| Revision as of 17:31, 18 June 2005 editDan100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,101 edits →Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki: reply to Researcher← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:32, 18 June 2005 edit undoDan100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,101 edits archivingNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ==Archive== | ==Archive== | ||
| ] ] | ] ] ] | ||
| ==Disputed== | |||
| There is a lot of good information in ]. However, there has been a lot of controversy with many changes lately. I want to discuss proposed changes, concentrating on facts with references, and try to avoid the personal attacks. The title Disputed is suggested in ]. I would also like to clean up the text in the main article. Often, the article is repetitive. | |||
| ===Muslim polygamy--Resolved=== | |||
| Have these issues been resolved to everyone's satisfaction? | |||
| ] 23:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This sentence is not quite complete: | |||
| :Polygamy is the anthropological term, which can be either polygyny (one man having multiple wives) or polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands). Historically, both practices have been found, but polygyny appears far more commonly than polyandry. | |||
| ] is considered to be a form of polygamy, at least by many practioners of group marriage. I suggest the following rewording. Modified a bit. I removed "the anthropoligical term", since it didn't add anything. | |||
| :Polygamy which can be: | |||
| :*] - one man having multiple wives, or | |||
| :*] - one woman having multiple husbands, or | |||
| :*homosexual polygamy - more than two people of the same gender who form a family group | |||
| :*] - more than one man and more than one woman form a family unit | |||
| :Historically, all practices have been found, but polygyny is the most common form of polygamy. | |||
| ] says: | |||
| :and to subtly re-define polygamy as group marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Polygamy&diff=13682713&oldid=13675602) even when it clearly is not | |||
| The ] page considers group marriage as a form of polygamy; that's my first reference for considering group marriage a form of polygamy. All group marriage is polygamy. Not all polygamy is group marriage. Therefore group marriage must be mentioned as a form of polygamy, though not the only form. ] discusses Not all polygamy is group marriage. I am not redefining polygamy as group marriage, and I am not subtle.group marriage briefly, but most of the discussion is about polyamory vs polygamy. These are different. The discussion about group marriage vs polygamy is small. If anyone believes that group marriage is not a form of polygamy, please provide references, and we can include both points of view. Without references, don't make changes. | |||
| I am not trying to redefine polygamy as group marriage, and I am not subtle.] 19:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there another term for group marriage that doesn't make you (or anybody) think it is talking strictly about sex, not total family, '''perhaps polygynandry''' or '''circle marriage'''? ] 22:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Just as ''polygamy'' makes some people think about sex, ''group marriage'' makes some people think about group sex. That doesn't mean that we should avoid either word. ''Marriage'' makes other people think about sex. ''Group marriage'' immediately suggests to me a group of people married to each other. ''polygynandry'' and ''circle marriage'' are a little bit more confusing. Also ''polygynandry'' does not include a homosexual group marriage, which would leave it off of my list. Of course, I have to rewrite my phrase a bit to include homosexual polygamous marriages.] 20:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I threw in a sentence above about homosexual polygamy, but I'm not really happy with the current wording.] 08:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *(different writer than above)I am no expert, but I was under the impression that polyandry was a term referring to what this author calls group marriage and not necessarily to a woman with multiple husbands. Admittedly, my information comes from a RealSex(the HBO Series) episode I watched over a year ago, and may not be accurate. If anyone can clarify all of the terms, add any new terms and maybe give a literal translation from the Greek root word, I think it would be a worthwhile aside. Also, because I have never tried to edit here, please excuse any rule breaking I may have done in posting this. I did not change any of the author's original wording. If this is the wrong place to do this, please feel free to erase, on the condition that myself or anyone else wanting to make comments are informed of where and how to do so. | |||
| To anon: Poly = many. Andro = male. Polyandry = many males. To Nereo: the idea of homosexuality as marriage is '''very''' marginal in the world. I'm interested to see how you add an explanation of this to the article. ] 18:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| To Haws: Thank you. I really wanted to know what 'andro' translated to; I now have a much clearer understanding, and welcome the correction of my mistake. However, with the understanding that most States do not allow or recognize homosexual marriage, some do, and to call any marriage(no matter how unconventional) "'very' marginal" is, to me, a bit opinionated and homophobic. If, as I am hoping, you were simply referring to the small number of recognized homosexual marriages and subsequently smaller number of homosexual polygamous marriages, I feel that even if there is only one such marriage in the world, it deserves mention. I would be most interested in seeing Nereo's additions to this topic as well as the 'explanation' you seek (provided the info is factual and backed with both sources and examples (as I have never heard of any cases of polygamous homosexuality). Although I was only unclear about the term 'polyandry', I think that the mini-glossary is a nice touch, especially for those of us who are just poking around to pass time. Thanks, Folks! | |||
