Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  


 * (IZAK | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Please see Requests_for_comment/IZAK and Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK for backround information.

Description
IZAK has in the past and continues to violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, failing to WP:AGF, WP:OWN and threatening behavior. To myself and several other editors he has insulted and crossed the line us when merely attempting to comment, edit or submit for deletion articles in the WikiProject_Judaism

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)

1. IZAK violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF by stating that I have been "nominating and prodding" . Prodding is defined " To goad to action; incite." I nominated a few articles entirely in good faith as I felt they were legitimately non-notable.
 * Update It seems I may have misunderstood what IZAK meant in the above quote. However there is certainly room for interpretation if he meant WP:PROD or actual "prodding". As such I suspend the above. However, I maintain the below grievances regarding IZAK. 07:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

2. IZAK violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF by referring to my nominating two articles for deletion as "but for any editor to set himself up as a kind of "grand inquisitor" of all synagogues and arbitrarily, in effect, abuse Wikipedia guidelines as an excuse".

3. IZAK violates WP:NPA by likening my deletion of two articles for deletion to "We do not need a Wikipedia version of Kristalnacht". Kristalnacht was a night of horrible anti-semitism which took place through Germany. As an Orthodox Jew with many relatives who perished in the Holocaust I am absolutely horrified and nauseated by this sort of allegation and/or allusion. Moreover, to even consider for a moment that a nomination of an article by applying strict WP:N guidelines is a sort of Kristalnacht or anti-semitism is unconscionable. I can't help but to consider that Godwin's law applies to IZAK.

4. IZAK was warned by administrator Rjd0060 and replied with ingidnancy and contempt, denial of personal attacks.

5. IZAK has engaged in threats and harassment by, "I would strongly advise you to stop and discuss the matter fully here before you go any further or stronegr action against your moves will unfortunately be necessary very soon." By placing this both on my talk page and on the talk page of the project he attempted to induce a Chilling effect in order to scare me out of the discussion by alluding to the ability to curtail my abilities to edit on this project.

6. In response to the above threats, administrator Rjd0060 indicated to IZAK that his threats were inappropriate

7. IZAK violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by responsding to Rjd0060 by stating "Hi Rjd: Find someone else to lecture to and look up the meaning of the word chutzpah. I don't own anything and you don't own Wikipedia last I heard. Thanks."

8. IZAK violated WP:CIVIL and other policies by calling for the immediate block of administrator John Carter which was resoundely rejected by the community

9. IZAK violated WP:OWN by attempting to prematurely end an AfD with an "oppose" vote and stating the AfD should be ended and instead the discussion removed to the Judaism project page

10. Same as above, but on another AfD

11. IZAK fails to assume good faith in the AfD of Congregation Kol Emes (Richmond, Virginia) by stating, "you are now fanning the flames with requests for deletions of more synagogue articles" and "which you have chosen not to participate in but rather have just barreled on with these controversail AFDs. Please withdraw the nomination until such time as consensus is reached". 

12. IZAK used over-the-top hyperbole by stating on the above AfD, "Finally', if you had your way, would you also eliminate "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" as the Jewish Biblical forefathers because they are "only" three people, or should the twelve sons of Jacob be called "not notable" because they were "only" twelve shepherds?" 

13. IZAK further assumed bad faith in his edit summary for this very RFCU when he writes, "How about a little honesty." I am not sure how the 5 Oct 2004 date got in there, but it was not intentional on my part at all. IZAK should WP:AGF yet does not.

14. Soon after starting this RFC/U IZAK posted a note on my talk page demanding I "STOP the incitement". I have no clue what this alleged incitement is nor why is accusing me of canvasing. I did place a mere handful of notes on the talk pages of those whose diffs I used in the above claims and in one case I was specifically requested by the user to inform him when this RFC/U was ready. WP:CANVASS says, "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices..." and this is exactly what I sent.

15. Again, on this very RFC/U IZAK refers to my editing as "erratic", reckless", I am "carefree" when nominating AfDs (I nominate only after very serious consideration), I have "disdain" for WP:JUDAISM, that I am a troll and quite simply disruptive. Violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}


 * 1) Participate in a respectful and civil way
 * 2) No Personal attacks
 * 3) Wikipedia etiquette
 * 4) Ownership of content on articles

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)

1. I approached administrator Rjd0060 for assistance with future encounters with IZAK and IZAK responded with which violated WP:CIVIL and perhaps WP:NPA

2. Administrator Shirahadasha attempted to consult with IZAK about his intrepretation of deletion criteria and responded with belitting remarks

3. I attempted to enter into discussion about the Beyt_Tikkun AfD with IZAK, but he simply refused to discuss the issue thus preventing and further communication

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) Bstone (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Soxred93 | talk bot 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Rjd0060 (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

Proposed intermediate verdict 1

 * This RfC should be kept open until IZAK agreed to end all personal attacks, conduct himself in a completely and entirely civil matter, refrain from ownership issues and conduct himself with the highest etiquette. An uninvolved administrator may want to investigate if there should be editing restrictions placed on IZAK based on his previous ArbCom case.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Bstone (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Izzk is my role model as one of the best users who i interact often here, therefore i ask the community to hold him at the minimal standers of being more civil by assuming good faith and not owning articles--YY (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed intermediate verdict 2

 * This RFC should be closed as soon as possible for lack of consensus. IZAK is one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors, who essentially edits in limited areas of interest working with fellow editors. The present complaint is a result solely of debates within AFDs and on related talk pages and do not revolve around editorial issues of any substance in articles. The issues should have been, and could have been, addressed through earlier levels of mediation. The subject matter in question is religion and about how to agree or disagree about differences. IZAK is an open-minded editor and allows for the expression of all POVs.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * IZAK (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Close it, get on with life. Daniel C/T+ 14:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Close. IZAK should take more care in crafting his responses, and Bstone needs to review core wikipedia policies such as WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and learn to work with existing wikipedia projects instead of creating unnecessary wiki-drama. -- Avi (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Close. I agree with Avi. I would prefer that Izak explicitly agree to tone it down and, specifically, change when/how he brings up Kristalnacht-type rhetoric during editorial disputes. I would prefer that Bstone explicitly agree to avoid drama and work harder at AGF, esp w/Izak who deserves it despite his intensity. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * close we all learned something and now we can all shake hands and we'll all laugh about this someday. Gzuckier (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and Close -- Nsaum75 (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse/Close No apparent consensus exists for any other alternative. Alansohn (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and end this nonsense - Both of these editors should tone down their rhetoric. PaddyM (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and Close as per above. The Prince (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse close, let's move on, work together. -- M P er el 08:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and Close --Gilabrand (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse/Close. -- Olve (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and close - Doc, please don't delete endorsements that you disagree with. --Leifern (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse/close Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse/close --YoavD (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is invalid. Please read here . Which of the criteria for closing have been met? --Docg 08:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Doc: See Requests for comment/User conduct "Disputes may be removed from this page and archived under any of the following circumstances: (1) If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. (2) The parties to the dispute agree. (3) The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration." Thus, (1)"the dispute appears to have stopped" unless Bstone desires to seek revenge forever. I have no arguments with him, and never have, just that he was too hasty in proposing synagogue stubs for deletion. (2) I agreee that once the AFDs involving Bstone's nominations were over, that I certainly consider the matter over. But does he wish to keep on fighting me? Or does he wish to make peace because I am not fighting with him or anyone at this stage. (3) Whatever dispute Bstone wished to keep up with me, should have first proceeded to "another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation..." as I have indicated below and at other times. He jumped the gun here, badly! Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea about Bstone, but people are still commenting here - it is normal to archive only when that has stopped for some days. I believe that there are outstanding issues of YOUR conduct that need addressed, and I am not alone.--Docg 13:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Doc, I keep extending the hand of peace but you are determined to put spikes through it. Right now, it looks like more editors are angry at this whole sordid exercise as they know me a lot better than you. Rather than cast your usual aspersions, try looking at my record, and you will see a lot of hard work and massive contributions, with the odd letting off of steam here and there, which only the thin-skinned or as is often the case highly rigid humorless POV editors can't handle. Feel free to be destructive in the name of enforcing "policies", it is a sick spectacle indeed. IZAK (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. There are real issues with IZAK's behaviour here (I have not reviewed Bstone's personally). I can see neither precedent nor need for a swift close. RfCs are left to run their course not polled out by people who've made up their mind. IZAK has already had a an RfC and an arbcom finding against his civility. There's really no sign he learned from that. If IZAK indicates he's "got the message" now, I'm happy to see this close (although what does close mean - people are still free to comment?). However, if this is closed prematurely, I think arbitration will be the only route open to address the concerns. So, can IZAK indicate some intention to avoid the type of thing I've outlined below (please see my comments at the bottom of this page)?--Docg 08:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Doc: Bringing in past cases that were concluded over 3 years ago, when I faced harassment from editors who were themselves subsequently banned and blocked is a poor justification for this present dispute that Bstone has launched because he lost more AFDs against synagogue stubs than he even admits to. When you say "can IZAK indicate some intention to avoid the type of thing I've outlined below" see my response to that at Requests for comment/IZAK2 at Response to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#Outside view by Doc where I make it very clear that you have extrapolated from very recent discussions at AFDs and talk pages and made assumptions that go way beyond anything I have said. I have always been prepared to enter into and engage in any form of the first stages of Mediation, such as any of Dispute resolution; Mediation Cabal or Requests for mediation none of which were offered here. You are going from setting down an "outside view" and now reframing it as a set of "demands" --so which is it? A seeming request for co-operation, which is as I understood you to mean when you stated "Basically, IZAK stop fighting everyone, assume good faith, and stick to the issues" (anyhow you can see you are wrong when you say I am "fighting everyone") but which I can agree too or are you now claiming that I must accept your points (1) (2) & (3) below when you unfairly twist my words from one-on-one discussions I had with you that I initaited on your talk page to create DIALOGUE and now claim that it is some sort of "decree" from you which is just your POV. I hope you can be objective, especially since I have had no dispute with you. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You have responded to my concerns by attacking me. Why does it always have to be a battle IZAK? Can't you tone it down? That's really the issue here. People are trying to help, but you go into full battle mode and pick on what they are saying, rather than trying to understand their concerns. Please stop and reflect. All I want is some indication that you can see the problem with some of your posts, and you'll tone it down going forward. If you can manage that, then this RfC can go away and everyone will be happy. Just cool it please.--Docg 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My goodness Doc: Where am I attacking you? Kindly respsond to my points instead of always reframing things your way as "attacks" or whatnot. Can't you see this is a discussion? Anyhow, I can certainly agree to your concerns that "All I want is some indication that you can see the problem with some of your posts, and you'll tone it down going forward" and I will go fishing in some areas of editing where things will be calmer. I certainly do not want to see an all-out war to the death between many of Wikipedia's serious and committed Judaic editors pitched against some who may be hostile to them under the guise of who knows what rules. I would also greatly appreciate it if you could get User:Bstone into a lower grade mediation, such as at Mediation Cabal, a venue that I favor and that I have guided others to and which I have used to hash out the differences if not resolve them -- but talking is better than all-out war (a path Bstone seems to favor unfortunately.) Feel free to volunteer to be the mediator there to try to understand why Bstone is so rigidly and inexplicably incapable of entering into any meaningful DIALOGUE with Judaic editors as well any others he disagrees with but only uses rules to fend off logical requests and rational discussions. As you know, that is a violation of WP:LAWYERing (something you have incorrectly accused me of in the past.) Thanks for your efforts and let's see where this goes. IZAK (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I give up. You obviously don't get it at all. And with your poor attitude, I suspect mediation would be quite useless.--Docg 10:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Doc, I am surprised at you. Here I offer my hand in peace (in fact I am not even disputing you personally as you have inserted yourself into a debate where we first started talking in the synagogue AFDs) in all sincerity and you choose to misread me yet again. I don't get it, do you wish me to act like I am under your mind control? Try having a DIALOGUE, aka real mediation and not reaching for the "shut up" button that I suspect you really want to deploy against me, and do not be rash. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not the one attempting to have this discussion closed down.--Docg 19:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Doc, this is not a discussion. This a RFC. A different matter. Let me know where and when we could have a real discussion. My interests are Judaism, what are yours? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and Close, you can always work with him even when you disagree with him, he is very constructive. --Shmaltz (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorese and Close, IZAK has shown himself to be both a gentleman and a scholar. I have never known him to be anything other that fair in his dealings and appropriate in his conduct. --yonkeltron (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and Close, you can always work with him, he is very constructive. --Nerguy (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * close per above.  Yahel  Guhan  03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and Close, IZAK is easy to work with, helpful and sincere. --Itsabouttime (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Endorse ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed intermediate verdict 3

 * User:IZAK is requested to be more civil in the future. No editing restrictions. On the one hand, nothing happened here serious enough to warrant sanctions. On the other hand, behavior such as comparing ones fellow editors in a deletion dispute to the perpetrators of Kristalnacht, the Judenrat, etc. is not helpful, and even experienced and productive editors need to understand this.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Endorse and Close --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Em, I'm happy to endorse this. But we can only usefully close if IZAK gets the message. Otherwise arbitration and sanctions may be the only way forward, and that would be regrettable.--Docg 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Doc, how much blood do you want to see spilled before you're convinced that IZAK "gets the message" (a message, btw, only you and a few others feel strongly enough about to make a stink over). Do you want him to prostate himself, throw ashes over his head, and humbly ask you for forgiveness for annoying you? Incidentally, since your behavior on this matter has been far from exemplary. --Leifern (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply want to know the issue is resolved, and his polemic will desist. I see no indication of that, and I am completely confused by the out of process rush to close, it looks strange. If you have issues with my conduct, you are welcome to raise them with me. I have no idea what you mean.--Docg 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Doc, what "polemic"? Don't throw out barbs like that please. This is a serious matter. We started out in an AFD at Articles for deletion/Adas Israel Congregation where you requested that I explain myself, which I did. That was our first encounter. I also tried engaging you in discussion on your talk at User talk:Doc glasgow and User talk:Doc glasgow where I am trying to have as open a DIALOGUE as humanly possible with you and no-one else. You persist in labelling my comments as "long tendentious arguments, which exhibit WP:OWN concerns" and "polemic" both of which are insulting to me, especially when so many other editors have come onto this RFC page and have complimented me and my writing and editing. IZAK (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with User  only as Shirahadasha states. IZAK (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse this proposal (#3); and urge AGF all around, ASAP! -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and Close Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Close this, and everyone come over to my house for a beer and some yahtzee.  Tomertalk  20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would endorse this if some mention would be made of User:Bstone taking more care not to bring inappropriate RfC's, reviewing WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and committing to work with existing editors and projects as well. -- Avi (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Avi's comment; can this be amended as a slightly revised Proposal 3.1? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

*Endorse and close. While IZAK is indeed a gentleman, a scholar, and a prolific editor, he is also being a bit of a nudnik, and should be slapped on the wrist accordingly. Then we should let the issue drop. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) moving this to below verdict
 * Endorse closing and going to Tomer's house for beer and yahtzee, but IZAK and Bstone need to buy the beer. -- M P er el 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed intermediate verdict 3.1

 * User:IZAK is requested to be more civil in the future. No editing restrictions. On the one hand, nothing happened here serious enough to warrant sanctions. On the other hand, behavior such as comparing ones fellow editors in a deletion dispute to the perpetrators of Kristalnacht, the Judenrat, etc. is not helpful, and even experienced and productive editors need to understand this. User:Bstone is requested to take more care not to bring inappropriate RfC's, review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and commit to work with existing editors and projects as well. No editing restrictions. Causing unnecessary drama does not contribute to the project or its encyclopedic content, and even experienced and productive editors need to understand this.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Endorse and Close -- Avi (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse John Carter (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC) - Reasonable.
 * Endorse and Close: sounds good to me, although I still think this whole RfC was a waste of time in the first place. Daniel C/T+ 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. IZAK (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and Close --Shuki (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse (with thanks for putting this together) -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and Close Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse Seems correct--Cube lurker (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse best solution.  Yahel  Guhan  03:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse -- M P er el 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse - PaddyM (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and close. While IZAK is indeed a gentleman, a scholar, and a prolific editor, he is also being a bit of a nudnik, and should be slapped on the wrist accordingly. Then we should let the issue drop. Since someone is overreacting to IZAK's behavior, the overreactor should be criticized as well. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and close. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse and close. User:IZAK and User:Bstone are hereby requested to please leave their Spider-Man costumes behind the next time they wish to climb the Reichstag. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment' Good God, is this thing still open? Why? Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's open until the comments stop, and yours was the fourth so far in April. As long as people are commenting, it stays open. Unfortunately. I don't imagine there's much more to say, but them's the rules. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are certainly not the rules - see Requests_for_comment. This should have been closed ages ago. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:IZAK
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.


 * Unfortunately, not only does User wish to delete articles about synagogues, but he now wishes to take me to task for strongly opposing his serious actions that was also rejected by the majority of editors who defeated his misguided and ill-informed AFDs fair and square whenever he has proposed his AFDs of synagogues. See Articles for deletion/Adas Israel Congregation and    Articles for deletion/Adath Jeshurun Congregation as well as in Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun, which Bstone tried to overturn via "deletion review" but again lost, see Deletion review/Log/2008 February 14 when the result to "keep" was endorsed. Since then I have had no contact with him, but he has obviously not forgiven me when I have no grudge against him. Whatever "dispute" there is -- or more correctly -- differing views about the value of articles about synagogues, I have not discussed anything else with him since then. I do not have any standing dispute with him. He is now basically WP:STALKING me to see if he can somehow pile up from other interactions with other editors over my 5 years+ of writing and editing articles on Wikipedia. Sure, for someone as active as I am, he will be busy. Instead of debating with me directly, such as where quite often I join vigorous debates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and where many times I am voted down and accede to reasonable arguments, he is opening a new venue to vent his rage rather than talk to me directly. He could just as easily have started a Mediation Cabal if he has issues with me, but no, he has to go thermonuclear as he claims to be the victim of my tough words. How absurd! Neither rage nor revenge are substitutes for writing and editing excellent articles (and not just deleting them!) Instead of writing articles, he has spent his time digging up past cases when I had to confront issues of antisemitism emanating from some editors, that were long settled three to four years ago. It is a pity that in his desire to eliminate articles about synagogues, and my equally strong desire to preserve those articles and to confront him over it, he now places that on the same plane as my confrontations with editors who had clear patterns of antisemitic editing some of whom have long been banned or blocked by their subsequent actions. (To be continued if need be.) Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Point by point response by IZAK:


 * The case at Requests for comment/IZAK and Requests for arbitration/IZAK (Case Closed on January 18, 2005) was brought against me by banned User a notorious sock and anti-Zionist, and the highly controversial and inactive users  who objected to being called anti-Semitic, and  known for his editorial antics. I will not go into the machinations of that cabal at this time, but suffice it to say that it was an honor to go head to head with such a group of disruptive editors. But why bring all that stuff up now, it will do us all no good. Since then I have avoided this kind of tough head-on action with editors opposed to Judaism, Zionism, Jewish and Israeli topics for various reasons as it just wastes a huge amount of time and does not do any good.


 * (1) There is no violation here at all! What in heaven's name is Bstone talking about when he states "Prodding is defined 'To goad to action; incite" (and even links to a "dictionary") when I was referring to the TECHNICAL term WP:PRODding which as any experienced user would known means "Proposed deletion" a quicker process for deleting articles unlike a WP:AFD which is slower and welcomes more input. See his clear prods here: User talk:Grika (posted twice), User talk:Grika (successful but later disputed) and for Temple Emanuel (Roanoke) . So he clearly does not even get what "prod" means, misconstrues my words, and his arithmatic is way off, so what does that say about everything else?
 * After I point this out, he "withdraws" his point, and admits he is wrong, yet expects everyone to have "good faith in him" but not any faith in me. How sad! Why he wishes to keep this "running battle" I have no idea, because I am not involved in any editorial dispute with him at this time! I guess he must be getting a kick out of this huge waste of time. But I will respond to all and every point, no matter how ridiculous.
 * (2) Excuse me, but BStone did far more than just get involved in "two nominations" he ignited a huge debate with his earlier nomination at Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun where I was not much involved and almost every Judaic editor opposed him, which angered him. I was minimally involved over there, and in fact Bstone pleaded for my response User talk:IZAK as did other editors, see User talk:IZAK so that only when I saw him gear up to delete even more articles about synagogues were my "alarm bells" triggered and I became concerned that indeed some sort of "inquisitorial process" was at work, particularly that User:Bstone did not first raise his concerns and discuss his radical plans at WP:JUDAISM where such things can get the airing they deserve. He eventually responded only after I placed a note on his user page at User talk:Bstone and User talk:Bstone. So as much as anyone else, Bstone is guilty here because he cannot antagonize other users and then plead innocence if he gets a response he does not like. He also requested the speedy deletion of Temple Emanuel (Roanoke) and very bizarrely added multiple citations that Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas had "financial support" from a Muslim donor without bothering to clean up the article (which I did.) So not only is he not telling the truth that he only put "only two articles" up for deletion, he also has a very erratic way of editing or better yet, not editing them. For someone who cares so much about this topic that is very strange to say the least.
 * (3) Wrong. There is no personal attack here whatsoever. This is a reference to a time in history when synagogues were destroyed in Germany in 1938 so that on the contrary, if Bstone is truly connected to Holocaust survivors he should be doubly sensitive to this issue and not be involved in deleting anything pertaining to actual synagogues in a summary fashion as he did, not "only twice" as he claims but at least four times, see the above comments.
 * (4) I was "warned" by an admin when User:Bstone ran to him to complain and gave only his side of the story, see User talk:Rjd0060/Archive 4 and as I pointed out over there it was a rather poor case of sour grapes after he lost the Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun AFD that was not my doing. He should have gone to WP:JUDAISM instead where editors, many of whom are admins too, know more about this topic than random admins unfamiliar with it.
 * (5) Nonsense again. I was advising him to stop his editing until such time as he could discuss his deletions more fully at WP:JUDAISM, and if he feels that my tone was too stern it was in response to what only looked like a headlong rush to delete synagogue article he didn't like in violation of his own version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and of WP:NPOV.
 * (6) The adminstrator was violating WP:CIVIL and talking to me disrespectfully. That is no way to "mediate"!
 * (7) I denied the accusation of WP:OWN saying I owned nothing. To state it here is to blow a disagreement out of proportion.
 * (8) User John Carter came to my attention when editors at the WP:JUDAISM objected to his actions, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. I suggested the obvious, that if he was disrupting Wikipedia so much he should be blocked. Being an admin is no cover for mass dispruptions. Otherwise I had never had any contact with him before that.
 * (9) What a joke! I don't own anything! I stated that a vote was premature and needed further discussion and input from Judaic editors. He does not get the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS and thinks that if experienced Judaic editors are united on a point that that is somehow a "violation" of "WP:OWN" very poor logic indeed. If Bstone is so worried about Jewish topics he should be supporting more not less discussion at WP:JUDAISM.
 * (10) Same as above, in response to Bstone's rashness.
 * (11) Sure, that's how it seemed. But after that user (not Bstone) explained what he was doing, it was understood and there was no further complaint. The vote is still open at Articles for deletion/Congregation Kol Emes for anyone to add their views. And in fact I worked hard and expanded that article with sources as I did with the two of the other articles that were "keep" and not deleted as Bstone wanted. Sour grapes again unfortunately.
 * (12) This is pure nonsense. I am using perfectly good language here to illustrate a point. The Biblical metaphor and example is fine. Bstone is really struggling to come up with convincing arguments if he thinks citing a Biblical passage or personalities (by one of the oldest members of WP:JUDAISM yet, having edited hundreds of Biblical articles!) is "hyperbole"!
 * (13) Well, after Bstone has no clue what "prodding" means on Wikipedia, and ignores his own record of obstinacy in the face of other editor's pleas as with the Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun fiasco (for him that is) when even his request for "deletion review" was defeated, see Deletion review/Log/2008 February 14 and he says that he only nominated "two articles" when in fact he nominated at least five or six (if one counts his re-nomination of Beyt Tikkun to "deletion review"), so how can anyone believe anything he claims and his own obvious hyperbole right on this very page? And oh yes, its is oh so easy to scapegoat someone as visible as me and pin the failure of his nominations onto me when there was a clear consenus against his nominations of synagogues for deletion.
 * (14) Sure I have no right of self-defense now that you are on the attack! Bstone stopped after I warned him, but he does not like to be warned. He is allowed to make mistakes and retract them, but no such grace is allowed for those whom he dislikes. Is this normal?
 * (15) How ridiculous! Only he is allowed to launch attacks and AFDs and PRODs against articles and stubs and no-one should dare to confront him. Someone needs to remind him that he is not the accuser/prosecutor/judge/executioner in this instance, or ever. Bstone keeps on piling on and thinks it's normal. I stand by my assessment of him and his motives as by now he has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that he has no regard for anything I state and merely wishes to pursue his self-concocted battle without any regard for what it says about him or the negative light he is shining, by implication, on others who do not share his take on things and who do not share his POV nor his judgment as an editor.

Response to "evidence" of trying to resolve dispute


 * (1) The only "dispute" that is going on on this page is in Bstone's imagination. I honestly and truly am not disputing anything with him at this time. Yet he persists in his imaginary self-induced confrontation with me. Essentially, there had been a series of AFDs about synagogues that were put to the vote fair and square, that did not go Bstone's way. The admin whom Bstone "approached" knew nothing about that nor about Bstone's role in it, nor about me and he had no context about the AFDs and Bstone's clinging to them beyond acceptable limits, just "complaints" from one side, Bstone's. It's very foolish for any admin to issue blanket warnings to people without bothering to ask the other side or neutral parties in the know, what had been going on, to check out "complaints" that may may heve been tendentious and calculated in the extreme.
 * (2) My interactions with User:Shirahadasha go back a long time. We have had many disagreements and we also agree on many things. I cannot fathom why Bstone now wishes to drag Shirahadasha into this, when in fact on his own talk page he belittles Shirahadasha as he claims to come in the defense of Shira, see User talk:John Carter: "I am not sure if Shirahadasha can help out here..." so what "help" is Bstone looking for exactly? A lynch-mob? That, as usual, only editors and admins who agree with him should be called upon, even as they are openly insulted as they are cited as "proof"? Shirahadasha has not requested representaion here and is more than able to deal with me. Whenever we have been involved in discussions Shirahadasha has engaged me in full dialogue and we have always reached workable undestandings even in contentious AFDs. No doubt Shirahadasha will be heard from in good time.
 * (3) This is such a silly and gratuitous after-thought merely because I raised the fact that Bstone lost two AFD votes relating to Beyt Tikkun. I had made full statements at Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun and Deletion review/Log/2008 February 14 explaining my votes. An editor does not owe every single  editor never-ending responses after saying their utmost at the AFDs. In fact, it is weird that Bstone wants to communicate with me so badly if he finds endless streams of problems with my communications style. One would think that he would want to stay as far away from me as possible. Go figure. Anyhow, I gave more than ample reasoning and more than is required at such AFD proceedings. Bstone wanted me to change my vote and I informed him that I had nothing further to add (because overly looooong discussions at AFD pages do not help and it was time to wait for the outcome of the AFD) and Bstone evidently can neither respect nor accept that people differ with him (not just my view). How on earth Bstone can interpret the end of discussions at an AFD as "refused to discuss the issue thus preventing and further communication" is beyond me. I had cast my vote and explained myself there awaiting the result. Does Bstone now want to use this discussion he has launched here as yet a THIRD attempt to renominate the Beyt Tikkun article for deletion? That would be really far-fetched and obsessive in the extreme.


 * On balance and having now reviewed the entire discussion on this page and User:Bstone's erratic and reckless words and behavior regarding his carefree AFDs, PRODs, and disdain for WP:JUDAISM that he may well be in full violation of WP:TROLLing and that his goal is nothing less than WP:DISRUPT, see also WP:REICHSTAG, especially of articles pertaining to Judaism. Signing sadly, IZAK (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Policies and dispute

The invocation of these policies is incorrect because there is absolutely NO standing dispute (except now on this page!) The discussions were all about AFDs that have concluded and I cannot imagine why Bstone wishes to now conduct nothing less than a vendetta against me when everyone, but himself, has moved on. I am always ready to discuss anything but Bstone wishes me to respond to his ultimatums and then accuse me of "not resolving a dispute with him" -- how absurd is that? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to outside views by IZAK


 * Response to Requests for comment/IZAK2: User is himself a highly controversial and divisive editor. I had never run into him until he recently caused a rucus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism where a number of editors became alarmed at his actions in combination with an out-of-control bot. These concerns were also in great heat at Administrators' noticeboard which was an alarming situation and therefore to stop the downward spiral to chaos that in such situations an editor should be blocked, placing the same notices at both Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248 and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Noone agreed with me in any case, but it did contribute to a "sit-up-and-take-notice" effect that helped calm things down after that. I have no personal grudge against this user, indeed I have had hardly any interaction with him till very recently and I wish him well. IZAK (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to Requests for comment/IZAK2: I have only bumped into User in the recent AFDs about synagogues where he had himself asked for me to explain my reasoning at those votes. And I did, at length. At no time have I directed anything offensive at him and he is taking small quotes from other talk pages out of context and blowing them out of proportion. In response to his post here, how can he make comments in such a venue and openly admit that "I've not time to read all this stuff, and the lengthy responses" -- would one trust a doctor who did not have time to read everything he needs to know about a case and still feel competent that he could give a learned and objective opinion? Highly questionable. He seems to dislike when editors respond in length to him, he maybe prefers IM or telegram style talk. I am sorry that I cannot oblige him in this request. He also has a bad tendency to extrapolate and make conclusions and says things that were never meant or said by anyone. For example, "because" I "respond to everything with long tendentious arguments" he concludes that it means that I am "therefore" in "violation" of WP:OWN. Very odd, and wrong. His statement: "And he seems to assume that only people who share his POV can edit neutrally on his subjects of his interest" is utterly false. How many articles has Doc edited with me, ever? Zero! The only time I gave my views on the same page as him was on the very recent AFDs and talk pages, but never ever once did he experience anything negative in the course of editing articles with me or with any editor (unless he can cite anything). The arguments here were and remain ONLY about if it is right to delete synagogue stubs without giving editors, especially at WP:JUDAISM (where else and who else would care about synagogues?) a chance to expand them, and if I went too far to defend that, and when instead of me being thanked for upgrading these articles to "Keep" status, User:Bstone is angry at me and wants to avenge himself here because he nominated them for deletion and lost! That's it and so be it. Nothing else. I would use stronger language, but Doc is extrapolating into situations that do not exist. If he can cite where he finds examples in ARTICLE editing of what he claims, then let him cite it, otherwise I would greatly appreciate it if he would not say things that are patently false. His three points (1) (2) and (3) are only based on my open discussions on talk pages where editors talk about all kinds of things. Was I mistaken to engage him in discussions on his own talk page to explain my views and seek accord between us, read User talk:Doc glasgow and especially User talk:Doc glasgow and judge for yourself as to who is being open, honest, eager for dialogue, and who is being cranky and rigid and not welcoming. What is being discussed is not being framed as policies of any kind. Finallly, if he can find that I called anyone an anti-Semite in this present situation he should cite that too, but he can neither control nor limit my words based on Jewish history and he is being disengenuous by putting words into my mouth, which he tends to do in arguments rather than letting others speak for, or explain, themselves. Doc you can do better than that. IZAK (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary by IZAK

 * 1) I see no ongoing dispute apart from Bstone's apparently hurt feelings over being spoken to sternly for his attempts to delete articles without consultation with concerned editors. Izak is certainly one of the more passionate editors that I've worked with, and he could probably dial things back a bit from time to time, but there's no evidence of him doing anything other than defending a few articles from what he felt was undeserved deletion. Bringing up a 3-year old arbcom case on an unrelated topic that involved him is questionable at best. Why involve the community in this? Just go to Izak personally and work out your differences. It's not hard to play nice, especially on something so minor as a few harsh words in the heat of the moment. Daniel C/T+ 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree that there's no evidence of him doing anything other than defending a few articles from deletion that he felt was not deserved. Nerguy (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I endorse Izak's statements. To me, it seems like someone lost a couple of AFD's and is taking it too personally. Yossiea (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) In general I endorse IZAK's statements. In particular, I would highlight Bstone's message at Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun that he was waiting for IZAK's response and his similar message at User talk:IZAK that he would love to see IZAK's responses. To me, both messages suggested that Bstone valued IZAK's opinion and believed he could be a calming influence in a very contentious AfD. In the course of a few days, Bstone nominated for deletion a relatively large number of articles about synagogues and ignored two requests to list them at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. IZAK was particularly aggressive in fighting to keep the articles, both at the AfD discussions and by improving the articles. I think Bstone should consider whether a bruised ego is the principle source of his grievances against IZAK. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I find that Bstone has a serious tendency to overreact to others' comments about his actions and maneuvers. He then refuses to discuss what he believes are his morally correct actions, admonishing everyone to AGF while similarly not extending that courtesy to anyone else.  From the arguments put forth here by both parties, it seems clear that Bstone has hurt feelings and refuses to respond to several opportunities provided by WP:JUDAISM in multiple arenas.  PaddyM (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Bstone should be less fanatical. Friday (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) While IZAK may at times allow his passion to be felt in his responses, there is nothing here that demonstrates any violation of wiki policy and guidelimnes. If anything, posting a greatly premature RfC, dragging in an ancient ArbCom case, either ignorant or deliberate misstatement of the well-known-wiki phenomenon of prodding, and a seemingly calculated spree of nominating a particular subclass of articles for deletion instead of discussing it with the appropriate projects can lead one to believe that Bstone may need to review some of our core policies. -- Avi (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) I agree that this rfc is misguided and that IZAK has edited and expressed his views in a way which is perfectly acceptable. dvd  rw  21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Agree and Endorse; Avi makes some valid points as well in his above comment. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Endorse per above. This RFC seems inappropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) While IZAK may be a bit (too?) sharp at times, my overall impression &mdash; and, actually, maybe particularily in this case &mdash; works very hard for the improvement of Wikipedia in his fields of expertise. It might be wise if IZAK tones down his emotion a bit at times, but in this case, my strong impression is that Bstone is the one who, frankly, needs to calm down, take one step back and consider whether his current contributions are helpful to Wikipedia. -- Olve (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Addhoc (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) The correct place over undisruptive disagreements should be taken care off in a discussion page relevent to the subject, such as the JUDAISM project or the talk page of the particular article. This is overblown for absolutely no reason. Guy Montag (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) It seems to me that IZAK has done nothing but exhibit his characteristic enthusiasm, gusto and overall commitment to the cause. If his good intentions have been misinterpreted, the real shame lies in the wasted time of those community members who must defend his good name from personal attacks. It would seem that Bstone should reevaluate his position and try to reason from a less emotional perspective so that this whole affair may be dealt with, tucked away and removed from the perpetually damoclean todo list of the Wikipedia user base. --yonkeltron (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) I admit to not having read all of the above, as it's a lot to get through. I just want to say that, in my experience of IZAK, it's true that he doesn't suffer fools gladly (or anyone appearing as such), but that's because he's trying to create and maintain a body of work that's important to him. He's passionate, enthusiastic, and committed, and he has a very good and kind heart. And there's actually a lot of humor in his posts, even when he's being critical. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Endorse per above. --YoavD (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) I concur and join in the opinions of yonkeltron and SlimVirgin above. Dauster (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 18)  Yahel   Guhan  03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) IZAK's passion and enthusiasm can sometimes be a bit alarming, and his prose tends to verbosity and emotion, but this just makes him colorful (rather then troublesome), and he is a dedicated and passionate contributor to Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Bstone is overreacting, true, and IZAK occasionally goes a bit overboard. This dispute has been blown way out of proportion, and revanchism for losing votes is a poor excuse to go disputing people's character; moreover, IZAK is a good scholar. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) I agree with Rickyrab and others that IZAK does tend sometimes to go overboard in his reactions (I've borne the brunt of this myself on more than one occasion), and often tends toward verbosity (witness the very statements I'm endorsing here...), but these tendencies do not warrant sanction, neither in the cases used as evidence in this RfC nor in any others of which I'm aware (including those where I've locked horns with him). My advice in this RfC is for IZAK to understand better that these tendencies of his sometimes arouse undesirable passions in others, and to Bstone to understand that criticism is not incivility, especially when the only grounds for the assumption that it does constitute incivility, are (at least as it seems to me) that if Bstone would have intended incivility had he responded using the same word[ing]s.  Bstone says on his userpage that he "does not understand mean people."  That's good.  But I think he is misidentifying IZAK as "mean".  Tomertalk  10:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) I wholeheartedly endorse IZAK. His hard work and effort on behalf of Wikipedia are to be commended. He works to improve articles whereas others take the lazy route and delete them. --Itsabouttime (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside views
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.

Outside view by Alansohn
I have participated in at least one of the AfDs that seem to have been the trigger for this RfC, but I had not previously seen or participated in any of the interaction between IZAK and Bstone. The first claim in this laundry list speaks to the issue: "1. IZAK violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF by stating that I have been "nominating and prodding" . Prodding is defined "To goad to action; incite." I nominated a few articles entirely in good faith as I felt they were legitimately non-notable." I don't think it could be any clearer that "nominating" means starting AfDs and that the term "prodding" is a reference to the WP:PROD proposed deletion process and has nothing at all to do with "goading" or "inciting" as is falsely alleged. That the primary claim so utterly misinterprets any reasonable interpretation of IZAK's words is indicative of a basic failure in this RfC. The WP:Articles for deletion process is inherently disruptive; those who have worked on an article risk having all trace of their work wiped out, while the nominator risks nothing. WP:Deletion policy attempts to strike a balance; a nominator is explicitly obligated to research claims of potential notability and to edit, improve or consider merging content before the mad dash to AfD. This basic and fundamental policy seems to have been ignored in all of the AfDs under discussion here. That so many of these articles could be so readily improved and were near unanimous in consensus to keep, shows the clear failure in observance of this policy. The choice to compound the damage with the even more disruptive RfC process only raises further questions. Given the presence of a large group of people with the knowledge, ability and willingness to improve these articles, the failure to reach out to WP:WikiProject Judaism to address perceived issues with these synagogue is all the more disturbing. I think that all of the parties involved need to reevaluate the way they have used (and abused) Wikipedia policy and interpreted (and misinterpreted) the actions taken by the various parties before pursuing this action further. Alansohn (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) I agree, the "prodding"/WP:PROD misunderstanding epitomizes the miscommunication and overreaction that appears to be happening here. Overall, I see strong reaction and vigorous debate by IZAK being misinterpreted as a personal attack (although the Kristalnacht reference was a bit too much).  The bottom line that IZAK seems to be attempting to communicate is encouragement to bring mass synagogue article deletions to the Judaism WikiProject for discussion rather than delete others’ work so quickly. -- M P er el  07:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with both Alansohn and MPerel that there has been miscommunication and overreaction in regards to this situation. Having contributed to a number of articles and AfD debates to which IZAK has also contributed/been a part of and I have found him to be a passionate and dedicated editor; however it has been my observation that on the internet peoples' words, emotions, feelings and intentions, are often misread/misunderstood/mistaken due to the lack of additional forms of sensory input (such as facial expressions, vocal tones, mannerisms and such).   In addition, while as editors we are supposed to remain neutral, Religion is by nature a very personal subject, and we are all bound to be hyper-sensitive to the responses, words and actions of others.  It is my belief that this is what has happened here, a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of a passionate debate/discussion. And from my point of view, it appear that IZAK has been willing to discuss, debate, and communicate the issues at hand. Nsaum75 (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with the above that the description of "nominating and prodding" is in no way pejorative, and the RfC proposal is a way OTT reaction. Anyone accusing an editor of lack of WP:AGF is using a two-edged sword-surely the proposer needs to assume good faith on IZAK 's part. Fanning the flames with an RfC is most inappropriate. It seems to me that an attempt to improve a group of articles would be more in in the interests of WP than wholesale proposals for deletion. I find it sad that some editors app[ear to be more interested in deleting content than improving it. The rest of the list above is a ramble without any clear focus. What exactly is the complaint? --Redaktor (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree with Alansohn's well-worded comment, and would like to add the following:
 * 5) * IZAK responded harshly a few times, but no more harshly than the norm at Wikipedia. If BStone can't take that kind of heat, he/she should get out of the kitchen. I daresay that everyone who ever writes anything about Jewish topics will be subject to all kinds of accusations from time to time, and this is among the milder.
 * 6) * (Relegated as comment, as endorsement has been moved) BStone should know that many many articles on Wikipedia start as stubs and are expanded as source material becomes available. His defense was that some of the articles were mere stubs and hadn't established notability. He was asked to explain his basis for differentiating between notable and non-notable articles and didn't respond. I would posit that every single synagogue in the world should be presumed to be notable. For reasons that should be self-evident for BStone if he thinks about the matter. --Leifern (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree with this. I mostly see IZAC at CfD, where I often - no, usually - disagree with his views, and his over-the-top style, but I see no serious harm in him. His scatter-gun quoting of inappropriate polices, and generally over-vehement approach just reduces the force of his arguments - the call to ban John Carter demonstrates this effect neatly - it just closed down the argument. The "prod" accusation above is equally silly. More seriously, John Carter made a blocking-threat to IZAK and me (if it was me he meant - he was getting very confused) over this, while apparently in a red mist.  Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree. It is true that IZAK can get caught up in the heat of things at times. In this case the only real issue is the uncalled for deletions that didn't have consensus.Dovi (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Similar to my comments above. -- Avi (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 10)  dvd  rw  00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Mistakes were made. They should be addressed and improved upon, and we should then move on to better things.  &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Shirahadasha
IZAK has expressed a frustration that has been expressed by many people on Wikipedia in many fields: Wikipedia's approach of letting anyone edit and decide means that decisions are regularly made by non-experts in ways that experts, rightly or wrongly, think misguided. This doesn't just happen in religion: there's regularly been discussions on Wikipedia talk:No original research of the difficulty of applying Wikipedia policies to fields such as mathematics and philosophy and the mistakes that are often made and frustrations that often occur when non-experts attempt to apply criteria. I think that these types of frustration are an inevitable part of Wikipedia. On one hand, we've chosen to have an encyclopedia anyone can edit, with all the frustration that comes when experts feel their expertise is disrespected. On the other hand, we need experts. And because we need them, we have no choice but to cut them some slack when they feel frustrated. If we let them all stomp out in a huff, or pushed them out whenever they said anything uncivil in a moment of frustration, Wikipedia would be much poorer and much less reliable. It is, I think, a reality we have to live with, and it isn't limited to matters of religion. That said, I think IZAK not only tends to get frustrated at times, which is understandable, but can sometimes say things that can make him somewhat difficult to deal with when he does this. Understanding that Wikipedia's approach of getting input from anybody may or may not be a "wise" course, it would be appreciated, and would increase his status as a גיבור (power) within Wikipedia, if IZAK could try to כובש (control) things a bit, understanding that having to deal with Wikipedia can sometimes be a frustrating experience for everyone, whether one is an expert on anything or not. Being more שמח בחלקו (happy with one's lot), understanding that things will not always go ones way, may result in finding oneself less frustrated and more עשיר (enriched) from the Wikipedia experience. See (מסכת אבות פרק ד,א) (Tractate Avot Chapter 4, Mishna 1). Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) Addhoc (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Leifern - something for all of us (including me) to remember --Leifern (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Aizehu Chochom applies as well. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Reasonable proposal, although personally I can't actually read a fair amount of what is said above. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) More or less agreed but think Doc's comments below also have some truth. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Understandable and a reasonable nag. In fact, someone ought to sticky this somewhere (oops, forgot this wasn't a message board) - but someone ought to put this message where people in general can read this, not just the disputants.  &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by John Carter
I have recently had the editor in question nominate me for blocking on the basis of a request I had made for article tagging, which had already been finished. This is actually in direct contradiction to wikipedia guidelines, and might even, to at least a degree, qualify as WP:DE. I have seen instances of other conduct of at best dubious nature as well.

I regret to say that the area in which this editor deals is one which, by its nature, draws a large number of vandal edits, and clearly POV edits. The same can be said for all religion content editors, of which I also am one. By all accounts, he does a decent job of countering the vandalism, although, at times, he seems to go well beyond that. The same has been, and will continue to be, said about virtually any other editor in roughly the same situation dealing with roughly the same subject.

I do believe that the editor in question may well cross the line, perhaps more than occasionally. While I acknowledge that the field in which he works is one in which a person who is clearly emotionally tied to the subject, as IZAK is, might reasonably become agitated, I also have to question whether, as a result of his at times clearly becoming agitated, he may not, on occasion, be actually acting in a way which is opposed to wikipedia's best interests. It might very well be in his own best interests, and those of wikipedia as a whole, if, when he finds that he is acting in a way which might indicate that his emotions are perhaps taking priority over his reason, if he declined to act and instead contacted another party regarding his concerns. That other party would very likely be able to examine the matter more objectively, and IZAK himself might be able to avoid acting in such a way that his actions make it easier for others to see him as being acting less than acceptablely. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Doc
I've not time to read all this stuff, and the lengthy responses. But IZAK needs to cool it. He has a tenancy to respond to everything with long tendentious arguments, which exhibit WP:OWN concerns. And he seems to assume that only people who share his POV can edit neutrally on his subjects of his interest. The mentality seems to be "this is Jewish, so stay away". I've recently had particular concerns over instances:
 * 1) His suggestion that "editors who have no inkling of religion or may even be totally opposed to it, being atheists in some cases, should not sit in judgment whether religious bodies or buildings etc are notable or not" (the last of the SEVEN  replies in this once post).  This clearly  fails to understand  wikipedia's concept of neutrality, and rather assumes the bad faith of all non-believing editors - quite unacceptable.
 * 2) His repeated insistence in AfDs that the relevant wikiproject alone and not the wider community should decide on articles in his field.
 * 3) His rather insulting and manipulative comparison of the deletion nomination of his favoured articles with anti-Jewish pogroms, and "mass killings" and "Kristallnacht" . It is quite intolerable to interact with a user who is hinting that those who disagree with him are anti-semitic. IZAK needs to learn to assume good faith, and leave such polemic at the door.

Basically, IZAK stop fighting everyone, assume good faith, and stick to the issues.

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) --Docg 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) --Bstone (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) --John Carter (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) --DGG (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC), reluctantly; but tact here would help the very articles he is concerned about
 * 7) --Aboutmovies (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) JoshuaZ (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) --YY (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) IZAK evidently does a lot of very useful work (and though his editing is all on one theme no gross bias is obvious), but needs to remember to cool it on occasions. Moreschi (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Gilabrand
I have not been involved in the brouhaha, nor do I have time to read all this material, but I stand by IZAK as an important contributer to Wikipedia. We have worked together on many articles and I have never encountered any problems. On the contrary, he has been a model for peaceful collaboration and openly appreciative of the efforts of others.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) Endorse -- Avi (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Yahel   Guhan  02:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Baka  man  05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Deborahjay
I have remained outside of the dispute while noting how some interchanges have a contentious tone generating far more heat than light. This a deplorable waste of energies better directed at building Wikipedia, and I want to see a swift and suitable conclusion to this prolonged chain of charges/countercharges. All parties would do well to conduct civil and constructive exchanges, focusing on positive outcomes. I highly value IZAK's ongoing contributions to WP in the field of Jewish history (subsets of which are my own primary field of interest), and support inclusion of all stubs and created pages documenting synagogues, as these religious/communal institutions have intrinsic socio-cultural-historical relevance and belong in this online free encyclopedia. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) --Shuki (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Though I don't think that every synagogue is notable, many in fact are significant and Izak makes every effort to defend often explicit deletionists. Frankly, I don't agree with the RFC.
 * 2) Agreed. This RfC has resulted in a considerable amount of pointless effort.  It has been completely unedifying to its parties as well as to the Project as a whole.  Tomertalk  10:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely outside view by Argyriou
I'm being lazy here, but that's partly because I don't want to step into this dispute too much. I was involved in one AfD where IZAK and Bstone were battling. I opined that the article should be kept, and ended up the subject of Bstone's harassment (which did not extend beyond the AfD discussion). I will admit that I responded to Bstone's incivility with incivility of my own; however, the argument flared out, and no real harm was done.

Reading more, I noticed that there seemed to be a conflict between IZAK and Bstone, and both were acting with some greater lack of civility than is really appropriate. I don't know, nor care, who started the fight, or who escalated it to the level of incivility which it enjoys. Bstone complaining about IZAK's incivility is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. IZAK is not innocent in this, but Bstone's behavior appears, from a limited scan, to be as poor as IZAK's. Anyone sanctions applied to IZAK ought be applied to Bstone as well. Argyriou (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) I have to agree. Talk to each other and work together to calm tensions...that's the core of consensus-building.  Drawing up [frivolous, in this case] RfCs does nothing to promote consensus, nor does it build up good relations with fellow editors.  Tomertalk  10:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by gzuckier
Enh. (shrug) this is one of those times where somebody gets under your skin, without really injuring you in any way. from the outside it seems like a tempest in a teapot, from the inside it's exponentially increasingly infuriating. thing to do is just let it pass you by rather than assuming the target role and catching it in the face. which advice is, i know, almost as infuriating as the initial event. sorry. it appears that most people agree: kiss and make up is in order, and both you kids play nice while mommy is watching her shows. more involvement of the power structure will, i feel, be damaging, overall. full disclosure: I'm kind of an antideletionist myself. Gzuckier (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.