Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ungtss

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, not different disputes. 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: the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC).

Note that Ungtss has started a WikiProject named FACTS, that is currently under debate at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FACTS. This seems to have something to do with the discussion below.

Please note that this rfc has been closed without being certified, and should therefore not be edited as it serves simply as an archive. please note that despite this fact, mel etitis has insisted on adding to it over a week after it was closed.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Ungtss has engaged in a continuous and deliberate personal attacks against anyone perceived to be opposed to his POV regarding creationism or religion. Two of the users most often attacked are Joshuaschroeder and User:DreamGuy. He has also engaged in RV edit wars with multiple users and is very rude an impolite on many talkpages.

Description[edit]

Important note: Nobody has signed this RfC, so this is not an active project. As far as I am aware it was still being worked on and not ready for responses or comments from other editors, as it doesn't have the requisite two signatures. I did not write the draft, but do have several complaints and was working with other users on how to progress. Part of my concern was that Ungtss has apparently stopped making edits on main articles for which his strong bias has prevented him from making NPOV contribution, so the RfC, as currently written, is not an active concern. On the other hand, he has continued his uncivil behavior and insults on several user talk pages, which would still be violations of Wiki policy. I am discussing with other editors at this point to see if this should be withdrawn or if it should be modified to cover recent activity. Until that is ironed out, Ungtss' response is premature (though I do think in many ways it helps prove our complaints against him).

Follow-up note: Ungtss' claims to have agreed four days ago to no longer post to the articles under dispute and not make personal attacks on user talk pages are false, as he has made personal attacks on Joshuaschroeder's talkpage since that time. The motions to dismiss and so forth are premature, as this was a draft document not intended to be live, unsigned even by the person who created it, who obviously would endorse the RfC he wrote. At this point I would request that the document be put on hold for a few days to see if Ungtss will actually stop insults and harassment on user talk pages. If not, this page will be updated and signed by the two of us who were planning to initiate it and the RfC can go forward, otherwise it will be withdrawn. In the meantime, I would also ask that people not make comments on the substance of the charges until the charges are actually finished. Trying to claim that the RfC should be dismissed based upon alleged lack of evidence for working together when he only agreed to stop the revert wars and abuse on article pages after he knew a RfC was being written, and then switching to a different kind of violation of Wikipedia policies and hoping to get away with all of them because we can no longer prove he isn't willing to compromise on the first isn't a strategy that should be rewarded.

My third and last note: The primary author of this has still not signed or updated it despite a reminder from the intended cosigner on his talk page several days ago. As at this time I don't see any current behavior on the part of the accused that would be something I would sign a complaint against (not that he has become a shining example of Wikipedia conduct either), and the primary complainant has not responded to, I have withdrawn the complaint. I think I am well within my rights to do so, but if the primary author would like to relist with a different secondary complainant, I believe that that would be no problem. DreamGuy 18:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ungtss has been a contributor and an editor of various pages relating to creationism and/or religion/mythology and has continually imposed his POV slant on the articles while refusing to accept edits aimed at trying to correct the slant. He engages in ad hominem attacks against other editors because he apparently thinks that's the only way to get his point across. This user has declare that he will no longer edit articles relating to these subjects until such time as he determines (see his talk page. It was recommended by an advocate to post this request for comment. For details see, user Joshuaschroeder's talkpage and DreamGuy's talkpage as well as the talkpages for the various articles involved including:

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Applicable policies[edit]

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

(provide diffs and links)

Attempts to talk provided on talk pages of the above articles
Attempt to use an advocate to help the issue

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Joshuaschroeder 15:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Endorse. As User:Joshuaschroeder's AMA advocate, I'll endorse this summary. User:Ungtss has constantly performed POV edits and reverted NPOV edits considering them as vandalism as in [10], [11] (some examples on Template:Creationism), where Ungtss considers this as vandalism. Also, he has performed personal attacks as in [12], [13], [14] (this diff shows how Ungtss seems not to recognize his attack on the previous diff) only citing some examples. Also, we must consider that Ungtss constantly writes on capital letters (considered shouting on basic Netiquette). A great point we can't miss is that Ungtss recognized to have boycotted the Creatonism pages (see [15]) certifying his bad faith when editing. Other evidences on his bad behaivour have been added into the evidence section. --Neigel von Teighen 20:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

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.

