Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush

Note for the second RFC on Cush see Requests for comment/Cush (second RFC)



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
User:Cush has consistently been uncivil, and refused to assume good faith. He has explicitly stated that religious editors should not be allowed to edit articles related to religious subjects because of a perceived conflict of interest, and he has engaged in personal attacks against editors who disagree with him. After exhaustive attempts to convince him to stop this behavior on article talk pages, you can see the talk page discussion on his user page as of 14:37, 4 November 2009 here. Three editors have attempted to reason with him on his user talk page without any sign of success.

Desired outcome
I would like to see Cush accept that his view on religion isn't undisputed fact. That religious editors are as capable of NPOV editing as anyone else. That there is no "religionist conspiracy" at Wikipedia. And I'd like to see him tone down his aggressive editing style.

Description
User:Cush has consistently been uncivil, and refused to assume good faith. He has explicitly stated that religious editors should not be allowed to edit articles related to religious subjects because of a perceived conflict of interest, and he has engaged in personal attacks against editors who disagree with him. After exhaustive attempts to convince him to stop this behavior on article talk pages, you can see the talk page discussion on his user page as of 14:37, 4 November 2009 here. Three editors have attempted to reason with him on his user talk page without any sign of success.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * 20:25, 19 August 2009 "Lisa only suggests this name change to keep out material she does not like due to her religionist disposition"
 * 07:08, 20 August 2009 "Lisa is widely known to manipulate articles to render a religion-friendly POV. She has been warned about that so many times it ain't even funny anymore." (this was a fabrication)
 * 15:40, 20 August 2009 "when it comes to historicity religiously motivated publishers are in a COI"
 * 20:37, 20 August 2009 "Reliable sources for the historicity of anything are scientific sources. That excludes all publications by religious institutions or religiously motivated individuals"
 * 18:10, 9 September 2009 "anyone who has really read the bible and has an IQ above 5 will instantly recognize that it is a big fat lie", "religionists like you who may have "reliable sources" on their side but just no common sense or logic"
 * 05:09, 10 September 2009 "you fail to admit your COI when it comes to biblical history"
 * 18:34, 18 September 2009 "Religious people are in a COI when it comes to historical accuracy"
 * 14:18, 27 September 2009 "nutjob who ever wrote about this"
 * 12:42, 4 October 2009 "there is no such thing as a 'Jewish people'"
 * 16:37, 4 October 2009 "religionist POV"
 * 20:31, 9 October 2009 "Because she is the Lisa Liel who is well known on WP for her uncompromising adherence to the God in Judaism. She does not want that god to be presented as the killer that it is described as in the Bible"
 * 09:34, 19 October 2009 "Welcome to Wikipedia and its many endorsements of Jewish POVs"
 * 17:09, 26 October 2009 "Divine intolerance towards dissent"
 * 14:44, 30 October 2009 "digging up very old shit"
 * 21:25, 2 November 2009 "Read the fucking Bible"
 * 13:42, 3 November 2009 "Lisa is always Lisa", "Your Lisa-fundamentalism shows. As usual"
 * 17:28, 3 November 2009 "I am equally allergic to vain and empty religions such as Judaism, that are built on the ill imagination of fanatics", "Realigion never produces accuracy"
 * 21:28, 3 November 2009 "I do not expect Jewish sources to be honest about that"
 * 22:08, 3 November 2009 "I consider its adherents to be either unaware of the peculiarities of that deity or inhuman."

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:POV
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:NPA

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Talk page discussion as of 14:37, 4 November 2009 here.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * Talk page discussion as of 14:37, 4 November 2009 here.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * 1) Lisa (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * 1) This seems accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I interacted with him about a year and a half ago on Talk:Septuagint, it doesn't seems like his behavior has changed. This summary looks accurate.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Full Disclosure by certifying editor Lisa

 * 19:03, 9 October 2009 provocation
 * 19:47, 9 October 2009 I made an uncivil comment
 * 20:04, 9 October 2009 I removed the comment 17 minutes after making it
 * 21:29, 9 October 2009 I was blocked for 24 hours

I make no excuses for my incivility. I was frustrated at Cush for insulting me on my talk page after a long line of similar insults on article talk pages, and I lost my cool. I did not contest the block, and I hope that my ill-considered response will be seen in its context and not used as a reason to excuse Cush's pattern of poor behavior.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -Lisa (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) This also seems accurate. I hope that Lisa apologized to Cush for her incivility. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''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.''

Outside view by MacMed
Though Lisa did make an uncivil comment, Cush is really at fault here. There seems to be a major issue underlying his edit's, which give him an extreme prejudice against editors that are religious, and who edit articles about said religion. I would suggest that Cush take some time off and realize that his views are not absolute. While they are perfectly acceptable as long as he keeps them to himself, he should not allow those views to affect his editing. Currently, it is evident that his views are affecting his edits, judging from the summaries shown above. To be honest, Cush is being somewhat hypocritical. He claims that religious editors allow their beliefs to affect their editing so much as to make an article POV, when that very assumption is making his summaries uncivil, rude, and completely unnecessary.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) MacMedtalk stalk  22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) John Carter (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC) - Sums it up wonderfully. If the editor has reservations about COI of others, there are existing ways and places to express concerns regarding same, but he does not seem to use them.
 * 3) serious misuse of edit summaries  DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm surprised Cush wasn't sanctioned for his statement at 18:10, 9 September 2009 -- which is clearly a personal attack. -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Attacks on a faith group as per the edit summaries is never welcome on Wikipedia.  The continued attacks on the specific editor - also not welcome. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 19:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an 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.