Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JoshuaSchroeder

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: 15:45, 3/9/05) the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC).

Note: This article has been delisted from the RfC page. As such, it is now an archive of the conversation that happened here. This candidate page for RfC never met the requirements to be approved and is now inactive.

Statement of the dispute

Posting and subsequent abandonment of frivolous RfC
Page vandalism
POV pushing
3RR

Description

Posting frivolous RfC in direct violation of Wikipedia policy

1) JoshuaSchroeder created an RfC against User:Ungtss four days after Ungtss had made any edit to any page relevent to the disputes he and Ungtss had been having for months.

See this link, documenting that Ungtss's last edit to a page remotely related to creationism was 15:02, 28 Feb 2005, that is, over 10 days ago.

See this link, documenting Schroder's creation of the RfC, 4 days after that last edit (and the end of the dispute), and 6 days ago.

2) The RfC in question remains unsigned, 6 days after its creation, when wikipedia policy requires the deletion of unsigned pages 48 hours after creation.

See this link, illustrating the 48 hour rule.

See this link, documenting the absence of the signatures, as of today, six days after the page was created.

3) JoshuaSchroeder made this page without providing any evidence of "failed attempts to resolve the issue," when wikipedia policy requires such evidence.

See this link, showing the absence of any evidence to that effect. Note above that no edits have been made to any creationism articles in 10 days. "Change" has been effected, but this rfc remains.

4)JoshuaSchroeder has shown no interest in his RfC, having made no edits to it since creating it six days ago.

See this link, demonstrating that Schroeder has made absolutely no edits to the page since creating it.

5)Other users have commented on the RfC page that it is inappropriate, that the links prove nothing, and that Ungtss "Has been more sinned against than sinned."

See this link, documenting the comments of Dr. Zen and Mel Etitis, certainly not creationists.

6)My repeated requests that this RfC be withdrawn have been met with silence from Mr. Schroeder, its author.

See this link, my first motion. Note that there was no response.

See this link, my second motion. Note that there was no response.

7) Discussion continued on User talk:Joshuaschroeder, but that page will demonstrate that i was the RECIPIENT, rather than the DONOR, of personal insults. Ungtss 15:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

8) Accusations of this being a "revenge rfc" are hollow. I waited 3 days, posting multiple requests to get some communication out of my accuser. I got nothing. This page has a very specific goal: the removal of the rfc posted by joshuaschroeder against me. Schroeder's goal? Unknown. And especially mysterious, since I have made no edits to creationism pages in 2 weeks. If anything fits the title of "revenge rfc," it would be his against me. It has no identifiable purpose, period. i also note that this rfc has been signed by three people that have gotten into different disputes with schroeder at different times, whereas he and his "advocate" (who apparently thinks it's against wikipedia policy to boycott pages and develop multi-user npov sandboxes although he has no rules to back those accusations either) are the only ones to sign mine. According to wikipedia policy, his rfc against me should have been deleted 2 weeks ago. It's still there, in direct violation of wikipedia policy, as recommended by his "advocate."

Page vandalism

Although the record of it is gone because I requested that they be quick deleted, JoshuaSchroeder has been given to direct page vandalism, including the creation of a number of pages entitled Ungtss vs. Mainstream science in geology, biology, astronomy, ancient civilizations, etc., which i was forced to delete.

See this link, showing the quick delete record for the geology page.

See this link, showing the quick delete record for the biology page.

JoshuaSchroeder has vandalized page titles to grind his personal axe against me, and now, effectively, has User:Ungtss up for VfD, without any evidence to support his claims.

pov pushing

in [this edit], he deletes links to creationism and flood geology from an article about a book about creationism and flood geology. why?

in [this edit. he deletes a cited, sourced, and attributed statement without any justification other than "worthiness."

