Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:37, 8 November 2005

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by User:Imaglang (aka Neigel von Teighen)

Summary

The evidence here presented tries to show User:Nereocystis' abusive behaivor unto User:Researcher99 in the respective articles mentioned before, but also to defend User:Researcher99's attitude and comments in the dispute.

I'll be adding more evidence whenever I'm able to do it. --Neigel von Teighen 20:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

10 May

• • User:Nereocystis (from now on, referred as "Nereocystis") accusses User:Researcher99 (from now on, refered as "Researcher") to use two accounts without giving any evidence to prove it.

6 June

• • Nereocystis talks about to do actions "against" Researcher rather to talk about trying to get consensus.

7 June

• • User:Dan100 (sysop) (from now on, referred as "Dan") makes an archive of Talk:Polygamy where all the evidence presented by Researcher gets lost into a page that wouldn't be easy to access whenever it should be needed. I don't mean Dan should be punished somehow because of this, but it made that Researcher had to recall some messages from the archive for explaining his ideas, making the dispute hotter as Nereocystis would say that the posts should be re-archived.

10 June

• • Dan removes {{disputed}} saying that the dispute is over, which is absurd.

11 June

• • Dan removes again the {{disputed}} tag.
• • Dan puts the tag again after a warning by Nereocystis.
• • Dan removes Polygamy from Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, although he replaced the tag only 2 minutes before!

13 June

• • Nereocystis admits he's "a bit gunshy" and expects reversions. If someone expects reversions, it's because he admits somehow he's going against the policies.

18 June

• • Dan admits he had been wrong about the little pause the dispute had.
• • Dan archives the discussion again in an inappropiate moment. Dan, as a member of the Harmonious Editing Club (as me, too), applied the refactoring guideline, but in the wrong situation and archiving all posts without consensus.

20 June

• • Dan calls Researcher a "troll".

8 July

• • Nereocystis deletes a totally NPOV paragraph.

10 July

• • Nereocystis votes "delete" in the AfD process of Anti-polygamy. Obviously, we can discuss if the article should have been or not deleted, but the problem is that he was who deleted the link that was a reason to keep the article. So, he lead the vote into an obvious deletion. Also, he talks about "the reasons mentioned above", which don't exist.

18 July

• • Nereocystis calls to vote against Anti-polygamy in Talk:Polygamy. We can't know if this post did change the vote (most probably, not), but it's something that isn't acceptable and that leads into a less transparent vote than it should be.

3 August

• • Certainly, a personal attack against Researcher ("we should include in the NPOV guidelines...").

4 August

• • Nereocystis adds an invalid site into the article.

5 August

• • Researcher reverts partially a disordering made by User:Uriah923. Notice that the revertion includes the addition of links disputed by himself. This shows that Researcher clearly wanted to easy the resolution process.
• • Researcher reverts (an explains why) Nereocystis' 4 August edit.

11 August

• • Dan deletes de Status Quo guideline from Misplaced Pages:Be bold in updating pages saying it is m:Instruction creep (which doesn't apply in this case). As all we know, to implement this guideline was Researcher's proposal. It's very suspicious that one of the Polygamy editors that knew about the dospute and about Researcher's suggestion, deletes without discussing anything, as the page itself recommends.

7 September

• • Edit by User:Researcher99 that was intrepeted as a clear refusal to make a mediation attempt. But, the diff shows us that User:Researcher99's litteral words are "I believe it is probably too early to be discussing Mediation, (...)" and, later, "((Maybe Mediation can work later though.)". Is that a total refusal to a mediation? Also, the words "(...) 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." don't say that Nereocystis is a terrorist, but that the mediation at that stage would have been useless.

8 September

• • User:Researcher99 says: "I am open to Mediation".

10 September

• • User:Nereocystis says that is Researcher who's trying to refuse the mediation, although the answer he gave on 8 September.

