User:Researcher99/SandboxStatement

Statement presented by User:Researcher99
As recommended by my AMA advocate, Neigel von Teighen, I post the following in entirety as my "Statement." Posted: Researcher 19:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Background
Except for the current situation of dispute here, the polygamy article is a small minority article that rarely gets much editing attention. Usually, under normal circumstances, whenever it does get any editing attention, it is usually by some passing anti-polygamist. They typically make posts like this one here, this other one here, and this one too. These are of the milder types of anti-polygamy POV edits the article typically gets, and show why I had tried to create an additional (but now wrongly deleted) article for such arguments, anti-polygamy. As this external source reported, a May 2005 Gallup poll reported that there's a 92% unfavorable bias against polygamy in Western society.

This is NOT about me promoting a Christian Polygamy POV
I came to Wikipedia as an intellectual researcher who has spent years studying the topic of polygamy. Since the '90s, I have been deeply studying the news, websites, and arguments of various issues related to polygamy. To Wikipedia, I bring those years of studying Mormon polygamy, Muslim polygamy, and a new and very different form of polygamy that I discovered early on, a new movement called "Christian Polygamy." As this external source explains, that very new movement started in 1994. Over these years, I have watched as that movement has risen to prominence in the overall pro-polygamy defense. Before that new movement, anti-polygamists could easily discredit polygamy defenders as either being Muslim or Mormon. Most people could be easily persuaded to dismiss it too for those simple reasons. That's because, without counting the tiny minority populations of Mormons and American Muslims, most of America is either Christian or someone who spends their time with Christians, just like I and most of us do. However, the rise of Christian Polygamy changed all that. It brought a different background concept with it that even non-religious intellectuals could accept. It was realized that there are different reasons behind the differing forms of polygamy. Not only did anti-polygamists soon find their Bible arguments more difficult to defend, it was also not possible to dismiss those particular polygamy defenders as "only Muslim or Mormon." Even Western Muslim polygamists (e.g., here) and Mormon polygamists (e.g., here) recognized that Christian polygamists could defend and argue polygamy with better persuasive success. This also caused non-religious intellectuals to re-think their previous opposition to polygamy. Some have begun to acknowledge that polygamy just might not be as bad as they used to think after all. For these reasons, the new Christian polygamy movement has become the greatest threat to anti-polygamy activism.

That is why the anti-polygamists in this dispute at Wikipedia have tried to distract this dispute by calling me a "Christian polygamist." Even though I come only as an intellectual researcher, the anti-polygamists want to distract others so that they can try to undermine both my NPOV edits and the addition of this new movement that so threatens their POV agenda. So, their focusing on me as a supposed "Christian polygamist" POV editor is a straw man distraction, in order to attack the polygamy article with their anti-polygamy POV. Their last desperate anti-polygamy attempt to call the links to the media-credible proven sites as "link spam" (which they had never once claimed prior to this RfArb) is something they made up for the purpose of misleading Arbitrators away from the real issues and re-directed into mistakenty thinking that this dispute was ever about the newly-created deceptive ("link spam") issue when it did not. So, this dispute is not about me being a "Christian polygamist" (or about "link spam"). It is about their systematic agenda to obfuscate, distract, and attack me and the "Christian polygamy" portion of the article (as well as the rest of it). The anti-polygamists attack and misrepresent because the true facts threaten their own hostile POV agenda to misrepresent polygamy in the encyclopedia.

This is About their attacking, abusing, and pushing a hostile Anti-polygamy POV
In Nereocystis's post to RfArb here, they claim they are not an anti-polygamist, saying, " I am not an anti-polygamist; I support the legalization of polygamy."  However, they, along with other anti-polygamists in this dispute, have clearly proven to be very aggressively anti-polygamy.

Three of the surest signs of an activist anti-polygamist are the following.


 * Focus on pushing the "underage marriage" issue.
 * Focus on the Tom Green case
 * Promoting anti-polygamy sites that are very limited in their scope

Pushing "underage marriage" is an immediate tell-tale sign of a hostile anti-polygamy POV. Pro-polygamists have repeatedly opposed the child rape issue. Tom Green is only one of a small number of polygamy related criminals who got caught doing crimes not about polygamy. For example, Tom Green had committed welfare fraud and child rape. As this external source shows, polygamists have nothing and want nothing to do with Tom Green. They even call him the "polygamy Tim MacVeigh," that's how despised he is by pro-polygamists. Tom Green is not a legitimate representative of polygamy. The fact which anti-polygamists hate to accept, though, is that there is not one recent example of any non-criminal polygamist being convicted solely for polygamy or even multiple co-habitation. Anti-polygamists insist on promoting Tom Green, though, despite his irrelevance as a complete criminal. They also push hard for anti-polygamy sites that really do not contribute honest information about polygamy. In a May 27, 2005 post I made to Talk:polygamy page, I provided a detailed explanation of these issues and how they pinpoint a hostile anti-polygamist.