note this edit, in which schroeder deletes a cited, quoted summary from a phd creationist writing about creation anthropology, in an effort to minimize the existence of creation anthropology, in an attempt to justify his vfd. Ungtss 04:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

note this edit, in which he strips out the academic credentials of the author and removes whole sentences summarizing the point of view of the author regarding the relationship between man and god. there is no justification for this edit. it simply removes information. but that's schroeder's speciality. Ungtss 19:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

note this edit, in which he removes swaths of attributed text by creationists from an article about geocentrism. note how he even feels entitled to delete the npov tag placed on the page by one of the anons he has been edit-warring with over a week. ask yourself, "why would someone make this edit?"

a quick look at his contributions will show that has edits for the past two months have been confined almost entirely to creationism articles (with the occasional edit of Big Bang). It is interesting that he edits only creationism articles, since it is a position with which he obviously does not agree. Note the complaints of four individuals below that he is a pov warrior dedicated solely to suppressing the content of creationism articles. Note in particular that on the 24th and 25th of march, his page edits consisted SOLELY of reverts to creationism pages -- 9, to be exact.[1] Note that he did not edit or refine a single edit. He simply reverted wholesale.

In particular, his reverts involved:

this edit involved the removal of 2 cited and attributed statements, and the total deletion of a section entitled "Arguments still used by creationists," leaving only arguments that are defunct in the creationist community.
this edit, in which he deleted more cited opinions, as well as any and all qualifications held by creation scientists.
this edit, in which he deleted two cited and attributed statements wholesale.

note that these are CREATIONISM articles, and schroeder is deleting cited, quoted, and attributed statements from CREATIONISTS from the pages about creationists. schroeder is a pov warrior.

Note also schroeder's penchant for stripping creationism articles of the content of the ideas, leaving only a shell that is barely comprehensible. in particular.

this diff, which involved the deletion of no less than 15 cited and attributed summaries and links to articles on creationist views on creation geology. not satisfied, of course, he ultimately deleted the entire page. but we have to start somewhere, don't we?
this diff, in which he stripped out the sections on liquefaction and canyon formation, so that the purported PROCESS is deleted.
this edit, in which he stripped the summary of the young earth creationist view of history from the page on young earth creationism, getting into an edit war with a theistic evolutionist (who himself had no vested interest in having the text there -- just an interest in npov).
this diff documenting yet another mass deletion of two cited quotes by creationists.

Bright and early on a saturday morning, and he's back at it. Two mass reverts, a vfd, and a SECOND vote to delete on a wikiproject designed to develop npov on the pages. [2]

3RR

Note that Schroeder reverted Modern geocentrism 4 times within the 24 hours at 24 Mar 2005: 14:20, 17:15, 17:39, 17:47 [3] This requires an automatic 24-hour block.

Outside views

For a consideration of the quality and objectivity of "Dreamguy's view" and those affirming it, please see the rfc talkpage. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/JoshuaSchroeder#Dreamguy's outside view and those who endorse it

Evidence of disputed behavior

Documented in detail above.

Applicable policies

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

See this link, documenting that Schroeder's "advocate" suggested the RfC AFTER the conflict had been resolved after I withdrew from the pages in question. Note how i attempted to preempt RfC by explaining that I had quit and there would be no conflict. Recall how he created this page FOUR DAYS after my last creationism edit.

See this link, my first motiont to dismiss. Note that there was no response.

See this link, my second motion to dismiss. Note that there was no response.

