Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Proposed decision

As was pointed out by numerous people while discussions as to the hearing of this case were ongoing, the practice of so-called "talk page spamming" is not against Wikipedia policy. It has hardly even been discussed - and what discussion there has been, mostly in answer to this case, has hardly been conclusive. As far as I can see, those that received the messages expressed support for them, where those who disagreed with IZAK largely opposed them.

Without making any comment on the legitimacy of the practice (which I'm undecided about), I don't know where the sense of "community consensus" that principle #4 refers to is coming from. It probably does need to be discussed further by the community, but if a decision along these lines is to be handed down, I'd like to be pointed to at least one page that shows such a consensus, for it seems to me that this is instead the opinion of the arbitrators - and that such a decision would exceed the Committee's mandate. Please understand that I don't necessarily support the practice, but I also don't believe it is the Committee's place to choose to ban it.

Secondly, it also concerns me that a vote for the deletion of Occupation of Palestine was taken as a matter of POV. As was shown by the significant number of people who also voted to delete this article, there was much more to this than "I'm pro-Israel, so I vote to delete", with exceptional circumstances caused by the campaign of a non-neutral editor from the other side. Why is this then being singled out as evidence of non-neutral editing on IZAK's part, apart from as a poor attempt to back up the second, quite legitimate, example?

Even worse, why is the deletion of a POV rant (read the original and you'll see what I mean, if you haven't already) that duplicated existing material - and an action that many respected Wikipedians agreed with, characterised further down as an "action which violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy".

Thirdly, I dislike comparing cases, but once again, I'm somewhat bemused at the Committee's apparent willingness to ban pro-Israel editors such as Lance6Wins and IZAK (and also seen in the disproportionately harsh sentence proposed for Jayjg), but not to the other extreme in HistoryBuffer. I continue to assume good faith here, but the imbalance is starting to concern me. Ambi 06:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * With regard to the first point, while I do not agree with the opinion of the others, it is a reasonable position, after all, there were many complaints. The notion of our procedure as "common law", while historically inaccurate, is reasonable enough. We need to be able to respond to novel situations without being hamstrung by lack of a specific policy which refers to unanticipated problems. Fred Bauder 13:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * While this may indeed be a problem that may need to be faced (and I'm not convinced it is), making policy still isn't in the Committee's mandate - either at present, or if the new amendment passes. Is this not just making policy by another name? Ambi 13:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * With respect to the second point, it was my intention to "grasp the nettle", of widespread biased editing and decision-making in this area, not avoid it. The article may have been an anti-Semitic rant or not and perhaps ought to have been substantially changed, but the phrase "occupied territories" while in general use is carefully avoided in Wikipedia articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some case might be made that the term "Occupation of Palestine" might be interpreted to apply to all of Palestine, including Israel itself, in which case perhaps some other name might be chosen. The issue of bias goes to attempts to exclude the word "occupation" in all instances, not just the title of this one article. Fred Bauder 13:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * It just seems to me that the committee is plunging itself into an ideological dispute where it does not belong. The committee does not dictate article content, and this is hardly clear-cut (there is a case that the term occupation is not neutral). In any case, the committee should not be using as justification for action a move which later turned out to have the consensus of the community. Ambi 13:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * With respect to the third point, unless my initiative in the matter of HistoryBuffEr is followed, it is not Arbitration Committee policy and the decision will probably fall back into the pattern of a one year ban from editing in the area, which might not be applied to Jayjg. A prospective decision is not precedent, but departure from it. I do not count it a "harsh sentence" to be required to cite a reliable source for one's edits as I consider myself under the same discipline. Fred Bauder 13:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Re: IZAK RfA
Fred: I see that voting is taking place on my case. Why does that page only cite only the few examples you wrote on it? How do I know that every arbitrator will read everything that relates to the case and not just your one-sentence summaries? Why are you not applying the same standards to HistoryBuffEr in his case, such as suggesting the he be banned for one year? Could you please explain. Thanks. IZAK 05:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I would hope, as you would, that the other arbitrators will come to an independent decision after considering all the evidence. Practically, they sometimes follow my lead if they feel comfortable. I am proposing something new with HistoryBuffEr. If you would like the same remedies proposed for him I will try to get them for you, but the other arbitrators may not go along with what is, admittedly, a novel proposal. By the way, look at Ambi's analysis of the situation on the talk page of the proposed decision. I will try to answer it eventually, but I would also welcome your take on it. Fred Bauder 12:26, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Fred, in pointing to HistoryBuffEr, I am not choosing to get as you say "the same remedies proposed for him I will try to get them for you". No, this is not what I desire as our cases are of a different nature. I do see though that you are looking at things with an open mind. I am concerned that the "decision stage" of this RfA needs to fit with the original complaints of the RfA by Netoholic, and that all the other complaints were in the past. IZAK 06:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IZAK and Sam Spade
Most importantly, I have stressed that regarding the issue of "personal attacks" RE: Sam Spade and myself held discussions and that AFAIK the subject was closed when I tendered my apology and he accepted it. IZAK 06:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) As proof see: and When, tongue-in-cheek, I asked whether Sam would ever consider me for an "Admin" position on Wikipedia,   Sam , posing as "Thomas Jefferson", responded by saying: "I should hope that regardless of your POV, that you can see the proper response to such abominations. If I were to see you behave in a neutral, polite manner in response to issues such as this (as well as generally) for a period of time, I would of course support you for an adminship position. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 15:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)"
 * User talk:IZAK . My explicit words (at end of paragraph): "...it was NOT meant to be anything personally harmful to you as I do not have anything against you personally as a fellow Wikipedian and as a human being. I am sorry for any discomfort and hurt you may have experienced and I hope that we can continue a positive dialogue in the future. Thanks again for your sincere words and patience. IZAK 00:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)" see Sam's opening words: "OK, I can accept that..."
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/IZAK where the above apology and acceptance was repeated and noted, and we then also engaged in a dialogue about how our views about certain aspects of the Nazi era and its consequences differed, for example:
 * 1) Sam accusing me of "racism", I objected to this slur
 * 2) Sam accuses me "you are unable to see thru your "all Germans are Nazi's" racist POV" and I remain calm and respond "Sam, again I request that you retract your accusation, as I have never said that "all Germans are Nazis" at any time, and I cannot fathom how you see me as "racist" if I am definitely anti-Nazi..."
 * 3) Sam accuses me "...review your unfortunate opinions" and I respond: "Sam, there must be serious cognitive differences between us..."
 * 4) Sam complains: "OK, then why the accusations of historical revisionism for my documenting these atrocities?" and my response "...You have to convey the total picture of the evil the Nazis unleashed, not just that there were "casualties" some time after the war."
 * 5) Sam talks about Holocaust-era "work camps" and accuses me of "justifying genocide": "despite every genocide having been justified by the oppressors, and now, unfortunately, here by you as well." and my response "...there was no such thing as "work camps"! There were either concentration camps or extermination camps, and they were NOT meant for "reperation to exact from untermensch they felt had been exploiting them for so many generations..."
 * 6) Sam "humors" me: "Typical, I accuse you of justifying crimes against Germans, and you accuse me of revisionism. Turnabout is fair play eh? and I say: "Sam, please do not put words in my proverbial mouth. I am NOT justifying "crimes against Germans" or against anyone else. I do NOT approve of crime. Period! When looking at historical events one looks at the causes and effects..."
 * 7) Sam accuses me of not "understanding what caused the Holocaust: "You calously disregard the Socio-economic anti-Semitism (rooted in the disproportionate success and/or influence, relative to their numbers within the general population, that individual Jews have achieved in a variety of occupations) that feuled the vitrol of the holocaust..." and I respond by ending "If you review what I have repeated to you a few times already, you will see that I am trying to talk like a responsible historian and that all you seem to want to do is to tug at emotional heart strings that has nothing to do with the facts of history, just to run around looking for ways to portray groups you favor for whatever reason as "victims" without any regard for the context and facts of history...It is time for us to end the circular dancing around this topic as I have stated what I have to say a few times over, and you keep harping away and resorting to out of conext emotionalism. IZAK 18:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

The fact that the above "dialogue/s" took place at all, coming well after the original RfC and after my subsequent apology and Sam's acceptance of it, should serve as a clear indicator and proof that we were and are able to keep up a decent dialogue even though we disagree/d completely. Therefore that older issue (in the older RfC) should NOT have been dragged into this newer vote (RfA) and cited as "proof" at Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Proposed decision, as the "proof" now runs in the direction of conflict resolution. IZAK 06:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, Sam Spade, and Netoholic
This episode should also be noted, and I cite it in full to give everyone a sense of the ongoing discussions "behind the scenes" as this RfA unfolded. From: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence IZAK 06:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This section is in response to Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence:

There are many earlier examples, but here is a choice one just posted at Talk:History of the Jews in Colonial America:

"History of Jews in the United States (under English rule) is an anachronistic title as there was no United States prior to the American Revolution. AndyL 02:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Change it then, so long as its not to History of the Jews in the americas, prior to their becoming the great satan ;) Sam [Spade] 02:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, this is a disgusting comment! IZAK 03:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)"


 * Is this comment (made Nov 9) in some way going to provide evidence in response to the charges made here against you in this arbitration? If not, then it does not belong here.  As a side note, Sam was obviously joking. -- Netoholic @ 03:58, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Reply To Neholoc: Listen, it was Sam who chose to bring "proofs" of his "positive attitude to Jews" see "Evidence of Sam Spade contributing beneficially to Judaism / WWII subjects", so in keeping with this it is important to show that Sam continues his deliberarely insulting comments, therefore yes, it does belong here as a very fresh recent example. So you think that "Sam was obviously joking" eh, I wonder what that says about you? IZAK 04:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This would only be relavent if it explained your actions. Since this specific comment was made long after, it has no bearing on your previous actions at all.  "I wonder what that says about you" - it says that I can read it, see his " ;) " smiley-face, and see the humor in his reference to Khomeini's famous "Great Satan" comments about the USA. -- Netoholic @ 04:38, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