Wikipedia policy[edit]

RfC policy requires that: "Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page."

schroeder has failed to provide evidence that their "efforts have failed to produce change." a brief glance at my user contributions will demonstrate that i have not made a single edit to a single creationism page since boycotting them earlier this week, and have gotten into no conflicts siince. "Change" has been produced. This RfC is ill-placed. but just to address the charges fully, i will elaborate.

Defenses[edit]

1) i have boycotted creationism articles and have made no edits to them in several days, and have no intent of doing until some reasonable npov standards have been set. the dispute is therefore resolved, and this RfC is pointless except insofar as it serves to attack me.

2) i had planned to quit wikipedia entirely, but decided not to because i was encouraged by DanielCD (see this link) and RednBlue (see this link) to simply avoid this area, rather than quit entirely, because wikipedia does not yet have adequate standards for npov in creationism. also consider this. These notes were all from evolutionists, and illustrate that i am not unreasonable, but on the contrary, there are several evolutionists who think i'm an asset here.

3)this is a case of an ego battle between joshuaschroeder, dreamguy, and myself, and nothing more. i apologize for engageing, but it is not a pattern. it is a personal conflict between me and them going back months.

Counterclaims[edit]

The pinnacle of Schroeder's career at wikipedia has to be the renaming of several pages broken off from the mammoth (and defunct) Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. the record of quick deletes (if there is such a thing) will show that I had to request that those pages be deleted. They were created with the sole purpose of mocking me, and directly vandalized the page. There's an important distinction here. Any "incivility" of mine was confined to the talkpages. His made it to page titles. Further, my incivility did not come ex nihilo. The Talk:Myth page cited above as an example of my "incivility" exhibits this phenomenon quite clearly. 1) i inserted a cited summary of a section in a book on myth by cs lewis, a cambridge/oford literature professor. there was absolutely no religious material in the text. it was simply about myth. This was my edit. 2) Dreamguy deleted the cited text without comment on the talkpage, saying only that lewis "wasn't a good source," and i was "only editing it because i got in an argument on another page. 3) in order to begin discussion, i added this to the talkpage. no personal attack, just a section titled "here we go again." dreamguy responded with this, in which you detail my "sheer incompetence," my "church's approved reading list," accuse me "spreading my nonsense," and note the importance of "damage control." And this over a cited section from a book on myth and literature by an oxford/cambridge lit professor. Yes, that is when i began defending myself at your expense, and i apologize for that. but this is not a case for RfC. this is a case of "let's get the creationist frustrated by edit warring for weeks and then taking his blurbs of frustration out of context, without acknowledging our own." I repeat. I have boycotted creationism articles. there is no conflict here. i'm afraid i'm going skiing for the weekend, so i won't be able to respond further until monday. I'd write more now but my car is going to leave without me. I wish you all the best. Ungtss 18:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss[edit]

1) I note that wikipedia policy requires that these articles be deleted if evidence of "attempts and failures to resolve the issue" have not been presented within 48 hours, and proponents of the RfC are instructed to provide links and diffs to show that failure.

2) I note that the section in question contains absolutely no diffs or links, and utterly fails to provide the evidence to support this REQUIRED, THRESHOLD claim for RfC. the section mentions that "an advocate was sought out" and there were "attempts to talk." These are not evidence of attempts and failure to resolve the difficulty. they mean nothing.

3) This page was created 72 hours ago. As a matter of wikipedia policy, therefore, this page should have been deleted 24 hours ago. however, it was not.

4) i also note that the links in the summary itself provide little to no evidence of "gratuitous personal attacks" or "pov pushing," but rather show me responding to personal insults which i documented in my return summary.

5) As a matter of evidence, therefore, the RfC is vacuous.

6) I note that Dreamguy stated his very reasonable and civil terms as follows:

"Here's the deal: If you stay off the page you agreed to and stop butting in on other people's conversations on talk pages to toss out insults and false accusations, then there isn't a reason for the RfC to proceed, and you can feel free to do all those alleged solid contributions to wikipedia that you claim to want to make. I have the feeling though that you are only here to bang one drum, and that's to put your religious views into articles in a highly biased and unencyclopedic way. Prove me wrong and we won;t have anything to complain about."

i accepted this highly reasonable, fair, and civil ultimatum ... and in fact, i did so FOUR DAYS before this RfC was composed, and SEVEN days before the ultimatum was given. This RfC is moot, groudless, completely ungrounded in substantive evidence, and subject to the doctrine of Unclean hands. I request that the Court grant my motion to dismiss.

