Misplaced Pages

User talk:Imaglang

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kelly Martin (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 14 October 2005 (Comment from an Arbitrator). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:18, 14 October 2005 by Kelly Martin (talk | contribs) (Comment from an Arbitrator)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Previous discussions

  1. /Archive 1

Please add your comments at the bottom of the page

Papua

Thank you for your comment at Misplaced Pages:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. If anyone or any people from the AMA group could assist it would be GREATLY appreciated. I have no doubts no edit war would have started last April or been maintained to now, if a half dozen or so regular Wikipedians voiced some judgements based upon the references provided by each.--Daeron 22:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Have just submitted a suggestion for "Critique Group"s at AMA Meeting suggestions.--Daeron 04:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sadly, I can't help there...Why don't you make Request for Comment? It will help to bring other users into the article who might help. --Neigel von Teighen 22:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Request/s had nil response; then direct requests to some Wikipedians resulted in their apology that they did not know anything about the subject and therefore could not help. I then searched for Australian Wikipedians who would be more likely to be aware of Papua, only one person came forth (Tannin) who also became targeted by the discussion page abuse.
Unknow to me, after I left to recover from the abuse; one person (Andrewa) did provide some excellent comments, I edited the page on 26/Jan in accord with comments and went to ask what he thought of the edit, but Wik & John kept reverting over it again.--Daeron 02:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiUser RFC

For your reference: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/WikiUser. violet/riga (t) 10:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks you. You saved me of getting involved in defending someone who should be banned. I've told WikiUser I'm not going to be his advocate --Neigel von Teighen 16:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proxy tests

Frank, can you explain me what are you doing in User:Fvw/proxytest? I'm always RC patrolling and always see anon IPs (surely you) editing that page. I'm curious! --Neigel von Teighen 17:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering too. It's a little heavier than usual this evening, and in User:Fvw/proxytest2. O_o —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-3 05:41 Z
For the full story, see Misplaced Pages talk:Bots##OpenProxyBlockerBot. The short version is I'm scanning for open proxies which I then block, to stem the anonymous proxy vandalism. I don't think I'll get all of them, but I think blocking the majority will slow down certain vandals, and also pretty much stop vandalbots like Wik's. --fvw* 17:06, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case closed

The arbitration committee thanks you for your assistance in acting as advocate for User:Vfp15 in this matter. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute for the full decision. Regards -- sannse (talk) 15:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Digimon

From vfd:

The user may be anon, but I am (and some other admins) willing to listen to anyone who provides facts and references when making a vfd decision. They don't just not count automatically. That said, I do find the amount of Pokemon and Digimon articles annoying myself, so you're not alone :) Mgm| 13:01, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Do we start a WikiProject called 'Delete the Poké-Digimon articles'? :) --Neigel von Teighen 23:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for ...

... your compliments on the "Bicycle" article. En route to sending this note, I noticed your interest in "harmonious editing", which was put to the test on this nomination. It failed last year, largely due to one editor (apparently a fellow much involved in the politics of bicycling) with very pointed ideas of what belonged in this (encyclopedia) article. I backed off when the discussion got heated, let it simmer for a few months, and then renominated it with most of his inclusions ... anti-helmet stuff, anti-bike lane lobby, etc. ... still there. I'm surprised that, so far, no one has objected to the strange, parochial "Legal issues" paragraph which this fellow insisted on placing at the start of the technical section. Sfahey 20:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I only said what I thought: it's one of the best articles I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Hopefully it gets into a featured article! --Neigel von Teighen 23:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advocate for User:Joshuaschroeder

I am now in yet another edit war with Ungtss over Template: Creationism

Please see the appropriate talkpages.

I look forward to your input. Joshuaschroeder 00:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your link did not appear to work for the e-mailing. User:Ungtss continues to attack on Template Talk:Creationism Joshuaschroeder 06:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Ungtss has made a response to your appeal:

I'd like you, Ungtss, to stop your offensive messages. Discuss, please, your points politely. --Neigel von Teighen 14:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i'd like to. unfortunately, i've been dealing with his persistant vandalism for about a month now, i'm furious with him, and i don't have the self-restraint to pretend that i consider him to be a rational human being. Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please help, Ungtss is back making accusations and reverting on Created kinds.


