Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/IZAK2

Motion to close the RFC
Moved from RFC page. This is in response for a motion to close the RFC as lacking consensus:


 * 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)

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)

Question for User:John Carter
Hi John, does that mean that an editor would have to ask permission how to vote in any AFD in a subject that he is known to care about? How about proposing a new policy for that? IZAK (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, IZAK, how about following what is I believe (I might be wrong) the rule here, of only editing your own section? It would have been indicated to add your own heading, you know. And, once again, you seem to be clearly above acting on the basis of your own fundamental misinterpretation of the statements of others. I have no doubt that your comment regarding "proposing a new policy" is a clear reference to the essay, which was never even remotely said to be a policy proposal, despite your having referred to it as such at least twice now, at The Problem with Projects. It is, dare I say, remarkable to see how you can demonstrate the behavior you are being commented upon on the very page where those outside comments are being made. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * John, I can move my comments, and I have responded to your post more fully above, feel free to repost them there, but you didn't anser my questions. As for your other observations, they are not relevant merely because we have had differences of no import on another page. IZAK (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If my observations were not relevant, then, may I ask, what possible relevance does your question above have to anything? And, if it isn't relevant, then what possible reason was there for including it in the first place? John Carter (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi John, all I am asking really, based on your detailed response here, is, if "an editor would have to ask permission how to vote in any AFD in a subject that he is known to care about" following your line reasoning? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And how, may I ask, is that question even remotely a logical derivation of the comments I made, considering I can't see any even remote connection between the two? John Carter (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous @ Doc glasgow
Move comments by anon and User:Avi deleted by User  here:


 * 1) 81.99.113.232 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Somewhat surprised everyone has forgotten Requests for arbitration/IZAK. — 81.99.113.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 2) * The three-year old case has not been forgotten, but its relevance is rather diminished by the thousands of edits in the intervening three-year period. You may wish to read this RfC in its entirety to see what else you may have missed; or even better, log in. -- Avi (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)