Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ungtss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In my modest opinion, Ungtss' summary confirms any of the points written by Joshua and DreamGuy. --Neigel von Teighen 20:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i wonder, what do you think of the new creationism template? Ungtss 04:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<Ungtss recognized to have boycotted the Creatonism pages (see [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ungtss&diff=prev&oldid=10694592)) certifying his bad faith when editing.>>

i'm curious why boycotting pages -- i.e. choosing to cease editing them -- is bad faith, Neigel. Thoughts on this new policy? Ungtss 04:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let it be known that Ungtss is now again editting creationist pages and has restarted his efforts to include personal attacks and his own pov-pushing into articles such as theistic realism. Joshuaschroeder 20:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
let it be known that mr. schroeder never stopped vandalizing or pov pushing, and his misbehavior has been noted here andhere, in his most recent failed vfd. Ungtss 20:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] followup notes

<<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.>>

care to back that accusation up with some facts there, bro? i think it would be more persuasive if you showed your comment before mine, so that everyone can see how you didn't continue to attack me personally, but rather treated me civilly, only to be met with the vile hatred only a creationist can muster. yes. i think that would be spectacular. Ungtss 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<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.>>

the RFC is premature -- this is not the place for working documents. your user pages are the place for that. your rfc is hollow and in direct violation of the policies articulated at the top of your rfc, which require it to be signed by 2 partipants showing efforts to make change and the failure to do so within 48 hours of the posting. Ungtss 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<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.>>

i didn't respond to your last 9-point treatise on "how evil ungtss is" on schroeder's page. i simply agreed to your terms. what else would you like? perhaps you'd like me to agree with you about what a horrible human being i am for daring to disagree with you? repent of my error and be purged of intellectual apostasy? Ungtss 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<In the meantime, I would also ask that people not make comments on the substance of the charges until the charges are actually finished.>>

in the meantime, i would also ask you to articulate some valid charges before posting a rfc. Ungtss 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<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.>>

how about posting hollow rfc's without providing substantive evidence to back the REQUIRED ELEMENT that efforts of change be made and fail? perhaps we should encourage that sort of behavior? Ungtss 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] why ungtss is evil

let's have a closer look at the treatise, shall we? since apparently it's become a policy violation worthy of rfc to defend onesself when directly attacked, i will lay it out here:

<<1) Considering that the disputes I have had with you are not on articles about "religious issues," your claims that I only allow secular views of religious issues is nonsense.>>

the genesis flood myth and the definition of myth itself are not religious issues. i see. consider the page in question, myth, which has the following template at the top:
Articles related to mythology

Hmm. perhaps the fact that religion appears in the "mythology" template doesn't adequately demonstrate the link between the two for you? or perhaps the extended quote from the genesis flood myth on the deluge (mythology) page does not create a nexxus with religion? myth is not a religious issue. yes. good. thanks. Ungtss 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<2) I routinely remove opinions that are not scholarly or that are irrelevant to the pages in question. Your claim to the contrary is merely your bias showing itself again.>>

i will take your comment under advisement: "Ungtss is biased, and DreamGuy is not." Good. Thanks. Ungtss 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<3) No, I don't call religious views bias, I call an orchestrated agenda to insert religion into articles that have nothing to do with it and to remove what experts much more qualified and numerous than the people you falsely claim to be experts from articles because it makes your side look bad is a bias. Complaining about how awful changes are that take a small step toward nuetrality but still are full of your POV when more drastic changes to get them into the middle are necessary is a bias.>>

"Disagreeing with DreamGuy about which changes are toward npov and which are away from it is bias." good. thanks. Ungtss 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<4) Yes, yes, yes, you always try to back up your side with spurious claims to a majority. Funny, I don't see anyone other than the Rayment guy (who is perhaps just as abusive and biased as you) taking your side in the articles I edit. If you actually had a majority, you wouldn't be here complaining because you would have been able to keep your POV edits in the affected articles. You can't, because consensus is consistently reached that you are doing your changes for bad motives.>>

