Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Assume good faith
1) Wikipedia editors as a part of Civility are expected to assume good faith, simply to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Clearly applicable, see Fred Bauder 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The diff provided by Fred Bauder shows Researcher's undoubtly good faith. --Neigel von Teighen 20:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Researcher99's claims of expertise
1) claims to have "researched Polygamy for years".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Editor claims to be an "expert" although this claim does not appear to be externally verified. Kelly Martin 01:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * It is irrelevant, I think either Researcher's statement is true or not. The important thing is the behaivor in the article edition and the evidence shows us that he acted with very good faith. --Neigel von Teighen 20:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So that I not duplicate my response to this question about my proven topical expertise, please see the subsection, Researcher99's claims of expertise, in the larger post I made yesterday to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Proposed_decision. - Researcher 16:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Researcher99's scope of editing
2) 's editing at Wikipedia has been almost exclusively limited to Polygamy, discussion pages related to that page, and user talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Obsessive editing of a single topic can indicate someone who is editing Wikipedia to forward an agenda, but can also just be an expert who is attempting to share his expertise. Kelly Martin 01:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should not go overboard. However in this case we have an aggressive POV editor with an agenda, Christian polygamy, I suspect Fred Bauder 14:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Kelly Martin is correct that I am simply here at Wikipedia to share my expertise in this topic. That is what makes this so hard for me to find the best way to deal with this arbitration and lay out the evidence the best way.  (I am still trying to find the best way to do that.)  I am at Wikipedia only to provide content on the polygamy related topics, but I have not been allowed due to the other party's Wikipedia-process-expertise in gaming the system to "run right over me."  Before the abuses became constant against me, I was not making all that many edits anyway.  Once the nonstop abuses began, I have not been allowed to successfully edit almost anything without being "run over" and denied being able to.  The repeated suggestion by the other party that I am only a "Christian Polygamy" editor of POV is a false straw man, intended to mislead the arbitrators into prejudicial biases before we even get started here.  I ask all arbitrators for patience with me and to reserve judgement about me from the other party's allegations until I am able to find the best way to answer and present all the issues necessary to understand the whole picture.  Researcher 20:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This latest (20:24, 7 November 2005) post here by Nereocystis is another example of one of the most maddening things that Nereocystis does to me. To deceive other readers, who lack having/knowing the full context of the overall story understood, Nereocystis's  very slickly clever words of the post "sound" like an ok statement. Yet, not only does Nereocystis not really believe or "welcome" what those words "sound" like they say, the reality is that it is Nereocystis who actually is one who is unable to work for NPOV or to accommodate or work with a non anti-polygamist like me.  They never sought to work together at all.  While I had offered a number of resolution proposals for both of us, Nereocystis never once did such a thing.  Instead, they gamed the Wikipedia process to bring us to this point.  They have sprinkled numerous amounts of this kind of fake statement to "sound" like they are being reasonable, while they are the ones purposely abusing me via their Wikipedia system process expertise, such as with such fake posts like this.  So this latest post is an another example of the clever lies that Nereocystis tells in abusing me, and why understanding the whole context of this case is so important.  (For more background information, please see: Polygamy Dispute Background.)   - Researcher 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia there are people that mostly edit articles related to one single topic, so Researcher shouldn't be accused to push a POV agenda if no diff is provided. --Neigel von Teighen 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A Christian polygamist editor would be welcome to the polygamy article, if the editor is willing to work with others in developing an NPOV article. Nereocystis 20:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Researcher99 says that the suggestion that he is a "Christian Polygamy" POV editor is a straw man argument and that it is "intended to mislead the arbitrators into prejudical biases." However the same argument could be made against Researcher99 who has repeatedly made the accusation of "anti-polygamy POV" on the part of other users.  