| Gay polygamous marriage is probably quite uncommon, more so than straight polygamous marriage. Years ago, I had a friend who was involved in a gay 3-person relationship. I don't think that they called it marriage; I can't really remember the details. There were many aspects which were close to marriage. It may take me quite a while to find references on this topic. I may even fail. ] 20:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The whole ] section needs to be rewritten. It isn't really polygamy vs anything. Most of the words are either a subcategory of polygamy or polygamy is a subcategory of the word: | |||
| *bigamy is a type of polygamy. Also, bigamy is a legal word. | |||
| *All polygamy is a type of polyamory, but not all polyamory is a type of polygamy. | |||
| *All group marriages are polygamous, but not all polygamous marriages are group marriages. | |||
| * polygamy is a form of poly relationships, but not all poly relationships are polygamous. | |||
| I need to try for another rewrite of this section. ] 01:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Tapestry Against Polygamy link removed--Resolved=== | |||
| This change removes the Tapestry Against Polygamy link, claiming that it is duplicate. It is not duplicated. I wish to restore the link, or have someone show me where the link is duplicated.] 19:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Move ] under ]--Resolved=== | |||
| Mormon is a type of Christianity, so Mormon should be a subcategory of Christianity, if polygamy remains categorized by religion. ] 08:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]- negative view of Mormon polygamists=== | |||
| This section has a generally negative view of Mormon polygamists and women's lack of choice in marriages. This ''may'' be correct in some groups of fundamentalists, but definitely not in all. The negative POV in this section should more fairly describe Mormon polygamists now and pre-Manifesto. ] 20:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Hindu Polygamy=== | |||
| I think the section regarding Hindu polygamy (]) needs to be re-worded a bit. It implies that Hinduism has no objections, but does not encourage polygamy. This is not entirely correct. In the Anusasana Parva, Section Forty-Four, it is written "A Brahmana can take three wives. A Kshatriya can take two wives. As regards the Vaishya, he should take a wife from only his own order. The children born of these wives should be regarded as equal." Point: Hinduism provides guidelines for polygamy, therefore the article should cite this quotation, with a comment something along the lines of "Though Hinduism does not encourage polygamy, it is technically permitted for certain castes. In the Anusana Parva..." etcetera. The rest of the section is fine, as it is indeed against the law in India for Hindus to marry more than one wife (the law dates to the time of British Conquest), and they are indeed looking at making the law apply equally to all religions. --] | |||
| :This sounds plausible to me. ] 17:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I want to split Muslims from other cultures for a few reasons: | |||
| #I don't know a traditionalist culture when I see one. | |||
| #I don't know why Muslims are considered traditionalist, but Christians are not. | |||
| ] 17:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Radical feminists against polygamy--Resolved=== | |||
| ] claims that radical feminists are against polygamy. No examples are given. The sentence suggests that all forms of polygamy are opposed. I suspect that marrying underaged females is opposed by many feminists, and non-feminists, but I would like to see support about the opposition to polygamy extending to all radical feminists. Otherwise, I suggest rewording this paragraph. ] 08:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Here's a reference where the Utah ] invited a polygamist wive to speak. Radical feminist's supposed opposition to polygamy sounds like an attack against feminists, rather than a description of their stand on the issue. I plan to delete this line, unless there is opposition and citations: | |||
| :In contrast, radical feminism has generally aligned with Christian fundamentalists to stop polygamy. | |||
| ] 18:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This section is very oddly worded, though I'm not sure that it is inaccurate. Unfortunately, I don't know what the original author meant to say. Laws against the 'polygamous lifestyle' are mentioned, though 'polygamous lifestyle' is not clearly defined. What does 'parts of the United States' mean? Does this mean states. Please give examples. I assume this refers to Utah and Idaho primarily. "which is unusual" should be removed. I don't know what it refers to. I'll work on an alternate wording later. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This should be moved to '''Legal situation'''. The following phrase does not have a reference, and I believe that it is incorrect; it has been marked as disputed, as per the wikipedia's guidelines. | |||
| :It was Green's crime of criminal non-support which initiated the case in that one state. | |||
| This case is discussed in detail under ]. Researcher, who is now renamed ] refused to provide meaningful references because the sentence is obvious. I disagree. I eventually grew tired of fighting, but I'm back again. | |||
| References about Tom Green's case have been removed by ]. This references should be allowed to stay. | |||
