Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Salom Khalitun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Salom Khalitun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked, this RfC is retained as a record of events leading up to that block, along with this ANI thread. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In order 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: 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User:Salom Khalitun disrupts the work on Talk:The Holocaust by anti-Semitic remarks and personal attacks.

[edit] Desired outcome

The following, in deceasing order of desirability, would be considered a scuccess.

  1. User: Salom Khalitun realizes the inaceptability of his behavior, stops it, apologizes, and engages in a constructive dialogue.
  2. He realizes the inaceptability of his behavior, stops it, and engages in a constructive dialogue.
  3. He realizes the inaceptability of his behavior, stops it, and stops editing the article in question.
  4. The user is banned from editing the article and stops his permanent violation of various Wikipedia policies, especially his personal and anti-semitic attacks.
  5. User: Salom Khalitun is banned from editing Wikipedia.

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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 origin of the use of the word "Holocaust" to refer to Nazi attrocities against the Jews as described in The Holocaust. The article also notes that the phrase has been expanded to refer to wider Nazi attrocities. Salom repeatedly claims that the narrower definition is used by Jewish sources exclusively, with the aim of denying the suffering of others.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  1. Asks if opponent is Jewish, suggests he "clings to a racist definition" [1]
  2. Suggests that "some Jews are trying to impose only the largely Jewish viewpoint" [2]
  3. Suggests that the opponent is Jewish and that that is the reaon "why you want to ignore all the millions of other victims" [3]
  4. Claims that the author of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Holocaust is "obviously Jewish" [4]
  5. Speculates on the ethnicity of another user and suggests that he is biased because of it [5]
  6. Claims that "the Jewish contingent don't care about the other victims [of the Holocaust]" and that "anyone support[ing] them is devoid of humanity and morality" [6]
  7. [7]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:AGF
  3. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
  4. Etiquette

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. [8] comment by User:Paul Barlow
  2. This exchange with Stephan Schulz, at Khalitun's talk page
  3. This warning by Dreadstar at Khalitun's talk page

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Paul B 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Stephan Schulz 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Dreadstar † 18:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yksin 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

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:

[edit] Outside view by MastCell

After reviewing Salom's contributions and his disruption here at this RfC, I've indefinitely blocked him. His behavior has been appalling. I see no positive contribution to balance the negative effect he's had on articles, talk pages, and other editors. Whether the RfC proceeds is up to the filers - if there's a decision to consider unblocking him, then it may be worth waiting till after the RfC closes to do so, in order that it can be completed in peace. MastCell Talk 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

[edit] Outside view by Yksin

I've just read through Talk:The Holocaust & also looked at the user talk pages involved. It seems to me that that there is a legitimate question Salom Khalitun (talk · contribs) has raised about whether the term The Holocaust is inclusive of other groups besides Jews who suffered mass murder at the Nazi's hands -- e.g., Roma, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc, & thus whether the article should have more in-depth discussion of these other groups' experience of The Holocaust. It also seems to me that other editors in discussion there have made good faith efforts to discuss that question -- for example, Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) looking up the definition of holocaust in various dictionaries, etc. Looks to me, in fact, like editors there would be willing to continue the discussion, perhaps even to the point of coming to a new consensus about what the article should contain. I.e., it seems to me that the other editors have been open-minded about the content question. Unfortunately, Salom Khalitun has not seen fit to stick to the content question, but instead has made unproven assertions about Jews "not caring" about other groups killed during the Holocaust, asking other editors who disagreed with him if they were Jews, etc.

Those kind of ethnic attack tactics have only succeeded in undermining Salom Khalitun's position -- anyone who supports his position on the content question ("is the Holocaust only about the deaths of the 6 million, or also about the death of the other, non-Jewish millions?") nonetheless don't want to associate themselves with him position because of his antisemitic attitude. Once again rampant incivility by one person has made it next to impossible for a reasonable discussion of a reasonable content question to take place. If this content question really is important to Salom Khalitun, well, he's gone & shot himself in the foot, because he has alienated people who might otherwise agree with him through his persistent attacks on the presumed ethnicity of those who disagree with him.

Despite his disruptions at Talk:The Holocaust & on this RfC, I'm not sure I agree with the decision to block him indefinitely at this point. Perhaps a two or three day block for him to cool off before coming back to this RfC; but an indefinite block seems to indicate that he is going to be given no opportunity to change his behavior. I would prefer him to be given another chance. --Yksin 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.