"The fact that dr. zen, mel etitis, rednblue, argh, danielcd, ungtss, and philrayment disagree with your assessment of me is irrelevent." good. thanks. Ungtss 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<5) High grade academics? LOL, yet more unsupported statements. Creationists are consistently among the least educated and least skilled in the field, and we already know you lost your argument that CS Lewis was an expert on mythology.>>

deliberately withdrawing from an argument is losing. creationists are uneducated and unskilled. phd lit professors at oxford/cambridge writing books about myths are not credible. thanks for being civil, refraining from personal attacks, and enlightening me again. i appreciate it. Ungtss 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<6) That's either an outright lie or the result of an incredibly reality-impaired bias. Happens constantly, they just try to call the deletions "balance" when it's no such thing. The recent blow up came from Rayment wanting to remove the only section in the Deluge (mythology) article about what the experts on mythology use to explain their origin, with the hopes of leaving more space for more religious campaigning.>>

oh, i didn't realize i was either a liar or delusional. thanks for clearing that up for me, and for doing it in such a tactful and civil way. i appreciate that. Ungtss 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<7) You call it attacked, I call it standing up to bullies. It's amazing how some people will call foul and make accusations when someone dares to change something they wrote, even when you can prove that it's factually incorrect or that the consensus of the editors on the page overwhelmingly disagrees with them. The people working on the actual pages end up siding with me, so I'm obviously doing things the right way.>>

oh, i didn't realize that right and wrong were determined by vote, rather than reason and policy. and if i think like everyone else, then i'll be right too! okay! Ungtss 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<8) Not my issue, and certainly a lot less damaging than the things you;ve routinely done here. 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. DreamGuy 19:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)>>

okay, thanks for telling me about my insults and false accusations here instead of articulating them on the RfC page -- i might get in some real trouble if you let everybody know how evil i was! i'll just keep banging my drum in my highly biased and unencyclopedic way, over here, in the corner, with my "creationist" cap on. Ungtss 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and now, the coup de grace, that most BRUTAL personal attack EVER articulated by a creationist:

given the choice between banishment and inquisition, i choose the former. I agree to your terms. Ungtss 18:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Alrighty then. So you've demonstrated that you think trying to come to a consensus is waste of time because your opinion of yourself being right is more important than what other editors think, that anything that touches religion in some small way like a See also link is open game for you to put your specific religious agenda in them regardless of relevance, that my pointing out that your behavior is unacceptable is the same as calling you "evil," and so forth and so on... But if you've actually banished yourself, hey, I won't argue with you. DreamGuy 05:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Good. now withdraw this farce so we can move on. Ungtss 12:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(sidenotes:)
<<you think trying to come to a consensus is waste of time because your opinion of yourself being right is more important than what other editors think>>
strawman. i was responding to the following non-sequitur of yours:
<<The people working on the actual pages end up siding with me, so I'm obviously doing things the right way.>>
"people agree with me, so i'm right." you provide no OTHER evidence that you're right. just that people agree with you. excellent application of the scientific method. but more importantly, i wonder, what does your "consensus" think of this RfC? Well, "nobody's siding with you, so you're obviously doing things the wrong way." Ungtss 12:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<anything that touches religion in some small way like a See also link is open game for you to put your specific religious agenda in them regardless of relevance>>
I find it astounding that you can say, baldfaced, that there's no nexxus between Myth and Religion. Wouldn't you say religion IS a myth? Why ELSE would genesis be quoted on the deluge (mythology) page? Ungtss 12:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<my pointing out that your behavior is unacceptable is the same as calling you "evil,">>
perhaps it's more about my "single drum campaign" to "insert religions opinions / nonsense," my penchant for "personal attacks," and this vfd:user that convinced me you don't think very highly of me.
<<But if you've actually banished yourself, hey, I won't argue with you.>>
interesting how you'd like to have it both ways. you give me an ultimatum to "get out of town," but then tell me i've "banished myself." for my part, i have BOYCOTTED creationist pages because of systemic bias, and will not return to them until i see a consensus among evolutionists to develop pages that DESCRIBE creationism, rather than simply being a constant pov war. evolutionists need to stand up to the antics of newbies like you and schroeder -- stand up for science and truth and reality -- rather than letting your blatant falsehoods slide, because i simply have better things to do than edit war with you for months on end all by myself. in the meantime, if the evolutionists want to permit your pov campaign to stand unchecked on these pages, so be it. Ungtss 13:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ...