| Another sentence says: | |||
| :However, it does show the risks in using the system of multiple divorce and legal marriage and why many polygamists avoid it. | |||
| This sentence is irrelevant, since common-law marriage does not require divorce. Of course, the decision did not effect any polygamous marriage which took place before the Green case. So it is double irrelevant. I plan to remove this sentence, unless there is documentation for why it should stay.] 00:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Researcher99 provides a reference of an , perhaps truthbearer.org, where the founder says that Green was prosecuted because of criminal non-support. It is not clear who "Mark the Founder" is, or why one should trust his view on this issue. I don't consider this a valid reference for resolving the question of why Tom Green was prosecuted. However, I am willing to listen to a reason why I should trust Mark the Founder.] 22:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| David O. Leavitt was the prosecutor in the Tom Green bigamy and child-rape cases. He is no longer the Juab County Prosecutor, but he states the reasons for his prosecution of Green. While Leavitt mentions government support, he claims that it is not the reason for the prosecution. Look at this article: | |||
| :I agree that not all polygamists, sexually or otherwise, abuse children. I understand that some don't scam the government. But the harm to society and to innocent individuals is so great that even the exceptions cannot be justified. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1879 rejected polygamy, stating that monogamy is the only acceptable form of marriage because it preserves our culture and our families. | |||
| In another page which claims to be from a , Leavitt says: | |||
| :whenever someone confesses to commission of a felony on national television in my jurisdiction I'm going to prosecute him | |||
| These two quotes provide evidence that Green's prosecution was not because of criminal non-support, but because: | |||
| # Green publicly talked about his polygamy | |||
| # Anyone guilty of polygamy should be prosecuted. | |||
| Can Researcher99 provide evidence which support his view? | |||
| ] 21:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I usually use fewer words than Researcher99. I have trimmed unneeded words. I would also add the above links about the prosecutors views on the case. My suggested wording for this section is: | |||
| :Some polygamous families use a system of multiple divorce and marriage. For polygynous relationships, the husband marries the first wife, she takes his last name, he divorces her and then marries the next wife who takes his name. This is repeated until he has married and divorced all his wives, except possibly the last one. The wives call themselves Mrs. and, while legally they're divorced from the husband, they act still married to him and expect those around them to acknowledge and respect this. For polyandrous relationships, the wife marries and divorces the husbands. | |||
| :Since only one wife is married to the husband at any one time, no law was being broken and so this type of polygamous family unit could be overt about their relationship. In ], however, the state of ] in the ] convicted Tom Green of criminal non-support and four counts of bigamy for having 5 serially monogomous marriages, while living with previous legally divorced wives. Green's conviction was affirmed by the Utah Supreme Court in . This case applies only in Utah. | |||
| ] 08:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mormon fundamentalists - so-called and otherwise== | |||
| If you look at the definition of ], it is clear that the polygamists are Mormon fundamentalists, they are returning to earlier Mormon teachings. I like ]'s changing, but want to remove additional so-called. Is there anyone who doubts that they are Mormon fundamentalists? "So-called" suggests that the term is inaccurate and that there are other phrases to describe these people. You may have doubts that the fundamentals which they are practicing are important to Mormonism, but they are traditional Mormon values, nevertheless.] 23:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I think "so-called" is used because of the term Mormon not because of any issue with fundamentalism. As you can see from the ] pages and discussion, the term Mormon is used either 1) as a synonym for ] or 2) as a term for all who believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet (like the ] which disputes that it is a break off but a continuation of the church that JS founded). Since some which can be called Mormons never practiced polygamy, the term '''Mormon Fundamentalist''' has a specific meaning, i.e. those that broke off from ] after the practice of polygamy was halted, and it is "so-called" since the term is not strictly correct but no better term I can think of could be used. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 22:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I consider "so-called" Mormon fundamentalists to be the equivalent of: | |||
| :Mormons are "so-called" Christians. | |||
| "So-called" has a derogatory suggestion which shouldn't be used here. Since they are called "Mormon fundamentalists", there shouldn't be a so-called in front of the word, unless you are suggesting that they shouldn't be called that. There is already a disclaimer that they are not LDS, though the sentence is very awkward and should be edited down.] 23:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Trying to think of a neutral term {{User:Trödel/sig}} 14:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I don't know the answer yet, but I'll add information here until there is an answer. Here's the , but the LDS church doesn't suggest an alternative name. Of course, the LDS Church doesn't really approve of the use of Mormon, either. Here is a reasonable, unofficial article on . Should there be an article on Mormon fundamentism, or would that name be too controversial? "Self-proclaimed" is worse than "so-called". "Self-described" is better, but still doesn't feel correct.] 17:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I added a discussion for this topic outside of polygamy, since it really is a wider issue: | |||
