week. While he may answer you immediately, it might be a while before you get a response from him. I'll let you decide whether to make the changes directly, or post the suggested changes on the talk page first and wait for discussion. Nereocystis 01:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, great to be here. ;) I'll think about it and I'll wait to see Researcher's suggestion as well as I am genuinely interested in what he has to say. StopTheFiling 20:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99, could you be very specific and include your suggested text for this section below? It would be helpful as we decide how to word the section. Nereocystis 17:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I added the NPOV tag to this section. In short, it suggests the following:


 * All non-Christian polygamist women are forced into polygamy. This is not true.
 * Implicitly, All Mormon polygamist women are forced into polygamy.
 * that planned marriage is inherently worse than free choice marriage (while I agree with this, it is POV)
 * The "standard of Christian polygamy" suggests superiority of one type. It is OK to compare Christian polygamy and "love not force" with other methods, but the article cannot reach the conclusion that one form is superior to others.

This section is really a problem. I'll try for a rewrite if no one else beats me to it. Researcher99 contributions are welcome, if he discusses content of the article. Nereocystis 20:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The section is most definitely NOT a problem. Any action taken so immediately like this is proof that Nereocystis only destroys without ever TALKing.  The section should be left alone, at least until the overall dispute is addressed.  The "standard" applies to Christian Polygamy, as a means of showing what is is "true" Christian Polygamy.  The current NPOV text is not talking about the "standard" as applied to anything like Mormon polygamy.  It is only talking aout its own model, Christian Polygamy.  Anti-polygamists want to present all polygamy and all its forms as only bad.  This is proof here.  Here we have a positive model of polygamy that emerged and they want to destroy letting readers know about that. Proof of hostile anti-polygamy POV.  This latest aggressive attack shows that there is not any circumsance under which Nereocystis is ever willing to show any good faith act whatosever.  Can't we have a breather, please?   Researcher 20:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the inherent problem. "Positive model" is a point of view statement. It suggests that this form of polygamy is better than other forms of polygamy. The Mormon polygamists consider their form of polygamy to be perfectly fine. This paragraphs inherently disapproves of Mormon polygamy, along with other forms of polygamy which don't correspond to your standard. Christian polygamy sounds like a fine form of polygamy, but for Wikipedia, we can't write an article which says that it is better than other forms. Hence the NPOV warning. If we can really discuss this topic, and the text which belongs in the article, then I will hold off on my changes. I will post my proposed changes here when I get a chance, but it may be an hour or a day or a week before I do it. Nereocystis 21:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers may observe the obfuscatory tactic being used again by Nereocystis who most seriously convinces me now that they are Ghostintheshell. They keep trying to force every hostile propaganda connection of specific Mormon Polygamy bad examples (e.g. Tom Green), and then when the matter turns to the article's NPOV presentation of another model that does not involve any of the negative issues, they falsely accuse me and the content of trying to put forth a POV merely because I point out here in TALK that the other model that is not so negative.  The content itself is NOT POV whatsoever.  Just because Nereocystis  obfuscatingly claims it is not NPOV does not mean that it is.   After all, just look at their use of the identical Ghostintheshell obfuscatory tactic in the comment-line of their deletion of a visibly obvious NPOV sentence.  So, again, just because they falsely claim something is not NPOV, that does not mean it is.  Nereocystis is now arrogantly acting like they "own" the polygamy article, and that unless I obey their hostile anti-polygamy agenda, they will not let anything through.  They are the ones who destroyed the polygamy article and never let it get back toward TRUE STATUS QUO to then TALK.  That is because they do not want to TALK - ever.  They have become extremely aggressive here.  Wikipedia policy does not require me to somehow "need" to have to obtain their permission for every single edit I make (especially when I am trying to get back toward TRUE STATUS QUO), but they arrogantly act like they demand that.  They rv everything I do no matter what it is.  Today, they even showed they knowingly support obvious commerical SPAM by reversing today's edits I tried to make!  They are simply plotting daily to find new ways to destroy the polygamy article, and then they rv anything else that does not help them advance their deliberate hostile anti-polygamy POV agenda to destroy the polygamy article. Researcher 23:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's my suggested rewrite of the Polygamy:


 * Most Christian polygamists are geographically separated from other Christian polygamists. Christian polygamy does not promise rewards for engaging in polygamy.  Christian polygamy is based on the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, on the instructions in Ephesians 5:22-25.  Husbands are to be ministering, selfless, and loving as "Christ is to His churches."  Husbands are not allowed to force polygamy on any current wife.  If "God truly calls" a husband to polygamy, then a husband must wait until "God truly calls" the wife to also embrace polygamy.  Because Christian polygamy involves no religious "rewards" for polygamy, there is no pressure upon women to embrace it.  Christian polygamous families seek moral, Christian women.  A Christian polygamist wife is often a secularly-divorced Christian mother whose ex-husband abandoned her and the children.


 * Secular polygamists are also usually separated geographically from other secular polygamists. Secular polygamists often have little or no religious background regarding the issue of polygamy. Some secular married couples deliberately seek a libertine "open-minded" person to become a permanent part of their family. Some accidentally find another spouse.

To my eyes, this is less POV than the current statement. It removes the suggestion that Christian polygamy is superior to other forms of polygamy. I have reduced the total number of words, removing phrases I consider redundant or unnecessary. My prose is more sparse than the original. If there is something I removed which needs to stay in, please mention it below. This section does not include anything about the origins of Christian polygamy. I want to see something on that, but don't yet know enough about the subject to write it myself.

Let's discuss this suggested rewrite for a week or so, and try to reach an agreement. If there is no objection at the end of a week, I will feel free to make this change. Nereocystis 17:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The attempted re-write describes the established love-not-force "Standard of Christian Polygamy" while purposely refusing to inform the reader of the very source and terminology. The term love-not-force is part of Christian Polygamy's lexicon.  The reference to the "Standard" is only about showing what is TRUE Christian Polygamy versus other forms that would claim to be Christian Polygamy too.  (Also see: What Christian Polygamy is NOT.)   As LoveNotForce.com and The History of the Christian Polygamy Movement show, some self-claiming Christians tried to create a force polygamy doctrine and so the movement responded by establishing the Standard.  Readers may think of that new Standard as a movement "self-policing" itself.  Anti-polygamists like to say the government should police everything regarding polygamy. But love-not-force is an example of polygamy movement self-policing itself with establishing its own "Standard" of verification.  Despite that, anti-polygamists want to prevent Wikipedia readers from knowing that Standard exists. How does one know what is and is not Christian Polygamy?   It is not just a matter of not being Mormon or saying that a person is a Christian.  True Christian Polygamy is understood by its self-estabalished "Standard" - love-not-force. That is not an anti-Mormon POV (because it has nothing to do with Mormonism) but a pure NPOV description of a key established point self-police-designed from within that movement.  Another site, ChristianPolygamy.info also explains that "Standard" - Love-Not-Force, the Movement's Standard.   (That other site also elaborates, What Christian Polygamy is NOT.)  For these reasons, there is no real reason to change the current wording except trying to advance a hostile anti-polygamy POV and destory the article. Researcher 18:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please suggest one or two sentences which will add the content which is missing from my rewrite. If we continue discussing the content, we can work towards a statement which all of us agree is fair. StopTheFiling mentioned 2 lines which sound particularly POV to many ears. I also prefer reducing some of the redundant sentences as well, but I do want a fair explanation of Christian polygamy. Nereocystis 19:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I reread the current wording for Christian polygamy. I can't find an explanation of the origin of love-not-force. Could you write or show me a one sentence description of the origin which can be added to the article? Thanks. Nereocystis 06:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers may note the outrageousness of this action here. Nereocystis arrogantly seeks to re-write the love-not-force part, purposely removes the citation of LoveNotForce.com which fulfills many Wikipedia purposes as explained in why we are to cite sources, and then has the obnoxiousness to ask for a source of the origin of love-not-force?  Any person can easily  read that originally cited source and see the whole situation.  No need to remove the citaton.  Obviously, the citation should remain and Nereocystis should just leave the section alone.  Here again, we see that Nereocystis is unwilling to work through anything, only to cause destruction and push their anti-polygamy POV. Researcher 17:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Second rewrite. I have tried to address Researcher99's concern's in the second rewrite, and have added an explanation of love-not-force. Is this better?


 * Most Christian polygamists are geographically separated from other Christian polygamists. Many Christian polygamists use a standard which they call love-not-force. Husbands are not allowed to force polygamy on any current wife.  If "God truly calls" a husband to polygamy, then a husband must wait until "God truly calls" the wife to also embrace polygamy.  Christian polygamy does not promise rewards for engaging in polygamy.  Christian polygamy is based on the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, on the instructions in Ephesians 5:22-25.  Because Christian polygamy involves no religious "rewards" for polygamy, there is no pressure upon women to embrace it.  Christian polygamous families seek moral, Christian women.  A Christian polygamist wife is often a secularly-divorced Christian mother whose ex-husband abandoned her and the children.


 * Secular polygamists are also usually separated geographically from other secular polygamists. Secular polygamists often have little or no religious background regarding the issue of polygamy. Some secular married couples deliberately seek a libertine "open-minded" person to become a permanent part of their family. Some accidentally find another spouse.

Nereocystis 10:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. Here's another rewrite:


 * Most Christian polygamists are geographically separated from other Christian polygamists.


 * Truth Bearer, a Christian polygamist group, uses a standard which they call love-not-force . Husbands are not allowed to force polygamy on any current wife.  If "God truly calls" a husband to polygamy, then a husband must wait until "God truly calls" the wife to also embrace polygamy.  Christian polygamy does not promise rewards for engaging in polygamy.  This branch of Christian polygamy is based on the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, on the instructions in Ephesians 5:22-25.  Because Christian polygamy involves no religious "rewards" for polygamy, there is no pressure upon women to embrace it.  Truth Bearer polygamous families seek moral, Christian women.  A Truth Bearer polygamist wife is often a secularly-divorced Christian mother whose ex-husband abandoned her and the children.


 * Secular polygamists are usually separated geographically from other secular polygamists. Secular polygamists often have little or no religious background regarding the issue of polygamy. Some secular married couples deliberately seek a libertine "open-minded" person to become a permanent part of their family. Some accidentally find another spouse.


 * This rewrite is wrong and unnecessary. As my previous posts in TALK today have revealed, Nereocystis knows nothing about this issue, yet they are trying to re-write this section?  There are no "other groups" of Christian Polgamy.  In the same way that "anti-polygamy" sites have been proven to invent propaganda on things they know nothing about, the anti-polygamy Nereocystis is trying to invent an imaginary idea of "other groups" of Christian Polygamy in order to mis-inform Wikipedia readers.  The section does not need to be turned into a Truthbearer "ad."   There are no such "other groups" so it is unnecessary to identify Truthbearer that way.   There is a movement of regular Christians called Christian Polygamy.   That movement has a standard, called love-not-force, by which others may discern what is and is not true Christian Polygamy.  Proven (with media etc) activism for the movement is at the TruthBearer organization.  LoveNotForce.com may be simply mentioned as a sub-sub-topic in that Christian Polygamy oriented sub-section, but does not need to be listed in the Extneded Links section.  (Readers may see how this is the same principle I apply with the "anti-polygamy" sites as a sub-sub-topic reference in Mormon Polygamy.)  However, while I can seee the NPOV validity of the organization TruthBearer.org being listed in the Extended Links section, it would more likely end up wrongly appearing as an "ad" if placed in the subsection.  (That may be Nereocystis's sneaky plan, as an agenda to incrementally remove it altogether, of course.)  Since it is clear that Nereocystis does not even know the topic, they should refrain from doing anything with it.  The current situation is NPOV.  StopTheFiling did not actually place the NPOV tag and they have also not returned here.   That tag should be removed and the segment can be left as it is.  Better yet, Wikipedia Guideliness require that the article should be restored to TRUE STATUS QUO and then TALK can legitimately proceed. If Nereocystis genuinely cared about NPOV and the Wikipedia Guidelines, they would be agreeing with me on that and would even be asking for my assistance with the wealth of knowledge I bring to this topic.  Researcher 18:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I added the love-not-force URL, using the standard web reference citation. Do you have any other suggestions to make? Please reference the article, and do not attack other editors. Nereocystis 19:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I modified this version a bit to make it clear that Love-not-Force is a practice of some Christian polygamists, but not all of them. See for a little information about different Christian polygamists. Nereocystis 23:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I will also place secular polygamists under a separate heading from Christians, since it is a separate heading and the two groups don't really have anything in common except polygamy. I will create a separate heading for Truth Bearer under the Christian polygamy site. Since the current section suggests that all Christian polygamists believe in love-not-force, and this is incorrect, I will make the change fairly soon. Nereocystis 14:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to mention that Truth Bearer considers itself to be the only Christian polygamist group. That will satisfy the NPOV. Saying the Truth Bearer is the only Christian polygamist group is POV, and will not be allowed. Nereocystis 22:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. It is not that Truth Bearer considers itself that way.  It just is.  It is not some group, but an organization of activists.  That's all there is to it.  There is no one else with the proven credibility, action, and media accountability.  Wikipedia is not a place for every unproven lunatic fringe to claim they know something.  There must be some validity and credibility.  Now Nereocystis wants to make the polygamy article even more destroyed by adding concepts that are completely untrue.  NPOV does not validate adding invalid links.  Even the MormonPolygamy.com web-sites's links-page lists the truthbearer site and the other valid sites, not listing any invalid fringe sites as Nereocystis is now seeking to add.   The only reason that Nereocystis is creating this fiction is to purposely taint good Christians with disproved lunatic fringe one-man sites.  True NPOV requres getting the article back to TRUE STATUS QUO.  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.   Nereocystis vandalizes my own personal Wikipedia page pretending that they want to TALK and then they prove their unfailing hostility by never having a kind-based TALK here.  They always act, act to destroy, and never let us catch a breath or ever get to a real TALK.  All of this hostile aggressiveness in a topic they clearly do not know further proves how much they are never willing to honestly TALK.  After these latest destructions are now corrected, Nereocystis  should let the article remain untouched for now.  If they do touch it at this point, they prove that they have always been lying about their supposed "desire" to ever want to TALK.  Niceness really can go a lot further than non-stop destruction.  Researcher 23:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I will mention your statement.  Since there are other web sites which disagree, that will be mentioned as well.  At least one of these web sites is a site which trutherbearer.org used to link to. This is standard NPOV. Nereocystis 00:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That is not NPOV at all. A valid encyclopedia is not a repository for every kind of lunatic fringe or "me too" kind of web-site links.  There has to be some standard of validity.  Otherwise, ths becomes an invitation for every kind of self-link advertiser in Wikipedia.  Proof is necessary that the linked sites are legitimate and qualified to be accurately definitive.  If other polygamy sites do not link to a site as valid or no longer do so because the site changed or revealed its actual falseness, that proves it is not valid.  If Nereocystis wants to imagine the fantasy that just because some lunatic fringe calls itself a "group," Nereocystis may imagine it so in their own minds, but NPOV requires they prove that fantasy.  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?"   If these answers cannot be provided, then it is invalid and willful POV to try to add other links of unqualified sites.  Wikipedia cannot become some simple repository for every unqualified webmaster with internet access. Researcher 13:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you willing to discuss an alternate wording to this section? So far, you have insisted that it stay the same. Please suggest a method for reaching a resolution to our disagreement. I have suggested WP:Mediation many times.  Are you willing to try it?  If not, please give me an alternative. I have asked you to specify the status quo which you constantly refer to.  You have not done so.  What do you suggest?  Please give me a path where we can we agree on the text. Nereocystis 00:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nereocystis is providing too many "battles" to fight all at once. Before any new battle is not even solved, and off they go creating a new one.  The Tom Green issue is still unresolved (especially now in light of last week's news, as I posted previously.)  The "group marriage" issue is still long unresolved.  The suggestion that Mormon belongs in the Christian category is another new issue not resolved. So many other issues.  There are so many new issues they keep creating that it is impossible to deal with them all, which is Nereocystis's strategy of destruction.  It also takes many many posts to educate them enough to stop things, such as the rididulous self-publisher commercial issue and the same for the BFree issue. I have taught Nereocystis so much education here, all under the very hostile gun at my head from them instead of polite ettiquette questions, but they continue to destroy in a topic they do not know.  They call NPOV as POV and POV as NPOV.  Now they demand this newest issue be resolved in one moment.  They know that the TRUE STATUS QUO is supposed to be restored and THEN a TALK takes place.  Asking for a TALK about the TRUE STATUS QUO first completely violates the very principle of that Wikpedia Guideline for TRUE STATUS QUO.  (I would be glad to restore to that and then have a real TALK according to Wikipedia Guidelines, but Nereocystis will sabotage the article and rv that restoration.)  I am tired of their bullying, their obvious human psychological problem of attacking wihtout ceasing, their extreme aggressiveness, their violations of Wikipedia Guidelines, and their refusal to grant me any civility or patience.  I am tired of having to come back day after day because if I do not, they will have made so any new destructions that it will become harder and harder to corect.  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.  I need the opportunity to be free from bullying and to have genuine TALK according to the Wikipdia Guidelines.  Any discussion of NEW invented issues should take place here in TALK and not on the article itself.  Researcher 11:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A challenge, what is TRUE STATUS QUO of Polygamy
Please, Researcher99, let's discuss the text, and not my motives. Let's choose one topic, Polygamy. Tell us what you want, in exact words. What is your TRUE STATUS QUO for this topic. Talking will allow us to move forward.