this rfc is beginning to remind me of the grand theory of evolution. groundless assertion, devoid of any meaningful evidence to support it, thoroughly and repeatedly refuted, should have been tossed out long ago by ANY estimation of the identifiable rules, but somehow manages to survive because nobody has the courage to do the right thing and put it out of its misery, even when allowing it to remain involves direct violation of wikipedia policy articulated at the top of the rfc page. I repeat: my accusers are in direct violation of the rfc rules, having posted an rfc without providing evidence of efforts and failure to resolve the conflict, have failed to sign the page, and have failed to provide any evidence against me not subject to the doctrine of unclean hands, even 5 days after posting this farce. Healers, heal thyselves. Ungtss 03:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Explanation of withdrawal

I believe Ungtss has clearly displayed behavior that proves all of the points against him, of course the catching point is the main behavior being discussed became moot after he stopped editing the pages under dispute. He did this between the time the RfC was started (and directly as a result of knowing one was going to be written) and when it got posted. I don't believe his current behavior warrants an RfC (even though he is annoying, highly biased and insulting, it doesn't seem to effect the operation of the site), and as the intended secondary complainant, I will not sign this as written. As the primary author apparently does not want to update it (I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he might have been out of town on the weekend or something), and I'd rather just drop it as long as Ungtss is no longer defacing articles, the RfC cannot move forward, so I thought it was only right to officially withdraw it. This is not an endorsement of Ungtss' behavior nor a dispute against the priamry complainant, just a practical matter at this point. Of course if he starts defacing articles once more it will be apparent that his temporary partially good behavior was a bad faith effort to get around an aspect of the RfC process. DreamGuy 19:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

<<I believe Ungtss has clearly displayed behavior that proves all of the points against him, of course the catching point is the main behavior being discussed became moot after he stopped editing the pages under dispute.>>

if you believe that, sign the rfc. Ungtss 19:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<He did this between the time the RfC was started (and directly as a result of knowing one was going to be written) and when it got posted.>>

i did it having realized that rather than attempting to resolve your "conflict" through discussion, mediation, or arbitration, you were going to directly violate wikipedia policy and "suckerpunch" post an RfC completely devoid of any evidence to support your accusations. Ungtss 19:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<(even though he is annoying, highly biased and insulting>>

Such a paradigm of civility you are. "annoying." nice. Ungtss 19:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<(I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he might have been out of town on the weekend or something), >>

schroeder made substantial edits to other pages on every single day after he posted this farce. see his edit history. He deliberately left this out here, hollow. Ungtss 19:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<Ungtss is no longer defacing articles>>

you have failed to provide a single instance of me "defacing articles." false accusations will get you nowhere, as demonstrated here. Ungtss 19:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<Of course if he starts defacing articles once more it will be apparent that his temporary partially good behavior was a bad faith effort to get around an aspect of the RfC process.>>

