Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis: Difference between revisions
Nereocystis (talk | contribs) many people in discussion for article [using an external editor] |
Researcher99 (talk | contribs) m Nereocystis's fake "graciousness" is just more abuse |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
::::Andrevan, as you are an experienced mediator, you surely have an opinion or suggestion about how to do this mediation, because we're not agreeing as far I see... --[[User:Imaglang|Neigel von Teighen]] 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC) |
::::Andrevan, as you are an experienced mediator, you surely have an opinion or suggestion about how to do this mediation, because we're not agreeing as far I see... --[[User:Imaglang|Neigel von Teighen]] 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC) |
||
::::The above [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation%2FResearcher99_and_Nereocystis&diff=24201714&oldid=24198246 quote] from [[User:Nereocystis|Nereocystis]] is yet another deceptive fraud. It is one of their tactics, pretending to say words that sound "gracious" while acting and doing nothing but contradiction to their words. This is one of the abuse tactics they have used before. One example to show what I mean here is back when [[User:Nereocystis|Nereocystis]] sneakily sabotaged my effort and another of my attempts for resolution with my creation of the [[anti-polygamy]] article. Contrary to building that very-newly created article, they immediately sabotaged it, and asked someone to delete it on the former [[anti-polygamy]] TALK page in a post they made on 1 July 2005 17:16. (That former TALK page has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:User_talk:Researcher99/Archive01#Anti-polygamy_.28TALK_page.29 archived here.] In fact, you can read that former article's entire encounter [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:User_talk:Researcher99/Archive01 here.]) Also, [[User:Nereocystis|Nereocystis]] removed the link to that [[anti-polygamy]] article so that it then had no other article linking to it. (You may read the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_4#Nereocystis_immediately_suggested_the_newly_created_solution_of_the_anti-polygamy_article_be_deleted entire important chronology about that here.]) Within a few days, a very suspicious user, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Spatfield&offset=0&limit=100 Spatfield, who had almost never posted, and has not posted since,] then used that fact to justify calling for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-polygamy Vote For Deletion.] After that, when [[User:Nereocystis|Nereocystis]] knew that they had collected enough easily-found anti-polygamists to completely sabotage the [[anti-polygamy]] article, they then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-polygamy&diff=19092060&oldid=19087783 made the same kind of fake "gracious" post,] pretending as if they would like to see the VfD extended another week. I immediately [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-polygamy&diff=19102339&oldid=19092060 pointed out the lie of that fake "graciousness."] When one user was starting to see the possibility of the article's value, they misunderstood and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-polygamy&diff=19203522&oldid=19198184 noted] the fake "graciousness." I then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-polygamy&diff=next&oldid=19203522 further explained the proof of the fakeness of the lie.] Anyway, the article was finally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-polygamy&diff=19400015&oldid=19325642 deleted] the next day. So, it is necessary to realize that these kinds of fake comments are mere deceptions. Rather than actually mean that kind of "graciousness" that they ''say'', [[User:Nereocystis|Nereocystis's]] ''actions'' prove that they do not mean such "graciousness" at all. In this case here with the above [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation%2FResearcher99_and_Nereocystis&diff=24201714&oldid=24198246 quote,] if they genuinely "cared" about the article being done right, they would not be undermining and trying to circumvent just about every single effort that I make to get the article to NPOV and to work in accordance with Wikipedia Guidelines, especially as they do not even know that much about the topic. So, it is necessary to understand that the above fake "graciousness" is another inflammatory act of abuse, as it is just another example of the deceptive tactics they employ. That [[User:Nereocystis|Nereocystis]] is still using such tactics at this stage, combined with the fact that they have still not accepted the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&diff=23369108&oldid=23355038 only one valid basis] of this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&diff=23189549&oldid=23182180 RfM,] give me cause for despair that this Mediation will even occur or that they will ever stop their abuse. [[User:Researcher99|Researcher]] 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Alright, guys. Talk page it is; we can do the mediation here. So let's first establish what you would specifically like to happen as a result of this mediation. What's the best case scenario for each of you? [[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]]) 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC) |
Alright, guys. Talk page it is; we can do the mediation here. So let's first establish what you would specifically like to happen as a result of this mediation. What's the best case scenario for each of you? [[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]]) 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:44, 29 September 2005
User:Researcher99 in dispute with User:Nereocystis and others
Request by Neigel von Teighen, AMA advocate of User:Researcher99. A long-term dispute in Talk:Polygamy between both users about behaivour. The matter needs mediation soonly as the controversy the topic has. User Researcher wants to defend himself of what he and I as his official AMA advocate consider to be abusive comments and POV edits. We'd like to solve this by mediation as is the last method we've got before mediation (there has also been a RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99). A notice has been sent to the other party --Neigel von Teighen 23:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I want to participate in mediation. I require the following
- A clear statement from Researcher99 that he is willing to join in the mediation.