Saw your comments on my talk page. May as well go with the RfC, since a different long time editor suggested it on the talk page for Myth where he has been vedry abusive towards me, as carried over from the Deluge (mythology) article. I'd sign something complaining of his abuse, though he's drivn me to impolite rage a few times. DreamGuy 00:47, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to phrase the RfC. Do you have any suggestions? Joshuaschroeder 23:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You might try looking at other ones that have been filed and copy the format. Plenty of them are there for bias, uncivil behavior and so forth. DreamGuy 07:23, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Please help, I've started the RfC

OK, the RfC is fine for a start, but the evidence for having resolved needs some work. You might summarize what the whole advocate thing is about, and we need something better than just "see the talk pages above" as that would require other people to dig through lots and lots of text. At this point I almost think it'd be better to let it drop unless he starts making bad edits and revert wars and so forth again, or unless we have evidence he is still editing under a sockpuppet. DreamGuy 21:04, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this comment on the Myth talk page:

" One of Misplaced Pages's great challenges is that people with agendas and no educational background can whine and complain about proving every last detail and harass competent people so that they give up. DreamGuy 04:35, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)"

This was applied (appropriately) to Ungtss. He is here, there, everywhere, throwing monkey wrenches into rational thought and science. A sort of verbal Khmer Rouge or people's cultural revolution. A Wikified Pol Pot, Robespierre, or Chairman Mao. Hope you can squelch him.

Carrionluggage 05:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Looks like somebody has taken care of it. RickK 21:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

It seems he has been blocked...--Neigel von Teighen 21:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It was just another incarnation of the User:Willy on wheels page move vandal, I bloked him indefinitely, but he will return in a few days for sure until page move can be rollbacked faster than now. andy 22:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Stillmatic

Please don't bite the newcomers. Point them to relevant policy instead: Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Also note that removing speedy tags is not against policy, contrary to removing Votes for Deletion tags.

Under the recent change to the policy, an article can be speedied if its author agrees the creation was by mistake. Given that, you're much better off trying to (gently!) convince someone the article doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. We get to delete it, the author gets closure. Everyone wins. Bullying them is probably counterproductive. Assume good faith. http://www.jewhoo.com is a real site and the facts the article mentions are likewise real, so calling the article "nonsense" is off the mark. I will immediately grant that the contributor's English could do with some serious improving, but that's another discussion. 82.92.119.11 21:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another stupid mistake by me. Thanks you! --Neigel von Teighen 21:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank You! from Carbonite

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I very much appreciate your confidence in me. Please let me know if you see something I should (or shouldn't) be doing as an admin. Regards, Patrick. Carbonite | Talk 13:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You'll be a great admin. --Neigel von Teighen 17:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saleel

I'd like to know why you voted to delete, rather than improve, Saleel. Can you tell me why exactly you don't think the Saleel network, which numbers in the thousands of members deserves even a mention? or is it that you dislike the layout, in which case I'd ask what do you believe could be done to improve it ? --Irishpunktom\ 11:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Because I think it's advertising. It can be notable, but the language used in the article feels me like promoting the site rather than describe it. That's my point. --Neigel von Teighen 23:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting Warschau/Warsaw

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of German/polish locations, I would invite you to vote on Warsaw/Vote to settle the multi-year dozends-of-pages dispute about the naming of Warschau/Warsaw and other locations.--Schlesier 08:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Riccati

Thank you for responding to my request for an advocate. I am very grateful for your guidance through the process. I would have been perfectly happy with an apology, but the user refused. What is the next appropriate step? --AladdinSE 02:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 21:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AMA Meeting Proposal

Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 20:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Succession laws"

