Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Researcher99 has been unwilling to resolve disputes with Nereocystis on Talk:Polygamy over many months. He has been asked multiple times over many months to discuss the text of the Polygamy article and stop discussing what he perceives as past abuses and insults.

Description[edit]

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Since May, 2005, Researcher99 has complained that Nereocystis vandalized the Polygamy article. Between May and August, 2005, 5 people have requested that Researcher99 discuss the text of the Polygamy article and stop discussing the claims of past abuse. Researcher99 has refused to do so. 3 people have tried to provide outside help. Researcher99 delayed voting on a poll resolving the issue for one month.

When Researcher99 discusses content, the discussion go around in circles, Researcher99 does not answer questions, does not provide citations, and when he does, citation follow his POV, which is Christian polygamy.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. 16 May created Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals
  2. 17 June Researcher99 continues attacking Nereocystis's behavior, no discussion of text and more attacking of Nereocystis
  3. 18 July Researcher99 explains how he is oppressed by anti-polygamists, but didn't discuss the text of the article
  4. 18 July Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative
  5. 18 July Nereocystis suggests Association of Member Advocates for Researcher99, mediation or arbitration. No response from Researcher99
  6. 28 July Nereocystis suggests mediation]. No response from Researcher99.
  7. 1 August Nereocystis suggests mediation. No response from Researcher99.
  8. August 3 Researcher99 states that Nereocystis is vandalizing his personal wikipedia page This means his User talk page, probably refering to Nereocystis's request for mediation.
  9. August 3 Nereocystis suggests mediation.
  10. August 5 Researcher99 suggests resolution, insists that Nereocystis defer to Researcher99's proven expertise.
  11. August 18 Researcher99 wants to discuss past
  12. August 26 Researcher99 again does not address the article, but continues talking about past events
  13. August 26 Researcher99 again does not provide outline, and postpones conversation for a few days, past deadline for outline
  14. August 26 Researcher99 attacks Nereocystis on Group marriage talk page, does not want to move discussion, user talk page edit called vandalism

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  2. Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement
    1. Work towards consensus
    2. Don't filibuster
  3. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
    1. Argue facts, not personalities.
    2. Don't ignore questions.
  4. Wikipedia:Civility
  5. Wikipedia:Cite sources
  6. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  7. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. 16 May Nereocystis requests discussion on talk page
  2. 7 June Dan100 provides 3rd opinion
  3. 7 June Hawstom agrees with Dan100
  4. 18 June Dan100 repeats request to focus on issues
  5. 18 June Hawstom suggests forgetting past conduct, editing and discussing, starts poll
  6. 4 August Nereocystis list proposals, suggests that Researcher99 should come up with suggestion, or accept someone's suggestion for resolution of problem
  7. August 16 Uriah923 offers to mediate
  8. August 18 Uriah923 requests outline from both participants
  9. August 18 Nereocystis provides outline
  10. August 25 Uriah923 gives Research99 until August 26 to submit outline
  11. August 25 Dunkelza suggests that Researcher99 provides outline, stop claims of abuse
  12. August 25 Dunkelza suggests moving group marriage discussion to polygamy
  13. August 26 Uriah923 again requests an outline


Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Nereocystis 17:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Uriah923 16:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dunkelza 19:47, August 30, 2005 (EDT)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Kewp 19:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the absence of the short summary of the response by the editor in question, I will endorse the summary by the certifiers. Robert McClenon 11:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I am now being falsely accused of not wanting a resolution. That is the furthest from the truth. Just before Uriah923 offered (on 16:31, 16 August 2005) their idea to possibly arbitrate, the polygamy TALK page was already in the middle of a dispute resolution process. Researcher's Offer for RESOLUTION (begun 17:06, 5 August 2005). As that shows, I had offered a seriously positive atempt for reoslution, giving so much, and only asking for one very small act of good faith act from Nereocystis.

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

We were almost there to a positive means of resolution. The only thing preventing that was waiting for one little tiny good faith act by Nereocystis to allow removal of an NPOV tag (as I would remove other similar tags and not add yet others of other disputes I had in the polygamy article).