perhaps next time you'll choose not to blatantly violate rfc policy, and provide some EVIDENCE, rather than only hollow ad hominem. but i'm not optimistic. Ungtss 19:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ungtss, I did not violate any RfC policy. I did attempt to work with you, several times, in fact, and we came to agreements on the Deluge (mythology) page about how to keep it balanced. The problem was that you kept violating the same things you earlier agreed to (specifically the agreed upon length for each of the three prposed theories for the myth's origins, as you constantly tried to double or triple the section for Bible believers and reduce the section on mythologists, which is especially disturbing because it specifically a page about the mythology involved), and then would escalate into personal attacks and edit wars when called on it. When you falsely claimed that I did not know what myths even were and then carried over your biased edits to the myth page to try to support yourself in the argument, your edits were resoundly rejected by consensus and an admin told me I should be filing an RfC. It was then, and only then, when you knew that this was coming, that you stopped your attacks and highly biased edits. For you to be complaining that no RfC should have been filed and that doing so violated policy is just absurd. If you have a problem with some of the technical details of the RfC, take it up with the person who wrote it instead of trying to pick something minor someone else did and throwing at me as if it somehow excuses all of your other actions. But if you want to posture and beat your chest and say whatever nonsense you want, go right ahead, just don't violate your agreement to avoid editing the pages you have proven yourself incapable of making good good judgment calls on. DreamGuy 22:47, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
<<Ungtss, I did not violate any RfC policy.>>
your first violation is in this rfc. you failed to provide any evidence to support this claim, and failed to withdraw it for 5 days. if you want to use the system to get what you want, you have to follow the rules. you utterly failed to follow the rules. your second violation is in incivility. this and the talkpage illustrates you repeatedly insulting me. you'd like to accuse me of being uncivil while being uncivil yourself, wouldn't you? Unclean hands.
<<(specifically the agreed upon length for each of the three prposed theories for the myth's origins, as you constantly tried to double or triple the section for Bible believers and reduce the section on mythologists, which is especially disturbing because it specifically a page about the mythology involved), '>>
let's review the facts, shall we?
1) we had agreed to a status quo. i never altered it.
2) berzerkerben altered the section to more toward an anti-creationist pov, breaking the status quo.[1]
3) since the status quo was broken, i left his edits, and added other factual information.[2]
4) you reverted back to HIS version, NOT the status quo.[3]
i note that YOU did not revert to the CONSENSUS, but reverted to a version that represented YOUR version more closely. I note that the text you removed was not inaccurate or unattributed or unencyclopedic. it simply represents a pov that you are afraid of and wish to have excluded from this page. your accusation is therefore patently false. Ungtss 00:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<When you falsely claimed that I did not know what myths even were and then carried over your biased edits to the myth page to try to support yourself in the argument, your edits were resoundly rejected by consensus and an admin told me I should be filing an RfC.>>
let's break this down into your individual falsehoods.
<<''When you falsely claimed that I did not know what myths even were>>
i claimed that myths were neither true nor false simply by virtue of being myths. that FACT is articulated very clearly at the top of the myth page -- an edit I made during the battle that the "consensus" deemed appropriate. you told me i was wrong. you were wrong. a quick look at myth will demonstrate that. You claim to be an expert in mythology, but if you are, you're not applying it in this situation. because you're plainly wrong. Myths may be historical or ahistorical, and still be myths. Ungtss 17:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<your biased edits to the myth pag>>
the edit in question was this[4]. Find me the bias. it is a cited summary of an academic in the field. i STILL cannot fathom where the bias is. There is no mention of religion, of creation, of ANYTHING -- it's simply a perspective on myths written by one who BELIEVES in myths. but no. we mustn't have that perspective represented. we must only represent the perspective of those who claim that all myths are false, while not acknowledging their own myth, evolution. yes. that's a reasonable approach to npov.
<<your edits were resoundly rejected by consensus>>
one. two. three. four. Where have you been, Dreamguy? there was a great deal of argument with your reverts -- in fact, you were the minority opinion. and he never suggested you do an RfC. On the contrary, he noted that YOU were using the personal insults as a substitute for countering my CITED SOURCE. He ALSO pointed out that you were using the wrong forum for your personal attacks -- and if you had a problem with me, you should have it out here, not there. you're badly misrepresenting what he said. he challenged YOU, and took it to your TALKPAGE.
<<It was then, and only then, when you knew that this was coming, that you stopped your attacks and highly biased edits.>>
you STILL haven't demonstrated attacks that came out of nowhere. I have demonstrated attacks by you that came out of nowhere. Unclean hands. And you have demonstrated NO highly biased edits. Ungtss 00:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<If you have a problem with some of the technical details of the RfC>>
It is NOT a technical detail. it is a MANDATORY element of an RfC to show that you have done YOUR job in trying to work the conflict out short of RfC, rather than suckerpunching people with RfC's out of nowhere. filling out that section demonstrates that there is MERIT to your RfC, because i have refused to negotiate or compromise. i quit FOUR DAYS before this was put up. the emptiness of that section demonstrates the failure of the RfC. Ungtss 00:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<But if you want to posture and beat your chest and say whatever nonsense you want, go right ahead, just don't violate your agreement to avoid editing the pages you have proven yourself incapable of making good good judgment calls on.>>
Excellent exhibition of civility once again. i have substantively demonstrated my claims with links and diffs. your friend schroeder is a vandal. where's my vandalism. you just keep repeating the same empty lies. who's posturing, again? Ungtss 00:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to reiterate at this point that i am boycotting creationism pages not because of this charade of a RfC, nor for any other reason than this one: i am profoundly tired of educating scores of grown men in the basics of logic, history, philosophy, science, and the content of their own edits, while being forced to tolerate their profound arrogance, personal insults, and RfCs. Ungtss 18:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And we're tired of you thinking you need to try to educate us when you have little to no solid background in the areas under dispute and your actions are little better than outright vandalism. Comments like the above just prove that your bias is such that you are incapable of making useful NPOV edits to the articles in question. DreamGuy 19:29, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
and your penchant for deliberately ignoring my step-by-step refutation of your every error and outright falsehood is why i'm not wasting my time with you anymore. Ungtss 19:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Mr. Schroeder