If you don't like this suggestion, please make another, specific suggestion. Include text, and an explanation. Nereocystis 00:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In controversial topics, Wikipedia Guidelines do not say that TRUE STATUS QUO is supposed to be debated before being restored. Rather, the TRUE STATUS QUO is to be restored first and THEN those seeking to make the changes to that TRUE STATUS QUO in the controversial topic have to justify what changes THEY seek to make.  It is NOT the other way around, as Nereocystis is deceptively trying to imply here. Researcher 17:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

DUBIOUS "Anti-polygamy" sites
By Researcher 19:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Today, I added the DUBIOUS tag to the "anti-polygamy" commercial ad links in the External Links section. 2 months ago, I posted the who and when those links showed up, outing Nereocystis as the anti-polygamist they are. As I also wrote 2 months ago, those 2 links do not belong here. I will now repeat that pertinent subsection here about those two sites specifically..

Why those "Anti-polygamy" sites are not qualified
The polygamy wiki goes to a larger audience than little one-state or one-religion groups. For that reason, there has to be a higher standard for what qualifies for inclusion as External Links. Otherwise, it becomes a repository for any kind of "me-too" site. I have tried to hold the polygamy wiki to that higher standard. Up until the recent matters of the sneaky vandalism, the polygamy wiki was used as an intellectual resource quite well.

The two "anti-polygamy" sites that were initially brought in by ANON editing, and then sneaked back in by the sneaky vandals while they distracted the polygamy wiki with their other "issues," are Tapestry Against Polygamy and Hope for the Child Brides. Here are the reasons why they are not qualified to be included in the polygamy wiki.

This paragraph does not discuss contact and thus does not need a response. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Tapestry Against Polygamy
Despite their propaganda, the Tapestry Against Polygamy website is little more than a handful of ex-Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamous wives in the Utah area. Their only real experience and actions are about the specific Fundamentalist Mormon groups from which they left. They have no experience or actions with real Christian Polygamy, Muslim Polygamy, Secular Polygamy, etc. So, the disqualifier for not including their link pertains to both scope and scale.

Mormon Fundamentalist polygamists practice polygamy, therefore the topic is appropriate for the scope of this article. Mormon Fundamentalists are, I believe, the majority of the polygamists in the US, therefore they are far a minor footnote. References do not need to cover every type of polygamist. In fact, I expect most references to cover a small part of polygamy. This article is a synthesis of a variety of polygamous sources. Just as a truthbearer.org emphasizes Christian polygamy, this site emphasizes Mormon fundamentalist polygamy. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A person's POV about what they "believe" supposedly comprises more population does not constitute NPOV - especially by one who has repeatedly proven to not know the topic of polygamy. Actually, worldwide, there are probably more Muslim polygamists, but that also would not qualify turning the polygamy article into a Muslim-only POV article.  Because this "anti-polygamy" site's POV and experience only apply to specfic fundamentalist Mormon polygamous situations, they are a sub-sub-topical POV of the Mormon polygamy sub-topic.  (Polygamy is topic.  Mormon polygamy is sub-topic.  The "anti-polygamy" POV is a sub-sub-topic, i.e., a sub-topic of the sub-topic Mormon polygamy.) If there is any place for them in the article at all, it is not in a more generalized listing of External Links (by which they wrongly then appear as if they apply to all polygamy when they do not), but only as a means of describing their unique POV with regard to their specific experience with specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamous groups.  But neither their experience nor their excessively broad name applies to all of polygamy. Being such a sub-sub-topic means that, at best, they should only be in the parent sub-topic of Mormon polygamy - if at all. Researcher 19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good we agree that having the URL primarily about Mormon polygamy does not limit it. I'm investigating the numbers of polygamists, primarily Mormon, and hope to update article soon. Even this site does not seem to be completely against polygamy.   http://www.polygamy.org/faq.shtml says that they do not advocate raids, for example.  A brief neutral mention of Christian polygamy is on this URL as well.  http://www.polygamy.org/dangersigns.shtml mentions the danger signs of abuse within a polygamous relationship, suggesting that polygamous relationships need not include abuse. Anti-polygamy really isn't a subtopic. Over time, we should examine the links, and possibly split up the article. Some of the split may include a reference split. In the meantime, would you agree to have a better description of these sites and the information they provide. Nereocystis 21:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The supposed mention on that URL about Christian Polygamy is unsubstantiated and invented propaganda. It is not neutral at all but is imaginary fiction, designed to make it look like they know what they are talking about when they only know about specific Mormon polygamous situations.  That URL merely claims the following absurd statement.  "Christian polygamists, is there such a thing? Yes, they claim to have over 14,000 participants worldwide and many of them are moving to the western United States, particularly Utah. Their main purpose in coming to Utah and surrounding areas is to convert the Mormon polygamists to Christian polygamy (since they don't believe Mormon fundamentalists to be Christians). " The only thing truthful about that small claim is in the parantheses. (That's because most evangelical Christians hold that POV about Mormons, of course).  Christian polygamists are not focused on targeting Mormons in Utah or anywhere else, but on bringing it to their own regular Christian churches.   See this page to see the real picture, especially the sections there titled, "Supporting Pastors" and "Supporting Bible-believing Christians."  This further proves that this "anti-polygamy" site is only a sub-sub-topic of Mormon polygamy issues and has no place being listed anywhere else.  The only thing I could consider possibly legitimate for link-placement in the polygamy article is as a mention in a Mormon polygamy subsection, and making specific reference to their coming out of those specific fundamentalist Mormon groups that they specifically left and know about.   They are not qualified as "anti-polygamy" itself (having no knowledge or experience with real Christian, Muslim, or secular polygamy, for example).  They are only as related as  a sub-sub-topic aspect of the Mormon polygamy sub-topical situations that they only know and apply.  They have no legitimacy being in the main Extended Links section, though. Researcher 15:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Scope
The scope of Tapestry Against Polygamy is just too limited. They deceptively use a name that implies all polygamy, but they are only about (if even capable of addressing) specific Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamous groups. For comparison using a fictional but similar example, editing posters should consider the idea of a fictitious group of ex-Mormons calling themselves "Tapestry Against Religion." Even though they only have any possible experience with specific offshoots of Mormonism, the small group uses grandiose language in propaganda saying that all religion is evil and that they supposedly fight for people's freedom to escape all religion. Such a falsely named site, "Tapestry Against Religion," when it is only an anti-Mormon-religion site, would never be included as an external link on a "Religion" wiki. In the same way, such a small-scoped site that should more accurately call itself "Tapestry Against Utah Fundamentlist Mormon Polygamy" does not have enough scope (or credibility) for inclusion as an external link. The polygamy wiki is larger, encompassing all forms of polygamy. Beyond the obvious reason of the site's misleading name, Tapestry Against Polygamy's scope is just too small and mis-representative for inclusion in the polygamy wiki.

The site should be well-described in the link on this article. Your belief that the name is deceptive does not mean that the link should be removed. Again, references are not required to cover the entire scope of polygamy. While you claim that this site does not have credibility, you don't introduce evidence to prove this claim. There are more Mormon fundamentalist polygamists in the US than Christian polygamists. By this argument, all references to Christian polygamy should be removed. That would be wrong. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a gross mis-application of what I said. Since the "anti-polygamy" site's experience and application only applies to the local area of Utah (etc.) and to their POV with regard to specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamous groups, they are a sub-sub-topic concept.  It is in the same way as the previous issue with "The Wives of Joseph Smith" site was why I moved that link to the specific Mormon polygamy section.  That site and this "anti-polygamy" site are sub-sub-topical and therefore are not specific enough for anything but a possible mention in the Mormon polygamy section - if at all. Researcher 19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Scale
The scale of Tapestry Against Polygamy is just too small. They are a handful of women out of Utah, dealing only with Utah (and vicinity) related issues of specific Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamous groups. For that, they are just too small scale. For comparison using a different topic, editing posters should consider what would apply in the following similiar situation. Consider one single state's Democratic Party web-site. Even though they oppose the Republican Party, their one-state site would be too small in scale for inclusion as an External Link on a wiki for the U.S. national Republican Party. The polygamy wiki is larger, encompassing issues beyond Utah. Tapestry Against Polygamy's scale is also too small for inclusion in the polygamy wiki.

When we have too many references, we can talk about deleting references. Again, Mormon fundmentalist polygamists are a very large part of the US polygamists. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hope for the Child Brides
With its very name itself, the Hope for the Child Brides website is so extremely inflammatory that it could even be legitimately identified as being hate speech. Also, when you click the "enter" link, the opening page claims that they "are not activists against polygamy" and that their "purpose is not to eliminate it."  So, the disqualifier for not including their link pertains to both inflammatory generalization and self-admitted irrelevance.

I don't understand how the phrase "Hope for the Child Brides" is hate speech. However, even hate speech is included in wikipedia. Look at the Nazi site; it includes a reference to Mein Kampf. A site is not required to be trying to eliminate polygamy in order to mention it in the article. This site has a lot of information about Mormon fundamentlist polygamists and their experiences. It is relevant. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely hate speech for any polygamous family that is not associated with the specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamy groups. Neighbors, churches, child protective services, and others will read that propaganda site listed so generally in this kind of an encyclopedia article, mingled among all forms of polygamy. They will then interpret that wrongly generic listing to mean that all polygamists do that with  "child brides."  Then they call the police on the polygamous family they know about to have the family investigated or their chidlren taken by gvernment even though the family would never never do such things.  For geneuinely good polygamists, such a site very much puts thier lives in danger by false assoication. Researcher 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You're mistaken here. The site does not say that all polygamous brides are child brides.  Even the site name doesn't suggest that. Nereocystis 21:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That is an amazingly offensive POV assertion for Nereocystis to make, spoken by someone who clearly has no idea about the issue.  The media routinely make the completely propagandistic connection that all polygamy is related to child abusers.  For examples, NBC's Dateline commits slander, say pro-polygamists and ABC's PrimeTime commits slander, say pro-polygamists.  It is hostile POV for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to perpetuate that total propaganda.  Researcher 16:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This site seems to support what you say about the love-not-force practice. This web wants abusive polygamist situations to change their practice.  Love-not-force is an example of a method which this web site may approve of. This discussion is evidence that the article needs a brief section on problems with polygamous lifestyles.  Love-not-force hints at problems, but the problems aren't really described anywhere.  We can work together an a section showing that some groups do encourage underage marriage, while others don't.  Some groups have arranged marriage, including arranged underage marriage, others don't. Of course, we have to make sure that the section is NPOV.  Mention underage marriage, but don't state that it is bad or good.  Mention arrange marriage, but don't state that it is good or bad.  Mention voluntary marriages, including love-not-force, but don't state that the approach is good or bad.  The reader can decide what is bad for him/herself. Nereocystis 21:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If they were interested in love-not-force, as Nereocystis claims, that site would say so. But they do not. They deliberately do not want people to know there are actually some other models of polygamy that are not as offensive as they seek to portray.  They talk in "all polygamy" ways even though their web-site shows that they only deal with specific Mormon polygamous groups that they specifically know about.  Yet they claim it is all polygamists.  They never clarify that they only know about specific groups of only Mormon polygamy or that even some other Mormon polygamy groups never involve those issues.  Even in this description being offered by Nereocystis, the the supposed problems "related to the polygamous lifestyle" are not real.  It is only in those specific groups where it happened.  Tnere is no such thing as a monolithic "polygamous lifestyle."  Just like in anything else, different people do different things. It is extremely hostile POV to continue the inflammatory biased propaganda that implies that polygamy equals child abuse.  Love-not-force is the "Standard of Christian Polygamy" so that people can know what is true Christian polygamy and not be fooled by either that propaganda above or by single-lunatic fringes.  Just like in any kind of situation, unaccepted lunatics may also try to claim to also be "Christian Polygamy" when they were never so.  As the research shows, Christain polygamy involves regular Christians in regular churches.  Researchers learning the "Standard" with love-not-force enables  those researchers to determine what is real and what is lunacy or other unaccepted fringe.  There are no such "problems" in Christian polygamy or even secular polygamy as has happened in the specific groups being targeted by these "anti-polygamy" sites.   Note that Muslim polygamy is also missing from being mentioned by these "anti-polygamy" sites.  It shows they are only sub-sub-topical  to Mormon polygamy, if anything at all. Researcher 16:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Inflammatory generalization
With a name like Hope for the Child Brides, it is clearly a propaganda site. Connecting the "child brides" issue to polygamy is the exclusive invention of anti-polygamist propaganda. The very few examples of any alleged "connection" where polygamists are involved with that issue are as limited in scale as it would be in scale to any "connection" with monogamists. As honest research of pro-polygamy perspectives proves, most polygamists oppose the "connection" and the issue. The site makes no recognition of that fact. It only generalizes the propaganda and implication that all polygamy in general somehow "involves child brides." That generalization is outright fiction, being made from a website based in one small geographic area. It could even be called hate speech because the name and suggestion deliberately inflames people to violently hate polygamists for something that most polygamists actually never do or support. For comparison using a fictional but similar example, editing posters should consider the idea of a fictitious group called "Hope for the Raped Little Boys" having a link placed on the "Homosexuality" wiki, with an extremely inflammatory domain name, called "RapedBoys.org." That kind of a "hate speech" site, making that kind of offensive hostile suggested "connection" to all homosexuality would never be allowed in that wiki. For the same reason, Hope for the Child Brides is just too inflammatory and "hate speech" for inclusion in the polygamy wiki.

