Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Researcher99

Dunkelza's response to Researcher99

Okay, Researcher99 just spammed the Talk:Polygamy page by posting his RFC response on THAT page as well. I removed it from that inappropriate place, but will leave his response here, where it belongs. This is another example of Researcher99 hijacking legitimate article discussion to grind his personal ax. Such activity is highly counterproductive and MUST STOP.

Also, for the record, I am not upset that Researcher99 doesn't like my citations, but rather that he doesn't present any NPOV evidence of his own. I agree that my citations aren't always the best quality, as it is difficult to find entire bodies of text that show group marriage as being included in the broad category of polygamy. Instead, I cited study guides and other academic snippets where group marriage is shown as a subcategory of polygamy. In the process, I have consistenly maintained an NPOV. We should all be avoiding (as much as possible) information provided by political groups like "Christian Polygamists", "Anti-Polygamists" , and "Polyamorists".

Researcher99 has instead insisted on using the definitions provided by said Christian Polygamists, rather than scientific definitions from Anthropology, Sociology, or Zoology. I believe that Researcher99 should focus that POV work on a Christian Polygamy article and bring only appropriate scientific evidence to the general NPOV polygamy article. Dunkelza 20:08 August 30, 2005 (EDT)

In defense of Dunkelza's references, Researcher99 merely asked for an existence proof.

The article currently declares a false statement, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "true polygamy."

and

The article currently also declares another false statement. It makes up a new word, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "polygynandry."

In both cases, a handful of references proving that the terms are used as described is sufficient to handle Researcher99's claims. Later refererences improved on the initial references. Nereocystis 17:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Nereocystis's response to Researcher99

I will only respond to a couple of items.

Yes, Researcher99 and I did discuss a possible resolution. As one of the conditions, Researcher99 wanted me to defer to his expertise. I was unwilling to do this. After nearly 2 weeks of discussion which want around in circles, I was ready to quite. Uriah923's offer to mediate came at a fortunate time. After nearly 2 weeks of discussing Uriah923's mediation, Researcher99 wasn't any closer to agreeing. He wanted to discuss past insults from months ago (which this RFC is also doing, oh well). It was too late to revert to the previous discussion between Researcher99 and me. We had 2 discussions lasting nearly 2 weeks each without ever discussing the text of the article. Add in the previous attempts, and it was clear that Researcher99 wasn't going to come close to appropriate wiki behavior.

I suggest that Researcher99 find a mentor who can help him through the use of collaboration. This will allow Researcher99 to contribute without causing undue pain to others.

I do look forward to a Christian Polygamy article, but that has to be done carefully as well. There are a number of people or groups who consider themselves Christian polygamists. Researcher99 considers only his group thetruthbearer.com, to be legitimate Christian polygamy. Nereocystis 00:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to dropping RfC

In response to Neigel von Teighen request that I drop this RfC:

No, I won't drop the RfC. At least not yet. Researcher99 hasn't shown that he is interested in resolving the dispute. I don't think that he has chosen an AMA yet. Today's editing of Talk:Polygamy is another example of inappropriate behavior. Once again, he has put NPOV on a talk page, and put his diatribe at the top of the talk page, making it difficult to find anything else on this page. When I see evidence that he is trying to resolve the dispute, I am willing to look at the RfC, if there is evidence that he behavior is improving. I don't even know what Researcher99 wants, whether he wants a good article, and just to complain about me until the end of time. He has again refused mediation. Nereocystis 03:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well considering that Researcher99 compared Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist, it doesn't seem like he wants mediation, or that mediation would be appropriate with such an abusive user; He said "At this beginning stage, I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation, as it is much like suggesting the idea of negotiating with a terrorist or like asking a rape victim to let the rapist just talk to them to work out their differences."[1] I'm not sure this Rfc is going to achieve much.... Kewp 07:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It really annoys me that Nereocystis says that Researcher has no AMA when himself knows that it was because of that that I wanted this RfC dropped, or are you trying to say that, because an "inappropiate" behaivor of Researcher, I'm not doing the things you want me to do?

