Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

It is extremely important in order that your submitted evidence be considered by the Arbitrators that when you cite evidence to provide a link to the exact edit which displays the transaction, links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please voice your objections on the talk page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others.

Contents

[edit] Previous attempts at resolution with IZAK

[edit] Talk page spamming

These can be confirmed by reviewing IZAK's contribution history. In each instance, an identical message (with perhaps only very minor differences) was posted on numberous Talk pages. Targets of these messages seem to have come from the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, users who regulary edit articles relating to Judaism, Israel, or the Palestinian Conflict. -- Netoholic @ 23:46, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence from the original RFAr

[edit] Continued activity

November 6

After this arbitration was opened, IZAK continued his spamming activity. On 6 Nov 2004 (from 06:52 to 07:49), IZAK posted a link to this Arbitration ("Opinion for IZAK") on the Talk pages of twenty-eight users. This arbitration only has evidence about IZAK's mass-posting activity, which has no relationship to his religious or political views. Presumably, the users he contacted would not have much insight to offer as to IZAK's spamming, and this action again only seems designed to inflame passions among his associates. -- Netoholic @ 07:54, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

November 16

From 03:13 to 03:57, IZAK left a message regarding the formation Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards on thirteen pages. While not specifically intended to promote a POV, this excessive cross-posting was done by copying User:172's signed message to those pages, and including the same reply IZAK made to it on his own talk page. Here is the original item from IZAK's talk page, and the diffs showing the copied message ( [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]). -- Netoholic @ 23:21, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Responses to Continued activity for further discussion.
November 18

IZAK listed Category:Bible stories for deletion. He then proceeded to leaving notices (first version, second version) on approximately fifty article Talk pages, from 06:31 to 11:27. -- Netoholic @ 19:16, 2004 Nov 18

  • See my full response below. There are very good reasons for listing this category for deletion, see the discussion about it at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories where so far the consensus is to delete. There was a request by a sysop for someone to look at the 50 pages in question, which I responded to, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#CheeseDreams [15]. To be hard-working is not a "sin". IZAK 04:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I am not challenging your action of wishing to delete this category, only your cross-posting. Please do not leave discussion comments in these evidence sections. -- Netoholic @ 07:17, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by IZAK

(more examples can be found on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK#Evidence of disputed behavior)

[edit] Netoholic

  • Accusation of "Jew-hate and Anti-Semitism"
    • IZAK posted the above comment after I asked him to stop levying other (more minor) accusations related to Arbitration. -- Netoholic @ 06:14, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
  • Special:Contributions/Netoholic - I would offer my entire edit history as evidence to show that I do not edit articles relating to Judaism, Israel, or the related conflicts. I also have never expressed a view which could be construed by any reasonable person as "Anti-" anything. I challenge IZAK to provide that sort of evidence, or accept that he too easily makes unfounded, inflammatory accusations – an activity which is incredibly damaging to the editors and readers of Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 06:26, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade

[edit] More IZAK's accusations of Anti-Semitism

In his still pending Request for comments, IZAK was brought to carpet, and criticized by many, for his repeated baseless accusations of Anti-Semitism against 3 other editors (in addition to the above). See:

  1. Anti-Semitism charge against HistoryBuffEr.
  2. Anti-Semitism charge against SpaceMonkey.
  3. Anti-Semitism charge against SpaceMonkey, Susvolans and HistoryBuffEr.

However, criticism by the community has apparently made no effect on IZAK whatsoever. IZAK has just repeated the same unwarranted smear of Anti-Semitism against HistoryBuffEr in another Arbitration case. See [16].

These are serious charges and IZAK has carelessly used them time and again. His history suggests some impediment to change even after numerous warnings, so if he is given another chance the decision should recommend immediate and permanent ban of IZAK if he repeats baseless accusations of Anti-Semitism.