I note that you've signed it after over a week without comment. I wonder, Mr. Schroeder, what is your stated goal for this RfC? What would you like to achieve? If you don't respond here (as you haven't bothered to respond to anything in over a week except throwing out groundless and fully refuted accusations of sockpuppetry), then I'll take it that your sole goal is to "get me." I wonder. Don't you have better things to do with your time? Ungtss 16:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This RfC is for making this discussion something reasonable, not to 'get you'. --Neigel von Teighen 23:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
what do you mean "make this discussion something reasonable?" discussion toward what end? that's my question. what does the author of this RfC want out of it? Ungtss 01:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well i guess that settles it. it appears nobody here has any interest in following the rules or in discussion to resolve the alleged "conflict," discussing the PROVEN vandalism of the accuser, the doctrine of unclean hands, the fact that i have never defaced an article, ever, PERIOD, and my alleged acts of vandalism include the introduction of cited scholars in the FIELD. We just want to get all the creationists over a barrel by RfCing in direct violation of policy and then being totally silent about all of our flagrant violations of the rules. But we have the majority (for the moment), so that's okay. Ahh ... the joys of moral relativism. Ungtss 15:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First, I see you don't understand what's the rfc for. The RfC is not a battlefield: it's a place where both parties show what they want to say when uncivility rules in discussions. We might discuss if it's useful or not (I really think it should be improved by someway), but it's the first step in WP's dispute resolution system.
Second, Mr. Schroeder doesn't vandalizes articles (nor you). He's editing them and that edits are uncomfortable to you and that's it. You can't call him a vandal because he doesn't add nonsense (e.g. vuagsjkshjklj) as we don't call you a vandal. There's an opinion problem that has turned out into a personal one. --Neigel von Teighen 20:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<The RfC is not a battlefield: it's a place where both parties show what they want to say when uncivility rules in discussions.>>
This RfC is composed entirely of accusations against me -- accusations which happen to be utterly false, including the utter silliness of accusing me of flying around the world to sockpuppet, without any evidence to support his ignorant claims, and the refusal to withdraw those disgusting allegations. there are accusations of incivility and pov pushing which both fall to the doctrine of unclean hands, as illustrated by DreamGuy's unprovoked slew of insults against me which are documented step by step. this is not and has never been a "forum for discussion" -- this is a criminal proceeding posted by a user who has renamed articles in order to mock me, as detailed on the RfC i put up on him. as to "both parties saying things," Schroeder has said absolutely nothing since he posted this tripe. his manifest purpose in this rfc is putting up accusations against me. that was your manifest purpose too, in "coming to get me" four days after i boycotted, and ostensibly BECAUSE i boycotted, which you apparently thought was a sin at some point, as illustrated at the top of this talk page. Ungtss 01:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<but it's the first step in WP's dispute resolution system.>>
no, the first step in WP's dispute resolution system is "failed efforts to resolve the conflict." evidence of that step is REQUIRED before an RfC. You and your "client" skipped that step. This "conflict" was resolved four days before you posted this rfc, because i boycotted. You took my boycott as reason to "post the RfC NOW!!!" And you were the only person to sign this tripe for over a week, despite the fact that you were totally uninvolved in the conflict and know absolutely nothing about the issues involved, or mr. schroeder's multi-month long pov campaign on the creationism pages. Ungtss 01:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<He's editing them and that edits are uncomfortable to you and that's it.>>
We're BOTH editing, BOTH of our edits are uncomfortable to each OTHER, and THAT'S it. Schroeder has an identifiable agenda for these pages. look at his contributions and see if he does anything but suppress the ideas on the creationism pages. Ungtss 01:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<Mr. Schroeder doesn't vandalizes articles>>
have you seen the clear and undeniable evidence of his vandalism on his RfC? He retitles PAGES after users in order to chuckle to himself. You can't see the other things he's done because the pages are deleted. But you can see the evidence of his anti-creationist pov campaign on the pages. Look at User:Ungtss/FACTS if you'd like to see an alternative. Ungtss 01:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<There's an opinion problem that has turned out into a personal one.>>
yes. that's what i told you from the beginning. i told you on template talk: creationism that i was too angry with him to communicate rationally with him, and so i was withdrawing from the discussion. and AFTER i withdrew from the discussion, you thought it would be a grand idea to rfc with all sorts of silly accusations about incivility. Ungtss 01:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bensaccount weighs in

