Note for the first RFC on Cush see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush
Cush ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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
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.
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.
User Box created by Cush, currently up for Deletion [
Closed as G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject
File:Nobible.png | This user regards adherence to Abrahamic religious beliefs a flaw of character. |
WP:POV WP:CIVIL WP:AGF WP:NPA
User talk:Cush#Genesis talkpage User talk:Cush#Personal attacks
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)
reply
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) reply
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) reply
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:
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.
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) reply
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:
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:
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:
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.
Note for the first RFC on Cush see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush
Cush ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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
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.
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.
User Box created by Cush, currently up for Deletion [
Closed as G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject
File:Nobible.png | This user regards adherence to Abrahamic religious beliefs a flaw of character. |
WP:POV WP:CIVIL WP:AGF WP:NPA
User talk:Cush#Genesis talkpage User talk:Cush#Personal attacks
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)
reply
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) reply
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) reply
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:
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.
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) reply
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:
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:
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:
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.