First you state that "Hope for the Child Brides" does not advocate the elimination of polygamy, then you claim that they are anti-polygamy. I don't understand how you can use both arguments. Please choose one, though both arguments are irrelevant. This site is devoted to helping victims and ending the abuse of women and children in polygamous lifestyles, which does not mean that all people are abused in polygamous lifestyles. But again, a NPOV article includes all POV, including the POV of people opposed to polygamy. Thus the article is relevant. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is another example of unnecessary attack. I point out how the site itself tried to "have its cake and eat it too" but then I am the one accused of trying to do that!  After clicking the "enter" link on the site's home-page, the second page openly states, "We are against child abuse, especially underage child marriage; we are not activists against polygamy.   Although polygamy is illegal, our purpose is not to eliminate it."  They are the ones trying to "have their cake and eat it too."  Anyone can throw up a web-site and claim a POV, but that does mean there is any validity to their claim.  Like the other "anti-polygamy" site, even if their claims are valid, they also are only involved with specific groups of specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamy.  This would be just another sub-sub-topic matter, if at all. They are certainly not sufficient for inclusion in the External Links. Researcher 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Self-admitted Irrelevance
The Hope for the Child Brides website self-admits that they want readers to believe that they are somehow not about polygamy, even as they target and market themselves exclusively toward polygamy. For comparison using a fictional but similar example, editing posters should consider the idea of a fictitious group called Hope for the Priest-raped victims having a link placed as an External Link on a "Catholicism" wiki. The group generalizes and targets all Catholic priests as if all of Catholicism and priests are about boy-rapists while claiming that their little fictitous group is "not about Catholicism." They are self-admittedly irrelevant to "Catholicism," but if their link was included, its mere existence would generalize an utterly false implication about all Catholicism. In the same way, Hope for the Child Brides is self-admittedly irrelevant and has no legitimacy for placement in the polygamy wiki.

Please provide a reference for your claim that "Hope for the Child Brides"


 * self-admits that they want readers to believe that they are somehow not about polygamy

Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * On the second page, the site says, "We are against child abuse, especially underage child marriage; we are not activists against polygamy.  Although polygamy is illegal, our purpose is not to eliminate it." As I said above, they are trying to "have their cake and eat it too."  It is probably their attempt to scam the IRS in maintaining their non-profit status while pretending to not be political which could  possibly cost them that status. (I'll admit, that last sentence I just said here is my guess and POV, but it does make sense, of course.)  They actually provide no information about polygamy.  Instead, they promote their sub-sub-topic POV regarding specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamous groups.   They do not belong in the External Links section. Researcher 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. This URL http://www.childbrides.org/mission.html states:


 * Hope for the Child Brides is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping victims and ending the abuse of women and children in polygamous lifestyles.


 * This makes it clear that they are involved with abuse situations related to polygamy. Yes, you're right, they are not against all polygamy, but they are against abusive situations related to polygamy. I have disproven this claim, that the site says they are not about polygamy. Nereocystis 20:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Their site falsely claims the matter with all polygamy. That is 100% false.  They only know about and apply to specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamous groups - even then, not applied to all Mormon polygamists either.  They can claim all they want to, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a place of NPOV, not a perpetuation of self-claimed POV propaganda.  The site is not about polygamy.  It is exclusively about specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamous situations.  While they might possibly merit a qualified sub-sub-topical mention in the Mormon polygamy section, they have no legitimacy for being placed in the larger Extended Links section. Researcher 16:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Those 2 hostile POV links must be removed
Those 2 links must be removed from the article.

Researcher 19:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of your views.

Please review WP:NPOV again. Wikipedia's goal is to present all points of views without asserting them. The bet approach for these links is to describe the information contained in the links in the article in an unbiased way. If I were an anti-polygamist, for example, my view should be covered in the article, but not in a way states that anti-polygamy, whatever that is, is the only true way. It would be inappropriate to copy the text of the links to the polygamy article, and delete everything else. Both sides of a debate should be mentioned. It would be wrong to imply that all polygamists marry child brides, or that these links cover all forms of polygamy. In fact, it would be wrong to suggest that all Mormon fundamentalist polygamists are in favor of child brides and arranged marriages, though many do follow these practices. The goal of Wikipedia is to have balance. Look at a few other controversial topics to see how they are covered. The Book of Mormon article, for example, describes the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view, as well as skeptical views. These links should stay, but include a fair explanation of the topics which they cover. Nereocystis 14:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read NPOV_tutorial for an explanation of how to write a NPOV article. Nereocystis 18:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers should note that it is, of course, always expected that a deliberately hostile anti-polygamist such as the outed Nereocystis would make the above kinds of assertions and obfuscations. They pretend to know about WP:NPOV and arrogantly think they can instruct me about those principles when it is Nereocystis who is the one who is obfuscating with those very principles.  Not only has the anti-polygamist Nereocystis outrageously obfuscated in the past by falsely calling obvious NPOV as POV, here they are obfuscating in the reverse, falsely calling obvious POV as NPOV.  The sites do not teach the readers about polygamy, and the descriptions are pure POV advertisements.  The sites and the descriptions do not even clarify that they only deal with a very, very tiny proportion of global polygamy.  Utah is not the world and Polygamy does not equal Mormon Polygamy!  "Human rights" violations?  That hyperbole is way over-the-top POV, dealing only with side-issues and having nothing to do with polygamy itself.  Those side-issues occur with monogamists, too, but it would not be appropriate to smear all monogamists just because someone happens to create a web-site that implies all monogamists do that.  That's utterly ridiculous.  Since those "anti-polygamy" sites only deal with very specific situations with only very specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamous groups, and nothing else, it is completely hostile POV to place those links anywhere near any other forms.  The only closest possibility for even considering the minimalist of possibilities of allowing those sites to be listed might be only in the Mormon polygamy section, in possibly showing their responses only to those specific situations (such as the mention of underage issue with some of those very specific Mormon polygamous groups).  Also, polygamists have reached out to those sites to seek working together to stand against those other side-issue abuses, but those sites have refused, even further discrediting their sincerity of POV.  (For cited-proof examples, this page from Anti-Polygamy.org and  also the Anti-Polygamy (but actually only Anti-Mormon) section at this other page from ChristianPolygamy.INFO.) Even if those "Anti-polygamy" sites are instead listed in that Mormon polygamy section as a sub-topic mention, then NPOV would still equally require that it also be mentioned how those sites have refused such open arms from other polygamists to address the side issue abuses.  But those "anti-polygamy" sites do not belong anywhere near anything but the specific sub-sections to which they barely apply.  They clearly do not provide sufficient information for placement in an Extended Links section.  Other than that, though, the sites and particularly the excessive advertising hyperbole of the current descriptions in the Extended links section of this polygamy article do not actually inform the reader of anything but hostile POV propaganda.  They do not provide Wikipedia readers with accurate or NPOV information.   So, accuracy and NPOV in the article requires the sites' removal.  (Additional:  Readers should also note how, when I had genuinely tried to open up an anti-polygamy article to allow such anti-polygamy POV's to be "equally presented," the hostile anti-polygamist Nereocystis immediately sabotaged that sincere effort.  But now, suddenly they once again "believe" in supposedly providing balance?  Noting the same falsehood of that insincere new-found "belief," readers can also expect that, if the sites are kept, Nereocystis will likely also sabotage such "equal balance" of noting how pro-polygamists reached out but were refused!)  Basically, though, the sites do not belong at all.  Researcher 18:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Also: this is another example of proof that Nereocystis has always had no intention of TALKING ever, only aggressively acting and then telling. I laid out point by point here in solid outline format as to why those sites are not qualified. Yet instead of dealing with all those points, Nereocystis walked right past them and continued on with their own hostile POV, as if the points had never been explained.  This is why I have not been able to ever have a real TALK with them, because Nereocystis will always slash and burn, and then instead of considerately seeking the wealth of knowledge I bring to this topic, they ignore and destroy just about everything and anything I do. Nereocystis really needs to learn Wikipedia Guidelines. Researcher 19:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, let's assume good faith in each other's arguments. Please review Wikiquette. Let's limit the discuss to the text of the articles and stop the personal attacks. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers should note that nothing would make me happier here than to see Wikiquette and the Wikipedia Guidelines followed. But Nereocystis has never once followed the Guidelines or politeness to me.  Here's the problem.  Instead of following the Wikipedia Guidelines about not "acting reckless" in a controversial topic such as this one, and instead of allowing a restoration back to TRUE STATUS QUO in order to THEN talk (as Guidelines require), Nereocystis (who does not really even know this topic) destroys everything in the article and that I do, rejects all the accommodations I make for them and they return the favor by consistently wiping out about 98% of my NPOV edits, prevents every attempt I make to correct their destructions, obfuscates POV as NPOV and NPOV as POV, walks over and ignores every point I make in TALK as if I never made them, violates the Wikipedia Guidelines which require the ceasing of their edits until we resolve the issue, and then fakes their supposed "civility" expecting a TALK can happen when they have me under their gun-to-my-head these ways.  When I can restore to TRUE STATUS QUO (while trying to preserve some of the good edits by others that have also been made), and when TRUE Wikiquette is treated toward me (and with respectfulness of the proven wealth of knowledge I am glad to volunteer here), there can be no real TALK. That is because all of thesse issues are why TALK does not happen in the first place.  (Notice how my points about the "anti-polygamy" sites are still being ignored, for example.)  I am glad to discuss wherever any of my edits may be improved for greater clarity and NPOV, but I am honestly fed up with everything being recklessly destroyed by an outed disrespectful hostile POV anti-polygamist who does not even know the topic.   No matter how many times I have genuinely tried to accommodate Nereocystis, they have never been willing to accommodate me.  Never. Always destruction and never justified.  That is the proof of who really needs to learn about Wikiquette.  I so very much want to see TRUE Wikiquette.  Readers may be assured of that!  It is my hope to see that, actually.   Researcher 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again, please find the status quo which you refer to and copy it to this page. Let's discuss the article, not our motives or ancient history. Perhaps if you were willing to fake civility, we could make some progress. Nereocystis 20:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's try Mediation for deciding a couple of these issues. This may stop your feelings of frustration. Nereocystis 21:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You forgot to include a discussion of why you added a dubious tag to:


 * This changed in 2001, with the conviction of Thomas Arthur Green

Unless this is explained, I will remove the dubious tag. If it is explained, then we can work on a wording which is agreeable to both of us. See Talk:Polygamy for my discussion of the Tom Green case. Nereocystis 18:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, readers may note how aggressive Nereocystis is here. The issue has most definitely not been resolved.  It was never restored to TRUE STATUS QUO for THEN having discussion as according to Wikipedia Guidelines.  The dubious tag was added only so as not to fill up the article with numerous big "STOP" signs all over it.  Nereocystis continues to try to manufacture a mountain out of a molehill on this subtopic.  Utah is NOT going after polygamists for co-habitating. Plus, what happened in one state (Utah) is not a nationwide applicability, as Nereocystis keeps trying to leave as the implication.   No matter how many sources, I have provided, though,  Nereocystis keeps trying to create that illusion that they are.  Here is yet another recent proof: Symposium Tackles Modern Polygamy Problem.  They are working with the polygamists to address the real crimes.  It shows they are not going after co-habitating polygamy.   Researcher 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Please review External links. Note particularly this section:


 * On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.

These sites should stay. Dubious isn't really appropriate for a link, this tag is for an inaccurate statement. Nereocystis 20:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * For Wikipedia readers of the article, it is better for them that they see that it is disputed rather than have the article filled with numerous big "STOP" blocks. As far as I am concerned, the links are very much dubious.  At best, they only might be placeable in the Mormon Polygamy section with appropriate responses, or not at all.  Until the issue is addressed, they should actually be removed (back to TRUE STATUS QUO) and THEN discussed.  Until those Wikipedia Guidelines are followed, the less-intrusive (for the reader) dubious tag more appropriately fits the bill.  Researcher 17:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible theory about BFree, citation removal, and Love-not-Force URL
This article has had some posts by User:Researcher99 which I didn't really understand before. I now have an hypothesis. Will Researcher99 confirm, deny, or expand on these theories.

There are many groups of Christian polygamists. http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM051-History.html has a description of the world scene of Christian polygamy. Two of the groups are Truth Bearer, founded by Mark Henkel, and God's Free Men and Women, also known as BFree, founded by Stephen Butt. Butt was tutored by Henkel in Christian polygamy. They had a falling out. The 2 groups now ignore each other.


 * This is a humorous theory. Nereocystis cites a one-man site that no other polygamy site links to, in order to create an amusing theory.  If there are all these "different groups," then why doesn't the BFree site have anything about polygamy from its front door on its site?  That is some group! They are so big that they don't even talk about polygamy.  If that site or the other cited "history description" site is so credible, then why aren't there all kinds of media interviews validating it?  Also, since no polygamy sites link to these two other sites, and they are not even recognized in Christian Polygamy, then what credibility do they have?  The answer is none, of course.  Obviously, there are no such "other groups" of Christian Polygamy.  Any crazy person with internet access and web code can make a web-site, but that does not mean they tell anything true or represent anything more than their own one-man imaginations.  The absence of any accountability invalidates them as uncredible.  At least the Truthbearer organization has numerous accountabiity with media interviews.  There are no "other groups." Researcher 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy talks quite a bit about Love-not-Force, which is a precept of Truth Bearer. In the polygamy article, Love-not-Force is talked about as the standard of Christian polygamy, rather than the standard of one group of Christian polygamists. User:Researcher99 has written quite forcefully on this subject and does not want the wording changed.


 * Nereocystis really needs to do their homework on the history. Here is what the online research shows.  There are no such "other groups."  See these two articles from two different websites: The History of the "Movement" and July 4, 2004 - Christian Polygamy 'Movement' is 10 Years Old.  From the research, anyone can see that the movement began on July 4, 1994 when Mark Henkel began publishing the Bible arguments.  As those doctrinal explanations spread, the movement grew.  These were regular Christians in regular evangelical churches.  (See this page's explanations about supporting Pastors and Believers.)  As would happen anywhere with anything else, some lunatics with strange ideas arrived along the way and tried to claim what I've seen called a "me too" connection. Out comes the absurd, trying to claim ridiculous ideas. Knowing that anti-polygamists would wrongly try to exploit any lunatic's absurd claims or doctrines in order to wrongly mis-define Christian Polygamy, the movement itself made it clear that Christian Polygamy is not connected with lunatic fringe ideas.  After all, the original and true Christian Polygamists were normal regular Christians in regular churches.   Lunatic fringes were trying to piggy back on what the true Christian Polygamists had started.  Christian Polygamists certainly did not want to be wrongly connected with things they were never connected with.  They correctly also knew in advance that anti-polygamists (in the same way as Nereocystis has cleverly tried to do here!) would try to lie in propaganda about the definition of Christian Polygamy by citing the lunatic fringes' false attempts to also attach themselves to the movement.   For that reason, the movement appropriately clarified what is and is not "Christian Polygamy."  This can be specifically seen at the article What Christian Polygamy is NOT.  Fringe ideas apparently ranged from "British Israelite" racism to semi-mormonism to weird ideas such as "preterist doctrines" (the last one which I learned refers to a bizarre doctrine that thinks Christ already returned to earth a few decades after hanging on the cross ).  Among those fringe ideas was to attempt what was later called "force polygamy."  This was not some emergence of "other groups."   Instead, it was only lunatic idea that a small few tried to advance rather forcefully.  To put an end to it once and for all, the same man who had originated the doctrinal arguments that started the movement in the first place, Mark Henkel, came up with a set of principles to put an end to that attempted lunatic fringe re-definition.  Considering that he was the one whose rhetoric had started the movement, it was logical and credible that he also be the one to clarify what Christian Polygamy had always been from the first place: Love-not-force.  As that site shows, there was some opposition by a small few.  However, years later, Love-not-force has become the established "Standard of Christian Polygamy."  The opposition of lone lunatics have mostly "disappeared," finding no support from regular Christians in Christian Polygamy.  So, there are no "other groups."   Just as there are lunatic fringes who claim to be "Christian" in general, who would obviously not qualify as definitions of being Christian, any lunatic fringes trying to attach themselves to Christian Polygamy also do not qualify as definition of Christian Polygamists.   Just because someone can put up some webcode on a web-site, that does not mean they know anything about Christian Polygamy.  That makes it significant and explains why polygamy sites do not link to any lunatic fringe sites, even if one or more still remains online.  All of this homework was easily available for Nereocystis to investigate, but they apparently chose not to. Researcher 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99 has also repeatedly deleted a reference to a book by Stephen Butt about Christian polygamy, though Researcher99 refuses to mention the book by name in Talk:Polygamy, and only talks about the book by using phrases such as "a book for sale" and "the self-publisher". I have asked Researcher99 a few times which book he was referring to. His response was quite hostile here, but he did not mention the book or the author by name. My guess is that Researcher99 is ignoring Stephen Butt and his book.