For example, when I endorsed Nereocystis' RfC on Researcher99, he tried to discredit my endorsement by saying that it was invalid "Because they [sic] are clearly an anti-polygamist, with intent on pushing that propaganda POV." . When Researcher99 made this accusation on the RfC, he had never once tried to talk to me on the Talk:Polygamy page, or on my user page, about my edits or comments on that page.  I think that he believes, because of his so-called expertise on the topic, that he is not subject to the same rules as everyone else.  He throws around the term "anti-polygamist" left and right with no attempt to discuss it with other editors, but expects people to ignore/accept his POV on the basis of his so-called "expertise". --Kewp (t) 13:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And, in the case that Researcher were a pseudo-expert, is to abuse him a solution? --Neigel von Teighen 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. Where has Researcher99 been abused? I have seen no credible evidence to that effect, beyond Researcher99's rantings, and your seemingly unquestioning support of him.--Kewp (t) 11:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
3. has taken the position that those who differ regarding editing of polygamy form a coherent "anti-polygamy" block, "Gangs of Sneaky Vandals" who use "anti-polygamy tactics".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This finding is complicated somewhat by the activities of (and ) who while not involved in this case, were seen by Researcher99 as opponents. Fred Bauder 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is not a correct assessment of the position I have "taken." When scrolling down the page of the DIFF mentioned here, it shows that that May 16 evidence-piece was a follow-up to the previous evidence piece of May 7, The Ghostintheshell Situation.  As of May 16, I had been patiently waiting for any Admin to help as a result of the May 7 piece which had requested that the Wikipedia Guideline of restoring controversial articles to STATUS QUO be followed so that real TALK could then proceed.  But at that very same time, (as Ghostintheshell's history shows) just as Ghostintheshell stopped posting on May 11, Nereocystis had first "come back" to the polygamy article on the night before, May 10.  (Nereocystis had not posted as that username to the polygamy article since January until that time in May.)  Nereocystis was able to fully see the situation that the TALK page was under at that point, but ignored it and "ran right over me" anyway.  I was still patiently dealing with the situation with Ghostintheshell but   Nereocystis exploited that and just barged on ahead anyway.  Nereocystis took up where Ghostintheshell had left off, immediately attacking me and using the same exact same obfuscatory tactics and techniques as Ghostintheshell.   That is why I had pointed out how those two were being "sneaky vandals" in that May 16 piece as cited in the DIFF being mentioned here.  While I now believe they are both the same person, it is only Ghostintheshell and Nereocystis to who I had noted were "sneaky vandals."  Other people who appear to be open anti-polygamists without pretending to be "pro-polygamy," such as Kewp, are not viewed as "sneaky vandals" because their aggressive anti-polygamy appears open and they do not pretend to be "pro-polygamy."  There is nothing sneaky about it, even if it is a hostile POV.   A third classification of anti-polygamists are neither "sneaky vandals" nor outright hostile anti-polygamy activists.  Instead, they are simply willing to easily cast votes of opposition without ever really reading the evidence or getting that involved.  They're just biased toward anti-polygamy but not all that active about it.  There are important alert-signals that immediately point out when someone is being anti-polygamy.  Realizing that it would benefit the polygamy article to understand some of those alert signals, I tried to be helpdul by making another evidence-piece on May 27, "Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki."  That also provides DIFFs with both of Ghostintheshell's and Nereocystis's sneaky anti-polygamy acts while they were pretending to be "pro-polygamy."  So, it is honestly not correct to think that I consider every anti-polygamist as a "sneaky vandal," nor that I think "everyone" is.  On this Arbitration now,  Nereocystis has even gone so far as to flatter me as if I am somehow the owner of so many sites, in their never mentioned before agenda to sneakily try to get the sites removed by absurdly accusing me of link spam.  Trying to remove the most proven, media-credible sites, only further proves my point they are trying to accomplish "sneaky vandalism."  A person who says they "support the legalization of polygamy" does not turn around and then ridiculously call the most proven credible sites as "link spam."  Only an anti-polygamy agenda would do that, not  a "pro-polygamist."  That's why I had said that Nereocystis  is a "sneaky vandal."  They are clearly lying when they pretend to be "pro-polygamy" while trying to sneakily sabotage the polygamy article.  For these reasons, this is why I made this important clarification and ask that all arbitrators fully read through all the DIFFs in this post I have made right here.  Honestly, I only hope for a fair treatment and true NPOV, a true discussion after following Wikipedia Guidelines of starting from STATUS QUO in order to then TALK.  