Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy/Proposed decision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some comments[edit]

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)[reply]


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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
To me, it seems that the assume good faith principle is clearly being violated by not copying all (not even any) of my and my AMA advoacate's Evidence to the Workshop page for consideration as well. (You have not copied any of it.) A trial without consideration of all Evidence is really not an honest way to conduct a trial. The principle is definitely being violated by not allowing me the opportunity to discuss MY side of the story. You are automatically assuming and passing judgement on things about me when you have not permitted the opportunity to present and discuss the real facts. It is being violated by making a premature "Summary Judgement and Execution" before the Evidence has even been presented and discussed. It is being violated by the very harsh decision of full-blown "Execution" to remove a proven topical Expert from your midst in their field of expertise. You have known that I have been waiting for IP investigations and DIFFs from the deleted anti-polygamy article. Instead of your assisting in making sure that that neede Evidence is obtained for me to present, you have quickly acted in "Summary Judgment" without that important Evidence even being given for discussion.
If you were in my shoes, would you think a trial is fair and legitimate if you had not been allowed to present or discuss YOUR Evidence, only to find yourself immediately sentenced to "Execution" on the basis of that "Summary Judgment?" I am trying to appeal to your sense of honesty and Arbitration fairness here. In the real world, Arbitration is fair to both sides. It allows both sides to present their case. That has absolutely not happened in this case. Any judgment that is made here without an honest and fair discussion of the facts brought by both sides of a case is, and I don't know how else to put it, a "railroading."
Maybe you have not realized that, so I apply the assume good faith principle to you here. If you are honest and desire a legitimate and fair Arbtratation that is really a real arbitration, which I am appealing to you that you might be, then this Arbitration honestly needs to begin again with an allowed discussion of all the facts, allowing all the Evidence on the Evidence page to be in discussion on the Workshop page.
It is also necessary that any pre-conceived notions against me be dropped so that fairness and impartiality really will occur. Your post here already indicates your POV bias and/or lack of full information about this topic. The very reason that uninformed and under-informed people are "anti-polygamy" is specifically because anti-polygamy POV propaganda is allowed to deceive people who really know nothing about the topic, without real checks and balance. By your own words about the "99%", you concede my point that most people bring their anti-polygamy POV with them. So, you prove that I am not wrong about people having that anti-polygamy view, even though they have that view without really knowing much about the topic. Being "informed" based only on what a person "hears" is not being informed at all. Hearing hearsay and propoaganda does not inform anyone of actual information.
I only come to bring that balance of true information because of my years of studying the real facts, instead of the propaganda and surmisings of the uninformed and/or biased POVs. Yet a "Summary Judgment and Execution" is passed against me without coinsidering the Evidence. The result is that true information is now denied from helping Wikipedia, opening the non-expert to unbridled freedom to misinform readers and shutting out the expert. By this "Sumary Judgment and Execution," my point is exactly proved.
If you had discussed the issues with me openly before assuming bad things about me, I would have gladly informed you that I have never said that all Wikipedia editors are a block of vandals. You would also have seen that only I was the one who tried repeatedly to offer accommodations and WIN-WIN proposals for both sides of the dispute. That's doing the principle of assume good faith. If you had considered MY Evidence, you would see that. Nereocystis never considered things from my side for mutually working together. Even when I offered a way for both sides of the debate with the anti-polygamy article, no one assumed good faith to allow both sides to present their POV sides, separate from the neutral term of polygamy. Refusing to assume good faith toward me, Nereocystis violated it worked against me on that deleted article only so that their agenda and POV could invade the neutral term instead. I tried to accommodate and they never did. You can not find a single example of Nereocystis making such a proposal to me at all. Now that is violating the assume good faith principle on thier part, but that is not being discussed in this "Summary Judgment and Execution."