 * This is humorous too. Now my writing style is being used to assert silly ideas about me.  I also did not mention by name the "anti-polygamy" sites in those particular TALK posts either, but that doesn't mean anything there either.  When I have answered an issue repeatedly,  I then reach a point that I refuse to keep repeating myself.  So, just because I refused to keep repeating my answers in my own style, now Nereocystis tries to imagine an absurd motive to attach to my writing style!  Researcher 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

My solution for now, is to remove the POV in the Love-not-Force article, as I mention in Talk:Polygamy. I will leave the Stephen Butt book off of the references, because I am having trouble finding the book. However, I will find references to other Christian polygamist groups to add to the POVs listed here.


 * Seeking to remove the NPOV love-not-force reference is what proves the intended purpuse of this deceptive game being played by Nereocystis has been to prevent Wikipedia readers from learning the information and discovering that "all polygamy" is not as bad as that hostile anti-polygamist wants readers to perceive.  As expained previously, there are no such "other groups" of Christian Polygamy.  Actually, the movement is generalized.  Truthbearer is the organization that those who are activist advance their movement.  That is not a group, it is organizing activism.  It is humorous that it does not seem to occur to Nereocystis that the reason they can not find the claimed Stephen Butt book on a site that does not talk about polygamy at all is because it might not even exist.  Yet Nereocystis keeps it in their mind to want to list in the polygamy article as  a valid Bibliography.  They deliberately want to remove the proven Love-not-force "Standard" while equally trying to keep pushing a supposed "book" that cannot be found.  If they were serious about NPOV, they should spend their time on actual research. Researcher 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding a site on Christian polygamy is a long term goal, but I don't have time for that now.

I hope that this discussion doesn't sound excessively paranoid. Nereocystis 23:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, if Nereocystis would stop trying to be so deliberately destructive, would correctly accept and assist in getting the article back to TRUE STATUS QUO so that THEN a true TALK could go forth, and if they would enlist the wealth of knowledge and research I bring instead of trying to destroy everything I say and do, their "paranoia" would not be filling these TALK pages and wasting so much time. Researcher 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. This really is fascinating. Under NPOV guidelines, we should of course, include your statement that TB is the only polygamy group, as well as other a list of other groups, and web sites related to polygamy. This article may be quite long. As nccg.org states, truthbearer.org used to link to nccg.org, in 2001, see http://web.archive.org/web/20010710000550/www.truthbearer.org/links/. The link was removed by 2002, see http://web.archive.org/web/20020222232741/www.truthbearer.org/links/. Truthbearer POV must be accurately described, but so should other groups. Nereocystis 18:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is definitely not NPOV to suggest that "other groups" exist when they do not. It is reporting a falsehood with an anti-polygamy POV agenda to distort a definition.  A one-man fringe site such as Nereocystis likes to now suggest obviously is not a group.  Where are the links to it from other polygamy sites to it?  Where is the media accountability?   Where is the proof that the one-man has done anything?  Just having a web-site proves nothing.   The old Truthbearer links page only shows a list of a number of one-man types of sites.  That does not translate "one-man sites" into "groups."  For all Nereocystis knows, the truthbearer organization could have discovered some new things being claimed on that fringe site which clearly proved that the one-man site was not valid.  (I know I have found some weird things on it right away.) It even could mean that the truthbearer organization served a good purpose for Wikipedia by discovering that and changing accordingly.  Just because that correction occurs does not suddenly mean that a one-man site is somehow being honest when they make further bogus claims about themselves or even about the truthbearer organization.  It definitely does not mean that a one-man fringe site is some form of "group." Researcher 00:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's something additional I just found from the link provided earlier by Nereocystis. According to  another page at that one-man fringe site, it appears that that site was spotted as definitely not being "Christian" by another site which is listed in the External Links.  The one-man fringe site even quotes what the other site said.  The quotes there definitely do show that the one-man fringe site does not qualify to be recognized as "Christian" at all.  The other site had tried to be as gracious in its descrption toward that one-man fringe site, but the fringe site considered it a great offense, even as the fringe site admitted to accepting the very things which proved it is not really "Christian."  This further proves how the truthbearer organization was wise to  stop linking to such an obvious fringe site.  Researcher 00:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Invalid links
Nereocystis has added two invalid links which I will be removing. I will be glad to discuss those here in TALK. For now, I will simply point out that both of those links are both one-man sites. As the post I made above (00:25, 4 August 2005) pointed out, one has already been proven to not be Christian at all by another site, as quoted on the site's own pages. It also was a "johnny-come-lately" and lunatic fringe site claiming to be "first" when it was no such thing (and is not even Christian anyway). The second site is also not Christian. It also is not even current. If one goes to the root page of the BFree site, and then tries to surf from there to anywhere else on the site, there is no link anywhere leading to anything about polygamy. That says a lot. A site that itself is not leading to polygamy is certainly not a valid site. Verifiability really applies in this situation with these two links. Since polygamy sites are not currently linking to those sites, it demonstrates that, even if other sites might have previously extended graciousness to them in the past, they have fully rejected them currently. Rejected one-man sites certainly do not meet the Verifiability standards. I will remove the links from the polygamy article. As I will be offering a way for getting the overall various dispute issues resolved, I will be glad to further discuss these two links in TALK when the discussion is able to continue on this matter. For now, I ask that another good faith act proceed, to not battle over this link issue for now, so that focus can first be put on solving the bigger issues for now. I am hopeful that this process of resolution and good faith acts can continue. Researcher 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Infighting among Christian polygamy groups does not validate their links. It's true that you and S. John Butt no longer get along, but that doesn't mean you have to deny his existence. Polygamy is not emphasized by his group as much as it used to be, but it is still taught. This link http://www.bfree.org/media/position.htm, which is available from the main page, links to the BFree's patriarchy site. http://www.christianpoly.org/numbered.html links to FICP. Both of them list different interpretations of Christian polygamy.  Both web sites have a following, though I don't know how big. Let the marketplace of ideas decide which form of Christian polygamy, if any, is best.  Wikipedia should list the sites. Both sites consider themselves Christian, even if you do not.  In Wikipedia, we don't we describe the situation, we don't offer judgement. Please quote the Verifiability section which disallows these links. I believe that the sites stay. Nereocystis 14:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was just about to post my Offer for Resolution when I found this latest reply above. Nereocystis seems to be suggesting that I am somebody else.  That's funny.  Whatever.  They have still not provided any proof that any of those invalid one-man sites are "groups."  They have not provided any valid proof that the supposed "in-fighting" they now suggest ever occurred.  Just because a lunatic fringe makes bizarre claims does not provide proof of anything.  Verifiability policy even says so.  The sites Nereocystis lists do not meet the standards of Verifiability policy.  Even the out-dated "position" page they cite doesn't call itself Christian polygamy.  On the other site, so what that another invalid race-based one-man site links to a lunatic fringe site's attempt at a "webring".  That proves nothing too.  Wikipedia articles are supposed to be factual and NPOV.  The Verifiability policy is a necessary requirement.  Articles are definitely not for judgment.  Judgment is POV!  Christian Polygamy originated as one concept and continues as one concept.  Just because some unproven lunatic fringe sites want to put their "me too" stamp on something does not mean that they are qualified to change the original and actual ongoing definition of Christian Polygamy.  Obviously, these sites should not be added.  After I post this here, it is my plan to still post my Offer for Resolution.  As that offer will suggest, this latest issue here (about these one-man sites) needs to be back-burnered, if at all, so that we can resolve the issues in a good and positive fashion.  These other one-man sites will need to stay of the article in the meantime until it can be discussed later, if necessary at all.  With that in mind, I hope we can go forward. Researcher 17:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Researcher's Offer for RESOLUTION
By Researcher 17:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been grateful to see the beginning of good faith acts proceed. It is my hope that they can continue and that the overall current disputes situation can eventually come to an end.

Pattern Observed on how some disputed issues DID conclude
In the last few weeks, it has occurred to me that a small number of issues slowly came to a conclusion. They came to an end very slowly, but they did seem to conclude. In looking at those situations, I have made an observation.

The pattern for conclusion in those cases seems to be that it has required repeated teachings on my part to educate Nereocystis on the particular situation. As these situations have proven, I come with an enormous amount of researched expertise in this topic, able to provide links and information that no one else has known. On the othe side, Nereocystis does not know much about the topic at all. As a consequence of these matters, I have provided an extensive amount lot of education to Nereocystis, which is a good thing.

The problem is that, instead of Nereocystis having a more polite method of inquisitiveness in deference to my proven knowledge, to allow me to assist their learning, they have instead acted rather aggressively, very quickly made incorrect edits without knowledge, called NPOV as POV and POV as NPOV because they do not know certain isues, and generally seemed to think I was worthy of being attacked in everything I do and say.

Instead of my being asked within an environment of being able to speak comfortably and enjoyably, that antagonistic process has forced me into having to react in urgency. Instead of the issue being held off from the article so that TALK could occur, I have always been forced into having to correct the article and hastily teach Nereocystis why their edit was incorrect. Instead of asking and teaching and learning and resolving, it has always been an unnecessary and frustrating extended battle.

It may be how Nereocystis learns things
Through that, though, I see that a few issues did conclude, after I had successfully been able to teach Nereocystis the information that helped clarify their question for them.

Now that I can recognize this pattern, I perceive that it could be possible that such an antagonistic approach is how Nereocystis allows themselves to learn things.

As the topical expert/researcher, I am glad to teach
I am glad to teach and to clarify. Obviously, with the the many pieces of information I have brought here to TALK, I have proven my well-researched insight on this topic.

Wikipedia provides some instruction on how to deal with little-known topics (like polygamy) and having an expert available to assist in the article. The following is explained in the Degrees of verifiability subsection of the Verifiability policy.

There are degrees of verifiability. At the one end, there are facts that can be verified fairly quickly by most editors, requiring only resources available over the internet, or at the local library. At the other end of the scale are facts that can only be verified by subject matter experts. In general, consider the sorts of people who are likely to edit the article in question: the article should be verifiable by these people. Therefore, an article on a sociology topic might include content that can only be verified by a sociologist — perhaps referencing some standard sociology text. However, it should probably not include content that can only be verified by a physicist, because physicists are not likely to be spending their time reading and editing our sociology articles. If you are writing on a well-studied field, then it's possible that most of the editors will be reasonably acquainted with the topic, and you can be a bit more relaxed about verifiability. However, if you are writing about a more obscure topic, then you may find that many of the editors have never previously heard of the thing you are writing about, and you should take this into account.

In reading that, I put the following in context. Polygamy is an obscure topic that most editors have no knowledge about, including Nereocystis. Having researched the various factions in this topic for several years, I am an expert here (just as in the above example). While Wikipedia is definitely not for original research, some situations requiring clarification from a topical expert/researcher about the existing availability of information do enable articles to have greater accuracy and NPOV. I have served and am willing to keep serving that function in this topic.

I am glad to teach and explain what I have researched.

The pattern is problematic for me
The problem in this dispute pattern, for me, is that it is just too antagonistic. It does not conform with Wikiquette and Civility.

It seems that almost every day I come back, I find a new battle created. I find that, instead of deferring to ask my researched expertise about a question they have, Nereocystis simply charges forth with incorrect edits. I react in correction, even trying to accommodate them as possible. The respond in attack. I clarify. They attack again. I clarify again. That cycle continues until I finally clarify sufficiently for their understanding. Then they learn and the issue and becomes resolved.

For me, that is just too unneccessarily antagonistic. It makes coming to wikipedia completely unenjoyable. If they would simply and politely asking any quesitons they have for clarification first on TALK before taking any action, that would make such a huge difference.

The pattern breaches Wikipedia's "Don't Act Reckless" Guideline
That pattern also breaches the Wikipedia Guidelines: Do Not Act Reckless in a controversial topic (which this article is).

In controversial topics (such as polygamy), Wikipedia's Don't Act Reckless" instructions are clear:

If you are new to Wikipedia, or unsure how others will view your contributions, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you are advised to either: Copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there (if the material in question is a sentence or so in length) List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is (if the material is substantially longer than a sentence) Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also make sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning. Also, show respect for the status quo.

To my non-stop frustration these past three or four months, Nereocystis has not followed that guideline in this obviously controversial topic which they do not know much about. Instead, they went straight to the article, made incorrect edits, and initiated that pattern. It might be how they learn, but it is still extremely negative and frustrating for me.

If that Guideline had been followed instead, then civility and clarification could have easily occurred on TALK, Nereocystis would have still expanded their education on the topic, I would quite enjoy adding to Wikipedia's value in this article, and the issues would have been resolved peaceably.

The Needed Steps to Change the Pattern in order to Resolve and Prevent these Disputes
In order to resolve and prevent the disputes, the pattern needs to change.

Here is how I see that being accomplished.