13 September

• • Nereocystis again uses Researcher's post of 7 September on Talk:Polygamy, though all explanations.

14 September

• • Nereocystis says he wants to focus the mediation on the article, not in behaivor, which was the original idea.

28 September

• • This comment by Nereocystis is unacceptable: a total respectless comment in the mediation context.

7 October

• • Nereocystis calls himself as a pro-polygamist, incurring in a great contradiction with his actions.
• • Researcher explains with references why Nereocystis contradicts himself when saying that he supports the legalization of polygamy.

Evidence presented by User:Researcher99

TEMPORARY NOTICE: Over the last week, I have been doing DIFF research for my AMA advocate as well as preparing a very comprehensive outline of DIFFs for my own presentation here. I hope to be able to put them here in the next couple days. (When I do, I will remove this NOTICE.) Researcher 23:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Nereocystis

Wikibreak, starting October 19 - November 9

I will be away from regular Internet access from about Wednesday, October 19, for about 3 weeks, until about November 9, perhaps a bit sooner. It is unlikely that I will be able to respond during that time. Sorry for the delay. Nereocystis 03:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Summary

Over the past few months, Researcher99 has refused to discuss the text of the polygamy article with Nereocystis. He reverts changes which have been discussed on Talk:Polygamy. He attacks Nereocystis, accusing Nereocystis of sockpuppetry, abuse and vandalism. He has refused mediation, both unofficial and official. He fills Talk:Polygamy with lengthy, repetitive, meandering posts. He engages in link spam, pushing his web sites, and sites which are hosted by him. He posts POV sections on Christian polygamy, and refuses to consider alternative wording.

First contact

20 November

16:53 Added many web site hosted by standardbearer.com:

1. pro-polygamy.com
2. truthbearer.org
3. christianpolygamy.info
4. anti-polygamy.com
5. 2wives.com

Some of the sites he added are hosted elsewhere. This was an anonymous edit, but performed slightly before Researcher99 first appeared, and the comment was written in Researcher99's style. This issue is open to question.

Prosecution of Tom Green in Utah

This is my first disagreement with Researcher99. Again, the issue could be debated, but Researcher99 did not provide citations, despite multiple requests. 29 December

14:17 Researcher99 changes polygamy article to state that Tom Green conviction was due to welfare fraud.

2 January

11:30 Nereocystis asks for a reference for the Tom Green claim.

20:10 Researcher99 replies, but doesn't provide reference.

3 January

13:05 Nereocystis requests citation for Tom Green claim.

18:29 Researcher99 provides reference that about Utah Attorney-general to article on his web site posted a short while earlier. Quote does not answer question about reason for Green prosecution. Attorney-General did not prosecute Green.

6 January

22:56 Nereocystis provides additional citations, requests relevant citations.

7 January

12:06 Researcher99 again does not provide citation.

13 January

02:35 Nereocystis asks for a reference, again.

07:47 Researcher99 says he does not have to provide reference, but does provide reference to a web site with which Nereocystis believes he is associated, truthbearer.org. Nereocystis suspects that the article quote Researcher99.

Editing war heats up

Nereocystis reentered the polygamy article, adding a disputed section to the talk page, and making some edits. Researcher99 did not discuss any topic in this section. However, Researcher99 accuses me of sneaky vandalism, and more.

11 May

16:03 Nereocystis introduces disputed section of talk article to discuss areas under question.

12 May

10:31 Nereocystis adds dubious tag to Tom Green paragraph.

16 May

07:42 Researcher99 complains that Nereocystis's edits of polygamy are sneaky vandalisms. 12:56 Nereocystis adds disputed tag to polygamy.

13:31 Nereocystis requests discussion on talk page, asks Researcher99 for citations.

3rd opinion requested

Nereocystis requests a third opinion, which was offered. Other editors made suggestions. Researcher99 turns down all suggestions.

6 June

16:40 Nereocystis requests Third Opinion.

