Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel575

In order to remain listed at 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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
The dispute centres around behavior by Daniel575 such as lack of civility and personal attacks.

Personal attacks

 * Brains of a fish
 * Your brain is in your behind
 * The administrators involved are ignorant idiots
 * you make a total idiot/fool out of yourself

Civility

 * You should perish instantly for your wicked deeds
 * Stop bitching
 * Quit this crazy behavior

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:Civility
 * WP:NPA

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * Historian2
 * Addhoc
 * --Nixer

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Yossiea
 * Elizmr unnecessarily uncivil editor Elizmr 17:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Meshulam:Meshulam--Meshulam 14:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cowman109 Talk 01:17, 27 October 2006 (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.'' ''

No cooperation from my side is to be expected. The accusations are pure slander, inciting lies and attempts by Historian2 to neutralize any opposition to his POV attitude. I refuse any further cooperation. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Danezra
''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.''

From what I see, the "sanhedrin" topic is one that has incited a lot of controversy on the net. Daniel's main point in the discussion page was that it is not appropriate to use Internet forums or hear-say rumors as sources for the article without first verying the facts with real authoritative sources. His concern on this matter is very well-taken by the author of this review and I hope some major improvements will be done on the article. Most of historian2's contributions to the article were taken directly from the website of the organization in question (thesanhedrin.org) and they are therefore neither objective nor reliable. Regarding historian2's claim that Daniel has personally attacked him, I have not noticed any of that. There might have been some unpleasant talk in the discussion page, but not to the point that it is being claimed; and this is normal due to the controversial nature of the topic.--Danezra | 16:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Danezra

Outside view by JoshuaZ
Daniel575 definitely has a personal attack problem and civility problem and indeed has what may be some of the most interesting curses I have ever seen on Wikipedia. You should perish instantly for your wicked deeds seems to be a translation and modification of a common statement in certain orthodox prayers (most commonly stated as roughly "may the wicked perish instantly in our days" and similar remarks). I have never however seen anyone use such a statement in their regular mode of speech. More directly on topic, a large number of the articles related to ultra-orthodoxy/charedi topics have many different uncivil POV pushers on all sides. In terms of POV issues Daniel has some issues but not nearly as bad as some others on these topics. Indeed, given that he is associated with Edah HaChareidis but is willing to use the internet is itself an indication of at least potential reasonability and flexibility. If in the future he can stick to WP:NPOV and WP:NPA then I don't think there will be any further issues. I am however worried by his above statement that "No cooperation from my side is to be expected. The accusations are pure slander, inciting lies and attempts by Historian2 to neutralize any opposition to his POV attitude. I refuse any further cooperation." which does not bode well about the chance that this RfC will be at all productive. JoshuaZ 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Andrew c
 * 2) Willem Huberts
 * 3) Suggest Daniel575 takes a break from controversial Judaism-related topics. David Mestel(Talk) 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Meshulam
I don't know what my role is here (if I have one), but since many of the above comments were directed at me, I feel like I have an obligation to speak. Daniel575 has stated on numerous occasions that he does not consider wikipedia rules concerning verifiability to be relevant to his articles because there are no print sources that discuss Hassidic and Hareidi Judaism. Of course, this statement is false. Rather than search for relevant and acceptable verification for some of the claims he makes (whose accuracy I seriously have doubted in some instances), Daniel575 complains that the rules shouldn't apply to him, and gets very hostile if pressed on the subject, leading in one instance to him telling me that I should perish instantly for my deeds. Regarding POV, when Daniel575 becomes convinced that his rendition of a subject is the correct one (the "Truth" as SlimVirgin called it), he becomes unwavering, despite any protests that his opinion is essentially POV. Some of the edit wars regarding Neturei Karta are great examples of this tendency. Furthermore, one only needs look at the Daniel575's own talk page to see some of the strange slander he has engaged in. Specifically, look at the section entitled Neturei Karta, where he goes on a diatribe for several lines hurling strange insults at Zionists (after having labeled me a Zionist). Among the said insults, he said that they (and presumeably that included me as well) are the source of all impurity in the world. It goes without saying that this behavior is not standard Wikipedia behavior. --Meshulam 02:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * His recent edit (as in, this morning) in the Modern attempts to revive the sanhedrin article is an example of the above. Despite consensus, he pushes his view. He refuses to engage in a meaningful discussion on the talk-page, because he isn't interested in consensus. --Meshulam 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is another example: Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman. He admits that he is essentially violating wp:OR, but he insists that he should be allowed to because if we were to do it my way (follow Wikipedia policy) we wouldn't have any articles. This is the my-way-or-the-highway attitude that makes him such a destructive influence here on Wikipedia. Any constructive effect he has on articles is mitigated and then some by his negative affect on the Wikipedia process. I am not an admin, but I think he should be banned. On this page, we have warned and warned and warned, and he continues to behave this way. He is not interested in "learning his lesson" or being a civil contributor here. He should go.--Meshulam 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Yossiea
I just want to add that I know Daniel from another website and he has the same MO as he is showing here. Rules do not apply to him. If you disagree with his opinion, out comes the ad hominem attacks. The website I knew him from banned him for his behavior. In several articles, not just the Sanhedrin one, he plays the "my way or the highway" game. He thinks OR is allowed when it suits him (ala, Rabbi Ulman telling him something) and when he is questioned he gets all nasty. Wikipedia is founded on the principle that together we can make great pages, we don't need a bully around. See here:

See the talk page for more info:. Yossiea 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you again delete the remarks by Rav Ulman, I will delete all references to the Chareidi gedolim ever having supported this thing.
 * And please see the entire discussion where he claims that if a newspaper doesn't meet his views, it's not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * Here's a link to the talk page of the HaEdah_HaCharedis where OR is being presented and pushed.
 * Also, one item that should be mentioned is Daniel's statements above, read it and you will see that he feels he is above the rules, above criticism, etc.


 * I just wanted to add that another problem is that he scares off users from editing. People are not in the mood of getting into edit wars or discussions with Daniel so they just let him have his way. In this way, Wiki is bullied into having Daniel's version of an entry. This I think is a very big problem, probably more than Daniel's name calling. Yossiea 13:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by IZAK
I have two comments: My first comment is in response to User:Daniel575's refusal to co-operate with this Requests for comment, something bordering on "contempt of court" and an insult to the broader Wikipedia community which is giving him the golden chance to defend himself up-front-and-center here. It is a serious matter and I urge him and anyone who can influence him positively, for his sake, to co-operate fully here and state his case as comprehensively as he can without attacking anyone. He needs to specify the context of his disputed behavior, a brief apology of misunderstanding would be good no doubt according to all, and to answer all the citations made against him by others. My second comment is that User:Daniel575 does have good information and writing skills to add to articles relating to Jews and Judaism and to Haredi Judaism in particular. He is something of a self-annointed "firebrand" or "zealot" (kanoi in Hebrew) whose bark is worse than his bite, but nevertheless while patience has been extended to him, he in turn must find a way of working within "the system" at Wikipedia. (A similar situation may be when a Haredi Jew drives on the roads anywhere together with the rest of the non-Jewish world, while he may not like the surrounding cultures, he is nevertheless obligated and expected and must abide by the rules of the road.) IZAK 09:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) gidonb 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) מענה-רך ישיב חמה ודבר-עצב יעלה-אף...Tom e rtalk 05:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Cowman109
From my observations, there are clearly hostility issues at play here. My suggestion to Daniel575 would be to step back from heated discussions and remember WP:COOL. Getting upset over Wikipedia won't do any good, and this sort of subtle hostility towards other editors is simply unproductive and unhelpful, if anything. Editors need to promote a positive environment by assuming good faith of one another and not resorting to personal attacks or snide remarks. If there is no improvement in the situation, I would suggest a request for arbitration to get a binding decision on this matter, as there clearly is a long term problem here. Cowman109 Talk 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Cowman109 Talk 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Torinir ( Ding my phone   My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) JoshuaZ 15:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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.