I have researched Polygamy for years
I have researched the topic of polygamy for many years. I understand that that is a controversial topic for many people. If you are going to say anything on the polygamy wikis, please be sure to leave your bias "at the door" and to be aware of how little knowledge you may actually have about the topic (if you have not yet studied it for years). The wiki must have NPOV. Thank you. -- Researcher99 20:51, 28 January 2005 (UTC)
Polygamy "Decision" was a "Summary Judgment & Execution" made without ever hearing all the facts
On 02:52, 15 November 2005, the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy "decision" was made to push out a rare proven topic expert on polygamy, while giving free reign to a hostile proven anti-polygamy editor to misinform Wikipedia readers with propaganda POV. Unfortunately, the anti-expert motivated "Decision" was made completely without any consideraton of the facts or fairness whatsoever. Truly, the evidence testifies (to any honest observer) against the making of this "Summary Judgment and Execution" where considering the facts had never been allowed or performed.
Polygamy Arbitration front page
On the Evidence page,
- They never transferred the Evidence presented by User:Imaglang (aka Neigel von Teighen) to the Workshop page for discussion,
- They never transferred the Evidence presented by User:Researcher99 to the Workshop page for discussion,
- They only transferred the (posted October 18, 2005) Evidence presented by User:Nereocystis to the Workshop page for discussion.
On the Workshop page,
- They immediately made biased posts about the situation before I had even had my opportunity to present anything, as the entire posting history of the Workshop page shows, entirely skewing the discussion against me before I was able to present anything.
- They created an obviously pre-biased Analysis of Evidence that only went up to May 12, 2005, only using input exclusively from the Evidence presented by User:Nereocystis, completely ignoring all the history and abuses committed against me repeatedly after that date, which I was raising and they prevented from the decision process. More than 100 DIFFs of the entire story in my Evidence take place after May 12, 2005. That date was when the abuses really intensifed thereafter. But none of this was put on the Workshop page or ever allowed to be discussed or considered.
Evidence TALK page
On the Evidence TALK page
- They knew I was seeking guidance as I was trying to find a way to present the overwhelming amount of Evidence within a suggested but unrealistic 100-DIFF limit. They knew I had asked for a good way to solve that problem here but they never responded to my idea about it.
- They knew that there were Items Still Pending in Preparing Evidence, including waiting for official IP investigations about possible sockpuppets and the DIFFs of a wrongly deleted Anti-polygamy article (which I personally has archived here for the record). (My AMA advocate had requested the info on 20:44, 28 October 2005, from David Gerard. I had offered the more specifics in my polite reminder that we were still wating for that information, in my post on 19:16, 7 November 2005 to David Gerard. He never commented or replied.)
- In his 21:19, 7 November 2005 post Fred Bauder suggested that not presenting very very little of my Evidence would somehow be "in my best interest."
Proposed Decision page
On the Proposed decision page,
- Not even 10 minutes after suggesting to me that I should not present much of my Evidence, Fred Bauder began with his 21:28, 7 November 2005 post to start the next few posts leading to the Summary Judgment against me and calling for final votes against me. This was making a decision before I had even posted the Evidence!
Proposed Decision TALK page
On the Proposed decision TALK page,
- They ignored or never read the important post made by my AMA advocate about the premature aspect of voting before evidence had been presented or discussed.
- Fred Bauder makes a post showing their bias, demonstrating why they really should have recused themselves from the Arbitration in the first place.
- Fred Bauder makes a post with two exactly opposite-conflicting points, "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." If one had looked at the post, they would see it applied to two specific username accounts, while Fred Bauder was trying to make it out to be a universal reference of all Wikipedia editors. (It also was not "new" evidence, because I had made the similar point in my Statement by party 1.) Their premature proposed decision actually sought my "Summary Execution." That results in only anti-polygamists being allowed to wrongly mis-define the polygamy articles. So their pushing me out here utterly denies the opportunity for all significant viewpoints to be fairly presented, only permitting the anti-polygamy propaganda and POV to continue.
Seeing the end coming without any fairness having ever been applied in any form whatsoever, I made two last posts to the Proposed decision TALK page.
- My 19:53, 14 November 2005 post, "Summary Execution" without hearing ALL the Evidence & not "assuming good faith" toward experts undermines goal ofIt is fundamental to Wikipedia that all significant viewpoints be fairly presented
- My 21:51, 14 November 2005 post, (/Some comments/ - Nereocysytis's specific actions are not that of one who supports legalization of polygamy. (I made one last post afterward to fix a broken wiki-link from my previous post.)
I proved that Nereocystis is a hostile anti-polygamist
In that last informative post there, I listed out many examples of how it is indisputable that Nereocystis is an anti-polygamist who was lying when they claim to support the legalization of polygamy. Those proven lies were ignored though. A "Summary Judgement and Execution" of my involvement in my field of proven expertise was "decided" instead.
After the "Decision," Nereocystis's first edits proved I am correct again
After the "decision" was finalized, what did Nereocystis do?
Nereocystis's very first edit to the polygamy article was to assist the anti-polygamy web-sites they support. They immediately proved me right, they are anti-polygamists pushing their agenda. That would definitely not be the very first action of someone who really support(s) the legalization of polygamy.
On the group marriage article, they did the same thing, proving me right. Even despite how my last informative post proved that even the Encyclopedia Britanica confirms that I am correct that polygamy is only either polygyny or polyandry, Nereocystis's very first first Talk:Group_marriage post and their first "Group marriage" article edit was to deceive readers by suggesting that group marriage is supposedly a form of polygamy when it is not.
Undoubtedly, I have been proven correct. Nereocystis lied when claiming to support the legalization of polygamy. Yet Nereocystis is allowed to remain, deceptively destroying the polygamy article and real meaning with their hostile anti-polygamy POV, while I am "executed" with a "Summary Judgment" without being allowed to present my Evidence, just because I am a proven expert about polygamy.
If injustice not rectifed, Wikipedia is just a community of anti-experts
If the extreme injustice of this "railroading" of a "Summary Judgment and Execution" is not rectified, then I am left to conclude that Wikipedia is not really an encyclopedia anyway. If that is the sad case, then I realize that Wikipedia is instead just a community of non-experts and anti-experts who hate us content-topic experts. Those anti-experts have simply created a false "Arbitration" process to just quickly push us out, never allowing us proven experts a fair process at all. I would like to see Wikipedia be legitimate, but if this is not fixed, then anti-experts have only sabotaged it and they themselves are bringing on its eventual demise as nothing more than another passing fad. That would be unfortunate. It's out of my hands, though. I did my best to help Wikipedia.
Researcher 19:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)