However, since this controversial topic is one that frequently involves a more-typically hysterical opposition of an uninformed super-majority in society, it has been very difficult to actually be able to be heard.  I hope that can change here in arbitration.  I am doing my best to properly communicate that and I hope I can effectively do so.  Please be patient with me.  I am trying.  Researcher 18:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate providing all those DIFFs, in their latest in this secton here, .  I am hopeful for the Arbitrators to read through every one, and to follow every DIFF provided in each one too.  There is no inconsistency in anything I have said.  I have only said that  is the sneaky vandal because they pretend to be "pro-polygamy" while they are provably an extremely active anti-polygamist, trying to sabotage the polygamy article with their hostile POV.  I have not called  a sneaky vandal because I believe their username has been open about being an anti-polygamist.  That is the difference.  In the end, I see them both as anti-polygamists, but only  falsely pretending that they "support the legalization of polygamy."  So, that then makes two anti-polygamists between them, but only one being a sneaky vandal about it.  As the DIFFs that 's post show, there is great reason for my wanting an investigation into whether they are sockpuppets.  Asking for an investigation is not the same thing as an accusation, though.  Even so, when I just recently learned about the sockpuppet concept for the first time last month,, I did notice a very interesting rule about it as I posted in that DIFF.   In that DIFF, I posted in part,
 * In Wikipedia's Arbitration Policy/Precedents, there is a section called, Sockpuppets (and related principles). While the other bulleted items in that section there were vey informative, I specifically found that the second and third bulleted items quite interesting.
 * "* For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."
 * "* 'Proxy' edits on behalf of a banned user, or that assist a user in violating an arbitration injunction, are not permitted."
 * Not only does that first item above appear as the second bulleted item in that section, but it also appears as the last sentence on the Sock puppet official policy page itself.
 * Because both and  have been posting as a unified anti-polygamous voice of attack against me in ways probably too odd to just be co-incidence, I have asked whether they might possibly be the same person.  Even if they are not the same person, I think they may very likely be in contact with each other personally anyway.  I have also asked for the possibility of their being the same person to be investigated, but that is not an attacking accusation.  After reading through all the DIFFs that  has just provided in their last post here, at, I also think that if such an investigation shows that they really are not the same person, then the above the quotes I discovered from the policy also indicate that Wikipedia policy may still require that they may need to be treated as a single person with sockpuppets anyway.  All I have done is ask.  Although  may not have intended it this way, I genuinely am thankful for their making it easier for me here by providing the DIFFs they provided.  I am working hard to make sure I can put together something in the right way here for the Arbitrators.  Having these DIFFS now provided for the arbitrators reduced some of that time for me, although there is so much more I am still compiling, in order to do it in the right way required. Researcher 20:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The last version of the Anti-polygamy article, its TALK page, and the AfD, have been archived here. We are waiting for the official DIFFs to be restored for use here. I had first created the Anti-polygamy article on June 30, 2005. As the Anti-polygamy TALK page shows, only one day after I had created the Anti-polygamy article, Nereocystis made a 1 July 2005 17:16 post to its TALK page, saying it should be deleted.  They did that only one day after it was created.  In their 22:08, 7 November 2005 post in this section here, Nereocystis says, "Someone suggested deleting the anti-polygamy article."  That first person to suggest that was Nereocystis, only one day after I had created it.   Also, they had removed the link to the anti-polygamy article, calling NPOV as POV.  That absence of linking was used as the justification for the AfD when  the very suspcious Spatfield called for it.  Doing these things are not something that anyone who really "support(s) the legalization of polygamy" would ever do (as Nereocystis lied in saying they supposedly do).  These all show Nereocystis's act of sabotage, lie, and hostile anti-polygamy agenda and to abuse me directly. (For more information about anti-polygamists, please see: Polygamy Dispute Background.) - Researcher 00:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ADDITIONAL POST: Researcher 17:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC) - The post to this section here by Kewp on 07:24, 21 October 2005 falsely tries to distract their evident similarity with Nereocystis by pointing out to their overall histories.  That sleight of hand tries to hide the connection between key actions they have both taken in the polygamy related articles.  It is of course always possible that one being outwardly anti-polygamy (Kewp) and another pretending to be "pro-polygamy" but still being anti-polygamy (Nereocystis) would have the same hostile anti-polygamy agenda and POV together, even acting as possible sockpuppets in behavior on the polygamy related articles, if true.  For more specific context, here are four pairs of DIFFs which completely show the similarity of the hostile anti-polygamy activism of both Nereocystis and Kewp.