| ] ] 18:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please use disputed section== | |||
| ] made a large number of changes which are being discussed under the disputed section of the talk page. Please discuss items there. Follow the rules. ] 22:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| This dispute does not seem like it will be resolved without outside help. I have requested outside help in ]. I also made a request under ] for the user to follow protocol. This is a necessary step before making a request for an action against this user. I hope that we can reach an agreement without outside intervention, but it seems unlikely. ] 22:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == 3rd Opinion == | == 3rd Opinion == | ||
Revision as of 17:32, 18 June 2005
 | This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Berkeley Journal of International Law |
Archive
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3
3rd Opinion
Okay, first thing I want to say is that this Talk page as I found it frightened me. It was very, very, long! I've archived most of it as it was a mangled mess and took forever to load. So from now on I beg for brevity!
I'd really like to hear from Researcher what it is he wants to change, and then from other folk why they resist these changes. Please, stay cool, don't start replying to each other, just make your cases and let them speak for themselves! Dan100 22:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dan. I, too, will love to see that. Tom Haws 23:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dan. It does seem to have calmed down for a while. I hope that the calm remains. I put the disputed tag back into the main article, because the text of the article is still disputed, even if the disputes have been resolved. I'll start making the changes to the main article soon. It may take me a few days to a week to make all of the necessary changes, then remove the disputed sectionl. After that, I will try editing for style. Thanks, Dan. Nereocystis 17:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By moving the important warnings and proofs of the numerous sneaky vandalisms done to this wiki by Ghostinthshell and Nereocystis over to the Archive 2, everyone is now less informed of seeing the real problem and the numerous itemized destructions they have caused. As this keeps going without correction back to STATUS QUO, Nereocystis has continued to make even more and more destructions. How many times do I have to list out the numerous destructions and wait in what seems to vain for someone to stop their vandalism, only to hear someone to ask me agin to list out all the numerous problems again? And even when I do, we hear that reading all the problems is too much to read and it is removed from public reading? Truthfully, there is no real or legitimate dispute here. Nereocystis is an anti-polygamist sneaky vandal who does not follow the Wiki Guideines, who has manufactured the supposed "Dispute" by creating all their sneaky vandalisms. I have also repeatedly pointed out the WIKI GUIDELINES REQUIRE STATUS QUO], but instead Nereocystis keeps being allowed devastate the wiki with their numerous sneaky vandalisms. Those big sections I posted really need to come back here to TALK, otherwise it is proverbially like giving credibility to the terrorist, while the honest citizen has to waste time over and over repeating the proven crimes the terrorist committed. What do I want? 1.) The critically important wanrings moved back to the top of this TALK page. 2.) The article back to STATUS QUO as according to the Guidelines. THEN and only then can a real and factual discussion about the sneaky vandal's supposed "disputes" can be made. Please help. Thank you. Researcher 11:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I sincerly regret it, but after lurking for a few weeks, I am still clueless about this big conflict you are taking about. I am going to have to carefully read the essentials, I guess. Please tell me if I am correct that the Sneaky Vandalism section is what I need to read. Tom Haws 16:35, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have been participating, and I don't understand the conflict. I have asked for another Third Opinion. Researcher99's editing frequency is low enough that some people thought that the conflict was resolved. It isn't, obviously. I would like to discuss the disputes, topic by topic, under Talk:Polygamy#Disputed. So far, there has been little discussion there. Please. I'm willing to back my most recent edits out and discuss the changes, but they have to be discussed. I made the latest round of changes after Dan100 encouraged me to make the changes after a lengthy quiet period. Like Dan100, I would like to see a list of proposed changes, and a reason for each of these changes. Nereocystis 18:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Short analysis. Researcher99 and I disagree on the text of Polygamy. Furthermore, we disagree on how to resolve this dispute. This is where outside help is needed. How should we resolve our disagreement? Nereocystis 19:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Proposal for moving forward and roll call of present and alert editors
OK. I have now read much of the history. Here are my recommendations:
- Forget all personal issues and allegations of past misconduct so we can focus anew on content.