I'll repeat it once again: to drop the RfC will be a good way to make a free an clear RfM. I'd like to hear some reasons of you both, Kewp and Nereocystis, of why that shouldn't be made. --Neigel von Teighen 21:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought that Researcher99 had turned down all of the AMAs. I haven't heard a statement from him that he has chosen any of them as an official AMA yet. Has he? In my experience with him, it is common to say things which I initially believe is a commitment to action, but then discover that he does not consider himself to have made a decision. This isn't bad behavior per se, but it causes me to be cautious about any steps I make with him. I would like to hear a clear statement from him that he has chosen one or more advocates. Yes, if you are still Researcher99's advocate, then I will work with you.

So far I have not seen any indication that Researcher99's behavior has changed. Thus, I don't want to drop the RfC. Researcher99 has turned down a suggestion for moderation. Has Researcher99 agreed to any method of resolving our differences? Nereocystis 22:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, the whole dropping stuff doesn't matter. I've started the mediation as representing Researcher. Anyway, I'd like know where is Kewp as he surely could help on this... --Neigel von Teighen 23:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help as my AMA, Neigel von Teighen. I am glad to follow your guidance. Thanks! Researcher 00:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. This sounds good. Will Researcher99 state clearly that you are his AMA and that he agrees to the mediation? Nereocystis 23:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99's recent post on this page suggests that he is not quite ready to assume good faith or practice civility. If the mediation is successful, this RfC will be unnecessary, I hope. On the other hand, if he is really willing to undergo mediation, perhaps we can resolve all of these problems. I do think that the notice of mediation needs to appear on Talk:Polygamy so that others can participate. I definitely don't want to assume complete responsibility for polygamy. Nereocystis 01:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't around when this discussion was going on. I would say that it very unclear from Researcher99's end that he wants to procede with mediation. When Researcher says "At this beginning stage, I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation" [2], It doesn't really seem that he wants mediation, but then Imaglang says that he does. I think we should have mediation, but from Researcher99's last post I don't see why the RfC should be dropped, his actions and comments are increasingly abusive, even accusing me and other users of lying and stalking. Researcher99 needs to be civil to other users and needs to be clear about his intentions: He says one thing, and his AMA says another. Kewp 08:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

More disputed behavior by Researcher99

Since the RfC was created, Researcher99 has engaged in questionable behavior. This section lists the questionable behavior.

• 7 September, 2005 Researcher99 refuses mediation, also compares Nereocystis with terrorist and rapist.
• 8 September, 2005. Researcher99 places his disputed at top of Talk:Polygamy, places NPOV tag on Talk:Polygamy.

Nereocystis 00:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Proof of Lies & Ganging Up against Researcher

As further proof that I am being ganged up on, here is proof of how Nereocystis and Kewp have both told the identical lie about me, on 2 separate TALK pages.

In the following proofs, they both cited from the same DIFF of a post I made, this one.

At 20:25, 9 September 2005, on the polygamy TALK page, Nereocystis posted the following very aggressive post, completely "running over me" yet again:

Researcher99 has decided against mediation again. I suggest that we ignore his postings while his RFC continues, unless they are about the article, and try to work on improvements to the article. It's going to be a painful process. Nereocystis 20:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

At 07:07, 12 September 2005, on the Requests_for_comment/Researcher99 TALK page, Kewp posted the following:

Well considering that [[User:Researcher99|Researcher99] compared Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist, it doesn't seem like he wants mediation, or that mediation would be appropriate with such an abusive user; He said "At this beginning stage, I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation, as it is much like suggesting the idea of negotiating with a terrorist or like asking a rape victim to let the rapist just talk to them to work out their differences."[3] I'm not sure this Rfc is going to achieve much.... Kewp 07:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Since both of those cited this post from me, here is what I actually said:

Thank you for your input, it has been very kind and helpful. I have sent you an email, as you suggested earlier. Nereocystis often says many things, but then they come back with abuse anyway. So their pretend willingness for Mediation is an act to be distrusted. At this beginning stage, I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation, as it is much like suggesting the idea of negotiating with a terrorist or like asking a rape victim to let the rapist just talk to them to work out their differences. (Maybe Mediation can work later though.) Currently, though, no matter how much a single issue might get resolved in Mediation, the abuser, if not stopped, will only continue to deploy further stalking, attacks, and abuse afterward. I want to succeed in going forward, not to be back here in this problem over and over again. So, while we might end up there at Mediation eventually, I first need to have some things addressed with the help of an AMA. I believe in the Wikipedia Guidelines, even though it seeems to appear that I am among the extreme minority of those who really believe in that. I very much appreciate your help. Thanks. Researcher 19:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In that post which I made at 19:14, 7 September 2005, it clearly reveals that I had said, "Currently, though, no matter how much a single issue might get resolved in Mediation, the abuser, if not stopped, will only continue to deploy further stalking, attacks, and abuse afterward. I want to succeed in going forward, not to be back here in this problem over and over again. So, while we might end up there at Mediation eventually, I first need to have some things addressed with the help of an AMA."