 * 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.  More DIFFs from Nereocystis:, , , , .  More DIFFs from Kewp: ,
 * 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 Nereocystis here on May 19, and by Kewp here on August 21, 2005.  (This was just as what GhostintheShell did too on April 29, 2005.)
 * Both Nereocystis and Kewp told the same lie on two completely separate pages, both citing the identical DIFF (from my personal TALK page) as their supposed justification. Nereocystis, 20:25, 9 September 2005 on the polygamy TALK page and Kewp 07:07, 12 September 2005 on the RfC/Researcher TALK page both cited the same post from my TALK page, 19:14, 7 September 2005. However, after I had made that post they both cited, I had also made another later post at 20:05, 8 September 2005, outwardly declaring that I am seeking discussion with an AMA and am open to Mediation.  They both had tried to tell a lie that I supposedly "refused" to proceed to Mediation and they went to "run right over me," despite the fact that the DIFF they misrepresent to justify their lie was made after a post I had made on that same TALK page of mine proving otherwise.
 * As I explained in the This is About their attacking, abusing, and pushing a hostile Anti-polygamy POV section of my presented Evidence, 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
 * As the first three pairs of DIFFs above shows, Nereocystis and Kewp were identically obsessed with all three tell-tale signs of anti-polygamy agenda. As the fourth pair of DIFFs shows, they both told the same definite lie against me on two completely separate TALK pages, while citing the identical DIFF as their false justification.  Clearly, this is not about their deception to imply that they simply "differ" with me, or about the deception that I am somehow wrong to point out that they are both clearly hostile anti-polygamists.   As this post shows, despite their cleverness of trying to suggest that they do not have similar posting habits in general, both Nereocystis and Kewp absolutely do speak with the same voice and with the same posting agenda regarding their specific anti-polygamy POV and aggressive hostility against me. - Researcher 17:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather to discuss if Nereocystis = Kewp, I would really ask the ArbCom to find out if User:Nereocystis = . Please, I'm not accusing Nereocystis to use a sockpuppet, but only want to be sure so we don't make a false accusation (which I would never accept). --Neigel von Teighen 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not Spatfield. However, even if I were Spatfield, I don't think that would be relevant here. Someone suggested deleting the anti-polygamy article. There was a vote. If all of the voters were my sockpuppets, that would be a problem. Of course, I did try to take a high road by not voting on the anti-polygamy deletion. If the IP addresses of 2 users are different, that does not prove lack of sock-puppetry, since many people have access to more than 1 IP address. Nereocystis 22:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Researcher99 has repeatedly accused users "who differ regarding editing of polygamy form a coherent "anti-polygamy" block, "Gangs of Sneaky Vandals" who use "anti-polygamy tactics."   This is not just limited to the  incident.  Anyone who disagrees with him is accused of "ganging up" on him. In this diff, Researcher99 says "Nereocystis is ganging up with their anti-polygamist comrade Kewp."  Here ,  under the heading "Proof of Lies & Ganging Up against Researcher,"  Researcher99 says that he is being " being ganged up on" by Nereocystis and me, Kewp, in response to our separate posts about his post  comparing another user to a rapist and a terrorist.  In response to Researcher99's comment above  when he says that "it is only Ghostintheshell and Nereocystis to who I had noted were "sneaky vandals." Other people who appear to be open anti-polygamists without pretending to be "pro-polygamy," such as Kewp, are not viewed as "sneaky vandals" because their aggressive anti-polygamy appears open and they do not pretend to be "pro-polygamy." There is nothing sneaky about it" it is entirely disingenuous because Researcher99 has been saying for the last month that I was a sockpuppet of Nereocystis. On September 15, Researcher99 accuses me, Kewp, of being a sockpuppet of Nereocystis under the heading "Could it be that Nereocystis is Kewp?" in this diff .  He repeats this accusation here , here , here , and here  (This latest accusation on October 7). This suggests that Researcher99 often twists the facts to suit his current purposes, changing his story quite often to absolve himself of any wrongdoing. --Kewp (t) 08:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nereocystis and I do not have similar editing habits. Our contributions show that our editing habits are quite different:  mine  and Nereocystis' . All the diffs show is that you have accused me and Nereocystis of being the same person and of "ganging up" against you, both baseless accusations.  --Kewp (t) 07:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