I am strongly criticizing your choice of title for your contents under Succession laws. Please kindly check the critics I wrote on its talk page. Very clearly, another sort of title would be less misleading for the contents there. I am of the opinion that since there are several other articles already explaining a wider conceptualization of succession laws and hereditary succession, an article with this title is redundant in long term. 62.78.104.193 22:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for help at Khuzestan web pages

I would appreciate some help in dealing with some Persian nationalists (SouthernComfort and Zereshk) who are being very heavy-handed re the Ahvaz/Khuzestan/Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan pages. I'm just an outside pulled into the fray by my worries about what Zereshk might be doing (I've clashed with him on some of the Islamic pages), I'm telling you this so as to be straightforward about my possible prejudices. There's another editor involved, Ahwaz, an Arabic-speaking Khuzestani, who seems to have no agenda outside fair play for his fellow Arabic-speaking Iranians.

Both SouthernComfort and Zereshk have been active in censoring sources they don't believe "authoritative", and advancing historical views that they insist are TRUE. I bring up evidence that conflicts with their views, and I'm told that I'm an Arab nationalist, a Bengali who shouldn't meddle in Persian matters, mentally unbalanced, prejudiced, insane, ignorant, and not worth talking to. I try to write an NPOV page that contains both views and one of them reverts it immediately. I put on a disputed tag, and it's removed immediately. I suppose Ahwaz and I could play revert war, but I don't like doing that. I'd rather come up with a compromise -- but how can you compromise with someone who declares that you're too stupid to be worth his attention and won't engage in any rational dialogue?

If you have any ideas how to handle this, I would appreciate it. I'm trying to follow the mediation steps as outlined. I've put up an alert, but no one came. After this, the next step would be an RfC, yes? I really don't want to escalate this to a flamewar, but I hate to give way to mean-spirited bullying. Yet ... if you tell me I'm off-base, I'll leave it alone for a while. Zora 09:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

As a user with no understanding of the issues involved but an interest in learning, this may parallel work I'm doing now and I certainly would be interested in following the issues and discussion. But I certainly claim no experience or authority. Thx. Nobs 16:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Answered on User talk:Zora --Neigel von Teighen 14:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for answering! I am waiting for a book I ordered to arrive, an English translation of a pre-Islamic town list, which may be new data. Not that it would make a big difference to the overall conflict, but I'm enough of a scholar to be nitpicky. When that arrives, I will rewrite all the pages in question to be as NPOV as I can, see what happens, and then, if necessary, enlist your and Ahwaz's help in going to the RFC stage. Thanks very much for your help. Up til this point, my experience was that NPOV ultimately won out, even if it took a while. Editors engaged with each other. This scornful refusal to even debate is new to me. Zora 19:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Sam_Spade/Detective_agency#Opinion

Hi. I'd like to understand better what your getting at. My agency is @ an early stage, and I am struggling with what way to take it. The idea behind it is for me to get help gathering evidence on troublesome issues, hence the openess about what I'm investigating. The main problem is the "I hate Sam Spade" trolls and wackjobs who may persecute potential members. That has caused me to warn against membership. But that is untenable! Questions, advice or concerns, if you please? Sam Spade 15:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, what would happen if someone's contributions are 'revealed' through your agency and that user is found innocent? Wouldn't this affect his image? I think that you should use your agency very carefully or stop it. It's too risky. --Neigel von Teighen 20:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thankyou for the warm welcome to Misplaced Pages! I appreciate the links you gave me. I've already edited many articles, abd the information range is wider than any encyclopedia I've seen in my entire life. I really appreciate the welcome. Thanks again, Ytgy111

: ) --Neigel von Teighen 22:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What can I do?

Dear Neighel,

I dunno if you think the problems at Khuzestan/Ahvaz/Ethnic politics of Khuzestan/etc. are solved, but it seems to me that they aren't. Southern Comfort and Zereshk continue to refuse to discuss anything with me, revert my edits on sight, and immediately take down any "disputed" notics I put up. I wrote a History of Khuzestan article which they have completely ignored, and when I try to link that article to any of the other pages concerning Khuzestan, they remove the links. I am being treated like a kook. Given that I'm a valued contributor to many other articles in Misplaced Pages, I do not believe that I deserve to be treated this way. However, since it's two against one, and since I'm not as angry and aggressive as they are, they can continue in this manner.