See this link, an attempt by two anons to prevent the wholesale deletion of creationist perspectives on geocentrism. note how he says, "we've discussed this" -- then try and find some discussion on the topic on the talkpage. Note that there is none. note how he says, "reverting the edits of competent editors is not acceptable at wikipedia," and then recall his revert campaign above. note that he provided no other rational for his wholesale revert. Note that after this exchange, anon 138 signed this rfc. Ungtss 00:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See this link documenting my offer for mediation, which schroeder has failed to respond to in over 24 hours, despite a number of edits on other pages, including several conversations between the two of us. i do hope he decides to respond, so that this conflict can be resolved. i'm afraid, tho, that a mediator might actually apply npov, in which case schroeder would lose on every count:(. Ungtss 04:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Endorse -- Ungtss 15:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Endorse -- Schroeder has a habit of vexatious behaviour towards creationists and violations of NPOV 220.244.224.9 14:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Friend, if we wanna get this rolling, we need your signature with a username. it's free, and it means you can take part in the politics here -- i.e. VfD, RfC, etc. you've made a good number of quality contributions here -- take credit for them:). Ungtss 17:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Endorse -- While Schroeder claims to be NPOV towards creationism, he really has a very strong anti-Creationism POV. Samboy 21:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Endorse Schroeder is still vandalizing perfectly good material simply because it helps thwart his anticreationist bigotry. E.g. in Creationist cosmologies he keeps censoring out an "argument creationists still use", and in modern geocentrism he wants to portray the Bible as teaching absolute geocentrism so censors out how most creationists deal with the passage (and a quote from Fred Hoyle that supports their contention). His usual deceitful tactic is to demand that opponents "take it to talk", but Schroeder vandalises first before talking.138.130.201.204 10:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Response

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.

Response by User:Imaglang (aka Neigel von Teighen)

AMA advocate of User:Joshuaschroeder This RfC is a revenge against the one against him performed by Joshuaschroeder. That RfC has been done because of all of his attacks against Joshuaschroeder in pages like Talk:Created kinds, Template talk:Creationism, Creationism and other. Now, Ungtss created a sort of parallel policy wanting to creating alternative pages of creatonsim in the user namespace (see [4] and note that User:FACTS contributions are only related to User:Ungtss and the project). Evidence of his behaivour can be found following these links: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] (in this last link, Ungtss shows to agree with the idea of creating a new NPOV policy according to FACTS). --Neigel von Teighen 21:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Outside view

FeloniousMonk's view

In addition to what I have said at RFC:Ungtss, I'd add that as a participant on most of the contested articles cited here I never saw what I'd consider genuine personal attacks or vandalism from either JoshuaSchroeder or Ungtss, though I have seen a few instances of Ungtss engaging in POV obstructionism. I can say though that like JoshuaSchroeder, I often felt frustration in dealing with Ungtss' aggressive defense of his article content, and hence, I feel that JoshuaSchroeder's RFC against Ungtss was not an abuse of process as alleged here. That's not to say I believe it's allegations are well-founded, just that JoshuaSchroeder's intent in filing it was not cynical. Hence, I'd like to suggest that this counter-claim against JoshuaSchroeder, though itself likely not a cynical abuse of process, is not well-founded. Since JoshuaSchroeder could make a better case for disruptive POV obstructionism than for civility/no personal attacks, it seems the simple solution would be for the two parties to drop both RFCs and take their grievances to mediation. Were POV obstructionism to reoccur, it could be dealt with in separate RFA/RFC.--FeloniousMonk 20:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy's view

Simply put, this RfC was nothing but an unsupported revenge RfC, and as such far worse than the supposed baseless RfC Ungtss is complaining about. The charges in the RfC Ungtss is complaining about were fully supported and explained, and everyone but Ungtss who made a comment agreed that he was making highly biased edits and being aggressive in his edit wars. Complaining that the RfC continued on past the 48 hours given for two signatures as if it were JoshuaSchroeder's fault and something he should get in trouble for is rather ironic now that this very RfC has gone past its 28 hours without the required signatures. That's a concern for the admins, not the people filing them. Could JoshuaSchroeder have handled things better? Sure, but most of the charges above are complete nonsense. The only reason I am signing as an outside view instead of directly supporting a response is because the page-naming tactics mentioned by Ungtss about JoshuaSchroeder are things I am not familiar with but sounds irresponsible. Of course I don't understand what Ungtss even hopes to accomplish here other than being motivated by revenge (proven by the fact that he withdrew this RfC when the other was temporarily withdrawn), as he has given up editing the pages in question anyway. He doesn't appear to have any sort of practical resolution in mind and just wants to make yet more attacks, which only goes to prove those points in JoshuaSchroeder's RfC. DreamGuy 20:43, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Endorse DreamGuy's view. Gazpacho 10:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Endorse this view.--Deglr6328 23:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Endorse Radiant _* 08:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.