(By HistoryBuffEr 01:56, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC); Quotations removed for space: HistoryBuffEr 19:33, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC))

[edit] Article editing issues

In fairness to IZAK, it is my belief that on the whole, his article edits are appropriate. He also provides exceptional information about Judaism and Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, I don't think he can neutrally edit articles which describe or refer to the specific topic of Jewish or Israeli persecution (Palestine conflict, Nazism, etc.) - an unfortunate correlation to the accusations he has made against other editors. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Evidence

(Note: Some diffs reflect multiple, sequential edits made my IZAK in the same session.)

  • Jew - This article is about Jewish ethnic group and not a major discussion of issues related to Israel or Judaism itself, but some assertions IZAK made in this article disagree with this article's goals. He inserted POV into the "Nazism" section, whereas the existing Main article (Holocaust) is better suited for explaining all viewpoints of this issue. Some other, more minor, insertions : [17], [18], [19], [20]

Thank you for the good words Netoholic. Have you read the ENTIRE article on Jew? Do you know how many revisions and spin-offs it has spawned? How are you now qualified to "judge" that an article on "Jew" is "not a major discussion of issues related to Israel or Judaism itself"???!!! What a ridiculous assertion! Are you aware that no-one can get away with any POV editing on it for more than a day or two as there are many editors contributing to it or editing it constantly, and it is NOT "my" personal POV at work that you imply. I must strongly disagree with you as the Jew article covers the ENTIRE GAMUT of issues relating to Jews and one of the most important topics in that regard is the Holocaust which is central to Jewish identity in the world today (if you are not aware of this, then you are out of touch with this subject entirely). Your obejections to my edits in the Jew article are of little consequence as that particular article happens to be monitered very closely by many critical contributors (such as User:Jmabel, User:Yoshiah ap, User:Mustafaa who often have strong views and they are very quick to ammend any violations of POV rules), so your "concerns" here are not to the point. Whatever BRIEF material I inserted about the Holocaust into the Jew article was in response to the disgraceful Holocaust denial and junk edits by vandals see Talk:Jew/Archive 9#Dispute about the nature of the whole wikipedia Jew article: neo-Nazi's, White nationalist and Jewish agenda, So which would you rather have the neo-Nazi trolls or NPOV edits that ALL the editors (and not just "lil ol' me") look at ALL the time? IZAK 23:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The above comment is misplaced here. It should be moved to the Talk page, or into IZAK's response section. If more evidence needs to be added to this section, the commentary will be in the way. -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
IZAK listed the category "Category:Bible stories" for deletion, but then immediately removed 50/54 articles from the category, without waiting the 7 days to see if there was consensus to remove it. CheeseDreams 20:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a false and untrue accusation, I did NOT remove any articles from this category! see my response below. Many other users, including sysops complained about User:CheeseDreams tactics in placing hast tabs on these 50 pages, see fuul report below. Thank you. IZAK 04:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Responses by User:IZAK

[edit] Evidence of NPOV editing by IZAK

I have requested IZAK, or anyone else, to place evidence under this heading which shows IZAK has made edits to Jewish, Zionist and Palestinian related topics which demonstrate NPOV editing. Fred Bauder 11:40, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, this is IZAK, I will try to give examples of my NPOV approach at Wikipedia, citing some of my most significant NPOV edits that continue to benefit the TOTALITY of Wikipedia and its users in many ways and areas. IZAK 12:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) :