I've been idealistic enough about Misplaced Pages to believe that problems like this eventually get sorted out, but nothing seems to be happening. Instead, they are expanding the scope of their POV activities. From my viewpoint as an academic, a scholar, and a historian, they are seriously distorting Middle Eastern/Persian history. They claim that Sheikh Khaz'al murdered his brother and refuse to source it at all; they claim that the Persians won the Anglo-Persian war; they refuse to admit that there was any emirate in Khuzestan before 1897; they insist that the [[Elamite empire | Elamites were Persians ....

I'd be willing to let all of that stand if it were sourced and if other POVs were allowed, but they erase any other POVs with cries of "revisionist history".

Is your role as mediator over? What can I possibly do next? I could of course try to contact all my Misplaced Pages friends and get them to work on the articles in question, but that kind of politicking seems to me to turn Misplaced Pages into mob rule. Anyone who can recruit the largest mob wins. Please advise. Zora 23:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neighel, please see Talk:Ahvaz and Talk:Ethnic politics of Khuzestan for responses to the above accusations made against myself and User:Zereshk. Also please see Talk:Khuzestan - she deleted the entire history section of Khuzestan (as well as deleting almost all of Ahvaz ) and created History of Khuzestan without discussion, and the article she wrote is filled with numerous errors and inaccuracies (and lack of references, which she constantly demands). As evidenced in the discussions, she has a distinct lack of knowledge in these areas and I have tried to be diplomatic. Other editors have contributed to these articles and have made no objections and yet she continues to state again and again that she will rewrite the articles, instead of simply adding to the articles (without deleting everything else). She has made all sorts of absurd accusations (for example, I have never claimed that the Elamites are Persian - and she has never contributed to the Elamite Empire article, and also condemning me as a racist). I have grown weary of this behavior. SouthernComfort 09:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Help

Hi Neigel von Teighen, I would like to request your help! I noticed on your User page you advocate, "preserving NPOV and accuracy in Misplaced Pages." This sounds good to me.

I have had some problems with a user (Eyesopen) and the added headline 'Jehovah's Witnesses and eschatology' as well as some other paragraphs. There has been a good deal of conversation in the discussion area with this user. The information in this heading is negatively bias. Other users have felt the same way. Some of the information he wrote here is conjecture, misleading, or incorrect. My personal experience with the Eyesopen: I added some information to the subject and it was completely deleted. I waited about a month and then again added some information. Originally I added the information from an article in my own words but Eyesopen quickly altered my words so much that it did not have the same meaning. So I edited in a direct quote from the article, Eyesopen deleted all and reverted back to his original edits. Any information I have tried to include in this headline Eyesopen has deleted. His deletion of additions or edits has occurred within hours so no other users are able to see or comment on the edits. Apparently Eyesopen believes no one should be allowed to add to or edit ‘his paragraphs’. I have tried to correct this problem with Eyesopen in the Discussion area of this site with no success. Eyesopen discussions often are full of personal insults. I and other users would like to add our knowledge to this information but have not been able to. We would appreciate any help you can give us!!!! --Saujad 23:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of other users comments about Eyesopen: I'm going to stay out of this for now, but Eyesopen is showing no small amount of hostility and sarcasm; something that is not condusive to any productive progress on this article. Is your intent to make this a fair, non-biased article, or to include your own phrasing at all costs? Don't bother responding to this with another string of half-insults, I've spoken my peace. -- uberpenguin 20:56, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

19:27, 20 May 2005 12.173.64.204 (Obviously original author intended to give an overly negative bias beyond the actuality of the subject. While people can benefit from criticism, articles of this type do not belong in an encyclopedia)