When Uriah923 arrived (16:31, 16 August 2005), they offered their unofficial help. Here is what they said,

I have to admit, the back and forth on this Talk page just about blew my mind. Researcher99 and Nereocystis - how about I arbitrate? We can come up with a list of things to be resolved, I will lead discussion on them and we can vote on what belongs in the article. I think this would be a good way to avoid getting caught up in personal attacks and EXTREMELY VERBOSE arguments. What do you say? Uriah923 16:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

When Nereocystis answered and said that they were apprehensive and had some other preferences, Uriah923 replied,

I was partially ignorant of Wikipedia policy concerning dispute resolution, so forgive my poor choice of words if I gave you the impression that I could offer official mediation or arbitration. I am not on the mediation committee, so I cannot serve as an official mediator. However, I can serve in an unofficial manner if you both agree to allow me to guide the resolution. I don't think doing so would take long or be very painful. If you'd rather go straight to official mediation and submit a request, or pursue some other method such as seeking a third opinion, that's ok, too. One thing seems clear, though - you two aren't getting much of anywhere the way you are going right now. Uriah923 20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

When I was able to reply, I declared the following.

Uriah923, I appreciate your observation and willingness to try to help. I agree that this does seem to be having the appearance of even being silly in not getting anywhere.

As Nereocystis knows, I have been waiting for for an AMA requested Advocate. My request was made one month ago today. I received an acceptance resonse that same day, with the note that that Admin was starting a new (real world) job and would need some time to get caught up. As I have long been patient in waiting (and waiting for the article to get restored back from the destructions since April), Nereocystis's repeated aggresiveness is typified by their perpetual unwillingness to be patient.

I was hopeful that the offer for resolution I made two weeks ago tomorrow could have helped us move forward. To my surprise and dismay, though, Nereocystis is so unwilling to work for a WIN-WIN, they have now even protacted the offer for resolution itself into an unnecessary drag-out of additional discussion.

All that we needed in order to go forward was the tiny example of Nereocystis being willing to show a good faith of GIVE-GIVE. From the original ofer, all they needed to do was allow the removal of one single NPOV tag, and I would GIVE so much more than they ever had to in that offer. I understand that Nereocystis thinks there is some NPOV issue there. If they would be patient, we will get to that. But it is another example of their aggressive impatience to not let that tag go for now. I have been patient since April and could even more easily fill the article with numerous NPOV tags myself. Yet I GIVE and so I do not. I am patient. I am trying to work for a WIN-WIN. But Nereocystis is unwilling to ever work for a WIN-WIN. For them, their mind requires only absolute total "conquest" in their destruction, so much so that they cannot even let one silly little NPOV tag be removed to show that WIN-WIN and GIVE-GIVE act of good faith, so that we could have moved forward.

Here is just a quick listing of only some of the disputes I have long been patient in trying get corrected. Two or three have since been corrected, but most still remain as outstanding. There are more disputes I have too, on top of the following listed items. In the listed items below, it should also be noted that I gave detailed edit-comments explaining the reasoning that anyone could easiy understand. The thing to also remember is that those edits were my attempts to bring the article closer back to TRUE STATUS QUO, so I was not trying to make "original changes" but actually making corrections back toward STATUS QUO in order to THEN TALK. These examples also show how aggressive Nereocystis is in not ever really being willing to TALK and follow Wikipedia Guidelines.

When I tried to offer a reasonable anti-polygamy article, they also very quickly suggested that some delete it, which then happened by very suspicious means. They fully sabotage everything I try to do, knowing they can easily enlist "help" from an overwhelming majority of bigoted anti-polygamists to assist them at most any turn of destorying the polygamy article.

Since April, they have implemented a strategy of aggressively edit and rv all my corrections. Knowing that the Wikipedia "Don't Be Reckless" Guidelines require that controversial articles be restored to STATUS QUO and THEN a TALK occurs in disputes, 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 Wikipedia Guideline of STATUS QUO from being implemented. If we are truly to follow Wikipedia Guideliness, then those Guidelines require that the article be restored to TRUE STATUS QUO, so that we can then TALK about whatever changes Nereocystis wants to make to that version. However, the TRUE STATUS QUO goes back to March 31, and I myself am not out to remove all the other good edits that others have made since then. So, I made an extremely large food faith offer of being willing to drop that requirement so that we could move forward.