  1. On Original sin inserted Orthodox Judaism as well as Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism views [21] with the other Christian views intact.
  2. Created NEUTRAL name of Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict [22] and added ALL its 80 or so articles and sub-categories from Palestinian and Israeli viewpoints under "one roof" [23]
  3. Worked with and added to NEUTRAL name of Category:Arab-Israeli conflict [24] added over 40 entries, see neutral edits: [25], added list of Arab countries [26]
  4. Created and added to Category:Arab localities in Palestine 1948 and added over 25 entries, see[27]
  5. Created and added to NEUTRAL name for Category:1948 Arab-Israeli War [28] and added Category:Arab localities in Palestine 1948 to it as a sub-category [29]
  6. Added Category:Jerusalem (added over 40 entries) as a subcategory to Category:Palestine [30]
  7. Created and added to NEUTRAL Category:Jewish Islam topics [31]
  8. Created and added the Category:Arab [32] and made it into correct sub-category of Islam, see [33]
  9. Created and added to NEUTRAL Category:Jewish Christian topics and added almost 50 entries [34] so that many contentious and disputed articles relating to Messianic Judaism should have their own "conflict free zone".
  10. Was able to draw a neutral comparison beween the underlying dynamics of Messianic Judaism and the mostly Orthodox Judaism Baal teshuva movement [35] and adding comparisons with fascination by Jews with oriental religions [36] without being judgemental.
  11. Added material to the 1917 conquest of Palestine and Jerusalem by British General Allenby and proclamation of marshal law in Palestine, in a neutral fashion [37]
  12. Crafted a historically accurate and neutral description and explantion for the contentious Occupations of Palestine article, tracing its history from Biblical times, through Greek and Roman...Islamic Ottoman rule for 400 years, and ending with the present-day conflict [38]
  13. Added articles about extreme left-wing and radical Jewish political groups into NEUTRAL categories: Gush Shalom [39] , Peace Now [40] , Anarchists Against the Wall [41] , Machsom Watch [42]
  14. Urged a new user with a heavily Lubavitch Judaism POV to adapt to Wikipedia's culture of NPOV and awareness that it is a secular encyclopedia, see User talk:Truthaboutchabad [43] advised him how to write in a NPOV fashion suitable for Wikipedia articles.
  15. Took the advice to adapt the category of secular and religious Jewish philosophers to a more neutral sounding acceptable name, see User talk:Ashley Y [44]
  16. Added new and neutral information to article on African Jew see [45]
  17. On List of religions added and expanded on all branches of Judaism throughout history in a neutral fashion, see [46] and [47]. See also the talk page Talk:List of religions#Jews who liked Christ.
  18. Created neutral Category:Reform Judaism and inserted its articles, see [48]
  19. Created neutral Category:Conservative Judaism and inserted its articles, see [49]
  20. Striving to reconcile and balance Jewish and Christian claims to being the Children of Israel see [50]
  21. Gave the varieties of meaning to Military rule see [51]
  22. Assisted in a NPOV fashion with list of German Generalfeldmarschall#Germany (WW2) and created Category:Field Marshals of Nazi Germany and added 26 entries see [52]
  23. Created NPOV article on German Field Marshal Eduard Freiherr von Böhm-Ermolli see [53] and [54]
  24. Created NPOV article (stub) on German Field Marshal Wilhelm List, see [55]
  25. Created NPOV article (stub) on German Field Marshal Ewald von Kleist see [56]
  26. Created NPOV stub on German Field Marshal Hugo Sperrle see [57]
  27. Voted at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Palestinians killed by Israelis with the minority to "most definitely" Keep the Palestinians killed by Israelis page, stating there that "...the bullets and bombs are flying in both directions in this (civil) war" [58]
  28. Created neutral Category:Revolutionaries [59] and in neutral fashion added Yasser Arafat [60] , Founding Fathers of the United States [61] and some others.
  • There are many more examples of my adherence to NPOV policies and style on Wikipedia, as my policy remains to DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN ALL historical events and phenomena as I am a trained professional historian and academic researcher. I thank you for your patience. Feel free to ask me any follow-up questions. Thanks again. IZAK 12:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Response by User:IZAK to User:HistoryBuffEr


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)


  • HistoryBuffer's sorry record speaks for itself and is worth mentioning again as recorded by me:
See(HistoryBuffEr | talk | contributions)
Hi, I am User:IZAK. This is not about "edits" that I am disputing, as I have not focused on minor edits by User:HistoryBuffEr. What I am opposed to is User:HistoryBuffEr's mocking, degrading, and negative attitude on Wikipedia and to the State of Israel, Jews, and Zionism related articles, which simply put amounts to Anti-Semitism for lack of any other clearer definition. (I have NOT, yet, called him a Nazi, but maybe it's what he is).