Hi Saujad! I have been somewhat inadvertantly been the subject of User:Eyesopen's wrath after I nominated an article, Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses for deletion. I have logged it on User:Sjakkalle/Eyesopen. Since you have been in arguments with him over Jehovah's Witnesses related articles, I thought you might like to know. Sjakkalle 10:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Your hypocricy is nothing short of appalling. You lecture Duffer about "Christian love" and then go on to personally attack him and JWs as a whole with phrasing that is simply dripping with sarcasm? You're neither trying to compromise nor to write an accurate article, just to convey in whatever way possible your own criticisms of the WBTS and JWs as a whole. Don't bother responding to this, I have a severe distaste for your insulting sarcasm and am offended that you cannot seem to make a point without attacking either JWs or the person challenging your position. I'm not here to engage you in the war of words you seem to desire every time I have seen you post on the talk page. Duffer is doing a good job so far of making criticisms of your edits. -- uberpenguin 21:18, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Your first sentence should read "..revealing your intense hatred of disinformation." "..as they demonstrate what mentality many unfortunate JW victims are..." The mentality of objectivity, in my opinion, is admirable, not pitiable. "You help many see the dangerous religion for what it is..." if people wanted to read such one sided and hateful crap they would click on one of the various links at the bottom of the JW page. Your demonstrable lack of compassion and objectivity is only surpassed by your hypocracy. The attitude you take against truth and objectivity is against this websites policy. I am not afraid of accurate criticism. I am not your "brother". Duffer1 6 June '05

Answered in User talk:Saujad --Neigel von Teighen 00:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in helping. I don't know what "a new negotiation trial" is, you'll have to walk me through it. I am sure I can get the other users that have had the same problems invovled too if needed.--Saujad 03:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I read all the links on Misplaced Pages you sent to me. The information on, "When to use RfC, Alternatives to RfC, How to use RfC, and Responding to RfCs" was a bit confusing. But what I understand from this: First try a discussion of the problems. Second in the discussion area of the site, write out the edit that would correct the information that user Eyesopen posted and leave it up to vote.(Is all this correct?)--Saujad 02:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming template

Hi there! I was told you're one of the frequent welcomers of new users. I was wondering - since this is a rather frequently asked question, would you please add a link to Misplaced Pages:Merge to your welcoming template? Thanks. Radiant_>|< 20:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Answering in user's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 20:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, I am :) Not unfrequently, I find that newbies are unfamiliar with the concept (as well as the concepts of renaming and redirecting) and they sometimes throw said articles on VFD. Hence the effort to enlighten people. Yours, Radiant_>|< 07:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Misplaced Pages (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Dear all,
Misplaced Pages was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Misplaced Pages for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Misplaced Pages free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Misplaced Pages. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.
Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Misplaced Pages and human rights, which was still not formed.
The team's final post on Misplaced Pages, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:I_sterbinski
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29
The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.
We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.
Best regards,
Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza
I sterbinski 01:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

We would just like to appologise for any unrest we caused to you. We only followed given instructions and we have no information why you were pointed out as a person to message our final post to.
We are not allowed to keep posting any further comments about our final post and our report, no matter of the intence of the comments it caused and it will cause in future here on Misplaced Pages. Therefore, we will not be able to give you any further information.
We will point out that no further messages will follow, no matter of your future comments and critics towards us. Actually, critics are highly welcomed by our side.
We appologise again.
I_sterbinski
Thank you. Apologies accepted! --Neigel von Teighen 22:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed

Could you please help?

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."

On July 18, 2005, I made an AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed, requesting AMA help from Kmweber. They quickly agreed to help, but needed a few days due to a new real world job. As of this writing, I have yet to ever hear from them again (which is starting to concern me at this point). That's why I am now seeking your help, if you are willing. (As you can see, I am a patient person, but recent events of abuse have given me need to speed up the process, if possible.)