November 22, 2004 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=7831034
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

December 29, 2004 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=8917023
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

December 29, 2004 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=8930124
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

January 2, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9062689
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

January 3, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9087315
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

January 6, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9180822
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Sincerely, I don't know which is the ad hominem attack by Researcher from which writes Nereocystis. --Neigel von Teighen 21:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Researcher99's accusations of anti-polygamy rather than discussing the article are example of ad hominem attacks. Nereocystis 20:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

January 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9313495
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

January 13, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9334806
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

January 13, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=9337581
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 10, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13529341
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 10, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13533775
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 10, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13537593
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13576046
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13576249
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13581007
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13615897
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13581124
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 11, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13581372
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13617991
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13641825
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13618140
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13618565
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13618596
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13674169
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

May 12, 2005 Nereocystis
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=prev&oldid=13655501
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sneaky vandalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APolygamy&diff=13787188&oldid=13786169


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Ghostintheshell
, not involved in this case, edited Polygamy until May 10, 2005 and sometimes edited the article in a way which differed from Researcher99.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The cited edit seems to correct conflation of Mormon and Muslim practices, original research by Research99 Fred Bauder 14:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * After both were banned, Ghostintheshell, editing as the sockpuppet, attempted dialogue with Researcher99


 * Comment by parties:
 * When we both got banned, I had learned a new rule for the first time WP:3RR. My rv's had been trying to restore to STATUS QUO by the Guidelines to then TALK.   I learned a valuable lesson though.  So, I followed the rules and waited until the ban was lifted.  Obviously, Ghostintheshell was unwilling to follow the rules and created a new account anyway, .   The DIFF cited here is not the original DIFFs that started the edit war created by Ghostintheshell.  (Actually, twice, they had admitted that they would engage an edit war., ) During that situation, when I tried to accommodate and work with their edits in a WIN-WIN, they still refused, and only initiated the edit war.  To understand the chronology of events, I patiently laid out all the DIFFs when I made the May 7 edit piece, "The Ghostintheshell situation." .  Ghostintheshell was not knowledgeable enough to make any such correction accurately.  Ghostintheshell even made the absurd suggestion that there were not any Muslim polygamists in the West.  In that DIFF, please see the quote from me in the greyed area above that they are replying to. It shows how I was trying to gently accommodate them, but they would have none of it. Please also see my further proofs to them about Muslim polygamists in the West, , .  It should also be seen that, as I was preparing for a hopeful means of solution (even though Ghostintheshell would have none of it), an Admin Visorstuff confirmed that there really are Muslim polygamists in the Wets, just as I had been saying but as Ghostintheshell had been denying.   Honestly, Ghostintheshell used some of the most inflammatory and obfuscatory language while not really knowing that much about it.  When they broke the rules and created the TheRedandtheBlack account, they even admitted that they were "not particularly interested in any further research into polygamy."   It is issues like this that contribute to my belief that that whole matter with Ghostintheshell was a setup, to have me so attacked, tired, and pushed into an edit war I did not want, all as a preparation for Nereocystis who then took over with a new series of attacks against me.  Researcher 19:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Researcher99's view of Ghostintheshell
Researcher99 wrote a detailed account regarding Ghostintheshell and the TheRedandtheBlack
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Reading that DIFF is totally essential to understanding what was going on when Nereocystis "returned" back to the polygamy article on May 10 and immediately started attacking me and subsequently proceeded on an editing rampage. Instead of being civil or working with me, they instead "smelled blood" from my exhaustion of the edit war I had never wanted, went on an editing rampage regardless of all that, and prevented me from making any further edits, fully rejecting my requests for the Wikipedia Guidelines to first restore to STATUS QUO so that TALK could begin.  I really need and ask all arbitrators to seriously read this cited DIFF and follow all its subsequent DIFFS too.  I am really not the bad person the attackers have falsely tried to imply about me with their excessive and even outrageous statements.  Researcher 19:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