 * 1) Wikiquette and Civility occur.  Requests for clarification should be phrased in polite ways and without threats of hostile actions or urgency.
 * 2) Patience must be allowed and granted toward others.  Sometimes, it could take a few days, or even a week or two, before an individual can return to respond.  Reasonable patience should be applied, especially toward individuals who have established specific patterns of their frequency of participation at this polygamy article.
 * 3) Adherence to the Wikipedia Guideline, Do Not Act Reckless, in this controversial topic is essential.  That means that anyone who is not an expert should bring the proposed edit to TALK before making it. Respect the real status quo until it is resolved in TALK. (If some other new person arrives here and does make a quick small edit, then if their edit gets corrected, they should follow this too from that point.)
 * 4) The Verifiability policy should be followed.  For Nereocystis who does not know this topic, for example, that includes asking and deferring to me, as I have quite proven to be topical expert/researcher here, for clarification before edits are made.  (I am very open to share non-personal topic knowledge.)
 * 5) Non-experts (which includes Nereocystis), who do not know the topic should phrase their questions in polite ways.  Instead of wrongly thinking or calling NPOV as POV and POV as NPOV, which can be mis-preceived simply due to lack of enough knowledge to understand the issue, non-experts should recognize their lack of knowledge and simply ask politely for clarification and civilly explain why they ask.  {Example bad: "That is a POV!".  Example good: "I am not sure I understand or maybe I am missing some information, but that seems like it might be POV because it looks to me like... (reason).  If I am missing something, can you show me why it is not POV?"}
 * 6) There must be an awareness that most editors who come to this polygamy article only do so very temporarily, which means that action and responses should reflect that realization.  Very few editors re-visit this article for much more than a few weeks. Even Admins have come and gone quickly.  As such, when someone new arrives, and especially if they do not know all that much about the topic, their edits and TALK comments are not necessarily sufficient to justify themselves or long-term changes to the article.  To explain what this mean, here's an example.  Previously, one person quickly arrived at the polygamy article and did not understand a section pertaining to Christian Polygamy.  So they commented in TALK that they thought that maybe an NPOV tag was appropriate there, even though they did not actually place it.  As a result of that new arrival's comment, the NPOV tag was automatically placed unnecessarily by someone else and it then remained long after the original person had stopped re-visiting the polygamy article.  This kind of a situaton must not occur.  By being aware that most people do not know this topic and do not re-visit it for very long, this kind of a problem can be averted.
 * 7) In following the above steps, unresolved issues being questioned in TALK should only be resolved sequentially before moving on to other issues being questioned.  The pattern of overwhelming the TALK pages with numerous unresolved disputes gets nothing resolved and only confuses everything.  While an idea of limiting this to exactly and only one issue at a time may be impractical, that goal should still be kept in mind anyway because it keeps the discussion focused on more quickly resolving the issue in order to move to any next issue to address.  For examples, a number of issues are still unresolved such as the original "Tom Green and co-habitation" issue and the long ago "group marriage" issue.  We should pick the first one there ("Tom Green and co-habitation"), resolve it, then move on to the next one ("group marriage"), resolve that one, and then move on to the next and so on.  Discussing one issue at a time this way not only focuses the discussion (for greater clarity), but it also motivates participants to reach a speedier conclusion if they seek to also discuss other issues later.

Offers for Good Faith Acts
If we can follow these steps above, it seems to me that there will be no more significant problems or battles here.

I will not require TRUE STATUS QUO
If we can do this,  I am willing to offer some more good faith myself. I will be willing to start the process fresh, from where I left the article today before I posted this here. That is, I will not seek to return back to the TRUE STATUS QUO back in April in order for us to go forward.

Both "Christian Polygamy" NPOV tag & "Anti-Polygamy" "DUBIOUS" tag may now be removed
As well, if we can remove the NPOV tag from the "Christians & seculars - geographically separated" section of the article, and if the current listings of the two "anti-polygamy" sites in the Mormon Polygamy links section remain as they currently are without change, then I would also be willing to have the "Dubious" tags removed from being placed in front of them.

I will speak directly with Nereocystis
If we can do all this, follow those steps, and continue this to a path of respectfulness and politeness, I will also start speaking (i.e., Wiki-posting) directly with Nereocystis.

I, myself, will clean TALK by Archiving, for Clean Slate
If we can do all that, I will also clear out this TALK page by archiving it in order for us to start clean. I would be glad to do that as a matter of not needing to have that evidence visible this way anymore. (I recognze that if anyone else did that, it would now be considered as trying to hide that evidence. But if I am the one who does that, then my doing that good faith act shows that it was archived under good circumstances.)

I will then Initiate the first step in the process
If all that gets done and after I clear up this TALK page with archiving it, I will do these next two things.

First, I will place this one resolution section as remaining in TALK (as our guidance for the future).

I will then initiate a second section to then start the process of real TALK, beginning with the original one issue about "Tom Green and co-habitation." As the above steps show, all other issues need to be placed on the back-burner. Once we resolve this first issue regarding the original Tom Green case and co-habitation issue (and are then able to remove the "Dubious" tag there too), then we can proceed to the next issues, "group marriage," and onward.

Hope for this Positive Conclusion
I am glad to be able to bring the wealth of long-researched knowledge on this topic to this polygamy article. I am open to anyone respectfully working with me to build upon that information I bring, hopeful that we could now possibly see an end to any targeting or destruction of what I have tried to share in the past. If others can also help me better clarify things in my sole intent of NPOV and accuracy at Wikipedia, I am fully glad and welcoming of that.

I am even glad to be able to teach Nereocystis the things I have shared and can share as we go forward. I simply needed an easier, friendler way than the former pattern in which to share it with them. I am now hopeful that this could be the beginning of that happening.

As I said at the beginning of this, I am grateful to see the beginning of good faith acts. It has given me hope that we now have the opportunity to finally move forward in a positive way. I hope that my offer here and mutual good faith acts can also help to get us there.

Signed, Researcher 17:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

DISCUSSION Segment
I invite any discussion to this Offer for RESOLUTION to be placed below in this segment here. Researcher 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this addition.


 * This has been a really busy week for me, so I will only give a short answer, and add more later. I like the ideas Researcher99 states. I do think that there are some areas which need slight rewriting, but I hope that the revisions can be something which we both agree on. Please give me a day or two to respond in more detail. Nereocystis 17:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That makes two of us who are personally busy.  I agree that we do not need to spend a lot of time.  As the offer indicated, we do not need to list any other subtopics for discussion, as those will come in sequence, one at a time.  We start with the "Tom Green and co-habitation" issue.  Once that is resolved, the "group marriage" issue.  Once that is resolved, we can go forward with other issues, but only one issue at a time. So that will ease the time burden by only having the "Tom Green & co-habitaiton" issue to deal with first.  I am glad to take our time on it too and not have to spend too much of my life on it as a matter of seeming like urgency. However, in order to eventually get to other issues in this one-at-a-time process, I would also be just as glad to see the issue get resolved quickly too without requiring great amounts of time to accomplish.  In the meantime, we can quickly agree right away to just remove the tags of  NPOV in front of Christians & seculars - geographically separated section and  the "Dubious" tags in the Extended Links, Mormon Polygamy section.  Doing that does not need to be debated, and any other issues about it can be brought up in the subsequent discussions.   For now, let's clean up the article of those tags.  Then we can get started on the "Tom Green and co-habitation" discussion as we have the time. I am hopeful that this system is going to work. Researcher 18:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your suggestions. I agree with a large amount of the path for the future, and have a few suggested changes which I suspect that you will be able to agree with.


 * I don't agree with the history, but that really doesn't matter for resolving issues in the future. Accusing me of being antagonistic isn't a wonderful way of offering a truce. The short lesson is: if we talk we may reach a resolution. If we don't talk, editing wars will last a long time.


 * I will discuss the section, item by item


 * Wikiquette and Civility occur. Requests for clarification should be phrased in polite ways and without threats of hostile actions or urgency.
 * This sounds good.
 * Patience must be allowed and granted toward others. Sometimes, it could take a few days, or even a week or two, before an individual can return to respond.  Reasonable patience should be applied, especially toward individuals who have established specific patterns of their frequency of participation at this polygamy article.
 * Yes, I agree. However, if a suggestion is not commented on in a reasonable amount of time, then it is reasonable to assume that there is no objection to the suggestion. We can agree to allow a week or two for responses, but let's try for much quicker turnaround.  Finding citations may take time, however.
 * Adherence to the Wikipedia Guideline, Do Not Act Reckless, in this controversial topic is essential. That means that anyone who is not an expert should bring the proposed edit to TALK before making it. Respect the real status quo until it is resolved in TALK. (If some other new person arrives here and does make a quick small edit, then if their edit gets corrected, they should follow this too from that point.)
 * Remove the phrase "anyone who is not an expert". Otherwise, it looks like you are making a rule which you plan to apply to me, but not to you. I'm sure that is not what you meant. Remember No_original_research and Cite_sources. Also, neither of us can control new people, so I removed that sentence. Here's my attempt at a rewrite:
 * Adherence to the Wikipedia Guideline, Do Not Act Reckless, in this controversial topic is essential. That means that anyone should bring the proposed edit to TALK before making it. Respect the status quo until it is resolved in TALK.
 * The Verifiability policy should be followed. For Nereocystis who does not know this topic, for example, that includes asking and deferring to me, as I have quite proven to be topical expert/researcher here, for clarification before edits are made.  (I am very open to share non-personal topic knowledge.)
 * Again, this needs a rewrite:
 * The Verifiability policy should be followed. No original research. Citations must be provided.
 * I accept your ability to find citations on topics, but personal knowledge is not acceptable as a source in Wikipedia articles. No original research (No_original_research).
 * Non-experts (which includes Nereocystis), who do not know the topic should phrase their questions in polite ways. Instead of wrongly thinking or calling NPOV as POV and POV as NPOV, which can be mis-preceived simply due to lack of enough knowledge to understand the issue, non-experts should recognize their lack of knowledge and simply ask politely for clarification and civilly explain why they ask.  {Example bad: "That is a POV!".  Example good: "I am not sure I understand or maybe I am missing some information, but that seems like it might be POV because it looks to me like... (reason).  If I am missing something, can you show me why it is not POV?"}
 * Unfortunately, I can't agree with the paragraph at all. Let's save the POV discussion until later. I don't accept the division that you are an expert and I am not. Everyone should be polite, even people who consider themselves experts.
 * There must be an awareness that most editors who come to this polygamy article only do so very temporarily, which means that action and responses should reflect that realization. Very few editors re-visit this article for much more than a few weeks. Even Admins have come and gone quickly.  As such, when someone new arrives, and especially if they do not know all that much about the topic, their edits and TALK comments are not necessarily sufficient to justify themselves or long-term changes to the article.  To explain what this mean, here's an example.  Previously, one person quickly arrived at the polygamy article and did not understand a section pertaining to Christian Polygamy.  So they commented in TALK that they thought that maybe an NPOV tag was appropriate there, even though they did not actually place it.  As a result of that new arrival's comment, the NPOV tag was automatically placed unnecessarily by someone else and it then remained long after the original person had stopped re-visiting the polygamy article.  This kind of a situaton must not occur.  By being aware that most people do not know this topic and do not re-visit it for very long, this kind of a problem can be averted.
 * I don't understand what we can do in the future about other editors. Let's keep our pledge to items which are under our own control. By the way, you might remember that I mentioned the POV problem on this section the day before the NPOV complaint .  You responded to my comment.  I still think that the NPOV comment is appropriate here.  It is on our list of items to be resolved.
 * In following the above steps, unresolved issues being questioned in TALK should only be resolved sequentially before moving on to other issues being questioned. The pattern of overwhelming the TALK pages with numerous unresolved disputes gets nothing resolved and only confuses everything.  While an idea of limiting this to exactly and only one issue at a time may be impractical, that goal should still be kept in mind anyway because it keeps the discussion focused on more quickly resolving the issue in order to move to any next issue to address.  For examples, a number of issues are still unresolved such as the original "Tom Green and co-habitation" issue and the long ago "group marriage" issue.  We should pick the first one there ("Tom Green and co-habitation"), resolve it, then move on to the next one ("group marriage"), resolve that one, and then move on to the next and so on.  Discussing one issue at a time this way not only focuses the discussion (for greater clarity), but it also motivates participants to reach a speedier conclusion if they seek to also discuss other issues later.
 * Sure, let's do one issue at a time. This is a good idea. We'll try to move at a good pace, but don't guarantee it.

I'll add a couple of suggestions:
 * 1) Work towards agreement.
 * 2) Don't ignore questions.
 * 3) Argue facts, not personalities.

Offers for Good Faith Acts

 * I will not require TRUE STATUS QUO
 * This sounds good.
 * Both "Christian Polygamy" NPOV tag & "Anti-Polygamy" "DUBIOUS" tag may now be removed
 * Let's leave the NPOV tag in until we get a chance to discuss it. I'm sure that we can reach a wording which is agreeable to both of us. NPOV_dispute says:
 * there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral.
 * Let's just agree to put this item on the list of items to be discussed.
 * I will speak directly with Nereocystis
 * This sounds good.
 * I, myself, will clean TALK by Archiving, for Clean Slate
 * This sounds good.
 * I will then Initiate the first step in the process
 * This sounds good.

Glad we're Talking. Identifying "Stumblingblock" so we can proceed to WIN-WIN
By Researcher 20:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to see the opening of TALK. As an act of good faith even before agreement on my offer occurs, I will even TALK (Wiki-post) directly with you now, Nereocystis.

It is my pursuit of a WIN-WIN in this that I have shared my experience and tried to communicate what I see as the problem preventing any WIN-WIN from occurring easily. As I read your reply to my offer, although much of it was quite good, I believe I have discovered what I see as the stumblingblock preventing us from accomplishing the mutual goal of getting these issues resolved.

As I share this, please understand that I am trying to communicate to you how you and your actions are coming across to me. I do so only to help you see it from my perspective so that, as you then do see it, you might be able to adjust it in the future, and we can accomplish our mutual goal of resolution. Sharing that for you here is for that purpose and it is not for attacking or accusing you.

To resolve the issues, I really need you to understand how much your actions come across to me as your having a very negative attitude towards me. It's like you have a chip on your shoulder. All I did was come here with a wealth of knowledge, to share it in NPOV, and I find myself enduring months of what seem to me as completely unnecessary battles. You may be quick here to assert how you "disagree" with that statement, but saying that is not relevant because this is about my sharing with you how you have come across to me so that you may better understand what I am trying to show you.

In the overall post above, replying to my offer, three big things stand out for me.

Item-1. You said, "I don't agree with the history, but that really doesn't matter for resolving issues in the future. Accusing me of being antagonistic isn't a wonderful way of offering a truce."

Item-2. You said, "I don't accept the division that you are an expert and I am not."

Item-3. To all of my listed acts of good faith at the end of my offer, all but one is exclusively about me doing good faith acts and not involving you. I give. I give. I give. Etc. It's easy for you to agree with something I give, but you were not willing to give on the sole one I requested for you to show a good faith act with me also giving there.

In trying to show you how I am seeing this, I need for you to understand that, for me, those three items point to (and I don't know else to call it) an "attitude problem" toward me.

In Item-1, you definitively deny the very recent history and you perceive with great defensiveness my explaining how those situations came across to me as "antagonistic." I was only trying to show you how your actions come across to me. Instead of learning from what I was trying to explain there for your benefit so that you could take self-corrective action, you got defensive. Rather than my listing out multiple examples of the pattern of repeated rv's before you are later able to finally learn from me, this example here is one fast example. If that situation was reversed, if you were the topic expert and I was not, and if I had made that many inaccurate multiple rv's to your well-informed edits until I finally learned what you knew, you would feel that that approach was unnecessarily antagonistic just as much as I do here. That was what I was trying to show you in my observation of the pattern, indicating that I prefer to TALK with receipt of appropriate respectfulness. That does not make my sharing that with you in my Offer as some kind of attack or accusation. "Antagonistic" is the best word I could come up with to gently and accurately describe that situation. It was simply trying to share with you how that was a problem for me and needs to be corrected if we are going to resolve these issues.

So, Item-1 revealed to me that you have a defensiveness about you. It also revealed how you speak in excessive definitiveness. Because the history is the history, then "disagreeing" with it is like saying someone disagrees with saying one plus one equals two. It is this excess definitive way of speaking that you use that is also what leads to examples of your calling NPOV as POV and POV as NPOV, when (and I say this with a kind smile) you don't even know what you don't know about the topic. Anyways, Item-1 revealed to me a defensive attitude from you.