Recently, in the ongoing dispute, while we were in the middle of a resolution process, someone else interfered and "offered to help." When I was not willing to accept their interference due to specific concerns, they ignored me and started an entire new set-up. All which had preceded that interference had then become ignored. Instead, I was falsely accused of refusing to seek rsolution. Then a Requests for comment/Researcher99 page was created and I was fully set-up.

I have made a chronology there to bring you up to speed on all of the relevant history of the problem. I know it's a lot to read, but I have really been through a lot! I really do need a sincere and dedicated AMA's help.

Could you please help? If you could, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.

Researcher 23:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your willingness to possibly help. In your response on my TALK page, I am glad to oblige your friendly request.
Nereocystis appears to be stalking me and is outright seeking to sabotage me at every point. Most everybody else who appears at the polygamy article are usually temporary, not really committed to the actual topic anyway. But Nereocystis appeared first as a sneaky vandal and then later as an outright anti-polygamist. Even though Nereocystis does not really know important facts and issues about the topic, they never leave and only target the article and my edits with their hostility.
They attack my every corrective edit. They have sabotaged an anti-polygamy article I tried to create (as another resolution attempt I was making). They have called for the RFC against me, knowing that anti-polygamists are easily found.
Tacticly, Nereocystis takes hostile actions very aggressively, numerously, and rapidly. Then they follow those overwhelming actions up by rv'ing, stopping, or enlisting other easily-found anti-polygamists to stop any attempt I make to correct their falsehoods or errors. As far back as May 7, 2005, I have been calling for the "Don't Be Reckless" Misplaced Pages Guidelines which mandate a return to TRUE STATUS QUO in order to then TALK, in controversial topics. But Nereocystis has protracted that never-let-me-post-or-correct-the-article strategy for all these months all so that they can now try to hide behind their intent to prevent that Misplaced Pages Guideline of STATUS QUO from being implemented. Here's some comprehensive proof of just how aggressive they are, Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof.
In response to your requested bullet items:
1a. Among the many attempts, here is one example. In all things, I seek a WIN-WIN but am always refused. This following example is the resolution discussion which was interrupted by new-comer Uriah923, which led to their unapproved action of changing the TALK page to the current versions and discussions of "outlines" which are not valid to begin with because I had not approved Uriah923's interruption in the first place.
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
1b. Here is another example of a different sub-topical dispute on "related" page, group marriage. They refused to work with or discusss a fully accurate, NPOV, well-cited proposal for a solution on the group marriage article, "The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage". Hiding behind claims that they were authorized to "table" the discussion (when I had never approved of that), they only really were refusing that proposal because it is their hostile intent to falsely define polygamy into something it is not, and my well-source-cited facts got in their way.
2a. Here are just 3 examples of the pattern of Nereocystis outright destroying everything I do, when I try to correct the destructions they make.
2b. Also, there were VERY SUSPICIOUS actions in the deliberate sabotage of the anti-polygamy article I tried to create. (I could also provide evidence of where they apply a deliberately obfuscatatory tactic of outright saying untrue things as fact, calling NPOV as POV, calling POV as NPOV, and even being caught lying.)
3. They falsely assert that I refused the resolution offered by Uriah923 when we were already in the middle of the original resolution discussion.
Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated. As tonight starts the beginning of a 3-day holiday weekend here, I am not sure if I will be able to get back until next Tuesday. But I know it will take some time for you to get into the research here too. We can be in contact after the long weekend anyway, if you need. I so appreciate your willingness to help. Thanks. Researcher 19:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Additional item: On the polygamy TALK page, I just now posted the discovery of another sneaky attempt to try to to hide the posted evidence from public view of their abuse and of the dispute itself. I also added the NPOV tags there as they are aggressively proceeding ahead anyway, despite my non-acceptance. Researcher 20:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Responding on User's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 22:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Polygamy dispute

Researcher contacted many AMA members, most of which have agreed to help. Normally I'd send an inquiry to the coordinator, but this particular dispute seems tricky, so I have no problem if the whole AMA gets involved. :)

