Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK

Case Closed on January 18, 2005.

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint
This user has repeatedly made a practice of spamming various user pages with personal attacks and "calls to action" regarding issues related Judaism and Israeli issues. While his views or votes are a matter of his personal opinion, his tactics are a problem. Repeatedly spamming user pages in such a manner serves only to divide the community, fuel passions, and encite conflict. In the current RFC open on IZAK, under "Sam Spade's adminship", fifteen users have endorsed a statement which chastised IZAK for this spamming behavior and recommended Arbitration action, specifically regarding personal attacks against User:Sam Spade.

As a personal statement, I am not involved with the articles related to this conflict. I see only a user who has been repeatedly asked, and warned, to stop this sort of spamming activity, but seems unwilling. There is likely much more evidence of his activities related to personal attacks or the Jewish/Israeli article edits, which other users may wish you to consider. -- Netoholic @ 16:31, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Most of the previous discussion can be found in the previous RFC at Requests for comment/IZAK and his contribution history.
 * Evidence


 * Notification of a VfD vote at Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine, which IZAK voted to Delete – left on eighteen Talk pages on 20 Sep 2004 (from 10:08 to 10:38) and on 21 Sep
 * Notification of a VFD vote at Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis, which IZAK voted to Keep – left on thirty-nine Talk pages on 3 Oct 2004 (from 09:10 to 12:03)
 * Call for action to assist with the RFC being conducted against IZAK – left on twenty-four Talk pages on 6 Oct 2004 (from 02:46 to 03:26)
 * Notification of Sam Spade's adminship nomination, which IZAK Opposed – left on twenty-two Talk pages on 6 Oct 2004 (from 21:33 to 21:49)
 * Call for action to oppose Sam Spade's nomination – left on eighteen Talk pages on 10 Oct 2004 (from 08:38 to 09:12).
 * Lengthy personal attack on Sam Spade and a petition to supporters of his nomination to change their vote – left on four User: pages and on thirty-two Talk pages on 10 Oct 2004 (from 09:16 to 10:17).
 * Call for action which incited an edit war on History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – left on thirteen Talk pages on 13 Oct 2004 (from 08:15 to 08:42).
 * Call for action to take User:HistoryBuffEr into Arbitration ("Users are asked to please help set this in motion."), left on nine Talk pages on 15 Oct 2004 (from 02:18 to 02:39)
 * Call for action related to deletion of terrorist Categories – left on thirty Talk pages on 5 Nov 2004 (from 10:09 to 11:32)


 * I second this request, having grave concerns regarding this user, and finding his campaign against me during my RfA, as well as comments made before and after (against me and others) to have been slanderous personal attacks.


 * He is quick to suggest those who disagree with him are "Nazi's" or "Anti-Semites", and quickly polorizes article disputes by placing Spam notifications on the pages of users he assumes conform to his POV (a practice of growing concern, in my eyes). I ask the arbitrators to accept this case, or refer it sternly to mediation. Sam [Spade] 20:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party
Hello everyone, I have now spent time at Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence and placed my opening comments there. IZAK 09:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Requests for comment/IZAK
I am sorry to say that User:Netoholic has only presented ONE side (his) of the story over there.
 * I have already extended my aplogies to User:Sam Spade see User talk:IZAK "...it was NOT meant to be anything personally harmful to you as I do not have anything against you personally as a fellow Wikipedian and as a human being. I am sorry for any discomfort and hurt you may have experienced and I hope that we can continue a positive dialogue in the future. Thanks again for your sincere words and patience. IZAK 00:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)" To which Sam Spade replied "...OK, I can accept that, but please do not to use slurs like "anti-semite" "bigot" or "nazi" on the wikipedia in the future. They are hurtful personal attacks... Sam 13:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)".

However, Sam has lately accused me of "racism" ( because I was condemning the behaviour of Nazi Germany as it attacked its neighbors) see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/IZAK: "...It would seem you are unable to see thru your "all Germans are Nazi's" racist POV. Sam 14:57, 5 Nov 2004" To which I replied:"Sam, again I request that you retract your accusation, as I have never said, nor do I think, that "all Germans are Nazis" at any time, and I cannot fathom how you see me as "racist" if I am definitely anti-Nazi which was the "king" of all racist doctrines. I am most definietly not anti-German nor anti- any people (except for Anti-Semites whom any decent human being would despise) as I myself am a Germanic Ashkenazi Jew. So your insult is really a joke, and has no grounding in reality at all. Please apologize. IZAK 04:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)." So all I can say is Sam is going back on his word and bringing up a matter that was settled AFAIK.

I clarified this further today see User talk:IZAK: "What do you think of expressing responses to what you see as anti-semitism as "I feel such and such an edit expresses anti-semitism" rather than "so and so is an anti-semite, and so on"? Fred Bauder 14:12, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Dear Fred: Thank you for contacting me. What you say has already been brought to my attention. It was only about two months ago that my attention was drawn to edits and comments within certain Israel and Jewish related articles and talk pages that evinced clear Anti-Semitism. In my initial haste to respond I responded to what appeared to be the very obvious individual Users' blatant innate personal hostility and hatred of Israel, Zionism and even Judaism in a personal way which I now admit may have been too direct, even though it may be true. Since then I have moderated my approach and I have taken the good advice of a number of Wikipedia Users and Admins and I have not called the objectionable Users by any name (no matter how well deserved it may be), but have instead already been doing what you suggest. So I readily agree with you. However, some of these hostile Users have resorted to using pejoratives such as "Zionistas" or using the label "Zionists" as a kind of "cuss word" akin to "imperialists" which is very disturbing and needs to be addressed as well. Thank you for your concern, and keep me posted. Sincerely, IZAK 03:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

See:  '''I have moved this dispute to the list of disputes not yet certified. When this began I informed the original complainant User:HistoryBuffEr that he did not have standing to certify the action unless he made some attempt to come to terms with User:IZAK, and I even suggested approaches, but he indicated he could not, or would not, deal with him, So he is not in a position to certify and User:Ed Poor has not given evidence of his own attempts to reach IZAK. The only users in a position to certify right now are User:pir, User:JFW and User:Jayjg. The 48-hour clock has started again. If complainants really want to put this forward, surely you can find two people who have engaged IZAK, been rebuffed, and are willing to certify. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) 
 * Then, the RfC at Requests for comment/IZAK was NEVER certified.


 * Many of the names who signed did so after the 48 hour original deadline was ended several times over.
 * Please place on record that 11 (eleven) Users fully supported my summary, see Requests for comment/IZAK
 * An ADDITIONAL 13 (3 of them co-signed the above with 11) Users disputed the original RfC see: Requests for comment/IZAK that clearly states:"There is a subgroup of users on the project who are on the verge of trolling in their bias against Israel and the coverage of this country on Wikipedia...Instead of censuring IZAK, I recommend the appointment of a full-time arbitrator (User:Ed Poor comes to mind) as a first port of call for all problems related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, whether it is VfD, RFC, RFM or even RFA. I also feel mediation should be used more often over article content, instead of VfD-ing every contested page. JFW | T@lk  08:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)"
 * '''Thus Netoholic and Sam Spade lose a "vote" that has NOT even been certified mind you, by 24 to 15, or 21 to 15 depending how you count, and have the audacity to cite that RfC as the basis for THIS RfA. That's what we call Chutzpah in Yiddish. A real miscarriage of justice even before anything has even happened. IZAK 09:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence
See:
 * "I would like to know how this matter went directly to Requests for arbitration without FIRST becoming a matter of Requests for mediation?''' Without that step this entire RfA is NOT valid AFAIK."
 * See more on that page...
 * Then see:

Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence
See all of the 23 points of my defense (I may add more points) The last being: "Proof [needs to] be provided or a standard set for what the current limits are for the maximum amount of similar messages a user like myself be allowed to place on his fellow editors' talk pages. I suggest that given Wikipedia's current 100,000 registered Users that up to 100 Users (.1% [i.e one tenth of one percent] of the current total) should be the maximum for a User to contact about a subject of common concern or interest. Is this a "community" or what"? IZAK 10:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence
Some have already responded: (user comments moved to Evidence page)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

 * 1) Accept. Even though I think IZAK's largely right about his opinions of Sam Spade, this should only be "fought" through productive editing. It might be productive to consider asking Spade to stay away from Judaism/WWII stuff. The Cunctator 23:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept. James F. (talk) 12:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept, I think important issues may be involved, for example, free speech as well as spamming. Fred Bauder 12:59, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Accept. Martin 16:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Accept. Jwrosenzweig 18:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Principles
1) No personal attacks.
 * Passed 11-0.

2) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
 * Passed 11-0.

3) Wikipedia provides a variety of forums, including article and user talk pages, for communication by Wikipedia users regarding content of articles and Wikipedia policies and decisions which Wikipedia users are encouraged to use in furtherance of Wikipedia policies and goals.
 * Passed 11-0.

4) Aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for point of view editing results in exacerbation of conflict.
 * Passed 11-0.

5) The Arbitration Committee may consider current community norms and practice, regardless of whether the community have got as far as writing up an "official" policy on the matter, in making its decisions. This is an Arbitration Committee, not a court of law, and the community has empowered us to make such judgements by ratifying the Arbitration policy. By the same policy, we are to apply such judgements with common sense, discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community.
 * Passed 6-1, with four abstentions.

6) The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. Excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is "unwiki". Wikipedia editors make use of a variety of methods to avoid excessive cross-posting.
 * Passed 10-1.

8) Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem.
 * Passed 6-0, with two abstentions.

Personal attacks
1) IZAK has made personal attacks, for example, "Sam's past pro-Nazi views"
 * Passed 11-0.

Personal attacks against HistoryBuffEr
1.1) IZAK has made personal attacks against User HistoryBuffEr in the context of edit warring with him with respect to HistoryBuffEr's allegedly POV edits to the article History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see comment, "meant to incite anti_semitism" and comment, "Rvert to Buffer's less deranged comments...very set on smearing Jews isn't he?".
 * Passed 7-0, with one abstention.

Responding to a POV edit
5.1) In response to a POV edit by User:HistoryBuffEr to the article, History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, IZAK posted this message to Talk:Struggle over Palestine, than crossposted it to the user talk pages of AAAAA, Cecropia, DanKeshet, Evolver of Borg, Humus sapiens, Itai, Jayjg, Jfdwolff, MathKnight, Nyh, and YUL89YYZ. User AAAAA responded and IZAK suggested monitoring HistoryBuffEr's POV edits . (In the complaint it is claimed that this crossposting incited an edit war at History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This finding of fact does not endorse that conclusion; it just confirms the existence and content of the edits.)
 * Passed 8-0.

Reacting to HistoryBuffEr
5.2) IZAK did not incite an edit war at History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He was provoked by HistoryBuffEr who had been engaging in POV editing with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for at least the previous month, see Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Proposed_decision and Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Proposed_decision.
 * Passed 8-0.

"Spamming" to influence
6) IZAK has used the communication system of Wikipedia aggressively in an attempt to influence the outcome of Wikipedia polls, particularly with respect to Isr/Pal issues.
 * Passed 11-0.

Reaction to the nomination of Sam Spade as administrator
6.1) On October 3, 2004 User:Sam Spade was nominated for administrator, IZAK took an interest in the matter, on October 6, he voted on the matter "Opposed absolutely!" and then notified RK and over 20 other users regarding the nomination, . This initial post simply provided a link to Requests for adminship/Sam Spade. On October 10, 2004 IZAK posted a message to AAAAA and twenty other users which advocated voting no on Sam Spade's nomination based on his history of editing the article Jew, "Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article." Continuing on October 10, he posted a message  to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade containing a link to User:Spleeman/Sam Spade. This was followed in his next edit by a "bill of particulars" detailing the sins of Sam Spade. He continued on October 10, with this post to Theresa knott and about 30 other users advocating either a no vote or a change of vote to no again with a link to User:Spleeman/Sam Spade. This message went to a wide variety of Wikipedia users, many of whom had supported Sam Spade's nomination. Voting ended late on October 10, the nomination defeated (38/38/6) ends 23:02, 10 Oct 2004. This finding is based on an issue raised in the complaint and attempts only to document the evidence.
 * Passed 8-0.

Edits to Jew by Sam Spade
6.2) Sam Spade made some edits to Jew during July and August, 2004, including this edit which characterizes Holocaust denial as a "debate." Reverted, he added the header,   to the article  and shortly thereafter the header,  . It was during this series of reverts that IZAK raised the question of anti-Semitism.
 * Passed 8-0.

IZAK banned for personal attacks
1) IZAK is banned for 10 days for making personal attacks.
 * Passed 11-0.

IZAK placed on attack parole
3.1) IZAK is placed on standard personal attack parole [for 2 months]. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Administrators are requested to be particularly vigilant with respect to personal attacks made on user talk pages, and cross-posted personal attacks.
 * Passed 11-0.

Enforcement

 * I think all enforcement is covered in the remedies, 24 hrs being standard - David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)