- A brief statement on Talk:Polygamy allowing other users to join in the process.
- A description of what will be covered in the mediation.
- Nereocystis 18:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have done the 2nd item. --Neigel von Teighen 22:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to participate in the mediation. I've been watching for quite some time, and have offered assistance in the past during other heated exchanges - I am not an advocate for/against either user and would be happy to
act as mediator. You guys set up the rules and I'll participate or mediate - but would like to be involvedoffer assistance. -Visorstuff 23:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)- Only official mediators (if you like to join the Mediation Committe or find out more about it, take a round WP:MC) can mediate, but anyone can participate if the parties agree. I reccommend you to contact them directly and/or the mediator (until now, no mediator has responded this). --Neigel von Teighen 23:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification - didn't notice what page I was on, I was not aware this was "official" at this point (guess I should look at the page title, huh), was hoping to assist in mediating on an "unofficial" basis. I do think that Tom AKA Hawstom did a good job previously in cooling these two off. I do think they need to forget their past interactions and be more forgiving of each other. Both are very rough toward other editors on other editing pages as well, but I think the mediation needs to focus on the current disputes. -Visorstuff 23:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Only official mediators (if you like to join the Mediation Committe or find out more about it, take a round WP:MC) can mediate, but anyone can participate if the parties agree. I reccommend you to contact them directly and/or the mediator (until now, no mediator has responded this). --Neigel von Teighen 23:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to participate in the mediation. I've been watching for quite some time, and have offered assistance in the past during other heated exchanges - I am not an advocate for/against either user and would be happy to
- I have done the 2nd item. --Neigel von Teighen 22:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am gladly following the guidance of my AMA, Neigel von Teighen. Any Mediation that does not address the abuses I have been receiving as far back as April/May is irrelevant. I am so glad to have found an AMA, whose guidance is what I am following. - Researcher 23:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I want the mediation to focus on determining the content of the Polygamy article. I am willing to forget the past interactions, if we can work toward fixing the article. Nereocystis 00:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to participate in this mediation and work towards making the Polygamy article more presentable, which is why I joined the discussions in the first place. I have been involved in the discussion for the past month and it seems to me that the best course of action would be to start with a blank slate. I feel like the ongoing argument has only served to scare away other potential editors who don't want to me dragged into this mess.-Kewp 07:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'll reword my statement a little bit. I am interested in getting to a discussion of the article quickly. While I strongly prefer to start with a blank slate, I'll listen to the mediator's suggestion here. Researcher99 has previously refused to discuss the article without discussing the past. If the mediator believes that discussing the past is the best option, I'm willing to go along with it.Nereocystis 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would ask any Mediator to note that this RfM request was made by AMA, Neigel von Teighen. In it, Neigel von Teighen clearly specified the intent and basis of this RfM, saying, User Researcher wants to defend himself of what he and I as his official AMA advocate consider to be abusive comments and POV edits. For the purpose of clarity, I repeat even more concisely what I said above, Any Mediation that does not address the abuses I have been receiving as far back as April/May is irrelevant.