Item-2 comes across to me as someone who is unable to humbly recognize or admit what they do not know. At least, that is how it appears to me. In my offer here, I was the one who first stated the No_original_research policy. I fully hold to that. The Verifiability policy does acknowledge that topic experts do bring a source and value to the article, though. It is an important demarcation to understand for helping the article become its best. For example here, it was my expertise that knew the commercial spam ad was a book that had been copied off a separate website that had made the book fully free online for years before. That is only one example of where topic experts bring knowledge to improve articles. That kind of expert knowledge in this topic does bring great value to Wikipedia which would otherwise not be available. As we discuss other issues here, you will also see many more proven insights just like that which I can share. (I have always been willing for you to TALK here before acting or rv'ing so that, if you needed more information, you could have it.) But instead of learning from my expertise in that one example, it also took multiple unnecessary rv's from you before you were eventually able to learn enough to understand the whole situation and stop rv'ing my edits on it. I am not an expert in other areas and it would not be appropriate for me to not listen and to not learn from experts in other areas. I am sure you could be quite an expert in any other number of areas. In this topic, though, all of this is what I think to myself when I then see you acting as if you are qualified to put forth POVs that come from having little basis in knowledge, or when you make an excess definitive statement that some NPOV is POV. I am not trying to attack you here, only trying to share what I perceive as those situations happen. Whether you are able to admit it to yourself or not, from my own proven expertise, it is obvious to me, that it is not a question to me that you visibly do not really know this topic. You may be an expert in other areas, but not here. That's not an insult, POV, or an attack, it's just truth. Seriously, anyone who thinks there's such a thing as gay polygamous marriage is someone without a real understanding about polygamy. That is just one of those types of things that shows me how someone does not know the topic. Anyways, Item-2 showed to me that you seem to be unable to humbly admit what you do not know and to be respectful towards me in what I very much do know. Maybe you can whe you want to, but to me, it does not yet appear that way.

In Item-3, I admit that I was quite surprised that you could not even give on only one single required act of good faith on your part. It was not even a large issue either. In all of the items I listed out, I was the one offering to give and give. The TRUE STATUS QUO is a very large issue, and I offered to give. I also have waited in patience a very long time as many sections of the article are in dispute, but I am not here requiring they be perfected BEFORE we can work to resolve the issue. For me, I was asking that of you as a sign of your ability to give on at least one thing, to show you have the ability to seek a WIN-WIN with me as much as I am trying to seek with you.

I will show you a quick example of how I have still been trying to show you good faith about that kind of thing. It will also show you another example of how I am able to let disputes sit until we can get to them later in the resolution process, without needing all kinds of "Dispute" tags. By showing you that, I hope that it helps you see how you are not the only one with perceiving a dispute and that removing the tags is something we both can accept in a GIVE-GIVE.

I am aware that one of the issues to eventually resolve is your change in the article to the almost-exclusively-Mormon POV that Mormonism/LDS is a part of Christianity. (Please note that I do NOT seek nor want to debate this next subject until later, though, because it would distract us from getting to the resolution in the first place. I share it only to show that I do have a dispute, among others, and have therefore proven a willingness here to wait for us to get to it later.)  Since June 15, your "move Mormon under Christian' edit has been in the article.  That is a very serious dispute in my view because, for the most part, the only POV that thinks Mormon is Christianity is the Mormon POV.  (To me, calling Mormon "Christian" is like calling Christianity "Jewish."  Each may have started with some of the preceding's principles, but their concepts went so far beyond into their own, that they no longer qualify as being defined as the preceding.  Christianity, although using former Jewish principles, it went so far into its own that that is no longer definable as "Jewish." Mormonism did the same thing, although it starts with some Christian princples, it went so far into its own that it is no longer definable as "Christian." Each is its own.) Knowing that that is another matter of dispute that we will be getting to in the resolution (and not for us to debate now), I did not require that that have a "Dubious" tag on it. (I did not want to sabotage the article by adding many "Dubious" tags in all the areas I have a problem with what you've done.)   So, I have been patient.  When I protected the article last Friday, so that you could have a fair version remaining for discussing in the resolution, I still did not try to advance that dispute I have about that issue.  When Visorstuff came back, seeking to prevent that "Are Mormons Christian Controversy",  their post correctly (in my view) tried to stop that.   However, Visorstuff did not actually succeed in that goal. The result of their edit inadvertently kept the "Polygamy in historical Christianity" and "Mormon Polygamy" sections as equal subsections of a parent directory, "Christianity." I could have aggressively "run to the rescue" and therefore circumvented our resolution process here, simply making the final correction to accomplish Visorstuff's stated goal. But I did not. I was patient and still am. I was willing to allow the item which I very much dispute remain until we can get the resolution process going. That was an act of good faith towards you.

So, for me, it should have been an easy matter for you to do the same on only the one issue regarding the NPOV tag. My offer was a GIVE-GIVE, that I give and you give, to show we could work toward WIN-WIN together. If I can be patient with all the issues I dispute, then you could do so on this one little item. It is not the issue itself that is as important here than the act of good faith to work together in a GIVE-GIVE. For me, I also know that the only reason you think that section qualifies for the NPOV tag is based on your current lack of information. As you have erred that way before, that says to me that, just because you think something is POV, that does not mean it is. It likely means that I have to share more information to help you understand. With that, I believe that all we need to do to help you with that is be able to address that when we get to that in our resolution process.

But in the meantime,you could show a good faith act yourself and allow it to be removed as much as I was willing to be patient and allow the "dubious" tags be removed from links I have some dispute with. We can get to the issues in due time, but the article does not have to be littered with numerous dispute tags.

So, Item-3 showed me that, even if I ask you for only one single act of a GIVE-GIVE, you could not even do that. If we cannot work in a simple GIVE-GIVE, then it seems to me that we are not mutually working for a WIN-WIN.

The combination of those three Items (Item-1, Item-2, and Item-3) all indicate to me the bigger problem I have been experiencing here from your actions. I repeat, I am only saying this in my attempt to communicate to you how I am being affected by certain things you do and say so that self-correction may be made and we can proceed forward more positively.

That is, these Items show me that you seem to have quite a "bad attitude" towards me. To me, I see you as defensive when I only try to share. To me, I see you speaking in excess definitiveness even when you do not know something. To me, I see you as unable to admit what you don't know and unable to be respectful to someone who does know (including me). To me, I see you as with so great a chip on your shoulder that you can't even give in one little GIVE-GIVE situation that does not affect you, even though I offered to give many, many things on top of that one GIVE-GIVE situation.

I hope you are able to see how much I have tried to explain that this is not a personal attack, but a sharing of what is getting in the way for us, from my perspective. I want a resolution and a WIN-WIN very much. I am trying to share with you what I see as the obstacle getting between our being able to accomplish that. I am hopeful that, as you see what I've tried to share, you can take it for the kindness and personal insight it was intended to be.

If we can get past the negative attitude toward me and the seeming "chip on the shoulder," it seems to me that we would then be able to really progress on this resolution.

Be assured, I have no intention of being aggressive in editing (and I never have wanted that anyway). I have no intention of condescending to any non-expert, as I welcome sincere respectful questions for clarification. I have only ever tried to stay focused, and when the TALK page got overwhelmed with too many issues, I truly was not ignoring them. I was staying focused and trying to best use the time I have available to address what issues I could. In the one-at-a-time process of the resolution, I will be easily able to answer issues, so you may know that too. I really am dedicated to getting this issue resolved between us, even though it will take time for both of us, because we are also both busy.

I lastly need to clarify that I am not trying to get into personality or psycho-analysis. I simply recognize that, even if we come up with all the non-personal logistical steps and procedures for reaching resolution, it will still fail if the obstacle of a "bad attitude" remains. None of this needs to be debated. It has been my sole intent here to share this so that needed adjustments can occur for the sake of ensuring that we really can succeed in this resolution. As far as I am concerned, sometimes we just need to identify and see such things in order to self-correct them. Doing that does not make us out to be anything negative, but rather, our ability to make those kinds of self-corrections in such situations actually shows our maturity and ability to work with others. That is what I am really hoping and counting on.

If we can TALK without any "bad attitude or "chip on the shoulder" toward me, both willing to GIVE-GIVE in seeking a WIN-WIN for both of us (and for the NPOV and accuracy of the article), I am sure that my offer to you can get us there.

I am very much hopeful for that.

With respect,

Researcher 20:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

DISCUSSION: Item 1

 * Let's just agree that we have a different interpretation of what happened in the past. What's important is that we try to move forward.  I could write up my description of the past, attacking you in various ways.  Then you could attack me.  I think that it's all your fault, you think it's my fault.  This method wouldn't solve anything. Let's concentrate on moving forward.  It really doesn't matter who is right here.  Nereocystis 23:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am so glad we are TALKING. I very much want to go forward in a positive way, because I am finding it tiresome and even de-motivating to have such a sense of dread before every time I come back and load the Wikipedia pages over these past few months only to see what new terrible issue has occurred that I am going to have to deal with here.  I want that to end so this can be an enjoyable experience helping Wikipedia.  What I was trying to communicate with you was the evidence of a "bad attitude" towards me.  You came with all your volumes of incorrect edits and aggressiveness.  I did not.  I tried to correct them, but I have not responded with aggressiveness.  The fact that the polygamy article now sits with numerous issues of changes which I now dispute is evidence that I am not and have not been the aggressor here. It also shows that I am the one who is the truly Wikpedia-patient  editor here seeking to peaceably get the article corrected appropriately.  For me, I have no battles of this kind anywhere else in my life.   I am not that kind of a confrontational person.  I am a facts-based kind of person.  So it has been disconcerting to see statements that my presentations of facts somehow represents extreme bias.  Then when I discover that such statements are mostly based on lack of information, I want to get that needed information forward to get the situation corrected.  The only real POV bias I bring, I suppose, is an opposition to proven false propaganda that causes honest people to get harmed by the mis-information, no matter what the topic.  I am a dedicated researcher and have been surprised and also baffled at the negativity brought toward me. So, I want to go forward with a confidence that I will no longer receive the kinds of treatments that has brought us to this point.  Denying the proven history (and making the denial without a single bit of proof to verify the denial's validity), shows me that the "bad attitude" is still sufficiently there.  That means to me that, when the discussion goes forward, that same approach of "just denying" the proven facts will recur.  I want to avoid that.  I want this to work, but if you still are capable of "just denying" the proven facts, that makes me very concerned that that "bad attitude" is going to sabotage our efforts before we even begin.   Honestly,  I really need you to shed that attitude against me if you are ever going to be able to genuinely treat me respectfully.  Your willingness to stop that will add great amounts of confidence that this is and can be a legitimate and fair discussion that we are about to undertake. Researcher 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would prefer not to say that you have extreme bias, but just to say that you have bias, as do we all. Sometimes a person's bias and POV make it difficult to understand the arguments which another person has. Bias does not make you a bad person, but each of us has to discuss the perceived bias in the article, and try to find a way which both of us are comfortable with.  Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, denying your description of the past is a good attitude, if I followed a bad attitude, I would write up a description of every time you violated my perception of the rules. I'm avoiding doing this. Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll give you a short version. I wrote a description of many of by edits in the talk page before I made the edits in the article.  I waited for what I thought was a reasonable amount of time. For most of the rest of the changes, I described them in the talk page after I made the change. Again, there was no objection in the talk page.  You have an explanation for why you didn't respond.  While I understand your reasons somewhat, I don't agree with your actions of the past. However, I don't think we accomplish anything by deciding which of us is the purer wikipedian.  Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You think I violated the rules; I think you violated the rules. The good news is that we don't have to decide who was worse, if we give it another try.  Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If I really had a bad attitude, I would continue my perceived list of your violations. But I will stop here. Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's continue talking and move forward. Let's try to discuss the article itself soon. Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate much of what you say here, although I am not trying to bring up the past. In order to go forward, I need to trust that the "bad attitude" against me that put us here is not going to recur.  As for when you overwhelmed the TALK page with numerous disputes, the article was already under a matter of serious problem.  To bring those up that way then was nothing more than flooding the situation with more problems all at once than could be handled. So, that was not a positive method to apply at all, and I did not ignore you.  Actually, it is specificially because of that method of overwhelming the TALK pages with so many issues that is why I required the "one-at-a-time" method in my offer for resolution.  Anyway, I do very much want us to move forward.  I am hopeful for that.  Researcher 19:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if it seemed that I overwhelmed the talk page. That wasn't my goal. My goal was to place the issues with the article as I saw them. Perhaps there were too many issues at once. Let's try one issue at a time. Nereocystis 21:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