Unfortunately, despite so much of GIVING I offered, Nereocystis was not even willing to allow the one petty little asked act of good faith to remove one little NPOV tag.

It is further demonstation of their aggressively hostile "bad attitude" toward me, and that they really do not seek a real resolution which can only happen in a GIVE-GIVE approach for a WIN-WIN result. For another exmaple, even though I am now the one disputing the version of the "Tom Green and co-habitation" dispute they changed, when I said in my offer that issue that would be our first issue of discussion, Nereocystis impatiently tried to jump out ahead and change the entire discussion of that from what my dispute is, to their new desire for a completely different basis of that discussion. It has now become my dispute and here they were trying to change my dispute into a completely different discussion. While I would have no problem also discussing their extra addition to that, it was still another aggressive act of trying to have everything their way or no way. It is these kinds of examples of that kind of hostile aggressiveness that is really wearing me down and causing me concern that, until my requested AMA is able to assist me, Nereocystis will only continue to treat me so abusively. I know they do not think they are doing that, but it really is coming off as hard-core bullying to me and I do not have generally allow that kind of dysfunction from anyone else doing that to me in my life. I had been hopeful that their aggressiveness was on its way toward coming to an end, but now I will admit that I am beginning to despair of that hope.

I would appreciate any assistance you can offer, but I also admit, until my AMA is able to help, I am cautious. There have just been too many anti-polygamists unwilling to genuinely be accurate and NPOV on this article. I am not saying that that applies to you, but I only am trying to express my caution that it is possible that it could possibly also apply to you as it could apply to anyone else of course. (It is only that I do not know you yet, you see. It's not personal.) If you could genuinely be fair an unbigoted, then I would very much welcome your assistance, realizing that it is not "official" as you are not such an Admin for that.

While I know that Nereocystis likes to aggressively require that things be done with "one or two day deadlines" in order to push me into doing things faster than I might have time to do in my personal life, it is my hope that we can get this resolved in a more patient manner. There are times when it might not be possible to get back and respond so quickly. For example, I will be away for a long weekend this weekend, so I probably could not get back until Tuesday or Wednesday. It is my hope that maybe one day, I could take breaks like that when life requires and not have to be concerned that Nereocystis will use that to call for such a quick "deadline" and then aggressively act anyway because I was unable to return fast enough for their impatience.

However, as I said, I am having increasing despair. That Nereocystis could not even do this little bit of GIVE-GIVE or to seek a WIN-WIN with the NPOV tag has disappointed me greatly. Because of their unwillingness to be kind toward me in having a willingness to seek a WIN-WIN with me, I am now starting to think that we should probably just go back to the Wikipedia Guidelines that require the TRUE STATUS QUO in order to then TALK from there. If I am not allowed to have hope that they will work WITH me, then it seems that the only solution is to require the true Wikipedia Guidelines for disputed edits in controversial topics. While I await for my AMA, I welcome any fair, truthfully NPOV, and unbigoted help you could offer in the meantime, if you are able. Thank you. As I said above, I will be back next week. - Researcher 14:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of listening to what I had said, Uriah923 effectively "ran right over me" and took over the article anyway. Uriah923 said,

Given that Researcher99 and Nereocystis have agreed to give my unofficial mediation a try, I will archive this page and we can start anew with the first step. Uriah923 15:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

While I had been glad to welcome any positive help within the parameters I had mentioned, I had not agreed to what Uriah923 then did and I made another post, saying so, right away.

So, the resulting TALK pages detailing Uriah923's method for "resolution" which were never agreed to in the beginning. To start a resolution, it requires an agreement as to process. We had not accomplished that at that point. So, as far as I was (and am) concerned, the only resolution issue that is valid is the one before it which was still in process, the one I had offered before Uriah923 arrived.


It is not fair or correct for Uriah923to ask me if I agree to let them mediate, and then for them to act anyway when I did not agree. It is even more unfair for anyone to then say that their subsequent "resolution" discussion on the polygamy TALK pages is even valid to begin with. It is even more unfair and incorrect than that to then say that I am somehow not willing to find or seek rsolution, when we were in the middle of a resolution process before Uriah923 arrived.