How Polygamists Find More Spouses



 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is what ignited the edit war Fred Bauder 17:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I recognize it is a conflictive edit, but I don't see what is wrong with it. POV? I didn't find anything, from what I read. --Neigel von Teighen 21:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the most egregious example of Researcher99's pro-Christian polygamy POV, though there were other editing wars on polygamy before this. Nereocystis 22:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC). Unfortunately, Researcher99 was unwilling to discuss alternative wording to the Christian polygamy part of the edit. The war here took place on the talk page. I edited paragraphs of this section unrelated to Christian polygamy, which seemed less objectionable to Researcher99; though he may correct me on how much he objected to my changes. Nereocystis 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The reply here [made on 22:30, 7 November 2005) by Nereocystis is another example of their hostile anti-polygamy agenda. As explained in the Polygamy Dispute Background, they manufacture the "Christian polygamy POV" straw man distraction because it threatens their anti-polygamy agenda, not because of me or the post. They also use it to distract this discussion away from their abuse they did to me.  Researcher 23:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * After I have just looked even more deeply into this matter than before, I more than ever do not believe it is fully accurate to think that this DIFF initiated an "edit war."  Instead, it was a target for attack.  Here is what happened.  After Admin Visorstuff gave me specific recommendations to apply in their TALK post on 21:09, 28 January 2005, I carefully took the next five weeks to follow their guidance.  On 21:23, 7 March 2005, I posted the result of my work, this cited DIFF.  It appears that my work was apparently good enough that  this Notable Citation from Berkeley Journal of International Law was added 06:37, 19 April 2005, when the current version of the polygamy article was this 12:30, 31 March 2005 version.  I commented about it in a later TALK post, on 10:25, 28 April 2005.  About two weeks after I had posted that work, Ghostintheshell created their account.  As Ghostintheshell's complete posting history shows, their first post was on 06:14, 24 March 2005.  Their next few posts were on the Talk:Islam page.  They tried to push a POV that was not well-received there by the Muslim editors there.  Ghostintheshell was unreasonably hostile to both Christianity and to anything that addresses the issues of fundamentalist Muslim doctrinal issues of concern to the West. This can been seen by reading the conversation there, ending with Ghostintheshell's inflammatory last post there at Talk:Islam.  No one had anything more to say to Ghostintheshell after that last inflammatory Talk:Islam post.  It was obvious that Ghostintheshell does not really know as much about the Muslim issues as they were trying to advance.  However, Ghostintheshell never engaged in an edit war there at Talk:Islam.  However, once Ghostintheshell had established their account as supposedly "Muslim-biased" (or supposedly knowing about religions) with those initial posts, Ghostintheshell made their first edit to the polygamy article, on 13:01, 27 April 2005.  Ghostintheshell made a very bigoted POV edit.  A careful analysis of what Ghostintheshell deleted in that post is very revealing.  The specific softly-worded NPOV contents they deleted on the polygamy article would not likely have been accepted on the Islam article either, as this reply and this reply to Ghostintheshell on Talk:Islam show.  Not just that, but Ghostintheshell even made a Talk:polygamy post where they proved they did not know much about Muslim polygamy at all.  Ghostintheshell absurdly proclaimed that Muslim polygamy in the West is non-existent.  In their posts to both Talk:polygamy and Talk:Islam, Ghostintheshell also proved that they are hostile to anything Christian. Ghostintheshell also used very inflammatory language on both TALK pages.   So, when I tried to accomodate their inputs on the polygamy article or tried to reach out to them on the Talk:polygamy page, Ghostintheshell refused any accomodation and ignited their own self-declared edit war against me.  Later, as their third from last post ever, Ghostintheshell used the announcement method on the Talk:Islam page, trying to enlist help on the polygamy article where they had been battling their edit war against me.  (The announcement method is a Wikipedia process expert technique that was later used many different times by Nereocystis as a tactic against me.)  In that announcement method post on 19:15, 10 May 2005, Ghostintheshell admitted they do not know Muslim polygamy, polygamy, and that they are not even Muslim.  As Ghostintheshell had already lost acceptance as a legitimate Muslim editor, due to their past inflammatory posts on that Talk:Islam page, Ghostintheshell got no Muslim assistance from the attempted announcement method.  By seeing these facts, it is important to take a look again at that first edit that they they had made to the polygamy article.  