this from the man who:

1) Introduced himself to the creation vs. evolution debate by redirecting the page to ignorance. [5]
2)called me a moron in our first conversation, in which HE initiated a debate with me[6]
3) insisted that similarity and relationship are synonyms [7]
4) told me the middle east was in the southern USA [8]
5) and then called me a moron for disagreeing with him [9]

Passive aggressive? It seems bensaccount has a new vocab word, ala "false dichotomy." In any event, better to be passive aggressive and right than overtly aggressive, insulting, demeaning, and utterly wrong. Ungtss 13:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your objection to 1, 2, and 4, but in 3 he was being sarcastic. He was mistaken in apparently thinking that creationism isn't common in many Middle East countries (as is geocentrism, and much else), but that's another matter. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That was my initial impression ... that it must have been sarcasm of some form ... but i couldn't figure out what the sarcasm could have been about, so i concluded that he must have been at least half serious. what's his point there? Any ideas? Ungtss 13:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He thought that cerationism was only found in the southern U.S. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
so the sentence in question, "In some places, such as the Middle East, creationism is universal" didn't tip him off. I see. thanks:). Ungtss 13:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

5 Minutes later I made another edit. [10] Relationship and similarity are synonyms -- irrelevant but another example of your refusal to admit the truth. "Some places like" is a weasel term. Bensaccount 23:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid statements like "your refusal to admit the truth" in your postings. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Samboy 21:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
in reverting your own vandalism, you snuck in another bit of vandalism: [11]. Don't kid yourself. You're a vandal. Yes I got angry at you, but I got angry at you because YOU are a vandal that just won't go away. The link you provided is a perfect example, not of vandalism, but of being a pov warrior for nonsense. you made claims to fact that you couldn't back with a SINGLE scholar, and just keep forcing them back onto the page for MONTHS, despite TOTAL consensus against you ... and I got mad, and said some things I shouldn't. But I repeat. You are a vandal. I have never EVER vandalized a page. I have only gotten angry with you for your vandalism and rampant pov violations. So you have no credibility. get some before you start testifying against people who reverted your proven vandalism and nonsense for months on end, eh? Ungtss 14:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please avoid statements like "You are a vandal" and "you have no credibility" in your postings. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Samboy 21:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My edits were all made in an effort to improve the page. I always explained my edits. I am not a vandal. I assume the same for you, and don't consider you a vandal. Bensaccount 17:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who makes edits like this one has engaged in vandalism. Samboy 20:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dont think it should matter seeing as five minutes later I changed it back. And your fanciful labeling of various statements as personal attacks is shallow and uninformed. If your purpose is to make Ungtss and I appear equally barbaric, you should say so. Then it would be obvious who is making personal attacks. Bensaccount 21:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is my labelling of personal attacks "shallow and uninformed"? Please support your argument. Samboy 21:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because personal attacks are not black and white. Everything can be thought of as a personal attack to some extent. The difference is that some statements are more offensive than others. Bensaccount 21:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<Please avoid statements like "You are a vandal" and "you have no credibility" in your postings>>
