Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 21:53, 11 November 2005 (→Some comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Some comments

These are my impressions on the vote up to now that three arbitrators have voted.

1. I don't see what's wrong with a reduced editing scope. If someone wants to contribute with a specific are in which he believes he'll help, he's free to do it.
2. The proposed ban on Researcher should be reviewed after there have been finding of facts on Nereocystis. I would vote all bans together, not separatedly.
3. Arbitrators should note that Researcher has not presented his evidence yet. I have contacted him to do it as soon as he can, but you surely know his problem with the 100-diff limit.
4. Obviously, these are only opinions... --Neigel von Teighen 21:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have also provided some more important evidence today, Four pairs of DIFFs prove Nereocystis and Kewp absolutely do speak with the same anti-polygamy voice on polygamy related articles It provides 4 pairs of DIFFs (and more) that show that I am not making up the similarity of the anti-polygamy activism. This is not about people who simply "differ." I hope that the assume good faith principle can be applied toward me in allowing me the fairness to present all the Evidence and have additional discussion on the Workshop page before any conclusion or action is taken. I admit that I just don't understand how it can be fair to be calling for my Misplaced Pages execution before I have even been allowed to discuss all the Evidence. I do hope that fairness will prevail. - Researcher 19:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

99% of the public is anti-polygamy. These attitudes often include conflation of various perversions with responsible family arrangements. However our editors are not a solid block of vandals however they may seem to be so to you. Fred Bauder 21:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99's Response to initial Proposed Decisions and giving Input for Context

Posted: Researcher 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

As I see proposed ideas already on the Proposed Decision page was begun on 21:28, 7 November 2005, I see that some clarifications might be of help here. Using the same sections of those proposed ideas, I will briefly add my thoughts here for helping the ArbCom have further clarification.

Proposed principles

Obsessional point of view

I would agree with that in a general sense, but context is most important in determining what amounts to "obssession" though.

A topic expert sees Misplaced Pages as openly inviting them to share their specialized expertise to benefit the encyclopedia. Such an expert would be willing to share their time in the field they know, but not to make posts to topics they do not know. That makes sense, of course. Unless Misplaced Pages does not want any topic experts to ever share, instead having only non-experts making posts to many topics they don't really know much about, then it is completely reasonable to even expect that many topic experts might only post to Misplaced Pages articles related only to their fields of specific expertise. For that reason, such topic experts do not reasonably fall into the classification of "obsession." That's why this principle would not accurately apply to me, as I only came to Misplaced Pages as a rare specialized resource to help the encyclopedia with a limited amount of my free time to share that help.

However, non-experts who do not actually know much about a topic, but who make mountains of posts to a specific topic area, would more accurately fall into the classification of "obsession." That's why this principle would more accurately apply to Nereocystis in this case. Being someone who does not know the topic, Nereocystis has made mountains and mountains of posts to the polygamy related articles, an "obsession" in actual fact.

Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocacy

I very much agree with that principle. I have not been an advocate or for pushing propaganda at all. It is exactly the opposite. As a topic expert here, my presence has filled the vaccuum of providing real NPOV and true information about polygamy. I have been simply exposing and trying to help Misplaced Pages prevent the anti-polygamy propaganda that others are trying to infect into the articles. Such obvious anti-polygamy POV has been trying to falsely define or misinform readers of the encyclopedia. It seems that in this last year, without me, the polygamy related articles would otherwise be filled with overwhelming amounts of falsehoods and misinformation from anti-polygamists' POV propaganda. It obviously destroys an encyclopedia for polygamy to be "defined" by what its opponents allege in propaganda. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. Readers want the real information about polygamy and polygamists, not what anti-polygamists propagandize. My presence has afforded Misplaced Pages the ability to inform its readers of what polygamy and polygamists themselves are actually about, not the misinformation of anti-polygamy propaganda. So, those who have been seeking my removal these past few months are the ones seeking to violate this important principle here. I am not here as an advocate, but as a provider of true NPOV balance of actual fact.

Assume good faith

I very much agree with this principle. At the same time, when every attempt at assuming good faith and seeking cooperation is repeatedly sabotaged every step of the way, it does not mean that someone is violating this principle when they seek to overcome the pattern of behavior that is hindering moving forward in the first place. If anything, it is those who are sabotaging the acts of good faith that are violating the principle here.

As I said in my official Statement by party 1, I tried to accommodate the edits by and work with Ghostintheshell and Nereocystis. I have also very much offered and proposed a number of ways to genuinely solve issues.

• April 29, 2005 DIFF, with Ghostintheshell
• June 30, 2005 Anti-polygamy article (archived here) created for NPOV and mutual fairness.
• August 5, 2005 DIFF - comprehensive and very WIN-WIN resoluton offer.
• August 26, 2005 DIFF - a WIN-WIN and NPOV resolution offer on the Talk:Group_marriage page.

Nereocystis has never offered/proposed even one resolution of their own to try to accommodate and work with me. I genuinely tried to reach out to them, while they never once did the same for me. There is not a single DIFF where they ever tried to assume good faith toward my view in calling for STATUS QUO to then TALK. Instead, the constantly repeated the lie that I "refused to TALK," in direct contrast to my call for STATUS QUO to then TALK. So, I am definitely not the one who has violated this important principle. Instead, Nereocystis and their helpers are the ones who have violated this principle, as they always refused to factually assume good faith toward me.