It is important to note the dates of the posts.

Nereocystis, 20:25, 9 September 2005, posted the lie on the polygamy TALK page.

Kewp 07:07, 12 September 2005, posted the lie on the RfC/Researcher TALK page.

They both cited the same post from my TALK page, 19:14, 7 September 2005.

But after I had made that 19:14, 7 September 2005 post on my own TALK page, 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, I said,

I appreciate that effort, thank you, and I do hope it continues. However, the outrageously unnecessary RfC against me is but one of a number of abusive attacks from Nereocystis. Another example is the very suspicious sabotage of the deleted "anti-polygamy" article I tried to create as another possible proposal for solving some of the issues in the overall problem. Their telling such outright lies, as I showed on your TALK page, is another example. These examples and more are simply individual examples of the overall agenda to destory everything I do so that I leave Wikipedia and that they can then feel free to fill the polygamy article with their deliberately hostile and/or sneaky-subtle anti-polygamy POV propaganda. (I have never ever encountered such a dysfunctional, patently abusive individual as Nereocystis. I never allow this kind of human dysfunction toward me in my real life. So, when I turn to Wikipedia rules to prevent the abuse, instead the rules have seemingly been ignored and it has only prolonged for months on end.) The larger overall issue is that I am targeted at every step, stalked to every post, and prevented from doing anything for the value of Wikipedia, all by Nereocystis. I need to have a discussion directly with a listening-AMA before I can commit to anything. I am open to Mediation, but only after I have some real discussion from some AMA who has read ALL the facts and now can clearly see the reality of Nereocystis's prolonged abuse toward me and toward my every edit. So, I agree that the RfC against me needs to be removed, but it is only one step among many that are needed. The abuse HAS to come to end. Researcher 20:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That post occurred before both Nereocystis's 20:25, 9 September 2005 posted lie and Kewp's 12 September 2005 posted lie. It was posted on the same TALK page (i.e., mine) that had had the same 19:14, 7 September 2005 post from me on my own TALK page which both lying posts cited.

So, clearly, both Nereocystis and Kewp have posted the identical lie about me, trying to abusively suggest that I said things I obviously did not say. One (Nereocystis) says the lie on one TALK page, and the other (Kewp) says the lie on another. Not only is it a deliberate and identicial lie, but also by thier doing it that way together, they tried to present a false idea of originality of telling the lie on each of the TALK pages individually. What it really, though, is just a ganging up on me with a clear lie.

This kind of lying about me is exactly this kind of non-stop abuse against me that has been going on for so long. I am hopeful that, with the help of my AMA, the abuse will finally come to an end. Researcher 00:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your plans, Researcher99. I hadn't realized that you are still considering mediation. Have you changed your mind on mediation? Are you willing to go with mediation for our dispute? Have you chosen AMAs? If so, please list all of your official AMAs? Nereocystis 00:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99, what I posted about you was not a lie, you said "At this beginning stage, I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation, as it is much like suggesting the idea of negotiating with a terrorist or like asking a rape victim to let the rapist just talk to them to work out their differences." You are comparing the people that you would ostensibly be in mediation with to terrorists and rapists. Unless you are talking about yourself, this comment can only taken as a direct attack on the other parties involved in this discussion. For you to say that I am lying or to call it "abuse" is disingenuous, and wholly unreasonable. I will not respond to any of the other allegations in Researcher99's last post , because they can only be described as ludicrous. Kewp 08:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Last Responses present more Lies, Cause Suspicion

Caught in a Lie, More Lies came Forward

Readers may note how the lies continue. Readers may observe the responses to my last post here, "Proof of Lies & Ganging Up against Researcher" and in other posts Nereocystis and Kewp made in other parts of this RfC/TALK page. Based on their responses, they seem to that think I violate the principles of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Civility to expose how they have obviously lied about me, yet they equally think that they are somehow in full acordance with those princples for telling the lies.