- In fact, such an attempt to not allow those abuses to be addressed is exactly another example of one of the abuse patterns for which the Mediation is being sought: agressively circumventing existing situations already in motion into distractions and directions not approved or agreed, "running right over me." Nereocystis aggressively "ran right over me" while I was still in the middle of a known ongoing dispute in May with Ghostintheshell that was not yet finished. They did it again in July by suspiciously inciting a VfD of an anti-polygamy article I tried to create (in another resolution attempt I was making), rather than just building on the new article I had started there. They aggressively circumvented another ongoing situation in August by embracing an unapproved archiving and change in the polygamy TALK page which I did not accept that interrupted an ongoing resolution discussion we were in at that time (and yet they still continue on as if the unapproved interruptive change was valid). They do it here again on this RfM by trying to circumvent the basis and intent of this RfM request. So, such an attempt to distract from this RfM's real purpose cleverly seeks to deny and hinder addressing the real core of the problem that Mediation is being sought in the first place for. These listed examples here are just a few of the many abuse examples of why this RfM has no possibility for "just forgetting the past." That's because to do that would only serve to undermine the RfM in the first place, rendering it meaningless and solving nothing. Requesting that, though, is actually another form of repeated abuse.
- The AMA, Neigel von Teighen, is the one who made this RfM request on my behalf. The way the AMA presented this RfM request is the only valid basis for the Mediation request. Anything else, regardless of how many easily-found anti-polygamists can be found and exploited to add their "support" for the abuses against me as a minority editor (for not being a hostile POV anti-polygamist), is just another attempted aggressive circumvention. It's more abuse. - Researcher 23:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to move this along quickly, if we can. Is there a mediator who is willing to try to resolve this problem? Nereocystis 20:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nereocystis, I have sent a message to the Mediation Committee chairman (User:MacGyverMagic) to alert him that the requests are increasing and nobody answers them. I hope it works! --Neigel von Teighen 15:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's actually start this mediation from about 10 days ago... If it pleases her, I would like Catherine to mediate this case. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Apparently she hasn't edited for four days. So instead of her I'll assign Andrevan. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. How would you folks like to do this? I prefer IRC, but e-mail or a talk page would be fine as well. Andre (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't use IRC very often, though I could give it a try. Otherwise, a talk page sounds good to me. We do have to determine what the mediation covers, of course. Nereocystis 01:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am very much looking forward to Mediation. Thank you, Andre. At this moment, I am waiting to hear back from Neigel von Teighen, my AMA who made this RfM request. They had been gone for the last weekend and are supposed to be back soon. As well, I am unfamiliar with IRC. It also appears that Nereocystis has yet to accept the AMA's Meditation Request according to the only standard by which it was made. So, it seems that I am still left waiting for just a little bit longer before we can finally get to proceeding. (But I can hardly wait.) Thank you very much for being ready to help. Researcher 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I can't always predict when I have free time for Wikipedia, which is another reason for a talk page. Also, there are many people interested in the text of the polygamy article, which makes IRC more difficult to arrange. My assumption is that our Mediator will find a way to solve both of issues, the text of the polygamy article, as well as the issues which Researcher99 wants to resolve. Nereocystis 22:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of using a talk page, it's a better way I think, because it doesn't need to be too much time online and also, the process will be accesible for ayone, as Nereocystis proposed. Suggestions? P.D.: It seems that I'm back... ;) --Neigel von Teighen 23:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is disappointing to see that the inflammatory abuse continues. The above post by Nereocystis seeks to "run right over" again, once again trying to circumvent another current situation in process (in this case this time, this RfM), by trying to distract and re-direct its focus away from the only intent and purpose of this RfM, as requested by my AMA. The above post by Nereocystis abusively implies that I somehow don't want the article to be positively done and done in NPOV, when achieving that is exactly what I want once the real problem is resolved. The real problem is that it is Nereocystis's unceasing abuse (as this example further demonstrates) which completely prevents that from actually being achieved with the article. So, the above post by Nereocystis tries to distract this RfM with a straw man argument that does not apply. I repeat, there is only one valid basis of this RfM. If Nereocystis will not accept that, then they are refusing the Mediation and frustrating my