The Evidence, if all it was allowed to be discussed, also would show that I have never said there is a universal block of anti-polygamy vandals. However, specific ones that can be proven by the Evidence (such as Nereocystis) should seriously be considered and dealt with as interfering with the Wikipedia and certainly for violating Wikipedia:Civility and the assume good faith princple toward me. For me to point out specific examples of anti-polygamy POV activism does not mean I say that about everyone at Wikipedia. To say that is to make an assumption that is not actually correct. Yet, it seems that Nereocystis's violations are being overlooked by mistakenly suggesting that my pointing out their specific violtaions and clear anti-polygamy (and lying to you about it) somehow means I apply that to everyone.
So, honestly, with an honest and legitimate consideration of all the Evidence, it cannot be concluded that I had violated the assume good faith principle or said that everyone was a vandal. In real application of the assume good faith principle, I ask for a re-start of this Arbitration using all the Evidence from both sides. I am hopeful good faith will prevail and that my appeal is not in vain. - Researcher 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Today I looked at your new evidence, looked at all the four pairs of diffs. I don't think they form a basis for modification of the proposed decision. It is fundamental to Wikipedia that all significant viewpoints be fairly presented. That includes sober descriptions of successful happy polygamous families but also sourced material describing lecherous old men who have their "wives" on welfare and engage in statutory rape. Fred Bauder 14:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, without a consideration of all the Evidence, which has not been allowed to happen yet, then this amounts only to a "Summary Judgment and Execution." For me, this has not been a fair trial, and I was the one who asked for the Arbitration through my AMA advocate.
While you probably honestty do not realize it, your statement here even shows a one-sided bias. That is because anyone who truly does know the topic knows that the issues you mention are only anecdotal, promoted only by anti-polygamy propaganda or those who hear the hearsay or propaganda. Just as anecdotal examples of convicted wife-beaters would not be valid examples for inclusion in an article on monogamy, the same applies to incuding similiar criminal examples with polygamy. As monogamy is not defined by criminals who "practice monogamy," polygamy is not defined by criminals who "practice polygamy." As monogamy does not lead to wife-beating and like crimes, polygamy does not lead to welfare abuse or child rape. It is anti-polygamy propaganda that tries to make those connections where they do not exist in truth or fact. That is why there has not been a single modern example of anyone prosecuted or even convicted for bigamy charges without also being a criminal in other areas. While I would have little problem carefully creating an accurate NPOV separate article about criminals who also involved polygamy, but on the main polygamy article itself, those crinminals are not relevant any more than the wife-beater examples would be to monogamy. That is true NPOV without bias. That is the kind of NPOV I have been struggling to help Wikipedia maintain in the articles where I have this very specialized expertise.
You have just said, It is fundamental to Wikipedia that all significant viewpoints be fairly presented. If that is case, pushing out a proven topic expert with a "Summary Judgment and Execution" works in complete opposite of that intended goal. It guarantees that truthful non-propaganda is denied access to a fair presentation.
If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then it makes sense to welcome, even encourage, topic experts (especially rare ones like me) who give our time freely like this. Pushing out experts does not really make sense.
However, if Wikipedia is instead about process and non-experts, even loathing actual experts, then its credibility as an encyclopedia is quite dramatically diminished if that even exists. In that case, then Wikipedia is really nothing more than a community of non-experts and process-applicators. For that, I understand that I am not welcome and I will be glad to spread the word for you that Wikipedia does not want experts to help in your private community. In that case, I really do apologize for thinking you were an encyclopedia and consuming your time. If I had known that you did not want experts in your community, I honstly would not wasted any of our time, mine or yours. I genuinely mean this apology, and I am not being sarcastic whatsoever.
If Wikipedia really is a credible enclopedia, though, which I have genuinely hoped it is (because if not, I would not have wasted my time tying to help you), I do hope that a presentation of all the Evidence will be allowed and this Arbitration can re-start again with a fairness to both sides before judgment.