Nereocystis actually asks if I changed my mind on Mediation as if my "mind" had somehow refused it previously. Kewp actually says it was not a lie to read a quote from mine which acually proves that I did not reject Mediation! Being caught in an obvious lie, the instead use even more lies and abusively suggest that I am the one who is supposedly not being civil and polite!

In my post which they both cite so much, on 19:14, 7 September 2005 on my own TALK page, I clearly said that, chronologically, I need to speak with an AMA first. Here are three quotes from that post:

• At this beginning stage, I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation...

• (Maybe Mediation can work later though.) ...

• So, while we might end up there at Mediation eventually, I first need to have some things addressed with the help of an AMA.

In my later post on 20:05, 8 September 2005, I made that clear there too.

• I need to have a discussion directly with a listening-AMA before I can commit to anything...

• I am open to Mediation, but only after I have some real discussion from some AMA who has read ALL the facts and now can clearly see the reality of Nereocystis's prolonged abuse toward me and toward my every edit.

As anyone can obviously see, I never once refused Mediation. I had said it over and again, that I needed to first speak with an AMA before doing anything else. So, it is another lie to suggest that someone simply "minsinterpreted" my intention. What I had said could not have been clearer. (So, even the "sorry I misinterpreted" assertion is an obvious lie, too, because there was no room for such supposed "misinterpreptation".)

Instead, the suggestion that I somehow refused Mediation was simply the deliberate lie they advanced in order to once again "run right over me" in the undeniably abusive act of Nereocystis's declaration for everyone to "ignore (my) postings". It is yet another example of the kind of non-stop abuse I get. It proves that, no matter how many times I make my point, Nereocystis ignores what I say and just "runs right over me."

Could it be that Nereocystis is Kewp?

It appears that Kewp must be thinking they are Nereocystis (maybe they are the same person?).

In my 20:05, 8 September 2005 post I made, I had only said,

• The larger overall issue is that I am targeted at every step, stalked to every post, and prevented from doing anything for the value of Wikipedia, all by Nereocystis.

In the past post I made which they both cite from me so much (which disproves their lie), I had only said,

• Nereocystis often says many things, but then they come back with abuse anyway. So their pretend willingness for Mediation is an act to be distrusted. At this beginning stage, I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation, as it is much like suggesting the idea of negotiating with a terrorist or like asking a rape victim to let the rapist just talk to them to work out their differences.

Obviously, my comparison references and discussion about Mediation possibilities at a later time only applied to Nereocystis. What is even more ironic is that in Kewp's original post where they told the proven lie against me, they themselves quoted that I was only talking about Nereocystis.

Why should Kewp think they were being identified that way in their latest posts (here and here)? After all, they were not even involved in any of the discussion with me during anything, until they arrived at the end of August to unwaveringly support every abuse perpetrated by Nereocystis against me, very late into this months-long situation.

It is so odd that Kewp would think they were being identified that way. It is so perplexing that it makes me wonder if it might possibly be because it was actually Nereocystis making those posts but had forgotten they were using the Kewp username at the time they posted.

Given how both Kewp and Nereocystis have told the identical clearly-proven lie on two separate TALK pages, and that now Kewp made this post and this post, thinking that my quotes applied to them too, I wonder if Nereocystis is Kewp.

If true, that would not surprise me, considering that it very much appears to me that Nereocystis was Ghostintheshell. (FMI about that specificially: readers may see: The Ghostintheshell Situation (7 May 2005) and Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals (16 May 2005).

Of course, this is only a suspicion about Kewp . I am simply noting how very odd it is that Kewp would be posting as if they are Nereocystis.

Clearly, it is those who advance obvious lies about me who are the ones who refuse the principles of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Civility. To accuse me (as in here and here, with the former one updated here) of rejecting those principles proves that they are the ones rejecting the principles themselves. To suggest that the act of my pointing out the obvious lie somehow means that I reject those principles is undeniably another obvious lie itself they are advancing against me.

I am hopeful that, with the help of my AMA, these kinds of lies and abuse will come to an end, and I will truly be treated with the principles of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, and Wikipedia:Civility, and honesty.

Researcher 20:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)