7 June

15:30 Dan100 provides 3rd opinion, suggests brevity, description of desired changes by Researcher99.

7 June

16:07 Hawstom agrees with Dan100

17 June

09:09 Researcher99 posts extremely long article accusing Nereocystis of sneaky vandalism, does not mention suggested changes.

18 June

10:31 Dan100 repeats request to focus on issues, reduce mention of sneaky vandalism.

30 June

7:07 Researcher99 responds, but doesn't state suggested changes.

17 June

04:40 Researcher99 continues attacking Nereocystis's behavior, no discussion of text

18 June

10:29 Hawstom suggests forgetting past conduct, editing and discussing, starts poll

18 July

10:43 Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative

Nereocystis suggests mediation, other solutions

Nereocystis continues to suggest the Researcher99 join in mediation, or any other solution.

18 July

14:11 Nereocystis suggests Association of Member Advocates for Researcher99, mediation or arbitration. No response from Researcher99

POV Christian polygamy section

19 July

17:22 StopTheFiling suggests that a section on Christian polygamy is POV. 18:08 Nereocystis agrees.

18:51 Researcher99 disagrees with POV, calls StopTheFiling anti-polygamist, mostly for other posting.

20 July

03:07 Researcher99 accuses Nereocystis of sneaky vandalism, sockpuppetry, but doesn't address POV.

13:02 Nereocystis adds NPOV tag, asks for specific suggested text from Researcher99

13:26 Researcher99 attacks Nereocystis, refuses to consider modifications.

13:56 StopTheFiling further explains views, denies anti-polygamy bias, agrees with Nereocystis.

16:55 Researcher99 attacks Nereocystis, does not suggest preferred text.

22 July

14:30 Nereocystis posts rewrite of Christian polygamy section.

26 July

12:20 Researcher99 does not like suggested rewrite, does not suggest alternative, attacks Nereocystis.

12:32 Nereocystis asks for Researcher99's suggested rewrite.

13:03 Researcher99 does not provide his suggested version.

29 July

10:30 Nereocystis provides another rewrite, tries to address Researcher99's issues.

28 July

14:58 Nereocystis suggests mediation. No response from Researcher99.

2 August

12:48 Nereocystis provides another rewrite.

3 August

11:14 Researcher99 refuses rewrite, does not provide his version, attacks Nereocystis.

15:15 Nereocystis suggests modification based upon Researcher99's comments.

16:56 Researcher99 attacks Nereocystis, does not provide alternative text.

17:48 Nereocystis thanks Researcher99, asks for alternate wording.

4 August 06:20 Researcher99 does not provide alternate text, attacks Nereocystis.

1 August

13:41 Nereocystis suggests mediation on Researcher99's talk page. No response from Researcher99.

August 3

16:56 Researcher99 states that Nereocystis is vandalizing his talk page.

17:28 Nereocystis suggests mediation.

Researcher99 suggests solution

Researcher99 suggests a solution, but wants me to acknowledge his proven expertise in polygamy.

August 5

06:16 Researcher99 removes links to Christian polygamy sites which he disagrees with.

10:10 Researcher99 insists that Nereocystis defer to Researcher99's proven expertise.

16 August

13:54 Uriah923 offers unofficial mediation.

August 18

9:55 Researcher99 wants to discuss past.

August 26

16:06 Researcher99 does not provide outline; postpones conversation for a few days, past deadline for outline.

7 September

12:14 Researcher99 compares Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist.

Mediation

We attempt mediation.

13 September

16:14 Researcher99's AMA advocate starts mediation.

29 September

[17:42 Mediator Andrevan asks Researcher99 what he expects from mediation; question is unanswered.

30 September

13:03 long rambling post by Researcher99 accusing Nereocystis of fake graciousness, refuses to discuss content

1 October

9:06 Mediator asks Researcher99 what he expects from mediation; Researcher99 does not answer.

4 October

13:02 Researcher99 refuses to join mediation if it includes a discussion of the text of the polygamy article.