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

Did they try mediation? Ungtss gives it out to those who play with him. There's no real cause for complaint. It's reasonable, also, to note that Ungtss' POV should be properly covered, without bias, in the articles in question, even if he is not there to push it. This will not be achieved by stating that creationism is just so much bollocks, even if you, I and others are very much convinced of that.Dr Zen 23:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no mediation. just this rfc 4 days after my last creationism edit. thanks for your kind words, by the way, dr. zen. i really appreciate it:). Ungtss 00:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Renewed motion to dismiss[edit]

Still no evidence of failed efforts to resolve the issue, nor the required endorsement by the accusers. absolutely no evidence of incivility not subject to the doctrine of unclean hands. 96 hours since the page was created. Deletion required after 48 hours. I request that this farce be deleted. Ungtss 18:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

false accusations of sockpuppetry[edit]

This is from ungtss. My ip address is 128.192.241.6 16:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC), which corresponds to an address in athens georgia, which you can verify here. The IP address which schroeder has falsely accused me of using as a suckpuppet is 220.244.224.9 (as can be verified here and here), which traces to Melbourne, Australia. Do you really think i'm flying across the pacific just to sockpuppet, schroeder? 128.192.241.6 16:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I know that this RFC has closed, I am merely commenting as a point of fact for reference, should anyone else read this.. Secondly, I can easily edit from Melbourne myself, via something called an Open Proxy, i.e. a website you go to, and they load this website via their IP address, one of the most common of these that I found is based in Melbourne, and it could easily have been Ungtss (or anyone else who knows these things). The only way to identify the perpetrator would have been by questioning who has a grudge to bear, or an opinion to push?

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.

Mel Etitis' view[edit]

I've had a few encounters and debates with this user. There's no doubt that he has very strong views, and that this sometimes (often?) makes him unable to see neutrality for what it is. Thus he also pushes his PoV strongly, and much further than Wikipedia neutrality allows. However, I've never been the target of personal attack or incivility. As always in these cases, in which there are strong points of view on both sides, where there has been incivility it seems to be to have been pretty evenly spread; Ungtss has probably been more sinned against than sinning in such cases (though he has sometimes responded by sinning right back), as some of the diffs show. (The diffs are odd, by the way; two of them are duplicates, one simply shows that Ungtss declared on his own Talk page that he'd removed himself from editing certain articles; none of them, that I could see, provided evidence for the claims about personal attacks.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's worth pointing the interested reader to this page's Talk page, where Bensaccount is busy demonstrating my point that Ungtss has to put up with some pretty childish name-calling. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having said all this, Ungtss is back, and is beginning to act rather more in the way that his detractors painted him (see, for example, Teach the Controversy). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk's view[edit]

Mel Etitis saved me having to fully document my experience with Ungtss here; I very much agree with what Mel says above Ungtss pushing his particular POV agressively. I'll add that as a participant on most of the contested pages above I never saw what I'd consider genuine personal attacks from either side, but instead a steady stream of mild oblique references maligning the opposing party's POV, as opposed to maligning the opposing party. In my opinion this was usually a result of Ungtss' aggressive defense of his article content.--FeloniousMonk 19:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dunc's view[edit]

It is my view that Untgss does push his POV, he does tend to get into arguments on discussion pages, and is overly aggressive, and should learn to step back from arguments and let others decide what to do. However, he does tread a thin line, and hasn't really crossed it, but he should be wary of doing so. Users who come across him and find he's overly aggressive shouldn't get into flame wars but should request comment. Dunc|☺ 17:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam Trenholme's view[edit]

Untgss has made a number of positive contributions to the creationism pages. For example, when an anonymous IP wanted to add some horrible Creationist tripe to the Young Earth Creationism article, Untgss was able to reason with this user and have them no longer be in an edit war with more moderate people, such as myself.

I feel that he has a very legitimate point that a number of people who are not creationists nor able to understand the point of view of creationists are very hostile to anything that is sympethetic to creationism. I also feel he has a very ligitimate point that the creationists articles are tainted by a pretty strong POV. I feel, quite frankly, that Untgss is being attacked for having beliefs which challenge people who don't appreciate opposing viewpoints on Wikipedia. I request that this RFC be immediately pulled. Samboy 05:44, 15 Mar 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.