Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/JoshuaSchroeder

Withdrawal
rfc withdrawn because another user was kind enough to withdraw mr. schroeder's frivolous rfc for him. Ungtss 19:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is a trivial distinction to make, but I did not withdraw it for him, I withdrew it for myself as the second complainant named in the dispute. It's also arguable that he effectively withdrew it himself by never signing it, even after being alerted to his lack of signature. DreamGuy 19:47, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * <>
 * you withdrew it entirely, thereby withdrawing it for both of you. Ungtss 19:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * no, that's called violating procedure after making false accusations. withdrawl involves taking the affirmative action of recanting one's lies.  Ungtss 19:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No procedures were violated. By not signing, the RfC would have been pulled shortly later anyway. Passivity ends up having the same result as activity there, so either could work as a withdrawal. It would have gotten pulled sooner except I wanted to clarify if his lack of signing was deliberate or not. Apparently some admin or moderator agreed that was fair, as it was not pulled. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. And to characterize the charges as "lies" is absolute nonsense, as all accusations were proven, they just were no longer relevant after you agreed to stop editing the effected pages, which was your only defense there. DreamGuy 22:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Putting up an rfc without evidence of failed attempts to resolve the conflict is like charging somebody with murder without evidence of a dead person. in the real world, that will get you disbarred.  in academia, it gets you published.  Ungtss 00:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * There was plenty of evidence of failed attempts to resolve the conflict, but you just decided to suddenly resolve it yourself by not editing the pages in question any more after you knew that an RfC was being created. You can't accuse someone of violating a procedure when what they were doing at the time was not only the standard process for those sort of situations but also recommended by an admin. (And comparison to murder? It's a wonder how even you can take yourself seriously after comments like that.) DreamGuy 19:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * <>
 * then post it. Ungtss 19:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * four DAYS before you fellas posted this tripe. Ungtss 19:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * i can, and i will. you cannot put up rfcs when the conflict has been resolved.  and you CERTAINLY can't leave them up for a week, unsigned.  period.  Ungtss 19:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * <<(And comparison to murder? It's a wonder how even you can take yourself seriously after comments like that.)>>
 * such an ability to avoid obvious analogies. refusal to resolve the conflict is an essential element of the "crime" that allows for RfC.  Without that element, you've got no case.  just like a murder with no body.  read up on the law in between writing your myths about myths, eh?  Ungtss 19:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss's view of DreamGuy's view
<>
 * excellent unsubstantiated conclusion. and what are your opinions on the FACTS and CHARGES stated above -- including outright VANDALISM, which is documented in evidence, the posting of an rfc without any evidence or support it, or evidence of efforts to resolve the conflict?  oh.  we mustn't think of such things.  Ungtss 20:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<>
 * another excellent unsubstantiated conclusion. this page documents page vandalism, and makes a very clear request for action.  i want him to withdraw his rfc against me.  Ungtss 20:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<>
 * find me the term "edit war" or "highly biased" in any posts but yours and schroeder's. you can't.  they're not there.  Ungtss 20:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<>
 * 1) this one has two signatures by people involved in the conflict (although one is an anon who's a "Person" enough around here to have his own unsubstantiated inquisition). his has none.
 * 2) this one has evidence of failed attempts to resolve the conflict. his has none.
 * 3) this one has evidence of outright vandalism. his has none.
 * 4) he reinstated his 5 days after his time expired, on vacuous claims of sockpuppetry. he could have left it withdrawn or rewithdrew it, but no -- he prefers to have it out here.
 * 5) why is it "ironic" that i'm willing to leave my page up until he withdraws his, when mine is 5 days younger?

<>
 * WITHDRAWING RfC's is the concern of those posting them. he unwithdrew his.  good.

<>
 * it's VANDALISM, dreamguy, to rename encyclopedia articles from legitimate names to usernames in order to mock them. i wonder at your objectivity, such that my cited scholars are "defacing articles" and his renaming pages after users is merely "irresponsible."

<>
 * i want that stupid rfc withdrawn, plain and simple. is that revenge?  i'm tired of the inquisition.  i tired of it four days before he posted it, and i'm tired 6 days after it went stale.  as soon as it's gone, this one's gone.  is that revenge?  or is that a clearly articulated goal? and more importantly, what is schroeder's articulated goal?  I haven't edited a creationism article or talkpage in 2 weeks.Ungtss 20:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<>
 * Reason, Dreamguy, remember that? I want his RfC withdrawn.  Period.  Ungtss 20:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

dglr
i note that dglr just endorsed dreamguy's view that this is a mere "revenge rfc." i wonder if dglr noted the demonstrated violation of the 3rr, which requires a 24-hour block. ah, but schroeder's one of the "good guys." the rules don't apply to him, because the ends justify the means. Ungtss 01:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy's outside view and those who endorse it

 * Would you fine individuals care to discuss the sections entitled "pov pushing," "3rr" and "page vandalism" on the talkpage? I'm curious about your thoughts on those matters.  Ungtss 04:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * To start off this discussion, you may have heard of an old legal principle called "impartiality." in essence, the law should treat people on the basis of their actions, and not their station, rank, or faction.  it's a christian principle, actually: it stems from James 2:9: "But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors."  I'm curious how your actions in this case can be reconciled with the principle of impartiality.  Any thoughts?  Ungtss 13:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * to aid in discussion, I've created an article entitled Impartiality. Perhaps Schroeder or someone else would like to VfD it.  Ungtss 15:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Silence. I see.  Carry on, gentlemen.  I look forward to your next blind and hateful accusation against me on another vfd or talkpage, while tolerating direct violations of policy by "your boy."  thank you.  that is all.  Ungtss 19:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)