hopes for resolution yet again. Researcher 23:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I believe we agree that the text of polygamy is important. Nereocystis 00:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Andrevan, as you are an experienced mediator, you surely have an opinion or suggestion about how to do this mediation, because we're not agreeing as far I see... --Neigel von Teighen 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- The above quote from Nereocystis is yet another deceptive fraud. It is one of their tactics, pretending to say words that sound "gracious" while acting and doing nothing but contradiction to their words. This is one of the abuse tactics they have used before. One example to show what I mean here is back when Nereocystis sneakily sabotaged my effort and another of my attempts for resolution with my creation of the anti-polygamy article. Contrary to building that very-newly created article, they immediately sabotaged it, and asked someone to delete it on the former anti-polygamy TALK page in a post they made on 1 July 2005 17:16. (That former TALK page has been archived here. In fact, you can read that former article's entire encounter here.) Also, Nereocystis removed the link to that anti-polygamy article so that it then had no other article linking to it. (You may read the entire important chronology about that here.) Within a few days, a very suspicious user, Spatfield, who had almost never posted, and has not posted since, then used that fact to justify calling for the Vote For Deletion. After that, when Nereocystis knew that they had collected enough easily-found anti-polygamists to completely sabotage the anti-polygamy article, they then made the same kind of fake "gracious" post, pretending as if they would like to see the VfD extended another week. I immediately pointed out the lie of that fake "graciousness." When one user was starting to see the possibility of the article's value, they misunderstood and noted the fake "graciousness." I then further explained the proof of the fakeness of the lie. Anyway, the article was finally deleted the next day. So, it is necessary to realize that these kinds of fake comments are mere deceptions. Rather than actually mean that kind of "graciousness" that they say, Nereocystis's actions prove that they do not mean such "graciousness" at all. In this case here with the above quote, if they genuinely "cared" about the article being done right, they would not be undermining and trying to circumvent just about every single effort that I make to get the article to NPOV and to work in accordance with Wikipedia Guidelines, especially as they do not even know that much about the topic. So, it is necessary to understand that the above fake "graciousness" is another inflammatory act of abuse, as it is just another example of the deceptive tactics they employ. That Nereocystis is still using such tactics at this stage, combined with the fact that they have still not accepted the only one valid basis of this RfM, give me cause for despair that this Mediation will even occur or that they will ever stop their abuse. Researcher 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Alright, guys. Talk page it is; we can do the mediation here. So let's first establish what you would specifically like to happen as a result of this mediation. What's the best case scenario for each of you? Andre (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I want the mediation to include a polygamy page which we agree on. Related pages, such as group marriage, polygyny, and polyandry should also be discussed. Researcher99 wants to include editing changes back to April or so. If the mediator decides that this is a good idea, I'm willing to go along with it. However, I would like to make it fairly brief. To complicate matters, I will be out of regular Internet access starting October 19 for about 3 weeks. Keeping the discussion polite seems to be difficult. Sending email to Andre and keeping the discussion private would solve the problem. However, I think that we can handle a talk page.
- If we decide to discuss the past, I would like to understand our goal. Presumably, we don't want to ban anyone. Is our hope to improve behavior in the future? Perhaps we want a list of actions which were inappropriate. We need a short list of items which should be discussed. I don't want this discussion to go on forever.
- I have my list of complaints about Researcher99's behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99. We can start there. Researcher99 has mentioned some of his complaints there. I'm sure that he can point us to his favorite list of complaints. Nereocystis 00:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- If the discussion is to happen on a talk page and not via e-mail, would it be appropriate for me and others to participate, since the discussion will be partly about the content of the polygamy article? Although the main dispute is between Nereocystis and Researcher99, it doesn't seem that discussions about the content should be limited to them and a mediator. Maybe the mediation could be two-fold: a discussion about disputed user conduct, and a discussion about the content of the article(s)--Kewp 14:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good idea. If are people are interested in the conduct, I suppose they can join in. Should we create a separate page for the discussion of the article itself? Is it really possible to separate the 2 topics? Perhaps the user conduct issue will end up discussing the content as well. Nereocystis 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)