To remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 20:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC).
Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.
Cause of concern
This users conduct is becoming increasingly problematic and detrimental to the balanced nature and overall quality of Wikipedia. He has repeatedly accused other editors of lying, duplicity, and has made a series of threats on certain editors talk pages and subsequently lobbied for the help of other editors whom they have had disputes with as a means to apply pressure. In addition, he has himself repeatedly engaged in WP:SYNTH, original research, conspiracy theories (some of them highly reminiscent of classic antisemitic conspiracy theories), and aggressive POV pushing. All of this is in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Other editors have tried to warn him, yet his overall conduct has not changed. This is becoming a concern. Evildoer187 ( talk) 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Applicable policies and guidelines
WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:THREAT, WP:CONSPIRACY THEORY, WP:CIVILITY, WP:POV pushing, WP:ZEALOT
Desired outcome
That Ubikwit conduct himself with honesty, neutrality, and respect for other editors.
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
- You obviously have too much time on your hands. Why don't you look for a job, instead of trying to impede progress of the universal consciousness raising exercise in which we're engaged here?
There is no established relevance for the date of establishment of the UNPFII in 1993, for starters. Moving right along, the Israeli NGO you have introduced into this conversation would appear to be a nationalistic 'Israeli' organization recognized by the nation state of Israel and so far removed from having any semblance of a status that would be related to the granting of even tacit recognition to 'Israelis' as indigenous that it doesn't merit the electrons expended to display this text. Furthermore, you have not demonstrated a relevant connection between the OFICL and "Jews" with respect to the question of (the recognition of) indigeneity in Palestine (or was that Israel?), so you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous dissimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it, just like those NGO directors, right?! The administrators can determine during arbitration what relevance the definition you have littered this RfC with has or has not.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
- If you think that you will force my opinion in your favor through threats, you are wrong.
Threats you have posted on my abd user Eveldoer187 talk page. Also, in a way of WP:CANVASS you posted a message on user Yuvn86: [1] asking for support to enforce pressure on other editors in order to obtain your POV. The same pattern was used previously by you [2] You are labeling editors as liars, despite being warred [3] You are doing this, despite numerous warning you have on this talk page. This are all huge violations of Wikipedia guildlines-- Tritomex ( talk) 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Evildoer187 ( talk) 21:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Evildoer187 ( talk) 02:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
HaleakalAri ( talk) 07:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
Evildoer187 ( talk) 02:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
- Although after the intervention of administrator I received partial apology for the warning/threat posted on my talk page, due to WP:NPOV I still strongly believe that this kind of editing by Ubikwit which is in denial of ethnic, national and religious rights of an entire nation is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. No one has right to describe an entire nation as colonists, proxy colonists and its creation as proxy colonization. Also there is a continues use of POV language, conspirationism with colloquial Zioist labeling.
1. [4] This is not a place for religious references. The Torah is irrelevant, as are all other religious sources. The term Palestine dates to the 5th century BC according to the Wikipedia article Palestinian people. Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question.
2. [5] "I don't know a lot about Judaism myself, but I do have a pretty good grasp of theocracy, and in the case of the controversy at hand, it is people that are trying to use religion for political/material gain that I perceive to be at fault. In short, the Zionists and their supporters would seem to be culpable, though I understand that even the term Zionism is contested in Judaism. And after deciding that I should go through the Talk page from the top a short while ago, I came across a well-researched academic source loaded with references that was cited by Moxy early on in the discussion. As you have pointed out however, the geneticists are utterly incompetent to discuss things outside their field. Check the recent comment by Tritomex 19:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC) in reference to my discussing Zionism as proxy colonization, and then check pages 48-49 of the above-cited reference. There are sentences in which Zionist colonization is described in no uncertain terms, and that i a valid academic source. One sentence states, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants". ::::But I don't see where that statement is made in Jamal's text. If it is only the USA and Israel's allies denying them recognition, that would not carry much weight, I should think, especially in light of recent developments. Since there are a number of reliable source--including Jamal's book and those cited therein--I'm inclined to present some of those quotes in requesting an opinion at some point with respect to a clarification as to whether it would be deemed accurate to characterize Palestinians as a colonized peopled. If so, then it shouldn't be a problem to place them on the list, at least until the problems with their rights being violated are eliminated.-- Ubikwit RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.( talk) 20:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"
I hope Ubikwit will refrain from this labeling in future. Jews are not "encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question." -- Tritomex ( talk) 00:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
1. I would like to endorse this request, and base it on the already produced diff summarised as (→Israelis and Palestinian: Abundance of pro-Israeli POV pushers trying to use religious sources, etc.)