The specific parts that  Ghostintheshell deleted in that first edit were very gentle and clearly NPOV.  Ghostintheshell's inflammatory and asburd claims that the section's content was "POV" were not correct at all.  As well, Ghostintheshell had been acting very bigoted and as a supposedly "offended Muslim" by the section's content when they later admitted that were not even Muslim at all.  This all demonstrates that my carefully-written section, "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" was not really what ignited any edit war.  Instead, it was only the target of a hostile attack.  Ghostintheshell's behavior, their surprisingly skillful use of Wikipedia (no newbie there), their lack of accurate topic knowledge, and their very short duration of posting history, all fulfill many of the items listed in the official policy section, Characteristics of sock puppets.  (That's why we have requested an investigation into that.)  The real issue was not my "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" post.   The false premise was only the straw man created in order to make the attack against the article, to immediately be followed by Nereocystis's "return" (to the polygamy article), making even more hostile series of attacks. - Researcher 19:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ADDITIONAL POST: Researcher 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC) - The latest reply here (20:52, 8 November 2005) by Nereocystis is the admission that they picked up the attack from where Ghostintheshell left off.  It is always necessary to remember that it was only three hours after Ghostintheshell had posted, using the announcement method over on the Talk:Islam page and only one day before Ghostintheshell made their very last post on May 11, 2005,, that Nereocystis then made their very first post "back" on the Talk:polygamy page.  As  Ghostintheshell left, Nereocystis picked up right from where Ghostintheshell left off, as Nereocystis aggressively and very quickly barged forward to attack and overwhelm the polygamy article's situation.  It was clear.  I had called for STATUS QUO. That means a full stop, go back to STATUS QUO, and then start from there.  When a situation is in preparation for restoring to STATUS QUO, there is no legitimacy for creating or dealing with a myriad of newly manufactured "additional issues."  Any additional issues are discussed after the restoration of STATUS QUO, not before.  But Nereocystis ignored that and "ran right over me."  They rejected the Wikipedia Guidelines of STATUS QUO, and just started overwhelming the article with numerous attack edits, and prevented my ability to let us start at STATUS QUO. So, they have always known that I was busy calling for the STATUS QUO in order to then TALK, instead of dealing with all their deliberately overwhelming number of attacks.  They know that also applies to their "other edits" they made to the "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" section.  They know I opposed their "other edits."   They know that they had so consumed my time in abuses that I did not have time to address every little attack.  They also know that I had figured out that they made those "other edits" to the "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" section with a specific targeted intent.  Picking up from Ghostintheshell's attack on the "Muslim" subsection, Nereocystis initially attacked the "Mormon" subsection.  The hostile edits they made were done so as to deliberately leave the "Christian Polygamy" remainder appear as a standout. With those preparatory attacks complete, they could then use that "standout" appearance as their justification to then come back and attack the "Christian Polygamy" subsection (because that was their anti-polygamists' intended target from the beginning).   On July 20 2005, Nereocystis even  declared that the Christian polygamy subsection was their intended target.   Within an hour after Nereocystis's  July 20 2005 admission, I also commented on how that section was so destroyed by "sneaky vandalisms" (those "other edits") that the "Christian polygamy" section was therefore having an appearance different than it would without the incremental sneaky-attack edits. Directly breaking their word to let another editor decide what they would do, Nereocystis then proved it much later that day by the aggressive action of adding the ridiculous NPOV tag in the Christian Polygamy subsection anyway.  There is no mistake here. Nereocystis has known and even admitted that they had overwhelmed the situation.  As proof, when the two of us were later discussing my Aug. 5, 2005, WIN-WIN proposal, Nereocystis  admitted on August 15, 2005, that they had created too many issues all at once, and that I could not address every "other issue" because of that.  They also know that I was always willing to TALK about content once we got the STATUS QUO restored as according to Wikipedia Guidelines, but their abuse prevents that.  So, when Nereocystis just made this latest reply here (20:52, 8 November 2005), they are consciously not telling the truth again. - Researcher 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: