Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
 * Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
 * Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders
1) For the duration of this hearing, IZAK is to refrain from engaging in excessive cross-posting.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 00:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * I don't see this as a serious problem in itself. Fred Bauder 15:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Proposed principles
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Personal attacks
1) No personal attacks.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 12:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 00:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:03, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Wikipedia not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy
2) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy of any kind.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 12:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 00:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:11, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Forums for discussion
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.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 12:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 00:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:03, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Use of forums for advocacy
4) Aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for point of view editing results in exacerbation of conflict.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 13:05, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:04, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Nature of Wikipedia policy
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.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 00:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Some have expressed concerns that because there is no written policy on XCP to talk pages, we cannot judge this case. I want to clear up this misunderstanding)
 * Wikipedia is a Common Law -style jurisdiction, not a Napoleonic Code one. James F. (talk) 13:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:05, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * James F. put it well. Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - "The Arbitrators will judge cases according to ... Established Wikipedia customs and common practices". --Arbitration policy

Notice, it doesn't make any mention of having a rule specifically against bad behavior before we consider it to be bad.


 * Nay:
 * Generally we should follow expressed policy, not our sense of community consensus. Important matters not currently addressed by Wikipedia policy will command community attention, resulting in policy decisions which we can then use as authority for our decisions. If we find a matter a close question, it is unreasonable to expect users to conform to one side or the other of a disputed matter. Fred Bauder 15:45, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * The arbitration policy says we can enforce customs and practices as well as black-letter policy. &rarr;Raul654 01:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * (hm. Not sure either way...) mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'm with mav here - I think this is true in part, but think we have to be immensely careful about not making policy, or giving the impression that we are doing so
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC) Also on the fence. I think generally we should follow explicit policy, with judgment guided somewhat by community norms but not based entirely on them.
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) Not sure about this wording. Certainly I generally advocate that users should be able to get a clue ... I much prefer it case by case, e.g. 6 below.

Crossposting
6) The occasional light use of cross-posting to Talk pages is part of Wikipedia common practice. Excessive cross-posting (XCP) goes against current Wikipedia community norms and is poor Wikiquette. In a broader context, it is "unwiki" - see e.g. LessRedundancy. Wikipedia editors make use of a variety of methods to avoid XCP, such as Template:ArbCommOpenTask, UK Wikipedians' notice board, pages based on "Related Changes", and so forth.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 00:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (this does not express an opinion as to whether IZAK has been "excessive" - merely that there is some line that should not be crossed).
 * James F. (talk) 13:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (without comment to whether or not IZAK's posts were excessive)
 * (without explicit reference to IZAK) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:06, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (but not currently against policy)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - yes, although 'excessive' is in the eye of the beholder.


 * Nay:
 * The crossposting in this case is not excessive considered in terms of volume alone. Fred Bauder 15:45, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Campaigning regarding Wikipedia decisions
7) Wikipedia is not an experiment in participative democracy. The majority of its "votes" are intended to determine what the rough consensus is, rather than being an exercise in ballot-counting. "Get out the vote" activity that targets only those who are likely to vote in a particular way distorts this process. However, "get out the vote" activity that is a good faith attempt to inform people who are likely to be interested in a particular vote, regardless of which way they are likely to vote, is acceptable.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 00:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I think this is implicit in, eg, Deletion guidelines for administrators, polling guidelines)
 * James F. (talk) 13:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * At the risk of quoting myself - "Wikipedia is not a democracy, contrary to what some people foolishly say. Wikipedia operates on discussion-driven consensus. A poll runs counter to these ends, and therefore is something that should be avoided wherever possible" -- Don't vote on everything. &rarr;Raul654 01:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * Wikipedia is an exercise in participatory democracy by its nature. Open solicitation of votes on the website in unobjectionable, as such solicitation could easily occur in secret off the website. Fred Bauder 15:45, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 22:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Given Fred's comments, and the fact that we do have some formal votes, I think my proposal here is misleading, if not wrong.
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC) In principle I agree that this is the ideal, but am not sure that it's enforceable as policy.


 * Abstain:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:07, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) Tricky one again. This wording may be prone to being a hammer used by idiots if made worded policy ...

Chain reactions
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.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 15:02, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * POV editing begets more POV editing; with luck this will incite others to step in and put a stop to things/ -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:09, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - I am not really sure what this principle is stating.

Proposed findings of fact
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Personal attacks
1) IZAK has made personal attacks, for example, "Sam's past pro-Nazi views"
 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 12:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 00:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:00, 25 K's posts were excessive)
 * (without explicit reference to IZAK) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:06, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

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?".


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 14:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:11, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) HistoryBuffEr's attacks don't warrant responding with attacks, despite provocation.
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I'm not sure why we need t highligh this specificaly when personal attacks are already mentioned above)

POV editing
2) IZAK has engaged in advocacy of the Zionist cause, for example, successfully campaigning for deletion of the article, Occupation of Palestine and adding a NPOV notice to an article which while unfavorable to Zionism had no dispute in the edit history and an empty talk page.
 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 12:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The advocacy in question seems to be related to some of the spamming on which this case was started. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:13, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * I think the Occupation of Palestine may be more ambiguous than I thought. Fred Bauder 16:39, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 22:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I think this is off-topic of the original complaint.)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (I've also seen a great deal of NPOV editing from this user)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - I'm just not sure in this case.

Alternative POV editing
3) IZAK has engaged in advocacy of the Zionist cause, for example, adding a NPOV notice to an article which while unfavorable to Zionism had no dispute in the edit history and an empty talk page].


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 16:39, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * Martin 22:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (not part of original complaint)
 * True enough Fred Bauder 13:09, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Very close to a content-related finding...)
 * This one, on the other hand, has nothing to do with spamming. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - Agree with Martin - not part of the complaint.


 * Abstain:
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV editing
4) IZAK has, following Wikipedia's NPOV policy, also made edits which can be fairly characerized as NPOV edits, in controversial areas, for example, adding Category Palestine to Category Jerusalem and making a useful edit to Occupation of Palestine, now a disambiguation page.
 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 14:05, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - When considering disciplinary action against a particular editor, it is important and very relavant to take into account the amount of good work he has done as well.


 * Nay:
 * Martin 22:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (not part of original complaint)
 * True enough Fred Bauder 13:09, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (not really relevant)
 * Agreed. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC) (Not really relevant.)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) So?

"Spamming" for POV
5) IZAK has used the communication system of Wikipedia aggressively in furtherance of actions which violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy, successfully campaigning for deletion of the article Occupation of Israel
 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 12:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * Martin 01:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I'd have to make a judgement on NPOV)
 * I think this finding may be questionable Fred Bauder 16:42, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Advocacy to others does not strike me as being in violation of NPOV policies. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:16, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:11, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * James F. (talk) 13:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) Could lead to trouble with things being deemed 'campaigning' by idiots.

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.)


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 13:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:17, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 14:48, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * IZAK merely appears concerned about the validity of the edits in question. Had he not pointed it out, another user undoubtedly would have, thus making an edit war inevitable. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:19, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:11, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

"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.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 01:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:43, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (however, there is no clear policy one what makes for "excessive" cross-posting and many of the others IZAK has posted to like the fact of being informed)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:19, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:11, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * I see attempts to communicate regarding issues with those he believed supported his position. I see no evidence of manipulation. Fred Bauder 13:42, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 15:38, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:19, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:11, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 13:52, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:20, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:11, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Remedies
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

IZAK banned for personal attacks
1) IZAK is banned for 10 days for making personal attacks.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 12:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 00:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:21, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

IZAK banned from editing regarding Israeli-Palestinian conflict
2) IZAK is banned from editing articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for one year.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 12:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 00:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * Too long Fred Bauder 16:50, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 22:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (actually, spamming is the complaint, not POV, which I should have paid more heed to)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (agree with Martin)
 * Too long; spamming is the complaint, yes, but POV is a large part of that. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:22, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) Too long
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

IZAK briefly banned from editing regarding Israeli-Palestinian conflict
2) IZAK is banned from editing articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for three weeks.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 16:50, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 22:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (unsure, but yes)


 * Nay:
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (I have not seen much on the RfC or evidence page to warrant such a remedy. In fact I've seen more evidence for NPOV edits than for POV ones.)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * for now Fred Bauder 13:57, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with mav; however, the POV issue is still there. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:23, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

IZAK prohibited from crossposting certain types of messages
3) IZAK is prohibited from posting messages on user talk pages which contain personal attacks or advocate actions by Wikipedia users in furtherance of POV disputes with repect to Zionism or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 12:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 00:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I can support this, but I prefer 3.1 and 3.2)
 * James F. (talk) 13:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * 3.1 and 3.2 are better. Fred Bauder 16:50, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (agreed)
 * Prefer 3.1 and 3.2. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:24, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) 3.1, 3.2.
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 00:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:47, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (I added a term to te parole, since that was missing; make changes if you wish)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:24, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

IZAK prohibited from cross-posting messages relating to certain POV disputes
3.2) IZAK is prohibited from cross-posting messages on talk pages in furtherance of POV disputes with repect to Zionism or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.


 * Aye:
 * Martin 00:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:47, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * mav 06:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (I don't see this as needed given the number of people who like his messages and the lack of policy on this issue.)
 * Agree with mav. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:25, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * We had no policy, although perhaps we should regarding extensive campaigns against nominees. Fred Bauder 12:28, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Enforcement
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on


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

1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Aye:


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

General
I have asked IZAK and others to present evidence of NPOV editing by IZAK on the evidence page. I will incorporate the results of this request into the decision if it turns out that IZAK is editing in a NPOV manner rather than the POV manner which is set forth above. Fred Bauder 12:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I declare my intention to remain recused here, due to the presence of findings of fact involving HistoryBuffer. However, I strongly urge other arbitrators not to create policy - I firmly believe the crossposting issue, regardless of its merits, should be decided by the community, not the arbitration committee. Ambi 01:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close
Four Aye votes needed to close case


 * Everything likely to pass has passed. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:59, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 02:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - Agreed.
 * Aye - sannse (talk) 02:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:37, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)