Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cush (second RFC)

Poorly handled at best

Submitting editor (Weaponbb7) took it upon himself to publish notifications of this RFC on talk page of articles Cush is currently involved with. Please note that while the majority of editors on said talk page don't necessarily endorse his brashness, his opinion and statements have been in line with policy and consensus. Editor (Lisa) submitting initial RFC began a bit of a witch-hunt this morning as well by posting a rant against Cush on Talk:Genesis creation myth. If anything this RFC should be redirected to the article in question instead of one of its more outspoken editors. Nefariousski (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this not about Talk:Genesis creation myth it is about WP:NPA violations by Cush. neither did Lisa start a "witch hunt" i was considering this yesterday before Lisa even came by the talkpage. this is not a witch hunt for atheists who disagree with my POV Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not about Talk:Genesis creation myth then you'll kindly remove your posting of the RFC link on that page. Nefariousski (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point is mute archived by admin Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean Moot? Nefariousski (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oops yes Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with the first contributer's analysis of a "poorly handled" submission in that there is a tinge of retribution involved here and not necessarily a question of seeking opinions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I understand i am not above scutiny, i am not here to get him banned thats why i did not specify any such thing. I only seek comment as statments like "You are scientifically illiterate." His reapeted accusations on those he perceives to be of any faith, and his previous RFC seemed enough to cuase to bring it here to me Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not a fan of his style and approach if someone continually shows themself to not understand basic tenents of the scientific method how is that not a valid statement? Nefariousski (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far the two times he has used that insult, it has been unwarranted,

His Repeated use of ad hominems arguments stands in sharp violation of and his Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence both stand firmly against Wikipedia:No personal attacks. His borderline anti-semitism also concerns me as 75-80 percent of his edits seem to be discrediting Judaism. I would call this a single purpose account to disprove and discredit religion but 5% of his edit have been uninvolved with religion. That is where the discussion diverges into discussions dissolve into RFCs. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, whoa, time out! I'm gonna have to say ^{[citation needed]} on the "anti-semitism" bit. None of the items posted in this RFC remotely suggest that, so I have to ask what brought this up? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're treading on dangerous WP:NPA ground. I highly recommend you have one hell of a lot of evidence to back up any "anti-semitic" claim above and beyond (he edits a lot in judiasm related articles and I don't agree with his comments). Editing that is in line with policy that happens to be against the POV of someone of faith is by no means anti-semitic and unless you can dig up some overtly anti-semitic statements he has made I have half a mind to open an entry on ANI against your previous statement. I'm not a fan of Cush's demeanor or editing style per-se but that pales in comparison to how little I think of someone who would arbitrarily throw around such an accusation without backing it up. Nefariousski (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i called it "borderline antisemitism" from i draw that from statements like "there is no such thing as a 'Jewish people'", "I do not expect Jewish sources to be honest about that", "Welcome to Wikipedia and its many endorsements of Jewish POVs", | "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. " on top of his effort to discredit every belief in judaism. i'm probably reading too much into it, may be better phrase would be "borderline anti-Semitic statement" and probably wrong but those statements strike me as pretty borderline or maybe just a broader dislike of religion in general. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline's a decent take. He's not so much an antisemite as an anti dieite (to coin a phrase). But he's very up front about it.EGMichaels (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he makes no bones about being anti-theist. That doesn't make him an anti-semite, however, as he apparently despises all religions equally. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again i concede that probably was not the proper phrase, but his Main contributes do seem to revolve around disproving Judiac/ Christian issues.... not so much any other major faiths Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the comments under "Criticism" in Talk: Haredi Judaism certainly sounded anti-semitic to me. Most anti-semitism, historically - going back to the Greek Pagans - has been religious, and we are not talking about Israel where there are political issues. That he hates other people too is not relevant.Mzk1 (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's draw a distinction between "hating" a people and strong criticism of their beliefs. Anti-Semitism = "I hate Jews", not "I think Judaism is bad/wrong etc...". Working towards disproving a faith does not make anyone an "Anti-Semite", otherwise the entire Christian Evangelical (my way or the highway) movement may as well join the Nazi party. You're casting one hell of a wide net if you think any statements critical of Judaism as a belief brand a person an Anti-Semite. Nefariousski (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not referring to the title, but the actual statements. Basically it was "nobody likes you and neither do I". You also had a nice bit of generalization, which they taught me in school was one of the bases of bigotry. I would love to know a single basic belief (except Zionism) in which Chareidim differ from other Orthodox Jews. In the States Chareidim don't necessarily even dress any differently, except for the color of their Kippah, particularly at work.Mzk1 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I did NOT mention anti-semitism in the complaint because I did not want to muddy the waters.Mzk1 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View "by hand that feeds"

As he/she was involved the part of the dispute that led to my scrutiny and prompted this RFC. i kindly ask that he move his comment into "semi involved" or "inside veiw" as hes is not quite "outside." outside in in my interpetation indicates univolved and netrual. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At best, I was involved in a discussion that happened to involve Cush. Nowhere was I involved in warning anyone about behavior, so I decline. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fully within your discretion, i am no troll nor will i make drama out of disputes Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Refreshing to have someone decline drama.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

indeed I would not have even bothered really pursued this had i not seen the previous RFC with same Modus operandi and statements from Admins i trust condemn his action pretty strongly Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View by "EGMichaels"