Proposed findings of fact

Researcher99's claims of expertise

In some areas, it is necessary for an expert to "fill in the blanks." This does not make an expert an "advocate," only a sharer of facts. In a number of examples, I provided information that only an expert would have known. My years of studying the polygamy news, sites, and arguments has been clearly proven by my activity at Misplaced Pages. For one example, here, I knew that a particular book had been online for years for free at one site. Someone else then copied and self-published it, trying to exploit Misplaced Pages for that thieving self-publisher's own commerce to sell it. I had repeatedly mentioned this in every edit I made removing that commercial SPAM that Nereocystis kept putting back. I had just happened to have been fortunate enough to also find a long-ago link that addressed that "History of Marriage" book's theft and where it it was online for free. Nereocystis finally accepted it and even linked to the original and free version of the "History of Marriage" book themselves. In another example, here, I explained about a listed "bfree" "book" that could not even be found on its own site. (This DIFF explains how I had explained myself five different times, showing the five different DIFFS, about that as Nereocystis had kept ignoring my explanations.) In yet another example, when Nereocystis used a way back link in their post (here) and discovered that a legitimate site had once linked to a lunatic site years ago, I provided the historic explanation (here). In another example here, I explained how a number of sites in the polygamy community used a common webhost, one with a name and credibility they trusted. In all of these examples, this was no original research. It was "filling in the blanks" with the actual facts of the situation as only an expert can do. As I later noted here, in my August 5, 2005 WIN-WIN resolution proposal, the Degrees of verifiability subsection of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy directly explained the use of experts such as myself in this same way. So, my being a proven topic expert in the polygamy related articles is actually good for Misplaced Pages. I provide the encyclopedia with a rare resource of knowledge that Misplaced Pages otherwise does not have to then best inform readers with accurate knowledge about this topic.

Researcher99's scope of editing

It is true that that I have only had time to deal with the polygamy related articles. However, the battles heaped upon me by Ghostintheshell and Nereocystis comprise the overwhelming quantity of my posts. Not counting those posts when looking at my posting history, it is obvious that I have not actually posted all that many edits in the articles to be of concern. Two things are important to remember. One, I only came to Misplaced Pages to share my topical expertise. Two, all the battles brought on with Ghostintheshell and Nereocystis have so consumed an extreme amount of my time. Considering those two facts, my "scope of editing" is not really all that much and really does not indicate anything negative about me at all.

Opponents

The assessment being made about me in this section shows why understanding the full context of the whole story is so necessary. That this DIFF is actually being mis-applied against me definitely makes my point here about needing context. In the context of the whole story of this situaton, that DIFF was made by myself with the sincerity of being a topical expert trying to help Misplaced Pages. It was helping Misplaced Pages with understanding how anti-polygamists do many sneaky acts. This was sharing expertise to help Misplaced Pages. At that time, the context of this DIFF only applied to Ghostintheshell and Nereocystis. Both had pretended to be "pro-polygamy" but their actions proved they were doing anti-polygamy POV agenda actions. This was not about me "just imagining" some "anti-polygamy block." It was not about "opponents" who "simply differ." There is a very big difference between differing and taking hostile POV actions. This DIFF was about two specific usernames and their actions, such actions which are already known as deliberate anti-polygamy tactics, and to warn Misplaced Pages how to spot such anti-polygamy activism. So, I made that DIFF in trying to help Misplaced Pages. When the whole story of the Evidence is read completely, the context of that DIFF is very clear. In the very first sentence of my recent 18:39, 18 October 2005 post in the Gangs of Sneaky Vandals section on the Arbitration Workshop page, I explained about the misperceived assessment, saying, "This is not a correct assessment of the position I have "taken." When some people actually do specific anti-polygamy tactics or actions, it is not that they "simply differ." Their tactics expose them as anti-polyganmists. The real fact is, truly real "pro-polygamists" would not have any problem with anything I have done. They certainly would not fight me on every single step I take. So, if they're not "pro-polygamy," that means they are the opposite, anti-polygamists. For a proven topical expert such as myself to point that out does not make me wrong about that. My intended helpful DIFF taken out of that context to be used against me also shows why understanding the full context of the whole story and all the Evidence here is so important.

Proposed remedies

Researcher99 banned from editing polygamy-related articles

I admit that I am very baffled by this. I was the one whose AMA advocate initiated the request for this Arbitration. All I have wanted from this was a truly fair process, one where all the truth would be allowed to be presented and a fair assessment of the presented facts would occur. However, I had not even been able to make my case yet. So I am alarmed that this very harsh "sentence" is already being considered before any sufficient Evidence has even been presented. I have no idea why I should be banned at all, or even why banned indefinitely with no hope of ever helping again. I do hope that re-consideration about this can occur upon reading the whole story.

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by ban

Since I only came to Misplaced Pages to share my expertise in this topic, this "sentence enforcement" amounts to a "death penalty" for my only "crime" of being a topical expert trying to help the encyclopedia. It also creates an unfortunately big vaccuum for the articles to be corrupted by anti-polygamy POV. I genuinely do hope that this can be re-considered after reading all the Evidence.

Thank you for reading this.

Researcher 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Is mentorship appropriate here?

I hesitate to suggest this, but I wonder whether Researcher99 is a candidate for Misplaced Pages:Mentorship. He may not accept the mentorship, of course. I don't know whether he realizes how strong his POV is when he edits, or how difficult he is to work with. If a strong editor were able to direct him, he might be able to add useful, NPOV text to the polygamy article.

I'm of two minds on this issue. Part of me would be glad to have him gone, but I do have hopes of directing him towards constructive editing. Perhaps the threat of a ban will help redirect his energy. Nereocystis 23:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)