It is explicitly evident that those "disputing" me here are hostile anti-polygamists, grinding their POV axe against me.


 * The "underage marriage" issue was pushed hard by Nereocystis's first polygamy edit on November 23, 2004 and by Kewp's first polygamy edit on August 22, 2005. They have made other posts pushing "underage marriage" propaganda.


 * In addition to Nereocystis's numerous posts in their obsession with Tom Green (starting with Nereocystis's very first edit to the polygamy article), Kewp created the new Tom Green article on October 4, 2005. Nereocystis posted to it too.


 * Anti-polygamy links were sneaked in by GhostintheShell on April 29, by Nereocystis on May 19, and by Kewp on August 21, 2005.

No matter how many times that Nereocystis claims to "support the legalization of polygamy," the evidence clearly proves that to be an obvious lie. Their extremely aggressive abuse toward me repeatedly also makes it obvious that they are no pro-polygamist. As Arbitrators read the sequence of events in this RfArb and see every action taken by Nereocystis, asking this following question becomes self-answerable: "Is this what someone would do if they really 'supported  the legalization of polygamy?'"  The answer becomes obvious: no way.

Because I have been intelligent enough to see all this, I have become the target of their systematic exploitation of the Wikipedia process system to abuse me as their way to either make me want to leave Wikipedia or to get others to cause my removal. When Nereocystis returned "back to the polygamy article on May 10, 2005, the situation at that time was my calling for the Wikipedia Guidelines of restoring to STATUS QUO so that we could then TALK. I have repeatedly said that ever since. There was never any mistake about that.  Solving the dispute was that easy. Follow the Wikipedia Guidelines of starting from STATUS QUO to then TALK.  Rather than being civil or working with me, though, the anti-polygamists have routinely "run right over me," edited the article with anti-polygamy agenda, ignored the Wikipedia Guidelines of STATUS QUO, rv'ed my every edit to try to get back to STATUS QUO, lied by saying I supposedly refused to TALK, come up with new "dispute" after another to keep my time being wasted, make me explain issues over and over, immediately sabotaged and encouraged the wrong idea of getting the anti-polygamy article that I had created to be wrongly deleted, refused or sabotaged my genuinely WIN-WON and NPOV resolution offers, used, the announcement method to draw others to their agenda, lied to others about me and the situation, repeatedly claimed the lie that I was ever refusing to find a resolution.

This prolonged series of attacks over all these months is not a matter of their making simple mistakes that they might say, "Oh boy, I guess I made a mistake. Sorry. I won't do it again." This was a prolonged, deliberate non-stop set of attacks against me, solely to get me out of Wikipedia because I am such a qualified expert on the topic that threatens their POV agenda. It was not some unintended little mistake.

While there is currently a 92% unfavorable view of polygamy in the West, that makes me a very valuable resource of information to fill in the blanks for the benefit of this encyclopedia on polygamy related topics. However, that fact is not acceptable to the more activist hostile anti-polygamists, of course.

So we are now here at RfArb to address the abuse. As I have always said, I have always wanted to get to where we could TALK about content. Knowing that this has been a systematic abuse that brought us to this point here, it is clear that without addressing the abuse, more abuse would prevent TALK from ever happening.

So here we are.

Summary
Except for my seeking sockpuppet investigations and calling out abuses and vandalisms, every single part of Nereocystis's opening Summary of their Evidence Presentation is false. It completely misrepresents everything about me and the real situation before us here.

When I first encountered Nereocystis, I very much tried to accommodate their input. I also tried sincere accommodation with Ghostintheshell when they arrived in April. In both cases, it was they who refused any accommodation I offered, in much the identical way. Based on that, and on how they both demanded sources when I did, both obfuscated sources I cited, both claimed I "refused" to TALK when I clearly sought STATUS QUO in order to TALK, both used the announcement method, and both did not know the polygamy topic, I have legitimate reasons to believe that Ghostintheshell is simply Nereocystis. Ghostintheshell seems to have simply played a "Muslim" role as part of larger anti-polygamy strategy by "Mormon-based" Nereocystis to destroy the encyclopedia's polygamy article.

Contrary to the false allegations by Nereocystis, I have very much tried and proposed a number of ways to genuinely solve issues.