- This comment was in fact directed against my initial editing.
1. The reference to "This is not a place for religious references." refers to this <ref>The common term 'Jews' usually used to identify the peoples is an imposed identity, and not one used within the culture, but had been assigned by Roman colonisers referencing the [[Kingdom of Judea]]. Culturally, "In Orthodox and most Conservative synagogues, the first [[Aliyah (Torah)|aliyah]] goes to a [[kohen]], a person who is descended from the priestly family of [[Aaron]], the brother of [[Moses]]. The second aliyah is assigned to a [[levi]], a descendant of the priestly tribe of Levi. The next five aliyot are reserved for Israelites, who are the majority of the Jews." Scharfstein, Sol, Torah and the five books of Moses, KTAV Publishing House, 2008, p.26; The source of the division is Biblical. See Shemot 28:1-4, Bemidbar 1:47-53, 3:5-13, and 8:5-26</ref> The sources were however not provided in the WP:RS sense. but the simple mening of 'derived from' as the actual reference preceded as a separate edit (I was editing as Crock8, deleted)
- 12:32, 1 December 2012 Crock8 (talk | contribs) . . (41,256 bytes) (+97) . . (→Southwest Asia: add the source of the cultural practice)
- 12:23, 1 December 2012 Crock8 (talk | contribs) . . (41,159 bytes) (+679) . . (→Southwest Asia: add reference to cultural self-identity rather than imposed identity)
Ubikwit twisted this into a break of editing protocol, although the Bible is in fact a core Jewish cultural text, so quite appropriate to use as a reference for cultural ritual.
2. Ubikwit however decreed otherwise "The Torah is irrelevant, as are all other religious sources.", clearly striving for a confrontation without a cause
3. Next was the pronouncement that "The term Palestine dates to the 5th century BC according to the Wikipedia article
Palestinian people.", However, the relevance of a Greek source to the subject is completely irrelevant, and was essentially intended to provoke
4. This, I have no idea how to comment on. "Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist
Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect." - As far as I know the Roman Church advocated
Supersessionism, but this was a theological doctrine. The granting of lands was based on the
Right of conquest from the Islamic occupation forces, and functions in the same way in the
Holy Land as in mainland
Europe. Neither bears any relevance on the "Jews" referring to themselves as Yisra'el any where, any time in their history for reasons of ritual and civility.