DISCUSSION: Item 2

 * Both of us should agree that we will be polite, and explain our actions. Likewise, we will read what the other person has written in good faith. We will try to believe that the other person's motives are good, even if we disagree with the statements. Treating one another with respect is important.  On wikipedia, you have to prove your expertise, not demand that others acknowledge it.  When you add something of value, I will respect it.  When I disagree, I will state my agreement.  I expect the same from you. You also have strong biases on this topic.  Together, we can write the article in a NPOV way.  Alone, that may be difficult.  Nereocystis 23:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)  -  Edited:  Nereocystis 19:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, to be polite and explanatory with each other is an excellent thing we need to do with each other. That is my typical way of conducting myself anyway.  (The lengths of some of my TALK posts, with all the time I invested in writing them, prove that I genuinely try to be understood and to explain myself as much as possible.)  I also very much agree that a person has to prove their expertise and not just expect it.  I truly have proven my expertise/research-knowledge on this topic in many occasions here.  In my post in this TALK discussion two days ago, I provided one example where my proven expertise provided value, from the history.  In another example of where you rv'ed multiple times before learning from my expertise, I proved it again, as I knew that the site in that situation has nothing about polygamy from any link through its front page and the claim by an ANON editor of the supposed "book's" existence was nowhere to demonstrated.  Denying those and other examples of my proven expertise is similiar to the act of denying the history overall, being the same issue of concern to me as I just commented in the previous item here.  In my TALK post two days ago, I also provided one example of how you are clearly not an expert in this topic at all, as no one who knows anything about polygamy would suggest the imaginary idea of gay polygamous marriage (which never happens).   More demonstration of not knowing about polygamy is by pushing the incorrect "group marriage" issue, and when someone else later expanded your error on that, you repeatedly rv'ed the corrections I made here and here.  "Disagreement" from a proven non-expert when a proven expert provides facts carries no validity.  Instead of the somewhat aggressive act of "disagreeing" on something that you do not know that much about, it would be more polite and productive to ask for further clarification instead.  I am glad to assist you in your learning, but not under the attack of a mis-informed "I disgree" statement by someone who does not know the topic.  It goes back to what I wrote here two days ago, about your making excessive definitive statements.  Like the above problem with "denying" the history, the acts of "disagreeing" in this topic which you do not know much about causes a problem, and can prevent us from accomplishing the goal of resolution we seek.  You tell me here that you will respect me (and I appreciate that), yet you "deny" the proven history and "disgree" when you know little about the topic.  That appears to me that you are not willing to respect me yet, because no amount of proof (as I have provided serious proof) will ever be sufficient for you to stop "denying" or "disagreeing" if you simply want to do so.  I can't stop you from doing that, but I am trying to communicate to you here that that is a major stumblingblock, and I am asking for it to stop.  I really need you to be polite and appropriate, just as I am glad to do the same and to openly respect you and to share my research with you to help you understand.  It is my hope that we can succeed at this get the article back to fact-based and NPOV. Researcher 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The most important issue here is that we talk about the changes. Unfortunately, you initially didn't explain the reasons for deleting the S. Butt  in terms which I could I understand.  The notes in the edit summary were not sufficient for me.  When you explained the reasons in more details in the talk page, I agreed with you on the S. Butt book.  This explains the value of using the talk pages.  Nereocystis 18:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * On more than one occassion, my edit-comments made it clear that the supposed "book" could not be found. For me, I cannot imagine how much clearer I could be than that.  I also repeated more than once that the topic of polygamy itself can not even be found on any page through the front page of the site.  Instead of rv'ing my edits on that, the proper Wikipedia procedure would have been to TALK to me about it.  That situation there gives us an exmaple here for showing the problem of the "bad attitude" which I am now trying to prevent from happening again by mentioning it.  I was the topic expert.  I knew the situation.  I explained it many times. You are the non-expert, and instead of seeking the necessary clarification from me, you acted aggressive in rv'ing my every correction on that, until about the 5th or 6th edit/explanation.  If that "bad attitude" can stop, then I can confidently trust that we can move forward toward a productive resolution.  That is all I am after, I am not trying to drudge the past.  I hope you udnerstand more fully now.  Researcher 20:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't consider the issue of group marriage resolved; we need further discussion, which were are somewhat having in Talk:Group marriage. You are right, that merely disagreeing is insufficient, both of us need to cite our sources. The resolution might be "these people say A, those people say B". We shouldn't resolve issues here. I have not written anything on gay plural marriage in the article yet.  I'm still investigating this point, and I have found some references, but there are not quite ready for the article. Again, we should not resolve the issue here, but just note that we still disagree, which wouldn't surprise anyone. I do understand the knowledge of a certain branch of non-Mormon Christian polygamy which you have, and I have learned more about the current practice of some Christian polygamists than I used to know.  When you make a statement about polygamy, I will listen, but I reserve the right to check other sources. I suspect that many sections of the polygamy article will present more than one view.  I hope that both of us can live with this. Nereocystis 18:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am aware of more than just the faction of Christian Polygamy. I know of other forms of polygamy, including Mormon Polygamy.  To imply there is just "some branch" of Christian Polygamy is inflammatory, though, I have to let you know.  It is indicagtive that you are still not willing to be deferential learning, but to instead suggest you "know" things when you clearly do not.  When we get to that particular discussion, I will be glad to fill you in on more details.  But for us to go forward, the "bad attitude" that suggests that the person who does not know a topic knows "all about it" enough to speak inflammatorily this way toward me is what needs to be left behind.  I have no problem with testing my input for accuracy, but it is another to be outright hostile when my demonstrated expertise proves valid indeed.  The situation can best be handled by proper and polite approach of conduct.  If you have a question as a non-expert, I am glad to assist.  But to outright attack or malign a fact I know when you have no knowledge is not productive, that is part of that "bad attitude" issue again, which I am hoping we can now prevent and move forward instead.  On "group marriage," you are correct, that issue is not resolved.  It was one of the original problems you brought here when you first arrived and yet never let me get it resolved.  This is another example of some of the disputes I have had dating back to April, but which the aggressive behavior you were doing never allowed real resolution.  It is my hope that we will be able to get to those soon, as it appears that you do too.  I am truly glad about that.   Researcher 20:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's take it one step at a time. So far, I am not willing to call you an absolute expert on all aspects of polygamy.  We need to work together and see how my opinion of your knowledge changes as time progresses.  I'm not denying that you know other areas. However, I don't know that yet. Don't ask for too much yet. I'll read what you say and consider it.  Sometimes, I'll agree with you, sometimes I won't.  You'll sure your knowledge over time, and I will respond to that.


 * I did not mean to be inflammatory by calling TruthBearer a branch; I will call it a faction, if you wish. Now, you should stop insisting that I don't know anything about polygamy. Is the Roman Catholic Church a branch of Christianity? Is it inflammatory to call it that? I don't think so, but others might. Perhaps body or faction is better. Perhaps branch sounds too insignificant. I don't know, let's not worry too much about the exact words in talk, though the words in the article itself matter. As we discuss polygamy, you will understand my knowledge of the topic. I do appreciate that you have stopped calling me anti-polygamist. 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. Nereocystis 22:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of the problem of the "bad attitude" getting in the way. You have absolutely no proof to suggest the ridiculous idea of "factions" of Christian Polygamy.  Anti-polygamists or any other one-person who create lunatic fringe fictional one-man web-sites in order to make things such as Christian polygamy look like something they are not and have never been, does not meet the Verifiability policy requirements.  Yet you continue, as a demonstrated non-expert on the topic, asserting the concept which does not exist and refusing to be polite or deferentially learning from a proven expert in the topic.  Until we discuss that issue, it is extremely inflammatory, no matter how much you try to obfusctate that it is somehow not inflammatory when it is, to suggest the idea of "factions" when they do not exist and you do not know.  It really is inflammatory that you continue so aggressively to assert and believe unverified lunatic fringe one-man sites that polygamy sites do not link to and which have no quality media verification of their existence as a "group" or "faction," while you simultaneously act aggressive in not believing the actually proven topic expert here in TALK.  When we can get to that particular issue in resolution, I will be able to show you much about that topic of Christian Polygamy.   Until then, if we are to go forward successfully, then please, your aggressive hostility and "bad attitude" really have to come to an end.  You may have some questions for me to answer and that is reasonable and acceptable.  But is extrememly aggressive to continue asserting the fiction of "factions" as if it is factual.  Please remember that you are the non-expert.  When you do not know something (which you obviously do not when it comes to Christian polygamy), the polite thing to do is to ask deferentially.  That is what Wikiquette and Civility are all about, being polite.  It is even part of the Verifiability policy of utilizing topic experts in obscure topics such as polgamy, a function I serve.  Please start doing that, being polite and deferential in your learning, as we both want this resolution to succeed.  Researcher 13:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood my comment. I was just repeating the word faction which I thought you said that you preferred to use when you said:


 * I am aware of more than just the faction of Christian Polygamy.

Please assume that I mean well, rather than accusing me of having a bad attitude. I was really trying to follow your preferred word use in this discussion. Let's discuss the arguments when we reach this topic, and not when we are discussing how to agree. I really don't want to argue this topic when we are trying to discuss how we will discuss. It isn't appropriate here. Being deferential isn't part of the Verifiability. Even experts are required to provide citations for anything which they write. As long as you provide citations, we can do something with the article. I am no more agressive than you are in Talk:Group marriage, when you questioned the use of the polygynandry. You did not deferentially ask if anyone could verify the word polygynandry. You stated that it isn't a word. This is slightly agressive, but acceptable behavior.

Have we resolved our issues yet? It seems like we are going around in circles. If not, let's consider taking Uriah923's offer of mediation, or perhaps arbitration. Having another person may focus the discussion better. Nereocystis 17:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's take up Uriah923's offer. He may be able to guide us through the process of conciling our versions of the document. Nereocystis 21:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If you cannot agree to Uriah923's offer, please give me a 2 or 3 sentence description of what you need in order to be able to move forward. Nereocystis 06:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

DISCUSSION: Item 3

 * I am giving, as are you. I am postponing any major edits until we discuss them.  I have quite a few more topics which I would love to move forward on, topics which I first brought up weeks or months ago.  On any other article which I participate in, these arguments would be resolved by now. However, I am giving by being willing to move slowly, as long as we move forward.  We can move the section on Christian polygamy up in priority a bit, that will get the tag removed more quickly.  We could try simultaneous topics, but I think that should wait until later. I am willing to remove the NPOV warning for 1 week.  If we don't resolved that issue in 1 week, then it will go back up. Nereocystis 23:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)  -  Edited:  Nereocystis 19:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you have joined me in what I stopped doing long ago, making major edits until we can get this resolved. I am also glad that you are willing to join me in moving more slowly.  But honestly, for me, I do not really see those things as much of an act of "giving" all that much on your part.  They're both pretty much just good practices of Wikiquette and Civility. Although I do very much appreciate them, I do not see them as acts of "giving" all that much.   I will try to elaborate what I mean.  The Wikipedia Guidelines require that, in this controversial topic, we should be discussing this from the position of the TRUE STATUS QUO.  That means we should be restoring the article back to the 12:30, 31 March 2005 version, before Ghostintheshell made the first edit in what I have long said I viewed as the ongoing destruction of the article since.  Some other people have, of course, made some good edits in the meantime, and I am not wanting to remove their contributions.  But the Wikipedia Guidelines do require that this discussion should only be argued from the position of the article being at TRUE STATUS QUO before making disputed changes.  That is significant, because it means that I should not be arguing on why your changes should be removed, but instead you are supposed to be arguing why they should be allowed in to the article.  But your actions have been very aggressive. You make the changes while I patiently try to get them back to TRUE STATUS QUO in order to TALK first.  Here's what I mean, in one TALK post, you wrote to me, "If you make changes contrary to my changes, then I will revert them and discuss them on the talk page."  That means that you only planned to act aggressively first, talk later - so as to only have to be in the position of defending why your edit should not be removed instead of your having to argue why your edit should be added.  The day before that, you also declared the option that "I will continue to edit and explain my edits. I will revert when the edits don't meet my standards."  For someone who does not know the topic, that is an extremely aggressive statement to declare.  It shows that you only insisted on acting aggressively first and then TALKing from that position instead of having to argue why your edits should be added in the first place, while at the same time, you would never allow me the same ability.  That's very aggressive, one-sided, and in full violation of the Wikipedia Guidelines's requirement of the "STATUS QUO" position in controversial topics.  You are the one who does not know this topic, who made all the changes these past several months while I have disputed those changes, who prevented me from correcting your changes, and then, you are the one who even tried to re-define a new "status quo."  Showing that you also know the Wikipedia Guidelines require the "STATUS QUO" position for TALK here, you wrote that you expected to be "reverting many of Researcher99's changes to the status quo, which is the text which has been around for while, without Researcher99's changes."  You therefore know that the Wikipedia Guidelines require the "STATUS QUO" position, as you tried to re-define a new "status quo."  But the TRUE STATUS QUO goes back months, as I said above.  Through these months, while you have acted aggressively first in your edits, then "talking" afterward, you never allowed me the same ability.  I did not treat you that way, though.  I was the patient one here as the article got changed more and more almost daily with serious matters I disputed.  I am the one whose genuine patience thoughout all this has been the real GIVING in the situation.  Even though the Wikipedia Guidelines do not require that I have to argue from the post-STATUS QUO position, that is what I have been enduring these past few months.   So, for me to even be open to offering that it still not be required in my offer for resolution last week, that is an extreme level of GIVING on my part.  What this means is that, really, you have not really GIVEN much of anything.  While I appreciate that you are willing to finally stop the major editing until we can resolve this, and to finally let us move slowly so that we can rationally catch our breath as we discuss things, those actions themselves do not really constitute an act of GIVING me much of anything beyond good Wikiquette and Civility, which we are supposed to do anyway.  So you see, from the way I see this, I offered an extremely large GIVING to you by not requiring the TRUE STATUS QUO, as Wikipedia Guidelines actually require (and which you now obviously know too).  With that in my persepctive, that means that, to me, for you to not even be willing to GIVE the one tiny issue of the NPOV tag clearly appears a bit petty. As I indicated two days ago here, it appears as a further example of the problem of the "bad attitude" that could prevent us from accomplishing the goal of resolution.  We do not need to move any topic up in priority, as you suggest here.  There are numerous issues I have been troubled with for months, yet I am the one GIVING here in not requiring all kinds of distracting dispute forms of tags on those.  You could just as easily do the same as I am doing on that.  As I said, the issue for me here is much larger than the NPOV tag itself.  Requiring me to make so great a GIVING of putting up with all these changes these past several months and yet I still offer to not require the TRUE STATUS QUO, while you are unable to even give so little an item as this one little NPOV tag issue, shows me that you are not yet willing to be GIVING at all with me for any successful WIN-WIN resolution between us.  What it also shows me is that, not only do you unrightly want me in the "defense" position of arguing from the post-STATUS QUO position (in violation of what the Wikipedia Guidelines actually require here), but you are not even willing to GIVE on anything with me to reach a WIN-WIN successful resolution.  This is what I am seeing, and it is what is greatly troubling me about this here.  I appreciate that you have  begun a segment on the Tom Green situation, but we are not ready for it just yet.  Almost, but we have to resolve this "bad attitude" problem so that we can go forward.  For me, I also find the accelaration "requirement" of only one week that you will "allow" the NPOV tag to be removed to be a bit aggressive as well. Considering that I have not yet seen a willingness on your part to GIVE me anything, combined with the continued use of the "denial" and "disagree" problems (see above), I find myself alarmed that any inability to yet reach agreement in the Tom Green issue (or others after that) simply because you "disagree" or "deny" something through the "next week," could then be your ability to automatically trigger the return of the unnecessary NPOV tag.  Besides, both of us are busy in our own lives as well.  Sometimes, we may need a day or two or more between replies, but that does not mean that anyone is being "bad."  For me, patience is not aggressive in requiring quick time limits.   Additionally, when a comprehensive post like the one I make here today takes me a few hours to compose in order to communicate what needs to be said  and in the right way, that means I may need time away over the next couple/few days just to catch up on my real life needs and work that were delayed while writing a time-consuming but important post here.  It would be one thing if I could come and only spend 20 minutes a day, but I have not had that freedom in months, as these dispute issues have been occurring here in the polygamy article.  So, I have to budget my time.  I hope that by my explaining these problems as they apply to me, you will be able to see the enormous unbalance you have placed me into here at Wikipedia.  (It is ironic, too, considering that I am the proven expert and you are the one who does not really know this topic.)  Truthfully, if you really want to show that you GIVE and follow Wikipedia Guidelines, the most genuine thing you could do is let us have this discussion from the position, as the Wikipedia Guidelines require, of the TRUE STATUS QUO of the 12:30, 31 March 2005 version.  (Of course, I would want to add back some of the good edits others that have made since, though, because I am not out to interfere with others that way.)  In that kind of case, then you would rightly be having to argue your edits from the position of having to justify them being added in the first place, instead of requiring me to have to argue from the post-STATUS QUO position of why they are not justified or need to be corrected in some way before being added.  Doing that would be a REAL act of GIVING on your part, and it would follow the Wikipedia Guidelines.   While I would very much appreciate it if you were capable of doing that, I admit that I would be very surprised if you were able to really do that kindness.  So, instead, I am the one who has offered this very large GIVING in trying to help the process reach resolution.  I am hopeful that you can see that now.  I am also hopeful that my entire post here today has also helped you see how I see the problem.  If you continue to use the method of seeking to "deny" and "disagree," and not be able to even GIVE on so little a matter to demonstrate that we can have a WIN-WIN here, the "bad attitude" towards me only prevents us from being able to succeed in this resolution.  I would really like to see that you are a capable of GIVING and being fair toward me, as I really have been trying to be that way towards you.  Please take a couple days, this weekend, whatever you need this week, to really consider what I am trying to share and explain here.  It is my hope that you will also be able to see that I have only tried to help you see what I see, instead of you otherwise seeing my post here with any form of defensiveness on your part.  Once we can establish the willingness to seek a WIN-WIN in a true GIVE-GIVE together without the stumblingblock, then we can get on to the Tom Green case and onward.  While we do want to proceed, we do not need to rush beyond our ability either.  No urgency.  I do believe and trust that we can get there patiently.  So I am so hopeful that we truly can get to the final resolution.  Thanks for starting that process with me. With more respect, Researcher 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I followed the wikipedia policy; I really tried. See Talk:Polygamy/Archive_3.  I wrote my suggestions on the talk page, waited a bit.  When no one objected, I made the changes. These edits were made in May.  Still, no one has objected.  With most articles, a wait of a day or two is sufficient. Sometimes, it takes longer.  Waiting from May to August is a bit long, however. There, now I'm fighting about the past again. Let's drop this topic. Nereocystis 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We can discuss any of these topics I raised in May or later again, if you wish. I won't object to it.  Please understand that I was trying to follow the policies, even if you believe that I failed.  Nereocystis 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * When I disagree, I try to give references. I sometimes forget, and I apologize for this.  Please remind me if I leave off a reference.  I'll do the same for you.  Nereocystis 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Remember, the NPOV tag merely says that the NPOV status is disputed, it doesn't say that it is POV. If we seriously try to discuss it, we can find a way of saying most, perhaps all, of what you want, without causing me to cringe when I read it. I don't want to explain the details here, but that it a big area of discussion, just point out that there is a disagreement.   Nereocystis 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I will consider removing the NPOV tag, if you give me a date when we will start working on this issue. The date has to be specific.  I don't want it to take 6 months to resolve the issue, but a short definite time is acceptable.   Nereocystis 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Going back to March is excessive, and requires too many deletions of good edits, including some by both you and me. If we move forward and start editing the article, we can resolve the worst of the issues in a couple of weeks.  Let's try one topic, and see whether it works.  Nereocystis 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It does concern me that you are still trying to blame me for things in the past rather than move onward. Both Tom Haws and Dan100 suggested moving on and ignoring accusations of past misconduct. Let's do it.   Nereocystis 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As a show of good faith, I did remove polygamy from Third opinion. Nereocystis 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion. Do these in sequential order:
 * Remove NPOV comment from Christian polygamy
 * Discuss one issue chosen by Researcher99
 * Discuss one issue chosen by Nereocystis (probably Christian :::polygamy POV)
 * *Discuss one issue chosen by Researcher99   Nereocystis 03:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Try to move from one item to the next quickly, but not too quickly. If you disagree, please state your suggestion in about 3 sentences, if you can. Nereocystis 03:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have run out of time to be able to more fully reply to these Item-3 responses, but I hope to do so soon. I would prefer to have all our issues resolved within the next month or two, but I know I cannot guarantee that, as I cannot guarantee what you'll do.  It would be nice if I could set a time for the Christian Polygamy issue, for example, but again, I can't guarantee your action in that discussion.  Look at how long it's taken just to et the NPOV tag to be removed?  As far as I was concerned, that was a very easy WIN-WIN issue to show good faith, and yet we are still waiting for you to do that.  (As soon as I see you have removed it without doing anything else to affect our discussions, I will be glad to remove the dubious tags, as I offered.)   Like I said, I have more to say on this section, as I appreciate your contribution here, but I have to leave at the moment for real life duties.  Researcher 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Tom Green and legal status of polygamy
I'm going to assume that Researcher99 and I are close enough that we can start discussing the first item, Polygamy. Rather than bringing back previous arguments, let's look at what we really want in this article.