- Do a roll call to be sure there are seven or more editors present and alert, including Researcher, Ghostintheshell, and Nereocystis.
- After roll call, start again to Be Bold within the 3RR rule and Discussion context. All seven editors agree to pay attention and evaluate each edit carefully.
- If editing gets hot, all seven editors agree to give weigh in on their preferred content.
- As always, seek to build and defer to consensus.
- Tom Haws 17:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Roll call and poll (7 supporters needed).
- Support Even if I do say so myself. Tom Haws 17:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki
By Researcher 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I had written previously, my fears and concerns about sneaky vandals futher destroying the polygamy wiki has only continued to come to pass and even worsen. After one sneaky vandal named, Ghostintheshell, committed sneaky vandalism, they were soon followed, like a tag team, by another and more destructive sneaky vandal, named, Nereocystis, committing numerous destructions to the polygamy wiki. (On a side note, that tag team might very well be the same person, but that's not the point of this post here.)
Through the process of this situation, I have presented extensive evidence, here in TALK, demonstrating their sneaky vandalisms. Without seeing all that evidence first, one cannot possibly understand what has really happened here in this wiki. Unfortunately, though, all of that crucial evidence was re-located to Archive2 by Dan100, who thought the entire TALK page was getting too lengthy. What Dan100 may not have realized was that, by doing so, the most important proofs and warnings about the sneaky vandals was thereby inadvertently hidden, while keeping a manufactured and false set of supposed "Disputes" by the sneaky vandal named Nereocystis.
The so-called "Dispute" was manufactured after Sneaky Vandalism
When reading the crucially important evidence, it becomes clear that the supposed "Disputes" manufactured by Nereocystis came after Nereocystis had sabotaged the wiki with an editing rampage. As the crucial evidence shows, Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed. (I have said it numerously, frequently re-iterating this point that All the Sneaky Vandalism should be Rv'd back to STATUS QUO so that it can be TALKED first.) But instead, Nereocystis came in with an editing rampage, destroying the wiki further with exhaustingly numerous sneaky vandalisms. After causing so much destruction, that was when Nereocystis manufactured the idea of there being supposed "Disputes" here and so concocted the subsequent false notion that they supposedly want to follow the Wiki Guideines to TALK about the "Disputes." Rather than follow the actual Wiki Guidelines of getting back to STATUS QUO before TALKing, as I had long been calling for, Nereocystis was "suddenly" willing to TALK only after they had committed all their destruction and sneaky vandalisms.
To understand this situation, the Evidence MUST be Read First
So, the sneaky vandal has created a false premise, in order to justify preventing corrections to their sneaky vandalism. My fears about that were proven yet again after I had sought to even make a few more corrective edits, knowing that there were numerous more edits to eventually make. All of my edits made from 19:09, 6 Jun 2005 through 20:20, 6 Jun 2005 were once again attacked by the sneaky vandal. Less than 2 hours later, Nereocystis proved my point and utterly wiped out all of the work I had just done at that time. Nereocystis then used that false premise they concocted of suggesting the need to "TALK" first, even though it was Nereocystis who had been the one to ignore that very call from me in the first place!
So, to really understand the situation here fully, the evidence which has previously been posted here in TALK really MUST be read first.
For simplicity, I will simply provide the outline and applicable links to each of three archived postings of all of that crucially important evidence.
1. The Ghostintheshell Situation (outlined)
This first section of evidence was posted 00:57, 7 May 2005. It provides the full story and timeline of the first of the sneaky vandal tag team, Ghostintheshell (who most likely is the same person or group as Nereocystis.) To understand Nereocystis's recent actions, it is crucial to understand how Nereocystis "returned" to the wiki at the end of the situation with Ghostintheshell.
Here is the outline of that first section of evidence.
- The Ghostintheshell Situation
- Why this timeline
- Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed.