my apologies. i really need to learn how to control my emotions in this regard:(. Ungtss 22:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just try and focus on something worthwhile. ie: a certain statement has no credibility. If you honestly think I have no credibility as a person, I would like to know. I will not be insulted. Bensaccount 22:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<verything can be thought of as a personal attack to some extent.>>
vandalism, however, is vandalism, and you've engaged in it. i have no problem with your personal attacks against me -- i consider them to be part of the game. i certainly wouldn't rfc you for them -- shoot -- i didn't even rfc you for your vandalism. but it irks me to find people who have vandalized pages and personally attacked me testifying against me on my rfc. hypocrisy makes me very angry. Ungtss 22:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When I made that edit, I thought there was really no such debate, so the page should not exist. I later realized that maybe there was such a debate but only among the ignorant. At no point was I delibrately trying to cause damage.

I do not consider personal attacks "part of the game". I never try to personally attack you.

How could my statement that similarity and relationship are synonyms and you are again refusing to admit it possibly be a personal insult? Bensaccount 22:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for calling the edit in question vandalism. You corrected the edit within five minutes, and made an honest mistake. If I made any direct or indirect personal attacks against you (or any othe rparty in this debate), I apologize for that also. I understand that the creationism vs. evolution debate is one where people become extremely emotional; I know someone who will not talk to his own brother because one is a YEC and the other is an non-theisic evolutionist. As a result, I think it is natural for people to lock horns here. My viewpoint is this: While I'm not a YEC, a good many people are (45% of Americans, I think), and I think the relevent creationist pages should respect their viewpoint, even if I personally consider the beliefs ignornant. Samboy 05:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<When I made that edit, I thought there was really no such debate, so the page should not exist.>>

if you think a page shouldn't exist, you put it up for vfd. you redirected to ignorance, and then changed the intro to "debate between the ignorant." that's vandalism. Ungtss 22:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<I never try to personally attack you.>>

you called me a moron a number of times. that's a personal attack. Ungtss 22:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
Bensaccount: The fact that you don't understand the difference between 'similarity' and 'relationship' isn't the point. Even the fact that you insisted on your mistake (without even bothering to look up the two words in a dictionary) isn't the point. The fact that you called Ungtss a moron for not accepting your mistake is the point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All synonyms have slightly different connotations. I never said it was a perfect synonym. Read carefully what Samboy called the personal attack. Anyways, you have not been given the whole story on the moron remark. Here is it in context:

proof by assertion, authority, ad hominem attack, and evasion:). it's okay:). we're used to it:). Ungtss 22:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And anyone that thinks listing fields of study qualifies as evidence is not answering the question. Philip J. Rayment 00:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Again, im going to stress the point that these are entire FIELDS OF RESEARCH and you are arguing them with a single sentence, and the sentence is not even a complete thought. Moron. Bensaccount 22:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I use the word moron here because if you refuse to demonstrate any logic, insight, or knowledge in your "argument" then I have to lower myself to your level which is in essense just namecalling. Bensaccount 22:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know it is low, but there is such a thing as extreme stupidity, it is not only a means of personal attack. For example if someone blatently goes out and tells me that all of biology is wrong, and then says my refusal to admit it is proof by authority, I think that person qualifies as a moron. Bensaccount 22:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