13:25 Mediator asks for explanation of what Researcher99 wants from mediation. Researcher99 does not answer.

Nereocystis 17:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Researcher99

I don't know exactly what Researcher99 will say yet, but I will be away from the Internet for a while.

I do not use sock puppets. I did edit one article anonymously, but it wasn't related to polygamy. It is possible that I accidentally edited other articles anonymously, and I am willing to consider charges on an item-by-item basis.

In most of my edits on the polygamy page, I either:

• wrote something on the talk page before the edit, and waited for a while before editing the article itself; or
• wrote something on the talk page immediately after my article edit.

In most of these cases, Researcher99 did not reply on the talk page.

There are probably a few times where I failed in this practice. Either I considered the edits trivial, or I screwed up. I think that I screwed up very few times. If Researcher99 mentions specific edits where I failed, I will look at the charges and respond to them, apologizing when appropriate.

Defending myself against other charges will have to wait until my return. Nereocystis 05:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The charges against me are a little hard to follow. Most of the diffs posted support my view that Researcher99 is unwilling to work on resolving the issues. I'll let the arbitrators decide those issues. However, I'll respond to a few items.

9 July

22:54 I did originally vote to delete anti-polygamy. A few minutes later, I deleted that vote, and decided to let others make the decision. Of course, voting for deletion is a legal move. Nereocystis 22:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

18 July

10:28 As Imaglang says, I did mention that there was an AfD on anti-polygamy. However, I did not suggest which way people should vote. I mentioned the vote so that people interested in the polygamy article could make a decision on the article.

10:50 Here, I explain the reason for the announcement and request that the vote be left open longer than usual so that people can decide.

13:25 Researcher99 accuses me of lying.

Evidence presented by User:Kewp

Summary

I have been watching and participating in the dispute relating to the Polygamy articles for almost 3 months. Over this period of time, Researcher99 has been unwilling to discuss the contents of the Polygamy article in any way, preferring instead to throw around groundless accusations of abuse in posts that are incredibly long, melodramatic, and almost impossible to comprehend. While Nereocystis has provided most of the relevant evidence against Researcher99, I am going to provide a few pieces of evidence that I think are relevant for the arbcom to consider.

September 3

• Revision as of 04:56, 3 September 2005
  • Researcher99 places a notice on the top of the talk page saying, in all caps, "ALL DISCUSSION IN SUBHEADINGS BELOW THIS ONE ARE NOT LEGITIMATE" and "This entire TALK page is not valid, being the result of an unapproved takeover"

September 8

• Revision as of 04:14, 8 September 2005
  • Researcher99 says "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.)"

September 9

• Revision as of 05:05, 9 September 2005
  • Researcher99 again refuses to start mediation, this time saying he is "open to mediation" but with a list of qualifications, saying that he can't "commit to anything" until a variety of his requests are met, including dropping the RfC ("only one step among many that are needed").
  • Researcher99 calls Nereocystis "a dysfunctional, patently abusive individual"

September 10

• Revision as of 05:25, 10 September 2005
  • Nereocystis posts to Talk:Polygamy, stating, correctly, that Researcher99 has again refused to begin mediation.

September 12

• Revision as of 16:07, 12 September 2005
  • Kewp (me) posts to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Researcher99 saying that Researcher99 had refused to begin mediation.

September 14

• Revision as of 09:23, 14 September 2005
  • Researcher99 makes a long post to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Researcher99, accusing Kewp and Nereocystis of "ganging up" on him and of saying "outright lies" about his refusal to begin mediation.

• Revision as of 09:48, 14 September 2005
  • Nereocystis apologizes for the misunderstanding, asking him to clarify his position about mediation.

September 15

• Revision as of 05:05, 15 September 2005
  • Researcher99 refuses to assume good faith, answers with an incredibly long post, accusing Kewp of being a sockpuppet of Nereocystis.