Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush (second RFC)

Note for the first RFC on Cush see Requests for comment/Cush

Statement of the dispute
has consistently been uncivil, and refused to assume good faith. He has repeatedly committed personal attacks against me, specifically "I have disqualified myself form contributing in a discussion." I am concerned over Cush's aggressive responses to anyone he perceives as being of of Religious faith

Desired outcome
I (User:Weaponbb7) would like to see Cush Reprimanded for these acusations and violations in whatever way this forum sees fit. Whether that means a block, a stern warning or a Zero-tolerance policy for future edits.

Description
During the move discussion, utilized a statement from my freshmen anthropology text book on the use creation stories as explanations for the existence of the universe. Cush then stated my statement came from "complete scientific illiteracy" and accused me from being the creationism corner. After reviewing my options, i put a warning message on being uncivil on his talk page. I contacted User:John Carter (an Admin who i personally trust) about his thoughts on it; I also added his name to my subpage of Users i watch. After viewing his edits through the link on my subpage, i discovered his concerns on User:Dougweller's talk page and copied and pasted an edited statement of my concerns on John Carter's talk page. I upon viewing the Genesis talk page again i noticed his statements to User:Vaughan Pratt which i found agin a personal attack accusing  "(religious) fundamentalism platform." I issued again a waring (In full disclosure I have since found that edit predated my warning during the writing of this page). I have issued to more warnings regarding his conduct.

Evidence from previous RFC

 * 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."

Evidence of Uncivil behavior since previous RFC listing

 * 16:48, 13 November 2009 | "Are you some Sockpuppet of Rktect?"
 * 19:32, 8 December 2009 |" the rule-riders here don't care for accuracy, just for appeal to the masses."
 * 14:31, 12 December 2009 | Being loud does not make you right. You have been told many times that "Hebrew Bible" does NOT refer to bible published in the Hebrew language. And in the Tanakh the name Yahweh is ubiquitous. "
 * 20:25, 12 December 2009 | "This petty bitching is beyond me. Or are you just one of those who do not want to see the deity's name spelled out publicly"
 * 13:51, 15 December 2009 | "This article DOES read like a rabid, fanboi description. And it features no description of the actual singing abilities (or rather lack thereof) in comparison to real opera singers."
 * 11:12, 16 December 2009 | "The whole concept of Chosen People in fact is a racist ideology." "And Jews descending from Jacob is only fundamentalist doctrine but not necessarily to be taken seriously"
 * 12:07, 17 December 2009 | "even if the Conquest of Canaan is not likely historical, the attitude behind the slaughter story is indicative of the character of the Jewish deity and those who adhere to it. "
 * 15:25, 18 December 2009 | "Please save us your religionist propaganda. The bible is no history book and it is no reliable source for anything."
 * 20 December 2009 | "The conclusion is that the bible does not accurately render history, but rather was made up much later to create a somewhat glorious past for Jews. That wouldn't be so bad if this weren't the basis of the abrahamic religions and all the ignorance and bloodshed that they cause until this very day."
 * 19:08, 23 December 2009 | "Oh please, Kitchen is a Pentecostalist. He's nothing but another fundamentalist Christian who tries to match findings with the Bible at all cost"
 * 00:02, 3 January 2010|"The record is devoid of any evidence for such a period. This article should be deleted as it only represents religious POV and has no roots in actual history"
 * 19:39, 27 January 2010 | "And please don't use Kitchen as a source, he's a Christian fundamentalist who will say anything to make the biblical story appear true. "
 * 6:37, 3 February 2010 | "Well, changing "creation myth" to "creation account" makes it real. That is the religionists' purpose. "
 * 14:27, 3 February 2010 | "Well, it is the religious who term everyone -ists to demean them, to imply a similarly uncompromizing adherence to ideology as they themselves hold. Religionists are those folks who believe to posses*s all the answers. Exactly those who think that Genesis *is* an account (i.e. a description of actual events) and not some myth (some made-up stuff). "
 * 11:03, 13 February 2010 | "So here we go with stereotypical creationist rant. "
 * 11:33, 13 February 2010 | If you just stick to what you have reliable sources to, you are safe. Because the religionists never have reliable sources. You don't have to be judgmental.
 * 16:45, 14 February 2010 |"@Templeknight: Ok, this last comment disqualified you from the discussion. You are scientifically illiterate. Either come up with substantial sources or leave this article and its discussion alone."
 * 06:19, 20 February 2010 |"The Genesis creation narrative is one told by people who didn't know any better."
 * 00:15, 22 February 2010 |"ENOUGH'. @Weaponbb7: That is a statement coming from complete scientific illiteracy. The Big Bang theory is a scientific model based on tons of evidence while Genesis is just a story in a book. We will not have this kind of talk here out of the creationism corner. This is not YouTube but an encyclopdia and we use reliable sources, and not the bullshit coming out of the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, or any other such organization that will twist and turn everything to make creationist teachings appear scientific and real science appear as uncertain or false. This is no platform for creationism and biblical literalism. So take your wrong comparisons elsewhere"
 * 17:09, 22 February 2010 |"And as for the content: Wikipedia is not a platform for creationist nonsense, which you obviously seek to introduce. Saying that the Genesis creation narrative is as scientifically sound as the Big Bang Theory then you have disqualified yourself from taking part in the article discussion."
 * 18:33, 22 February 2010 |"I caught you lying and told you that your position is invalid. However, claiming that Genesis has the same standing as a scientific theory is an attack on the intellectual integrity of everyone who has made it past high school (or the non-US equivalent). Such a position is only held by people who put faith over fact. But that is not encyclopedic."
 * 19:39, 22 February 2010 |"you can see the sheer amount of useless talk on this page, can't you? And what is the reason for this? Faith. Fundamentalist faith. Is that the way to maintain an encyclopedia?"
 * 20:04, 22 February 2010 |"And there is another thing also: religious editors are in a COI when it comes to editing articles about issues of their faith. It is unlikely that a religious editor will ever write anything that may endanger his/her positions of faith, becasue it would mean that they invalidate themselves and their real-life weltanschauung"