I want to a description of the legal status of polygamy and polygamous lifestyles worldwide. Researcher99 has a valid complaint that Tom Green's case applies only to Utah. With Tom Green being the only legal case mentioned, there is a suggestion, incorrect, of course, that the Utah decision applies everywhere. If we had a list of the legal status of polygamy in various countries, Utah's Green case could be put in context.

Please take a look at same-sex marriage for another article which does this for a different type of marriage. There is a section on Same-sex marriage and Same-sex marriage.

You don't need to agree with the legalization of polygamy or same-sex marriage to see that the concept is useful. Polygamists may choose their home based upon the law, or perhaps decide where the lawsuits should be filed. People opposed to polygamy can follow the latest laws and lawsuits about polygamy. It will take a while to fill in the information about different countries, but it can be started soon.

For polygamy, there are a few distinct issues:


 * 1) Is a polygamous couple allowed to marry?
 * This may include legal types of polygamous marriage, polygyny may be legal in some countries which outlaw polyandry, for example.
 * 1) Is a polygamous lifestyle legal?
 * Tom Green was convicted of polygamy even though he wasn't legally married.
 * 1) If it is illegal, is polygamy prosecuted?
 * In Utah, for example, most polygamous Mormon fundamentalists are left alone, though some are prosecuted.

The goal of this section is to describe current practices, not to suggest what the law should be.

As part of a long list of laws and prosecutions, the Tom Green case will take its proper role, as the law in one state, at one time.

Can we give this approach a try? Nereocystis 00:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I have to admit, the back and forth on this Talk page just about blew my mind. Researcher99 and Nereocystis - how about I arbitrate? We can come up with a list of things to be resolved, I will lead discussion on them and we can vote on what belongs in the article. I think this would be a good way to avoid getting caught up in personal attacks and EXTREMELY VERBOSE arguments. What do you say? Uriah923 16:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings about it. Until August 5, I definitely would have agreed. On that date, Researcher99 expressed an interest in talking in Talk:Polygamy.  At that point, I had hope. We may be making progress toward deciding how to talk, but still seem to be going around in circles. I'm not being properly deferential to Researcher99's  expertise in polygamy, and it seems that anything I say is proof of my agressive manner. A mediator may help here.


 * I'm willing to try our own discussion for 2 or 3 more days, but would prefer mediation, starting soon.


 * My preference would be mediation rather than arbitration, with a goal of helping to learn how to resolve differences, rather having one imposed. Two weeks ago, I would have said said either one, but there is some, albeit slow, progress. If a mediator could step in and direct the conversation, that would help the resolution. We may need to be a mediator who is willing to stay around for a month or two, to keep the conversations on topic. Nereocystis 18:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was partially ignorant of Wikipedia policy concerning dispute resolution, so forgive my poor choice of words if I gave you the impression that I could offer official mediation or arbitration. I am not on the mediation committee, so I cannot serve as an official mediator.  However, I can serve in an unofficial manner if you both agree to allow me to guide the resolution.  I don't think doing so would take long or be very painful.  If you'd rather go straight to official mediation and submit a request, or pursue some other method such as seeking a third opinion, that's ok, too.  One thing seems clear, though - you two aren't getting much of anywhere the way you are going right now. Uriah923 20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This sounds good to me. Unofficial and non-binding is good for a start; if it is ugly It has taken nearly 2 weeks to talk about talking. Having a third person to intervene seems like a good idea. When I asked for a 3rd opinion a while ago (Talk:Polygamy), we didn't make any progress, though we may be making progress today. Nereocystis 21:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll give Researcher99 a couple of days to comment and then the three of us can begin. Uriah923 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Uriah923, I appreciate your observation and willingness to try to help. I agree that this does seem to be having the appearance of even being silly in not getting anywhere.


 * As Nereocystis knows, I have been waiting for for an AMA requested Advocate.   My request was made one month ago today. I received an acceptance resonse that same day, with the note that that Admin was starting a new (real world) job and would need some time to get caught up.  As I have long been patient in waiting (and waiting for the article to get restored back from the destructions since April), Nereocystis's repeated aggresiveness is typified by their perpetual unwillingness to be patient.


 * I was hopeful that the offer for resolution I made two weeks ago tomorrow could have helped us move forward. To my surprise and dismay, though, Nereocystis is so unwilling to work for a WIN-WIN, they have now even protacted the offer for resolution itself into an unnecessary drag-out of additional discussion.


 * All that we needed in order to go forward was the tiny example of Nereocystis being willing to show a good faith of GIVE-GIVE. From the original ofer, all they needed to do was allow the removal of one single NPOV tag, and I would GIVE so much more than they ever had to in that offer.  I understand that Nereocystis thinks there is some NPOV issue there.  If they would be patient, we will get to that.  But it is another example of their aggressive impatience to not let that tag go for now.  I have been patient since April and could even more easily fill the article with numerous NPOV tags myself.  Yet I GIVE and so I do not.  I am patient.  I am trying to work for a WIN-WIN.  But Nereocystis is unwilling to ever work for a WIN-WIN. For them, their mind requires only absolute total "conquest" in their destruction, so much so that they cannot even let one silly little NPOV tag be removed to show that WIN-WIN and GIVE-GIVE act of good faith, so that we could have moved forward.


 * Here is just a quick listing of only some of the disputes I have long been patient in trying get corrected. Two or three have since been corrected, but most still remain as outstanding.  There are more disputes I have too, on top of the following listed items.  In the listed items below, it should also be noted that I gave detailed edit-comments explaining the reasoning that anyone could easiy understand.  The thing to also remember is that those edits were my attempts to bring the article closer back to TRUE STATUS QUO, so I was not trying to make "original changes" but actually making corrections back toward STATUS QUO in order to THEN TALK. These examples also show how aggressive Nereocystis is in not ever really being willing to TALK and follow Wikipedia Guidelines.


 * My 13 edits of 19:09, 6 June 2005 to 20:20, 6 June 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 22:09, 6 June 2005.
 * My 18 edits of 14:24, 30 June 2005 to 16:38, 30 June 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 17:05, 1 July 2005.
 * My 11 edits of 16:42, 8 July 2005 to 16:58, 8 July 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 16:59, 8 July 2005.


 * When I tried to offer a reasonable anti-polygamy article, they also very quickly suggested that some delete it, which then happened by very suspicious means. They fully sabotage everything I try to do, knowing they can easily enlist "help" from an overwhelming majority of bigoted anti-polygamists to assist them at most any turn of destorying the polygamy article.


 * Since April, they have implemented a strategy of aggressively edit and rv all my corrections. Knowing that the Wikipedia "Don't Be Reckless" Guidelines require that controversial articles be restored to STATUS QUO and THEN a TALK occurs in disputes, Nereocystis has protracted that never-let-me-post-or-correct-the-article strategy for all these months all so that they can now try to hide behind their intent to prevent that Wikipedia Guideline of STATUS QUO from being implemented.  If we are truly to follow Wikipedia Guideliness, then those Guidelines require that the article be restored to TRUE STATUS QUO, so that we can then TALK about whatever changes Nereocystis wants to make to that version.  However, the TRUE STATUS QUO goes back to March 31, and I myself am not out to remove all the other good edits that others have made since then.   So, I made an extremely large food faith offer of being willing to drop that requirement so that we could move forward.


 * Unfortunately, despite so much of GIVING I offered, Nereocystis was not even willing to allow the one petty little asked act of good faith to remove one little NPOV tag.


 * It is further demonstation of their aggressively hostile "bad attitude" toward me, and that they really do not seek a real resolution which can only happen in a GIVE-GIVE approach for a WIN-WIN result. For another exmaple, even though I am now the one disputing the version of the "Tom Green and co-habitation" dispute they changed, when I said in my offer that issue that would be our first issue of discussion, Nereocystis impatiently tried to jump out ahead and change the entire discussion of that from what my dispute is, to their new desire for a completely different basis of that discussion.  It has now become my dispute and here they were trying to change my dispute into a completely different discussion.  While I would have no problem also discussing their extra addition to that, it was still another aggressive act of trying to have everything their way or no way.  It is these kinds of examples of that kind of hostile aggressiveness that is really wearing me down and causing me concern that, until my requested AMA is able to assist me, Nereocystis  will only continue to treat me so abusively.   I know they do not think they are doing that, but it really is coming off as hard-core bullying to me and I do not have generally allow that kind of dysfunction from anyone else doing that to me in my life. I had been hopeful that their aggressiveness was on its way toward coming to an end, but now I will admit that I am beginning to despair of that hope.


 * I would appreciate any assistance you can offer, but I also admit, until my AMA is able to help, I am cautious. There have just been too many anti-polygamists unwilling to genuinely be accurate and NPOV on this article.  I am not saying that that applies to you, but I only am trying to express my caution that it is possible that it could possibly also apply to you as it could apply to anyone else of course.  (It is only that I do not know you yet, you see.  It's not personal.)  If you could genuinely be fair an unbigoted, then I would very much welcome your assistance, realizing that it is not "official" as you are not such an Admin for that.


 * While I know that Nereocystis likes to aggressively require that things be done with "one or two day deadlines" in order to push me into doing things faster than I might have time to do in my personal life, it is my hope that we can get this resolved in a more patient manner.  There are times when it might not be possible to get back and respond so quickly.  For example,  I will be away for a long weekend this weekend, so I probably could not get back until Tuesday or Wednesday.  It is my hope that maybe one day, I could take breaks like that when life requires and not have to be concerned that Nereocystis will use that to call for such a quick "deadline" and then aggressively act anyway because I was unable to return fast enough for their impatience.


 * However, as I said, I am having increasing despair. That Nereocystis could not even do this little bit of GIVE-GIVE or to seek a WIN-WIN with the NPOV tag has disappointed me greatly.  Because of their unwillingness to be kind toward me in having a willingness to seek a WIN-WIN with me, I am now starting to think that we should probably just go back to the Wikipedia Guidelines that require the TRUE STATUS QUO in order to then TALK from there. If I am not allowed to have hope that they will work WITH me, then it seems that the only solution is to require the true Wikipedia Guidelines for disputed edits in controversial topics.  While I await for my AMA, I welcome any fair, truthfully NPOV, and unbigoted help you could offer in the meantime, if you are able.  Thank you. As I said above, I will be back next week.   -  Researcher 14:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Given that Researcher99 and Nereocystis have agreed to give my unofficial mediation a try, I will archive this page and we can start anew with the first step. Uriah923 15:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment on Researcher99's conduct
I have been having problems with Researcher99's conduct since May. I have created an RFC page for him Requests for comment/Researcher99. There needs to be one more person involved in the conflict who is willing to sign this page in the next 48 hours. I appreciate everyone's help with trying to resolve this conflict.

If anyone feels that my conduct needs an RFC, feel free to add me to Requests for comment/User conduct.

Now back to polygamy. Nereocystis 17:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If anyone other than Researcher99 feels that my descriptions are inaccurate, we should be able to change the description. Researcher99, of course, should respond in the appropriate section. Nereocystis 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. It is best if you could certify the results under Requests for comment/Researcher99, if you feel comfortable doing so. Then the RFC can move down the list to approved list on Requests for comment/User conduct. Dunkelza has definitely made suggestions which Researcher99 did not follow.

With some luck, other users will comment, and perhaps Researcher99 will follow their suggestions on behavior. Alternatively, the users may suggest that my behavior should change. Either way, we have outside views which will allow us to move forward, if the views are followed by the participants. Nereocystis 19:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comment. I still have a slight problem. My goal is to work with Researcher99, and I hope that a RFC will help him to play nicely.

Unfortunately, I need one more person to sign the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Without the additional signature, the RFC will be deleted. Both Uriah923 and Dunkelza requested that Researcher99 emphasize the article rather than past behavior. I think that it is reasonable to sign this section, but if they don't, perhaps we can come up with an alternative.

Did I include too much detail for anyone else to sign? The people who were involved earlier are not currently involved. One (Hawstom) is in the middle of a wiki break.

Should I remove the ancient history from the RFC. If I start with Uriah's entrance, it simplifies the RFC significantly. It would stop dwelling on past history, which may be fair, given the circumstances.

Removing the history removes the evidence of months of bad behavior, but this really isn't necessary.

Please provide some guidance. I am concerned that unless Researcher99 has very strong suggestions for improving his behavior, that he will continue to distract the polygamy page from making progress. Nereocystis 01:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that this section should probably be deleted now, Nereocystis. Dunkelza 20:12 August 30, 2005 (EDT)