| Revision as of 16:15, 10 September 2007 editSlrubenstein (talk | contribs)30,655 edits →Evidence of disputed behavior← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:22, 10 September 2007 edit undoSalom Khalitun (talk | contribs)102 edits →Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the disputeNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| :# | :# | ||
| :# | :# | ||
| "The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts" - The complainant Rubenstein has made no efforts. All he has done is be remarkably abusive. The request for comment is therefore flawed even on procedural grounds alone. --] 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Users certifying the basis for this dispute === | === Users certifying the basis for this dispute === | ||
Revision as of 16:22, 10 September 2007
In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC).
- Example user (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
anti-Semitic disruptive behavior Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Desired outcome
I would like to see the user blocked from the article; if he persists in anti-semitic attacks, I would like to see him banned Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Description
User:Salom Khalitun has engaged in a debate about the scope of the term "Holocaust" on The Holocaust, Talk:The Holocaust, and, by now, User Talk:Salom Khalitun. During the course of the debate he has repeatedly suggested that all opposing voices, whether by outside reliable sources or by other Misplaced Pages editors, are dishonest, "racists", and motivated by that sources "Jewishness".
Apart from the fact that these claims are classical ad-hominem attacks, they are in several cases factually wrong and always unsourced. They show a failure to assume good faith and constitute personal attacks and demonstrate a depressing level of anti-semitism.
This is just one example of this user's anti-Semitic rants. Superficially, the issue is the origina of the use of the word "Holocaust" to refer to Nazi attrocities. As the article makes clear, the use of the phrase "the Holocaust" was initially used as a translation of the Hebrew shoah to refer specifically to the Nazi's genocidal war against the Jews. The article also notes that the phrase has been expanded to refer to other nazi attrocities. But this user's real issue is that Jews do not care about the suffering of others, and that there is a conspiracy of Jewish scholars and editors to deny the suffering of others. As this is really irrelevant to the question of usage of one word, it is minimally disruptive behavior - but anti-Semitic distruptive behavior on the Holocaust talk page is especially offensive. I consider it a personal attack. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Evidence of disputed behavior
Applicable policies and guidelines
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
"The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts" - The complainant Rubenstein has made no efforts. All he has done is be remarkably abusive. The request for comment is therefore flawed even on procedural grounds alone. --Salom Khalitun 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
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.
- (this moved here by Stephan Schulz from wrong section. Feel free to polish) Rubenstein is very deceitful. I was referring to those that did not include non-Jews in the Holocaust - not all Jews - as not caring about the non-Jews. Rubenstein has been very rude and disruptive. This is what he has written : *you....are a racist anti-Semite. But as you are a racist you are probably incapable of logical thought. At this point I see no reason to continue responding to a blatant anti-semite. --Salom Khalitun 16:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Rubenstein has already been personally very abusive and offensive. He has no shame. :*you....are a racist anti-Semite. But as you are a racist you are probably incapable of logical thought. At this point I see no reason to continue responding to a blatant anti-semite. The discussion is over. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most of my friends are Jewish !!! --Salom Khalitun 15:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
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.
{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:
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.