'''Netoholic, how about you STOP being the prosecutor, judge, and executioner at the same time. Just say what you have to say without pushing me or the materials around as "you" see fit.''' IZAK 04:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How revolting, there is NOTHING remotely "humorous" about Khomeini, the words "great satan", or anything so inflamatory at a time when the world is dealing with Islamic fundamentalism, the modern-day equivalant of Nazism, which is why I feel it is so important to take a stand against those who share or sympathize with those kind of Anti-Semitic ideologies. Or do you differ on this as well?IZAK 05:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You are not providing any relavent evidence or explanation about the charges against you. Sam's adminship nomination only relates to some of your mass-posting.  Please explain the rest, it is to your benefit. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

It is very relevant as it was and is Sam's attitudes revealed in his words towards Jews that lies at the core of how my opposition to him grew determined in the first place, to make sure that other Users on Wikipedia should not be taken in by his sweeet words and should be made aware of the things has said so hurtful to Jewish people. Do YOU have no feelings either? IZAK 05:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Um... I don't support Khomeini, I was making an extremely poor joke @ andyL, who in the past has supported Communist POV's. I was attempting to highlight the anti-american nature of Communism (I'm pretty sure I'm not anti-american, I'm part of a military family ;). The joke was stupid, and I only made it because andyL and I have had a combative / joking relationship for some time. I in no way ment to suggest that "great satan" was an acceptable title for america, or whatever IZAK thought I ment. I apologize profusely for my stupid joke however, clearly it was tragically unfunny ;) Sam [Spade] 16:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, it was Netoholic who decided to interpret your smiley-sign, I know that you were not the one who brought Khomeini into this discussion. As for how you dragged "Communism" into your comments I honestly cannot fathom that. The "joke" was framed in live brackets like so:  to make it appear as if it was being dangled in the air as a potential article for some twit to write...so it was risky framing it thus: "History of the Jews in the americas, prior to their becoming the great satan", and should not have been given that (technical) recognition on Wikipedia. IZAK 23:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If thats so important, you better stop printing it all over the place! I deleted the original and apologized. Feel free to delete your copies as well! Sam [Spade] 00:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, what am I "printing all over the place"? So far, this discussion is happening HERE only, what other place/s is it appearing? What should I delete? If I touch anything then Netoholic may be liable to go through the roof as he is presenting himself here as a Wikipedia "purist" ad absurdum and I never know which imagined "infraction" of mine will be cited in his never-ending list of complaints against me.IZAK 02:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IZAK and HistoryBuffEr
As for my comments relating to HistoryBuffEr, they were originally made when the RfC against me was opened on 5 OCTOBER '04, wherein I cited HistoryBuffEr's own words, see Requests for comment/IZAK Since then I have not had much to do with HistoryBuffEr except for posting my past previous evidence (i.e. my verbatim self-same aforementioned "response") when his own RfA asked for evidence at Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence Please note, that HistoryBuffER failed to get certification for his RfC against me after many a "48 hour deadline" had expired many times over by now, see the important Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/IZAK where the admin "supervising" the procedure clearly states:  '''I have moved this dispute to the list of disputes not yet certified. When this began I informed the original complainant User:HistoryBuffEr that he did not have standing to certify the action unless he made some attempt to come to terms with User:IZAK, and I even suggested approaches, but he indicated he could not, or would not, deal with him, So he is not in a position to certify and User:Ed Poor has not given evidence of his own attempts to reach IZAK. The only users in a position to certify right now are User:pir, User:JFW and User:Jayjg. The 48-hour clock has started again. If complainants really want to put this forward, surely you can find two people who have engaged IZAK, been rebuffed, and are willing to certify. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)  Thanks again for your careful attention to all the details. Yours truly, IZAK 05:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One year???
Dear arbitrators, I would like to propose to make IZAK's ban on Israel-Palestinian Conflict articles substantially shorter, e.g. 3 months. His behaviour has been nowhere near that of User:Irismeister or other people who have had similar bans from particular groups of articles. You must also be aware that only a handful of editors presently prevents anti-Israel distortions in articles, and IZAK is an important member of this handful. Whether this has lead to personal attacks or not, the trolling from the opposition has been fierce. Please do reconsider. JFW | T@lk  14:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I find the whole proposal bizarre; NPOV editing was not even part of the original complaint, I don't see how the arbitration can deal with it. Jayjg 23:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any User can utilize Email
One point: Many of the "objections" about "cross-posting" and alleged "spamming" make no sense at all and are in a sense pointless from a practical point of view, as any User can utilize either the Wikipedia Email system or regular Email provided by Users themselves. And it's all perfectly legal. IZAK 10:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)