Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Imaglang (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 13 September 2005 (→Response to dropping RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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." 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)

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)