5. The other problem I have found with Ubikwit is his unwillingness to read the work of other editors. The declaration that "The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question." - a) In effect I had edited that the Israelites are an ethno-religious group, so clearly religion (in the common understanding in English of 'belief in God') has a role to play, but not the role Ubikwit affords it. b) It is not for Ubikwit to pronounce Judaism anachronistic, which is in fact showing significant disrespect to several million people. Civility is something that Wikipedia editors are supposed to show not only towards other editors, but to the readers also. c) "the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question." - It should be noted that the "settlers" have a rather different perspective, their families returning to a geographic area that until 1947 was named
Judea and
Samaria on most European maps, including those that labelled it Palestine. The only recognised occupation of the geography in question was an unrecognised (except by UK) Jordanian military presence. The legality of land ownership is disputed. Generally this requires a proof in evidence of a lease or title of purchase, but most Palestinian Arabs are unable to produce these documents, which the Government of Israel recognises, even if issued by the Ottoman Empire. Use of land without proof of ownership is called squatting, and is dealt with in English law by
adverse possession. It is this principle that the early Government of Israel applied to Palestinian Arabs, continuing the work of Mandate Land Survey Office that sought to identify squatters on Crown and other lands. This process was in fact a continuance of the Ottoman attempts to register land ownership in Beirut and Jerusalem provinces to collect taxes. After the Ottoman Army removed Bedouins from lands they used for raid-staging, the registration began, but soon stalled as locals evaded registration since a registered owner was also subject to military draft. Nothing much was achieved until the First World War. In 1925 the Mandate Administration was directed by the London Foreign Office to enact the
Land Registration Act 1925, and a survey of the Mandate Palestine was commenced. Again, by 1937 little progress was reported as farmers evaded registration, this time to simply evade taxation. While the Mandate Administration was unable to issue titles, it was also powerless to
dispossess(Clark & Greer, Land Law directions, Oxford U. Press, 2008, pp.169-170) due to lack of resources. On the other hand, the Mandate Administration found that it was able to issue titles to land based on 'private sales' when a farmer would sell to an immigrant, not necessarily a Jew, in this way establishing a property owner, and therefore a rate and tax payer. Many such purchases were conducted by 'colonists', notably from Germany, such as
German Colony, Haifa. Perhaps it is these Templars that Ubikwit refers to?
6. It was the summary that I found most confronting. Even if I was an Israeli, three opponents to Ubikwit, of whom only I can be possible 'accused' of this "crime' of using biblical sources, hardly warrants the inflammatory "Abundance of pro-Israeli POV pushers trying to use religious sources". The actual term "POV pusher" is in fact insulting. In my country I am assured of the freedom to express my views by law, and it seems to me there is no prohibition against expressing one's point of view in Wikipedia editing either as long as it is backed by reliable sources, meaning it is not a personal and original opinion. Whether it comes from a citizen of one country or another is, so far as I know, is irrelevant where editing is concerned. I found this slur to be a form of a
Verbal abuse and denial of my
human rights to expression at the same time.
7. Fascinatingly, looking
back the very first involvement of Ubikwit in the List of indigenous peoples was based on "talk" which was really a declaration, and not a discussion, or rather meant as "end of discussion", and included the clearly pro-Palestinian rights statement while this was in no way relevant to my editing. My sources were not questioned!
8. In
this reversion of my editing, Ubikwit claims that "Consensus is against including Israelites or Jews on this list,", but in effect it is
not on closer examination.
Essentially on the following table, Ubikwit's Talk replies tend to be found in the bottom four categories, while I prefer to deal with people responding in the top three. The conflict is unlikely to go away it seems.
- Refuting the Central Point - explicitly refutes the central point
- Refutation - finds the mistake rand explains why it's mistaken using quotes
- Counterargument - contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
- Contradiction - states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
- Responding to Tone - criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
- Ad Hominem - attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
- Name-calling - sounds something like, "You are an ass hat."
Crock81 ( talk) 11:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC) (ex-Crock8)
Although I've only been minimally involved in this, I'd have to say that Crock81's characterization of Ubikwits responses, rings very true. HaleakalAri ( talk) 02:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions to certifiers
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}
Response to concerns
{Add summary here.}
Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
Users endorsing this response
RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.
Questions to named user
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.
Outside view by FiachraByrne
Content dispute dressed up as a behavioural issue as the applicant failed to get their preferred content into the article. If you want to change content in that article change the consensus through argument based on reliable and relevant sources about the definition of indigenous people on the article talk page. All else is civil POV pushing and an incredible time-sink. FiachraByrne ( talk) 10:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think you have it backwards. Evildoer187 ( talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Comment by AnkhMorpork
Comments such as "The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation..." are at best ill-considered and unhelpful. This sweeping ethnic judgement is offensive. Ankh. Morpork 14:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
Template 1
1)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template 2
2)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template 3
3)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.