Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Researcher99 | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Researcher99 has been unwilling to resolve disputes with Nereocystis on Talk:Polygamy over many months. He has been asked multiple times over many months to discuss the text of the Polygamy article and stop discussing what he perceives as past abuses and insults.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Since May, 2005, Researcher99 has complained that Nereocystis vandalized the Polygamy article. Between May and August, 2005, 5 people have requested that Researcher99 discuss the text of the Polygamy article and stop discussing the claims of past abuse. Researcher99 has refused to do so. 3 people have tried to provide outside help. Researcher99 delayed voting on a poll resolving the issue for one month.

When Researcher99 discusses content, the discussion go around in circles, Researcher99 does not answer questions, does not provide citations, and when he does, citation follow his POV, which is Christian polygamy.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. 16 May created Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
2. 17 June Researcher99 continues attacking Nereocystis's behavior, no discussion of text and more attacking of Nereocystis
3. 18 July Researcher99 explains how he is oppressed by anti-polygamists, but didn't discuss the text of the article
4. 18 July Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative
5. August 5 Researcher99 suggests resolution, insists that Nereocystis defer to Researcher99's proven expertise.
6. August 18 Researcher99 wants to discuss past
7. August 26 Researcher99 again does not address the article, but continues talking about past events
8. August 26 Researcher99 again does not provide outline, and postpones conversation for a few days, past deadline for outline
9. August 26 Researcher99 attacks Nereocystis on Group marriage talk page, does not want to move discussion, user talk page edit called vandalism

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
2. Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement
   1. Work towards consensus
   2. Don't filibuster
3. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
   1. Argue facts, not personalities.
   2. Don't ignore questions.
4. Wikipedia:Civility
5. Wikipedia:Cite sources
6. Wikipedia:Verifiability
7. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. 16 May Nereocystis requests discussion on talk page
2. 7 June Dan100 provides 3rd opinion
3. 7 June Hawstom agrees with Dan100
4. 18 June Dan100 repeats request to focus on issues
5. 18 June Hawstom suggests forgetting past conduct, editing and discussing, starts poll
6. 4 August Nereocystis list proposals, suggests that Researcher99 should come up with suggestion, or accept someone's suggestion for resolution of problem
7. August 16 Uriah923 offers to mediate
8. August 18 Uriah923 requests outline from both participants
9. August 18 Nereocystis provides outline
10. August 25 Uriah923 gives Research99 until August 26 to submit outline
11. August 25 Dunkelza suggests that Researcher99 provides outline, stop claims of abuse
12. August 25 Dunkelza suggests moving group marriage discussion to polygamy
13. August 26 Uriah923 again requests an outline

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Nereocystis 17:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Kewp 19:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I am being ganged up on by those who know I have been waiting for AMA for weeks, since July 18, 2005, most particularly, Nereocystis who has given reason to wonder if they have operated with multiple Usernames. They also know that the most recent offer was only premised on my support, and that if I did not accept it, we could return to the previous discussion of my offer for resolution. When there was no willingness to offer any small acts of good faith to have genuine WIN-WIN, I was unable to accept the bias. Throughout these past few months problem has been that they act extremely fast and aggressively, to destroy everything I do, and then to employ easily-found anti-polygamists to act like they have concensus for their abuse.

I have been a positively contributing editor of the polygamy article since the end of last year, with numerous amounts of knowledge on the subject. However, I have subsequently been attacked by POV anti-polygamists who have undermined the article with their POV agenda and who now consistently prevent me from editing anything in it since the end of April. I have produced volumes of evidence of the abuse in the TALK pages, which anti-polygamists have even attempted to hide by "archiving."

Here are some of the TALK articles giving the chronology of the abuse I have received. No fair decision can occur without fully reading all the evidence.

• The Ghostintheshell Situation 7 May 2005
• Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals 16 May 2005
• Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki 27 May 2005
• The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN 8 July 2005 16:11
• Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki 17 Jun 2005
• I am being oppressed by Anti-Polygamists 18 July 2005
• Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof 20 July 2005
• Anti-Polygamy Article, Talk, and VfD (Article & TALK begun 30 Jun 2005, suspicously VfD-called on 9 July 2005, deleted 22 July 2005. Also see Nereocystis'sattempt to speed up the deletion on 18 Jul 2005.)
• Researcher's Offer for RESOLUTION 5 August 2005

• Pattern Observed on how some disputed issues DID conclude
• The Needed Steps to Change the Pattern in order to Resolve and Prevent these Disputes
• Offers for Good Faith Acts
• Hope for this Positive Conclusion
• DISCUSSION Segment

• I started the very first TALK post on group marriage - to try to start to solve one subtopic problem that Nereocystis was causing at the polygamy article. They soon stalked me over there too.
• Uriah923's Dispute resolution interrupts previous resolution discussion 16 August 2005
• My explanatory post, comment-titled, "Unbigotted help is welcome, Uriah923. Thank you." 14:18, 18 August 2005
• Uriah923's post, in direct contradiction to what I had "agreed." 15:34, 18 August 2005
• Uriah923's post, Archiving the TALK pages, doing exactly what I had said I did not want to happen. 15:59, 18 August 2005
• My post immediately registering my disapproval 16:55, 18 August 2005
• The subsequent TALK
• Nereocystis's double-standard 20:11, 25 August 2005. I responded to an extremely abusive post by Nereocystis, which took time away from trying to get stuff done on the other TALK. Their abuse set it off from there. They had ignored the numerous proven-invalid references from Dunkelza, but then went overboard trying to invent a mystery about referenced proven-authority sites.
• The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage proposed 17:43, 26 August 2005. The Discussion shows that even that easy act of good faith was refused by Nereocystis.
• Uriah923 said they would leave me to await the official help which I had said I was awaiting for. 18:59, 26 August 2005 In the following posts between us, I said I did not want them to leave, but if there could not be any act of WIN-WIN and good faith towards me, then we would have to go back to the resolution offer we had been discussing before. It had always been said (even by Uriah923) that, without my approval, their new offer would not work. I offered a way for good faith to be established, but they did not return to participate in anything any more (as of this writing).
• Requests for comment/Researcher99 called by Nereocystis on 17:01, 28 August 2005. They employed assistance from Dunkelza who they drew from the group marriage TALK (who had provided proven invalid usenet and form threads as supposed "references," and Kewp. (Kewp has only made 4 posts in polygamy TALK, only starting since Aug 22. The first one is a pure anti-polygamy propaganda promoting underage issues, and the other three talk as if they had been a part of everything all along,post #2, post #3, and post #4. Yet, these two who have not been around for more than a couple weeks claim to know the situation in the Requests for comment/Researcher99.

I have more to share but this will get things started. I hope for some fairness, and for the bullying to come to an end. Nereocystis has only called for this page here because they know that the offer as we were previously TALKING is now supposed to be back on the TABLE and that my requested AMA has appeared posting again. Researcher 20:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I was not directly aware of Researcher99's abuse of Nereocystis prior to early August; however, I have since also had the experience of going around and around with said editor. Since I entered the discussions on Talk:group_marriage and Talk:polygamy, he has been overtly dismissive of scientific citations, preferring instead to substitute his own religious convictions for evidence. When asked to commit to a resolution process, he has instead continued to fling mud at the supposed abuses of others, none of which I have seen (even in archives). I have repeatedly attempted to direct him toward productive discourse on articles, but I have seen none to date. Dunkelza 23:17 August 28, 2005 (EDT)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. [[User:Dunkelza|Dunkelza]] 23:17 August 28, 2005 (EDT)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.