I believe that this dispute is being caused by a lack of an acceptable and reasonable resolution strategy between the two parties, rather than an ongoing disagreement over the article's content. The presence of Uriah923 as an unofficial mediator further complicates this issue, as the dispute can now be separated into before and after Uriah923 intervened. There is one particular article of Misplaced Pages policy on Misplaced Pages: Be bold in updating pages that states:

"If you are unsure how others will view your contributions, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to either:

1. Copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there (if the material in question is a sentence or so in length)

2. List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is (if the material is substantially longer than a sentence)"

Researcher99 believes that this particular article mandates a return to the article's status quo (which he considers to be an April revision of the article) before the dispute resolution process can continue. Nereocystis objects to a reversion, stating that too many valid edits would be lost. As a result of these interpretations of this policy (which I believe is just a guideline and may not apply to this dispute anyway), I have not been able to make any progress resolving the issue yet.

I believe that an IRC chat between the two parties (as well as any AMA members that wished to join in) may bear fruit, as the dispute is essentially running around in circles on the talk page, going nowhere and generating an extremely large amount of discussion to wade through. An IRC chat would force both parties to state their specific grievances succinctly; this is something that I have yet to see on the talk pages and RFCs. If a resolution fails to arise from the IRC chat (which, I admit, is the probable outcome), I believe that nothing short of official mediation will succeed.

Message by User:Metasquares. Answered on user's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 23:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. While I don't believe that removing the RFC is necessary for mediation to take place, I agree that it will expedite mediation. Do you think that I should ask Researcher99 and Nereocystis if they would like to withdraw the RFC and begin mediation? Metasquares 00:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping me up to date. I look forward to the next step. Mediation is sounding better all the time, though we do need to determine the issues which are being mediated. Nereocystis 01:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Neigel von Teighen, you may witness the lie that Nereocystis told on Metasquares's TALK page. I posted a reply there, proving the outright false claims being made. It also proves that it has been Nereocystis's deliberately prolonged tactic to continue and extend the problems with abuse so far into this date in order to specifically prevent the TRUE STATUS QUO from seeming reasonable at this later date. To ignore the Misplaced Pages Guideliness simply because Nereocystis purposely obfuscated, filibustered, and delayed correcting the article to TRUE STUATS QUO for so many months only serves to validate their abuse and intention. Researcher 20:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Answered via email --Neigel von Teighen 22:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

This is in response to your last comments on the Talk:Polygamy page, . While your comments were not a direct accusation, they echoed Researcher99's allegations that I, Kewp, am a sockpuppet of Nereocystis, . I have more than 1000 edits, and am certainly not a sockpuppet. I understand that you are Researcher99's advocate, but I would appreciate if you wouldn't encourage baseless accusations like this one because they are unhelpful in the larger scale and help only to further obscure the issue. Thank you. Oh, and on a side note, I am a woman, so if you refer to me in a post, could you please refer to me as "she" and not "he"? thanks again. Kewp 06:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Neigel, I appreciated hearing from you. I hope that this mediation goes as well as possible for everyone.--Kewp 13:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Richard Rose

You obviously take your responsibilities seriously with regard to keeping the content in WP in excellent condition. You voted for deletion of the material on Richard Rose. I'd like to share with you some information which might change your mind if it's still open. The man was certainly notable in his field, and was one of the top researchers/authorities in that area during the 1970s and 1980s. I agree that the promotional links should be deleted. Mr Rose died in 2005 (88 years) after a lengthly illness and the material is not a vanity. To avoid cluttering your page I'll stop here, I'd sure appreciate your contacting me at sharnish@att.net Thank you. Steve Harnish, Miami, FL.