Recent Discovery
User Box created by Cush, currently up for Deletion [Closed as G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject

Applicable policies and guidelines
WP:POV WP:CIVIL WP:AGF WP:NPA

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
User talk:Cush User talk:Cush

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
This writer insists on pushing his religion (atheism, see his User Page) on everyone else. He argues as a religious fanatic, who is completely intolerant of other religions. See the "Criticism" section of Talk: Haredi Judaism where he not only makes nasty comments about the "Abrahamic faiths", but argues that the group, one of the two major groups of traditional religious Jews is a "fringe group" and therefore should not have its own page. Haredim are important in Israeli politics, and Israeli politics is obsessed over by the Western world, so this is quite strange; the editor is basically saying that a group is not notable because he hates them.Mzk1 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My observation has been that this summary is accurate. Cush should understand that Wikipedia is not a free-for-all battleground like Usenet used to be in the 80s and 90s.  Really, all we have to do here is stick to citing other authors' opinions, and refrain from inserting our own as much as possible, and everything should be fine.


 * 1) Wikipedia policy says: "Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted."
 * 2) Cush states (for example): "I am equally allergic to vain and empty religions such as Judaism, that are built on the ill imagination of fanatics." No block, no retraction, and the RFC was closed without a word.  There definitely seems to be a greater tolerance for attacks against people's religion, than there'd be if he had said something comparable about someone's race, nationality or sexual identity.
 * 3) Then there is actually a user below, who avers that he "cannot detect any incivility" in these comments! (Call that civil, I must be blind.)
 * 4) Cush's block record, for an incident in June 2008, states as follows: "a 1 week block, lifting a bit early. Long-term editor -and the insult was an isolated incident. Editor states that it won't happen again".
 * Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Full Disclosure by certifying editor Weaponbb7
In correctly gave one extra warning as disclosed above. As my User page ackknoleges i am a christian however i am not a "fundamentalist" or "creationist." Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of my alleged POV pushing
This Is a Requests for Comments this is not Arbitration committee. I find reoccurring issues with Cush's inflammatory statements, had any of these statement been used had replaced one these words with N or s this kind of behavior would have not be tolerated or defended. I am not hear to promote a ban of this fellow i came to for RFC, and i said that any action this RFC come decides i will accept. Even if its a reprimand on me. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2010 (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.''

Not so much an outside view just an opinion
I personally don't favor Cush's manner of discussion but don't feel it is any worse than the majority of editors in an NPOV dispute nor does it cross the line of WP:NPA at worst maybe closing admin should suggest cush read WP:DICK. But I digress. I'm more here to say that in reviewing the discussion(s) that lead to this RFC I think it's misguided at best and in bad faith at worst. Nefariousski (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally let it be noted that the editor submitting this RFC is now making so far unfounded claims of Anti-Semitism against Cush on the talk page of this very RFC! If this doesn't pass the duck test for a bad faith RFC and even stand in violation of WP:NPA I don't know what does.  Nefariousski (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He is made what I would classify as antisemtic remarks on Talk pages before (eg: Haredi Judaism). I don't think the accusation is unfounded by any means. Masterhomer 06:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Please show the talk pages / diffs etc...  You can't make such a defamatory claim without showing the evidence.  Nefariousski (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (I am a different user.) I discussed the anti-semitic aspects of the comments on the talk pages here. I am not sure there is a way to show it without looking at the whole discussion.Mzk1 (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Hand That Feeds
While Cush has a habit of being blunt, his overall behavior isn't atypical for someone stuck in an NPOV dispute. At worst, a caution to restrain himself is all I could see necessary, as he hasn't crossed the line into personal attacks per WP:NPA.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Bzuk
This is not a particularly virulent set of arguments, nor do I detect the incivility that is cited in the posted statements. I would further say that I am more sympathetic to User:Cush in dealing with what I see is a POV-push/campaign. FWiW

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Bzuk (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC).

Outside view by EGMichaels
Although Cush does have an agenda, he is at least refreshingly up front about it. I think that the RfC here was certainly in good faith, but at most Cush should be reminded that there are intelligent and educated people with points of view other than his own (something we all need to keep in mind).

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) EGMichaels (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2010 (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.<!--

Do not comment below. Please read the instructions above.