- Ghostintheshell breached MANY Wiki guidelines
- Unknowledgable & Short-Term vs. Knowledgable & Long-Term
- --> Ghostintheshell
- --> Researcher99
- Begins with Subsection, "How Polygamists Find More Spouses"
- Ghostintheshell Arrives & Declares Intent for Edit War
- Trödel Arrives, Rv's to STATUS QUO, says NPOV
- Trödel Returns, Again Rv's to STATUS QUO
- Trödel Returns, Makes Rv's but with duplicative content
- Ghostintheshell AGAIN Declares Intent for Edit War
- Trödel Rv's to duplicative version and 3RR-block occurs
- Final Posts
- Evading the "Block," Ghostintheshell Becomes "TheRedandtheBlack"
- 2 days later, I ask for patience to prepare this outline
- Admin Visorstuff affirms Muslim polygamous families in West exist ("Issue#2")
- All 3 of Ghostintheshell's "Issues" Already Resolved
- Ghostintheshell was a "Ghost - in - the - shell" -- NOT REAL
Click here to read that entire section in Archive2.
2. Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals (outlined)
This second section of evidence was posted 14:42, 16 May 2005. It points out Nereocystis's "return" to the wiki, as a tag team sneaky vandal to follow Ghostintheshell (who most likely is the same person or group as Nereocystis.) It shows the editing rampage that Nereocystis had begun. It points out the real problem and need for a solution that sneaky vandals will now prevent any intellectual researcher such as myself from making edits, as they will simply destroy any legitimate work people like myself would do for the polygamy wiki.
Here is the link and outline of that second section of evidence.
- Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
- (We should not reward bad behavior or allow misinformation)
3. Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki (outlined)
This third section of evidence was posted 23:54, 27 May 2005. This comprehensive section provides a crucially important warning for all wiki contributors to understand the tactics of anti-polygamists. It provides the detailed evidence completely "outing" Nereocystis as an actual hostile POV anti-polygamist, pretending to be for polygamy only as a disguise so as to fully destroy the wiki with erroneous information, i.e., sneaky vandalism. (Hostile anti-polygamists and Nereocystis obviously do not want this crucially important warning and "outing" to be readily visible to polygamy wiki contributors. Yet it is imperative that it be visible and understood.)
Here is the link and outline of that third section of evidence.
- Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki
- Setting this Warning to Help this Controversial Wiki
- "Polygamy Imposters" - Anti-Polygamists Often Pretend to be "Pro-Polygamy"
- Forcing "Underage" issue "Outs" the "Polygamy Imposters" as Anti-Polygamists
- Normal Polygamists oppose "underage" issue
- Normal Polygamists try to be heard by media
- Media Bias denies Normal Polygamists from being heard
- "Underage" issue is only Anti-Polygamy Propaganda
- Unqualified "Anti-Polygamy" Sites Sneaked in to the Polygamy Wiki
- "Anti-polygamy" links first appeared
- Sneaky Vandals Sneaked the removed "anti-polygamy" links back in
- Ghostintheshell
- Nereocystis
- Anti-polygamy "tag team" successfully destroyed polygamy wiki
- Why those "Anti-polygamy" sites are not qualified
- Tapestry Against Polygamy
- Scope
- Scale
- Hope for the Child Brides
- Inflammatory generalization
- Self-admitted Irrelevance
- Tapestry Against Polygamy
- Pushing these "Anti-polygamy" Sites promotes "Underage" Propaganda
- All the Sneaky Vandalism should be Rv'd back to STATUS QUO
- Ghostintheshell's supposed "issues" were Resolved anyway
- Nereocystis's Edit-Rampage Manufactured "Disputes" to Falsely Justify STOPPING the Wiki
- Wiki Guidelines call for STATUS QUO anyway
- For Misplaced Pages's Sake, We Must Stop the Sneaky Vandals
- Foxtrot Comic Equally Notes Misplaced Pages's "Sneaky Vandal Problem"
- So, I share my Intellectual Assets to Protect Misplaced Pages
- Intellectual Researchers must not be Sabotaged by Sneaky Vandals
- Let's Solve This and Protect Misplaced Pages's Future
Click here to read that entire section in Archive2.
Sneaky Vandals Preventing Legitimate Edits and Don't Really Want to TALK
One subsection of that last section repeated what really needs to occur. It also shows why.