so because you think i really AM a moron, it's okay to call me one. and because you think everyone in the debate (on both sides) is ignorant makes it okay to redirect to ignorance. okay. thanks. carry on. Ungtss 23:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I am going to add this to my rfc section. Bensaccount 23:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<All similies have slightly different connotations.>>

Next up: the difference between a simile and a synonym, and the difference between a connotation and a definition:(. Ungtss 14:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-typo Bensaccount 16:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) You won't admit this will you. Heres a page dedicated to it [[12]]. Bensaccount 17:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

your onelook definition of a synonym is correct: synonyms by definition may be used interchangeably in a context. similarity and relationship do not fall under that definition. To say, "I am similar to my brother" and "i am related to my brother" is to say two entirely different things. Ungtss 14:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
They are synonyms. As usual you are wrong. I have nothing more to say on the subject. Bensaccount 19:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<For example if someone blatently goes out and tells me that all of biology is wrong, and then says my refusal to admit it is proof by authority, I think that person qualifies as a moron.>>

i would agree. perhaps if there was someone in this discussion who thought that "all of biology is wrong," that would mean something. Oddly, however, I don't know anybody here who would disagree about the structure of the cell, the nature of mitochondrial dna, or the process of variation and natural selection. the only disagreement here is over "are all living things on the planet related to each other through our distant ancestor the primordial ooze?" If i'm a moron for continuing to ask that question until there is definitive evidence to prove it, and holding that similarity and relationship are not synonyms, so be it. Ungtss 15:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In this case I didn't necessarily have you in mind. I was just giving an example of when I would no longer consider that someone's arguments have enough intelligence to make them worth discussing. Bensaccount 16:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In your case, anyone who thinks an incomplete sentence like "similarity does not = ancestry" defeats three entire fields of scientific research is either hopelessly stupid or is delibrately blinding himself. Bensaccount 16:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i never said they "defeated three entire fields of research." that was a strawman of your making. embryology is a great field in which a great deal of research is being done. however, your misapplication of that field of research by saying that because embryos look similar they were related is absolutely false and easily dispatched, even with a sentence fragment. just because things look similar doesn't mean they're related. period. i am neither a moron, hopelessly stupid, nor deliberately blinding myself. i am right. Ungtss 18:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think it is more likely that all of the fields I mentioned each of which have vast amounts of evidence supporting the theory of evolution are the correct ones while you are just unable to comprehend the issue. Bensaccount 18:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

original version, before he decided to rewrite history:
I tend to think it is more likely that all of the fields I mentioned each of which have vast amounts of evidence supporting the theory of evolution are the correct ones while you are just a moron. Bensaccount 18:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Apologise for and strike out things that you regret, by all means, but don't just delete them, especially when someone else (me in this case) has referred to them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hope your rfc comes to some important decision because I will no longer deal with Ungtss for you. I quit. Bensaccount 20:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, in fact you weren't 'dealing with Ungtss' for me or anyone. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I have just been arguing with him for much too long. I apologise for losing my temper and resorting to namecalling; there are better ways to resolve our differences. Bensaccount 04:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss to Bensaccount (talk:creation science): "then don't waste time with arguments you yourself know are stupid. Ungtss 01:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Bensaccount 05:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[13] Ungtss 05:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was taken uut of context. [[14]]Bensaccount 15:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ungtss' personal attacks on talk:creation science

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

i note, in passing, that this rfc is closed and so mr. bensaccount is not authorized to edit this page, which is intended to be an archive and only an archive. i don't mind tho, considering none of the above constitute personal attacks. Ungtss 02:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Ungtss_af9e.html"