Truly, then, I am now being ganged up on and being maligned hre as if I have somehow been resistent to resolution. That is completely false. I repeat myself here: We were already in the process of an existing process for resolution and I did not accept what Uriah923 ambiguously offered. That means that, without my acceptance of that change of process to so ambiguous an offer to help, Uriah923's offered process for resolution is not valid to begin with, which they themselves acknowledged. So, I have not refused to resolve anything. I simply did not accept the problematic new offer that I could foresee would cause even more problems (such as dealing with numerous issues instead of one at a time). Plus, if not one of the others involved could be willing to listen to me in even deciding on how to start that process, it further proved that that would never let me speak with a voice in any resolution system anyway. Their inability to listen or compromise in good faith was very troubling, as it would be to any good faith person.

So, I am simply being ganged up on by those who know I have been waiting for AMA for weeks, since July 18, 2005, most particularly, Nereocystis who has given reason to wonder if they have operated with multiple Usernames (as I firmly apt to believe is the same person as Ghostintheshell for one example). They also know that the most recent offer was only premised on my support, and that if I did not accept it, we could return to the previous discussion of my offer for resolution. When there was no willingness to offer any small acts of good faith to have genuine WIN-WIN, I was unable to accept the bias. Throughout these past few months problem has been that they act extremely fast and aggressively, to destroy everything I do, and then to employ easily-found anti-polygamists to act like they have concensus for their abuse.

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."

Here are some of the TALK articles giving the chronology of the abuse I have received. No fair decision can occur without fully reading all the evidence.


(Comprehensive evidence writings)


(Other subseqent timeline events)

So, the current changes occurring on the TALK pages of the polygamy article are not valid as part of any resolution. I have not refuse to resolve things, nor have I been difficult to work with.


Dunkelza, on the Requests for comment/Researcher99 page, is simply unhappy that I discovered that many of their attempted reference links were unusable as valid sources at all. When they made these citations, I then had pointed out how all but one was either usenet or forum discussion threads, and the other one did not even talk about the issue at all. When Dunkelza came back and made more citations, I tried to gently point out how those citations were not valid either, even one of them was nthing more than a copycat website of Wikipedia's older polygamy page, which is full circle! I even tried to encourage Dunkelza by stating at the end of my post, "I appreciate that you are making citations, but they really do need to be valid citations for us to rely upon them.". So, because I pointed that out, Dunkelza appears now to not be very happy with me, choosing instead to justify whatever Nereocystis has said in their abuse of me.


Kewp has only made 4 posts in polygamy TALK, only starting since Aug 22. The first one is a pure anti-polygamy propaganda promoting underage issues, and the other three talk as if they had been a part of everything all along, Post #2, Post #3, and Post #4. Because they are clearly an anti-polygamist, with intent on pushing that propaganda POV, that is what explains their willingness to justify Nereocystis's abuse even though they have not been involved in any of the situation before Uriah923 interrupted the original resolution process.


Uriah923, on the Requests for comment/Researcher99 page, is simply seeking to defend their intent to offer a resolution. Since their resolution was not properly processed by having agreement to do it by all concerned (which means me in that list of parties), the offer to help was never in a position to be considered anything more than an ambigious offer to help. It certainly never yet reached the status of being a valid ongoing proposal yet. So, Uriah923 is incorrect to suggest that I was "extremely difficult to work with." While I appreciate their acknowledgement that I was not and am not abusive, it is further unfair to acuse me of being verbose and tangential when my only action that way is to provide all the mounds and mounds of evidence. If all the other parties wuld actually listen to me and use the credible arguments I present, there would be no need to present so much evidence to prove what I am saying. This is the Catch-22 that all of these individuals put me in, refusing to listen and then accusing me of verbosity for when I prove my point with evidence. So it is wrong for Uriah923 to add their voice to the Requests for comment/Researcher99 page.


To cohclude, as I have been saying as far back as May 7, when I wrote the subsection, Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed in the larger evidentiary piece, The Ghostintheshell Situation, in controversial topics such as polygamy, the specific Wikipedia Guidelines that say Don't Be Reckless, declare that the STATUS QUO is supposed to be preserved and THEN a TALK is to proceed. Following those Wikipedia Guidelines is all I have been calling for from the beginning. But Nereocystis has acted with such speed and hostile aggressiveness that every time I try to get us to that, they find a new to destroy my attempt to get us back to Wikipedia Guidelines that way.