The article doesn't shows the notability of R. Rose convincingly. Maybe, it's because of the disorder...--Neigel von Teighen 16:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you in that it was obviously written by someone personally devoted to the man. It needs to be more hard-headed and encyclopedic in this venue. I have contacted the organization to see whether they would consider a re-write. I put some remarks on my personal page, which I can see is itself non-encyclopedic but Ok for a personal page. Here's the link All the work is done by people who have day-jobs, so I'm not sure how quickly they can respond, but the comments were well taken by the ones I corresponded with so far. Best wishes. Sharnish 18:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm afraid I'm going to have to step down as chairman (and perhaps as a chairman too). There's no way, I could keep up with such a time-consuming job when I start my next fulltime mandatory research project. I already had time-issues and left the committee in the hands of a temporary chair, but I guess they didn't have much time either. I think we need more committee members to be able to do some effective work. Sorry, to have to disappoint you... :( - Mgm| 19:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I've updated my status at WP:MC
Answered on User's talk --Neigel von Teighen 21:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99

Please suggest the Researcher99 became familiar with user talk pages (Misplaced Pages:Talk page#User talk pages.

Researcher99 recently responded to a comment which I made on his talk page in August. I then responded to Researcher99. In the past, I requested mediation on his talk page, and he called that vandalism. Researcher99 apparently doesn't understand that user talk page are used for communicating with users.

While I don't have much to say to him now, when he directs a comment to me, I may choose to respond to it.

I do appreciate your attempt to get the dispute into mediation. Nereocystis 19:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 21:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you help Researcher99 to reach an agreement about the topic of discussion. He produces a lot of writing, but it seems undirected. He tends to repeat himself. Could you find out what he wants offline and explain it on the mediation page? I would appreciate it if he would seriously consider talking about the article itself as part of the process. Otherwise, it really isn't worth my time. I don't think that would hurt him either. Nereocystis 14:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess we move to arbitration next. Researcher99 seems uninterested in mediation after all. Nereocystis 16:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Has Researcher99 completely refused the mediation suggested by the mediator? I can't tell. Nereocystis 00:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you have filed an arbitration against me, I assume that you are turning down the mediation. Has Researcher99 made a decision about the mediation? Nereocystis 03:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should strongly encourage Researcher99 to reconsider the mediation offer. The current status of mediation allows us both to get what we want. We would discuss past behavior, then the text of the polygamy article. Since it is mediation, neither of us is in danger of being banned. With arbitration, there is a good chance that Researcher99 will receive some type of punishment; I may as well. If Researcher99's goal is to get me banned, then arbitration is necessary, at the risk of his own banning. If his goal is to continue working on the polygamy article, mediation is a better option. Forcing arbitration is silly, and perhaps dangerous. Nereocystis 23:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation II

Have you tried contacting other mediators on the "active" list? Anyone should be able to take over and run things for a while. If you compare that list to the people who edited WP:RFM, you may find whoever was most recently active mediating. - Mgm| 22:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


Mediation accepted

Hello, I have assigned User:Andrevan to the mediation filed. I am waiting for his reply, but please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#.5B.5BUser:Researcher99.5D.5D_in_dispute_with_.5B.5BUser:Nereocystis.5D.5D_and_others. Thanks, Redwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! --Neigel von Teighen 23:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

RFAr

Hello, why have you listed one of my changes on the "Abuses on Polygamy article" RFAr? My name is not even mentioned in the the "Involved parties" section, yet you list one of my changes in your "Statement by advocate of party 1" preliminary evidence section. How does one of my changes relate to the RFAr on Nereocystis? Unless you want to include me in the Involved Parties, then I don't think that this qualifies as evidence against Nereocystis. Especially since, as a non-involved party, I am not given the chance in this RFAr to defend myself/ explain my actions. I would appreciate hearing from you on this matter. Thanks. --Kewp (t) 04:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Answered on User's talk --Neigel von Teighen 22:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment from an Arbitrator

Please refrain from making overly legalistic motions and comments in the prosecution of your client's case. Not only are you incorrect in asserting that the case should have been opened (the policy says that a MINIMUM of 24 hours will pass; we can choose to allow more time to pass if we desire), but the Arbitration Committee is not well-inclined toward legalistic maneuvering by parties or their advocates. I strongly urge that you focus instead on presenting an organized view of your client's case and of the evidence supporting it. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in bureaucracy. Kelly Martin 22:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)