- All the Sneaky Vandalism should be Rv'd back to STATUS QUO
- Ghostintheshell's supposed "issues" were Resolved anyway
- Nereocystis's Edit-Rampage Manufactured "Disputes" to Falsely Justify STOPPING the Wiki
- Wiki Guidelines call for STATUS QUO anyway
- For Misplaced Pages's Sake, We Must Stop the Sneaky Vandals
As I have long been saying, allowing the sneaky vandals to continue, it makes it impossible for intellectual researchers like myself to stop their sabotage and to help the wiki be valuable. As I warned, any edit that someone like myself will make will be sabotaged. Nereocystis proved my very point on that yet again after my last activities here two weeks ago, when they once again wiped out all of the work I had done to the wiki, immediately after I had done it.
Nereocystis Proven Disingenuous about "TALKING"
Nereocystis has no intention of actually wanting to follow the Wiki Guidelines, despite their "suddenly" new and absolutely disingenuous calls for wanting to TALK about their manufactured "Disputes" first.
- Nereocystis has not once stopped in their outrageous editing rampage of destruction to the wiki, continuing on week after week with more and more edits throughout all of this.
- If Nereocystis truly believed in wanting to TALK first, they would be advocating that we follow what I have been calling for in the first place: to get back to the STATUS QUO that existed before their editing rampages of sneaky vandalism rather than afterward, as they now "suddenly" demand.
That second item there really proves the heart of the matter here.
If Nereocystis genuinely wanted to follow the Wiki Guidelines and TALK first, then they would be fighting FOR what I called for originally: that we should return the wiki back to the REAL STATUS QUO before all their tag team sneaky vandalism and then we can honestly start TALKING from there. But because Nereocystis only wants to do that after all their sneaky vandalisms while trying to act as if I am somehow not wanting to follow the Guidelines, it proves their disingenuousness completely.
Because of all this, it is useless to TALK with such an "outed" hostile anti-polygamist POV sneaky vandal such as Nereocystis. (Besides, their supposed "Disputes" were only manufactured after the fact, anyway!) So, time has proven that TALKING has proven to be useless with them. I've tried before and it has only yielded this overwhelming consumption of my time as they play these sneaky anti-polygamist tactics. For me, to do so now is like trying to negotiate with a terrorist. It simply cannot be done. They have made it clear that they will accept nothing short of continued destruction of the polygamy wiki.
Mentally Unhealthy and De-Motivating to TALK with Unapologetic Abusers
Also, it is mentally and emotionally unhealthy for anyone to let others cause such a constant state of abuse as these sneaky vandals have caused, as in my experience here recently. Once an abuser is absolutely proven to be an unapologetic abuser, they are never worth my time. I am too healthy for that. Truly, intellectual researchers such as myself are not motivated to put up with it or to want to return to the wiki if that is all that can be expected to occur. So this is not only about me. This is about how all other mature, emotionally healthy intellectual researchers such as myself will ultimately decide whether it's really even worth their time to offer any quality help to Misplaced Pages. If allowing abuse to continue is the policy, Misplaced Pages loses.
For Wiki Sake, These Solutions Need to Happen
Truly, if nothing is done, then more and more of us mature intellectual researchers will instead start choosing to avoid Misplaced Pages. After all, mature and healthy people have no desire to sustain protracted periods of abuse.
So, for the sake of the polygamy wiki, therefore, the following really needs to happen.
- The Wiki Guidelines about "not acting reckless" in this contorversial topic must be followed. That requires TALK discussions to start from the STATUS QUO position - not after someone else has committed sneaky vandalism.
- The original STATUS QUO of the polygamy article needs to be restored without attack from sneaky vandals.
- The entire Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki section should be restored to a prominent position in this TALK page, so as to warn and educate all contrubutors on how to spot anti-polygamists with hostile POV trying to edit the wiki destructively.
- Sneaky vandals, such as Nereocystis, need to be removed from contributing further.
- Then the rest of us who want to make honest legitimate contributions may be glad to do so, without having to deal with much more mentally-unhealthy abuse.
It is my sincere hope that this situation can be resolved and that Misplaced Pages will once again be the great value I had once thought it to be!
Researcher 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the first thing that linking to 'sneaky vandalism' a dozen times is not going to help your case. It just looks... a little odd. Keep cool and calm.
- The second seems to be that the issue you are upset about here is that someone edited this page. Well, that happens on wikis. "Be bold" is not a suicide pact.
- Finally, if you have a content related dispute here, please concentrate on that and that alone. You can only object to edits or existing content if they break the core content rules of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Cite sources.