The same exact problem has now happened in the TALK pages of the polygamy article. I had not authorized Uriah923 to act so quickly, to hide the evidence of Nereocystis's abuse by "archiving" the polygamy TALK pages, to create a resolution process to which I knew was doomed before it starts. Now, Nereocystis is exploiting Uriah923 and two others who have not been involved except for the last couple of weeks, to try to prevent even the TALK pages from being brought back to the STATUS QUO of the original resolution process which we had been in before Uriah923 interrupted it and the other 2 later arrived afterward.

That all four have chosen to gang up on me is further proof that I was correct in foreseeing that Uriah923's ambigious offer would not work unless there was a true WIN-WIN attitude with genuine GIVE-GIVE. Unless someone is actually willing to really listen to me and to work with me, they are only "running over me" just as happened with this unneccessary creation of the Requests for comment/Researcher99 page.

From my perspective, like I've said abut the polygamy article itself, we should follow the Wikipedia Guidelines and restore to STATUS QUO in order to then TALK. The polygamy TALK page should be restored to STATUS QUO of 14:24, 18 August 2005. Then we can continue the TALK from there, using the original resolution process which is the only valid one at the moment anyway.

Like I also said before, in that original resolution, we were almost there. All we need for tat to proceed is a tiny good faith act by Nereocystis to allow one tiny NPOV tag to be removed, and I will do all the other good faith acts I offered in that resolution too.


As I have not heard from my requested AMA, it seems that I will need to make some new requests of others. I will be doing so shortly. Patience on everyone's part would be greatly appreciated, of course.


When all this finally reaches an end, I hope for some real fairness, and for the bullying to come to an end.

Researcher, originally posted 20:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Later Re-Edited: Researcher 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===Users who endorse this summary=== (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Researcher 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neigel von Teighen 19:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by McClenon[edit]

I see that Researcher99's response to this Request for Comments / Request for Corrective Action is consistent with most of his posts to the Polygamy talk page. It is a very long statement of how he has been wronged and abused, at such length that it is nearly impossible to determine what the nature of the wrongs have been, or how we can move on. His posts have the effect of a filibuster of the talk page, making it nearly impossible for there to be any other constructive discussion of improving the article. The certifiers of this RfCA (which is what a user conduct RfC should be called) have, in my opinion, been very patient and have tried to engage in constructive dialog with the subject of this RfC. I notice that they offered to restructure the article and to try to discuss what the outline should be, but that the response was another long statement.

If the case against Researcher99 moves into arbitration, he will be asked by the ArbCom to provide a brief (no more than 500-word) summary. His response to this RfCA is far too long for me to have any idea what he is complaining about, other than that he complains at great length. Can he find someone to mentor him and to help him be concise? If he can't, then unfortunately the ArbCom may have no choice but to ban him from editing talk pages for a period of time. Robert McClenon 10:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 10:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nereocystis 17:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BlankVerse ∅ 15:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Soir (say hi) 06:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I was not directly aware of Researcher99's abuse of Nereocystis prior to early August; however, I have since also had the experience of going around and around with said editor. Since I entered the discussions on Talk:group_marriage and Talk:polygamy, he has been overtly dismissive of scientific citations, preferring instead to substitute his own religious convictions for evidence. When asked to commit to a resolution process, he has instead continued to fling mud at the supposed abuses of others, none of which I have seen (even in archives). I have repeatedly attempted to direct him toward productive discourse on articles, but I have seen none to date. Dunkelza 23:17 August 28, 2005 (EDT)

To make it clear, I have been observing the talk:polygamy page and related pages for quite some time (over a month), though I have not contributed to the talk page until recently, having been busy. I have thoroughly read the archived talk pages. I am fully aware of the issues involved and my endorsement of Nereocystis' summary is valid. Kewp 21:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I would not classify Researcher99 as abusive, I do think he is extremely difficult to work with. His comments are verbose and tangential. I was able to find no way to console what he perceives to be past offenses in order to convince him to move forward on a conflict resolution. Uriah923 21:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Dunkelza 23:17 August 28, 2005 (EDT)
  2. Kewp 21:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Uriah923 21:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BlankVerse ∅ 15:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Merovingian (t) (c) 12:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Researcher99&oldid=972691460"