I have only wanted to help you, but if you're not really wanting to have any expert help, and instead you insist on hburriedly pushing me out with this very-rapidly-made "Summary Judgment and Execution," my identity is not affected by being any part of your private community. I can be okay with that. Yet if you do now re-consider and allow a deeper Arbitration re-start, I am still willing to be of help. It is, of course, your call. - Researcher 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider mentioning Tom Green's pedophilia conviction as a strike against polygamy, merely a description of the conditions behind his conviction. In fact his pedophilia accusation may have increased the odds of his polygamy conviction, perhaps reducing the odds of other polygamists of being convicted, unless they too are guilty of pedophilia. One case (even many cases) of pedophilia in polygamy does not mean that polygamy necessarily involves pedophilia. Likewise, Kewp's mention of pedophilia asks the question (in part) of whether polygynous cultures tend to marry wives at younger age, partly due to shortage of single women of older ages. This is a valid anthropological question, but needs a source before mentioning it in the article. This comment does not mean that Kewp opposes polygamy. It's a question asking about the correlation, and perhaps causation, of polygamy and young wives.
Likewise, Tom Green's case is important in US law because he is the only person in quite a while to be convicted of consensual bigamy. Describing his conviction is merely a statement of fact, not an opinion on the correctness of the conviction. I would prefer to see the bigamy conviction overturned, but it wasn't. My opinion of the case does not effect the Utah Supreme Court's decision.
However, both of us do have trouble working with Researcher99. That doesn't prove that we are part of a cabal, or sockpuppets of one another.
By the way, both Kewp and I are the only editors of the article on Josef August Schultes. Now that's an odd coincidence. However, Kewp has not yet edited the article on Julius Hermann Schultes. Nereocystis 00:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above post exemplifies the problem with Nereocystis. They say, I would prefer to see the bigamy conviction overturned, but it wasn't. My opinion of the case does not effect the Utah Supreme Court's decision. Yet, Nereocystis insists on promoting their own legal interpretation as if they are somehow superior to the legal applications and interpretations of the actual Utah prosecutors and Utah State Attorney General.
Anyone who genuinely wants polygamy legalized understands one very important fact. No modern person has been convicted of polygamy except as an add-on charge to having committed other crimes. Even Utah's State Attorney General refuses to go after any multiple cohahbation polygamy where no crimes have occurred.
Anti-polygamists always try to trump up the anecdotal criminals with other crimes, such as Tom Green, to try to scare the public into falsely thinking that polygamy leads to those other crimes. It does not do so anymore than saying monogamy leads to wifebeating because some monogamous men have been convitced of beating their wives. It is such an absurdity. Anti-polygamists also try the scare tactic of trying to link polygamy to suspicious or private "cultures" rather than realizing that polygamy occurs regardless of cultures. When talking about legalizaton, the legalization discussion does not apply to how "cultures" apply it, but about how it would be applied in typical Western Society with regular people from all walks of life. (How any non-religious couple and a woman choose to conduct themselves polygynously in a state like New York, for example, does not mean they would act the same way as some private "culture" of Mormons in Utah doing it for their own LDS religious reasons.) Polygamy is separate from the reasons why people do it, because their reasons and applications are as unique to themselves as mnonogamy is to monogamists. While I can understand creating a specific article about specific cultures (and then referencing those articles), tbut hat does not mean that polygamy is defined by such individuals cultures. Polygamy is a neutral anthropological word, applied differently by different people in their own different ways.
Obviously, concerns about crimes involving child rape and welfare etc could be addressed in the rest of Westen society when considering to legalize or decriminalize polygamy. Those are crimes and separate issues that do not define polygamy itself in any legalization discussion, except to say what ways will not be allowed for any marriage. (Child rape is criminal for monogamists too, after all.).
However, anti-polygamists want to scare the public by creating imagery of "private cultures," child rapists, and walfare frauders. So anti-polygamists focus on the likes of Tom Green and things like that. As long as they can put the words "polygamy" and any fear-mongering concept such as child rape or welfare fraud together, then the anti-polygamists know they can spread that mis-informed hysterical fear against polygamy to prevent the legalization of polygamy from even being possible for consideration by the public. real pro-polygamists know this is the anti-polygamy tactic.
Why has there not been any modern prosecution of non-criminals who commit nothing more than multiple cohabitation polygamy? It is because the prosecutors and attorneys general know that that is most likely how anti-polygamy laws will very likely be overturned. "Equal Protection" clauses would invalidate the cohabitation aspects of bigamy laws, because society is not prepared to start criminalizing every non-married person living together. So, in order to keep the bigamy laws on the books, they do NOT prosecute the non-criminal multiple cohabitation polygamists. To prosecute non-criminal multiple cohabitation polygamy could lead to losing the ability to prosecute it altogether when they want to.