I've dealt with Cush in the past [1] (under my previous sign in, "SkyWriter"). He's definitely an enthusiastic atheist, but not what I'd call an anti-semite. Heck, sometimes he gets in a bit of trouble about being TOO honest about his disdain for religion -- but there's nothing David Duke about it. It's been my experience that Cush is just too close to this religion thing and may need to explore other subjects (as I plan to do myself). EGMichaels (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cush and SkyWriter are very different people. Skywriter is not an anti-theist by any stretch of the imagination, even if he and I have had our differences in the past. You should retract this statement. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User:SkyWriter for enlightenment. Hans Adler 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, you misunderstood. EGM was stating that he used to be using the Skywriter user name, not that Cush was. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa -- sorry for the confusion.EGMichaels (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close this out already

Considering that the grounds for this RFC was perceived insult and attack by Cush and it has more or less turned into a forum to insult and attack Cush I think ayin tahat ayin has been satisfied and we can all move on. Nefariousski (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't see anything else coming from this RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

let wait for an admin to make a statement on the merits here, instead of this continued steamroll of any dissent Weaponbb7 (talk)

Weapon, We obviously have to wait an admin to make a statement in order for this to be closed, I'm just suggesting that neither side has clean hands in this and as such unless the "Cush is an anti-semite" crowd wants the exact same punishment they ask to be given to Cush it's probably for the best that the closing admin just consider the whole RFC a wash. Nefariousski (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon, I think Nef has a point. Cush isn't going to change, and he's not doing enough to be banned. At worst he's annoying, but the good part is that he's so on the nose with his POV that he's not persuasive enough to win consensus. Heck, you even saw me initially agree with a position he had in the "myth" discussion, and I had to back out of it because it was too prone to his POV pushing. So, if you think about it, anyone who did NOT share Cush's POV would WANT him around as a convenient foil. It's only fellow atheists who should want to gag him.EGMichaels (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to turn him into some sort of symbolic foil for either side of the aisle. There are polemicists on every side of any discussion about any attribute related to one faith or another. I think the best approach is to raise above this whole "us vs. them" mentality all together. Nefariousski (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does hurt his own side; I've seen him turn somebody who agreed with him against him. But that doesn't mean that people should have to put up with this sort of thing. Please note that I have never had any interaction with him except to comment on his statements.Mzk1 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "SIDE" to be had. I can make a statement that you agree with but that doesn't mean we're part of some unspoken cabal. I don't think his statements make my statements any more or less valid just because they may both be for or against a certain proposal. I resent the notion that my statements might be judged poorly just because you think someone is on my "Side" as opposed to judging them on their own merit. Nefariousski (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You resent? I'm sorry, did I offend? I was simply saying that he hurts his point by turning people who would otherwise agree with him against his point because of his extremism, as occured in the talk page I referenced. I certainly have no problem with that! But he himself is the epitome of an "Us. vs. Them" mentality, referring to people who disagree as "religionists" and saying they have no right to comment or edit. This is not constructive to consensus.

But the main point is that people should not have to put up with insults. Period.Mzk1 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nef, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be no "sides." Each perspective in a discussion has a blind spot that the other perspective can help patch. Unfortunately discussions do get political. The usefulness of Cush is that he saves us from strawman arguments. He really is 1) honest about his POV, 2) consistent, and 3) clear. Normally these things are fuzzed out by some kind of civility that masks a hidden agenda and stonewalls consensus for invisible reasons. Cush has no invisible reasons, and this is a good thing. Can we smack him for incivility? Sure, but I'm not sure that benefits Wikipedia. While we should all be considerate in our wording (which Cush clearly is not), we SHOULD be honest about our points of view (which Cush clearly is). I think every discussion needs a Cush on each side to keep us all honest.EGMichaels (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dont mind most of the stuff its "ad hominem arguments" that tick me off. i can deal with POVs but seriously some of the this stuff its just vile Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it IS vile -- but so OBVIOUSLY vile that he's useful to have around. You couldn't make up a Cush if you tried.EGMichaels (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in theory I should object to you wanting Cush around to stoke the flames of righteous indignation and help fulfill the "Angry Athiest" stereotype but considering that I've been guilty of the same thinking (only in reverse) a time or two regarding a handful of "Science is of the devil" type editors I'll keep quiet hahaha. Nefariousski (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-) -- agreed on the usefulness of both groups. The honesty makes it easier to see the middle ground.EGMichaels (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

refactoring statement addded in after thread closed and archived

Outside view by OrangeDog

Every time I encounter Cush's comments on talk pages I find him extremely confrontational, rude, arrogant and often making vile and personal remarks, especially anti-semitic ones (e.g. equating Jewish with Nazi beliefs). He seems to be using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advance is POV that all "religionists" are deluded fools. I think this paragraph adequately sums up his arrogance and POV ("I am never out of line, because I am neutral. You are out of line by being religious."). I'm also confused by those above who detect no incivility in the diffs previously given.

Now I'm sure Cush would like to brand me a religionist POV-pusher who wants all non-believers put to death, but I'm afraid that I believe that the universe probably expanded from a singularity about 13bn years ago, that all life (including us) is descended by processes of random mutation, genetic inheritance and natural selection from common origins. I also believe in a monotheistic God responsible for the phenomena of existence and love, and that the Torah contains elements of historical events but has the primary purpose of presenting the relationship between God and Creation. Furthermore, I believe that whether I or anyone believes any of this or not, it should have no effect on editing or discussion in Wikipedia, on any topic and with any other user. We are here to sincerely reflect and summarise the published knowledge of the world. I hope Cush can be converted to this last belief. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 8:04 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)