Never once did Nereocystis offer/propose any resolution of their own to try to accommodate and work with me and my input. Although Nereocystis did call for a "3rd Opinion" (here) and an "RfC" (here) against me (inapproriately and maybe even unqualified to do so), they made those requests without ever once offering or proposing a way to work together themselves. For that reason, although I did not realize the process system back then, it ssems possibly questionable as to whether they were actually qualified to have made those requests without actually having tried to offer a resolution themselves.
 * On April 29, 2005, with Ghostintheshell
 * On June 30, 2005 Anti-polygamy article created to allow NPOV and fairness to both sides.
 * On August 5, 2005 - comprehensive and very WIN-WIN resoluton offer.
 * On August 26, 2005 - a WIN-WIN and NPOV resolution offer on the Talk:Group_marriage page.

Instead, Nereocystis perpetrated a very calculated and sophisticated exploitation of the Wikipedia process. (While I am a simple content editor, Nereocystis is a Wikipedia process expert.) As this June 6, 2005 post shows, they admitted their clever intent to game the Wikipedia process system early on, with their ultimate intent "to request an action against" me. Their later sabotage of the RfM and then lying to falsely say that I supposedly "refused Mediation" (when it was they who sabotaged it) is further proof of their game cleverly manipulate of the Wikipedia process system to deceptively seek to remove me.

As the Evidence will show, instead of ever trying to work together with me, Nereocystis would effectively "run right over me." Knowing that I was always saying that we need to follow the Wikipedia Guidelines of restoring an article to STATUS QUO before TALKING, Nereocystis would misrepresent that to lie to people by saying that I refused to TALK. All they ever had to do was follow the Wikipedia Guidelines of letting me restore to STATUS QUO and then we could TALK. No matter how many times I tried, though, Nereocystis would "run right over me" and lie to everyone else about it. Nereocystis would then use the announcement method to misrepresent the situation as their way of seeking for others to join them in opposing me. Again, as this external source shows, a May 2005 Gallup poll reported that there's a 92% unfavorable bias against polygamy in the West. Nereocystis knew they could usually count on that "92% of people" to bring their anti-polygamy bias with them. So, rather than ever offer any accomodation to me or resolution between us, Nereocystis cleverly used that announcement method to attract outside anti-polyagamists to join them their agenda instead. Since no one would ever hold to the Wikipedia Guidelines of STATUS QUO except myself, no other resolution offered was ever two-sided or within the Wikipedia Guidelines. From that, Nereocystis would then repeat the lie that I somehow "refused" to solve the problems or to TALK, when I alone was the one who was always trying to solve the problem within Wikipedia Guidelines and WIN-WIN methods.

Lastly, the arrival of Kewp in this dispute is further proof of the tactics of anti-polygamy. Kewp really has no part in this dispute, considering the timing of their arrival onto the situation. I have never had a content discussion with that late-arrival. Of the few polygamy based posts they made that were not focused on attacking me, those other posts are very clearly an anti-polygamy POV. Kewp only showed up in mid-August. By that point, Uriah923 had previously "run right over me" with their one-sided takeover of the Talk:polygamy page. So, legitimate content discussion was then halted at the point when Kewp arrived to the dispute. Even though Kewp was not ever involved in the disputes and had never discussed actual content issues between themselves and me, Kewp has been inappropriately obsessed with attacking me and working with Nereocystis. For them to have even posted to this RfArb is further demonstration that their only intent is to promote the anti-polygamy attack against me.

Final Notes
For proceeding in this RfArb, My AMA advocate here has made, on my behalf, a request to get the vitally important DIFFs for the wrongly deleted anti-polygamy article I had created, possibly by undeletion. (Until that happens, Arbitrators may use my previously-made archival of the former article, its TALK page, and its AfD archive here.) My AMA advocate has also begun the process of officially requesting IP investigations for some very suspicious occurrences and user similarities. We are waiting for both of those requests to come back so that we can proceed.

Last of all, I have compiled a very comprehensive and important chronology of DIFFs that truly tells the fuller story of this abuse. It includes well over 150 DIFFs though, and I have been seeking guidance from my AMA (and from Arbitrators here) on how best to go about getting all this critically information presented here. Reading the full linear chronology is an essential and easier way to help Arbitrators see the overall picture in the briefest and most concise way possible (Repeatedly back-tracking to repeatedly re-explain things that could have instead been explained more quickly in one linear chronology will actually take up much more time to do and read.) As I post this here, I am still awaiting guidance on how to best proceed with that.

I am only at Wikipedia as a content expert/researcher to share my rare expertise in a very misunderstood and attacked topic. I am hoping that this RfArb will lead to the positive conclusion of all this. I genuinely want to just get back to the fun of real knowledge-sharing again with an end to the anti-polygamy attacks and abuse.

Researcher 18:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)