So, to keep their anti-polygamy POV alive, anti-polygamists use fear-mongering by referring to anecdotal examples of criminals like Tom Green. By creating such a climate of hysteria, normal polygamists from around the country are silenced into saying nothing for their own lives sake, or else they they get viewed as if they do the same criminal things as Tom Green. So, an even more lop-sided view with anti-polygamy is escalated.
This external source provides more proof that no prosecutors or attorneys general are going after non-criminal multiple cohabitation polygamy. Only anti-polygamists are pushing it. Ironicly, the later result of that partciular case of that story could be what does actually get the bigamy laws overturned. The man involved there has not been charged with anything, but he has legal standing to turn around and use the "Equal Protection" argument to get the co-habitation clauses of the bigamy laws overturned. That's a far more valid case for "seeing polygamy get legalized" than the anti-polygamy agenda pushing the child rape criminal Tom Green, as all real pro-polygamists know.
So, my point is, anyone who honestly wants polygamy legalized understands these important facts. They understand that the crimes of Tom Green and those kinds of criminals do not define polygamy. They understand that polygamy is only what any individuals themselves would make of it, just like monogamy. It has nothing do with the crimes of a select few, or any private "cultures." Last of all here at Wikipedia, anyone who seriously wants the legalizaton of polygamy would not be fighting me on every single thing I have done. They would not be here fighting to advance the removal of well-informed expertise on this very rare topic.
Yet look what they have done. Nereocystis has tried to push their invented idea of "homosexual polygamy" (even though it does not exist) as "another form of polygamy." Despite my efforts to show them that polygamy is only either polygyny or polyandry, (as Encyclopedia Britanica confirms I am correct), and I even proposed a WIN-WIN solution for it, Nereocystis has insisted on trying to add group marriage as "another form of polygamy." Nereocystis has also tried to add invalid sites as supposed "Christian polygamy sites" when they are not Christian Polygamy, one does not even call itself "Christian polygamy" and the other has so many weird doctrines that it is not Christian at all, have no legitimate media recognition, are not even reocgnized by other valid polygamy sites (even the Christian polygamy sites that I have supported as being listed are not only linked by Christian polygamy sites but are even so recognised that they are also linked at the links pages of the Mormon polygamy site of www.PrincipleVoices.org), and each of the two invalid sites is only run by a single man with no following. Nereocystis has tried to confuse "Christian Polygamy" with "Mormon Polygamy" when the two are very very different and must be separate. (Mormon Polygamy is not part of "Christian Polygamy.") With the wrongly-deleted Anti-polygamy article, Nereocystis refused to assume good faith and work with me to build it, instead they sabotaged it until it was deleted.
These are not the actions of someone who "supports the legalization of polygamy." Regardless of their claims, Nereocystis's (and also Kewp's) specific individual actions prove that they are very absolutely hostile anti-polygamists. For that reason, the fact that Nereocystis claims to be pro-polygamy when they are clearly not should be of immediate alarm. That's why I hope it is possible to re-start this Arbitration and consider all the Evidence before drawing a conclusion. If not, though, I understand that my end of time here is near, as my "Summary Execution" fast approaches and the day of the topic expert here is removed. - Researcher 21:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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[edit]

Obsessional point of view[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.


Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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.

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[edit]

Researcher99's claims of expertise[edit]

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. I provide the encyclopedia with a rare resource of knowledge that Wikipedia otherwise does not have to then best inform readers with accurate knowledge about this topic.


Researcher99's scope of editing[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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 Wikipedia. It was helping Wikipedia with understanding how anti-polygamists do many sneaky acts. This was sharing expertise to help Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia how to spot such anti-polygamy activism. So, I made that DIFF in trying to help Wikipedia. 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[edit]

Researcher99 banned from editing polygamy-related articles[edit]

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[edit]

Enforcement by ban[edit]

Since I only came to Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Is mentorship appropriate here?[edit]

I hesitate to suggest this, but I wonder whether Researcher99 is a candidate for Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Proposed_decision&oldid=55103408"