Furthermore, by reading HistoryBuffer's own words you will see that he has repeatedly violated the three things he accuses others of doing, namely:

  1. Avoid Profanity
  2. No Personal attacks
  3. Wikipedia etiquette

See:

Talk:Occupation of Palestine:

  1. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Democratic?: "...Not to mention the fact that a country that treats its minorities as dirt cannot be called democratic at all. HistoryBuffEr 07:12, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)"
  2. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Losing NPOV marbles to bullies: "We have a handful of pro-Israeli extremists here holding entire sections of Wikipedia hostage to their whims. ...does not mean anything to these crybabies -- they want articles titled and written exactly as they say, or else this gang will incessantly mutilate, delete, redirect or revert articles until they get their way."
  3. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Instead of replacing large portions of text with entirely different text: "...Case closed, try peddling your hypocrisy elsewhere. HistoryBuffEr 22:55, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)"
  4. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#NPOV or Zionist extremist POV?: "...My point is: Views of some extremists are here presented as views of (all or most) Israelis, which is both inaccurate and POV. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)...And because this highly POV version was written by the resident Zionists they should disqualify themselves from further editing of this article and limit themselves to suggestions in Talk in the interest of Wikipedia. HistoryBuffEr 06:37, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)"
  5. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Maps and what they mean: "...Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a geographical society, any map they post is inherently political. HistoryBuffEr 19:43, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)...Judea was never a purely geo term, as it means "where Jews live". Using this ancient ethnicity based term today is inherently political. HistoryBuffEr 20:28, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)"
  6. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#A problematic phrase: Israel is also disputed by some, so what about terms "Israel" and "Israeli areas", aren't these terms POV as well? HistoryBuffEr 19:47, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)...(In what sense is the term "Israel" disputed? --Uncle Ed 19:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).) Ever heard of "Hamas" et al? HistoryBuffEr
  7. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Will the real NPOV please stand up: "...Stating that terms Palestine/Palestinians are disputed in the very first sentence but omitting that Israel is also disputed is neither fair nor it represents all sides...Object violently" implies that most Arabs and their allies are attacking Israel, which is not true...It mimicks a favorite canard of Zionist extremists who call anyone supporting the Palestinian cause an Arab-lover or a Jew-hater. It is not mirrored with "Jews and their allies", but with "Israel and their allies". "Arabs" is an ethno/racial term so a fair mirror term should be "Jews", not "Israel"....HistoryBuffEr 18:58, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)"
  8. Talk:Occupation of Palestine#"Palestinian": "I've taken a break from this article to let others move the article towards a neutral POV, or at least some consensus (meaning text acceptable to those outside of the pro-Israel extremist gang who have made a joke of this article), but I haven't seen any major outside edits and the gang keeps littering on and on...HistoryBuffEr 03:20, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)"

Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict:

  1. Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict#Jayjg, 3 strikes -- you're out: "Jayjg, you've been already told that Wikipedia is not your private sandbox and that no one needs your permission to edit here. Now you have (again) shown your immaturity by repeated reverts with no good reason (other than that NPOV edits obviously hurt your pro-Israeli POV). You should be aware that you have violated Wikipedia's policy of "No 3 reverts within 24 hours". If you do not grow up and leave this page alone I'll have no choice but to refer you to adult supervision. HistoryBuffEr 05:42, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)"

Talk:Israel:

  1. Talk:Israel#"Jayjg": Who are you?: "Who do you think you are to repeatedly revert my edits without any reason? And why did you remove the NPOV notice? If you have issues discuss them here; and keep your bullying tactics for extremists like yourself. HistoryBuffEr 03:50, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)"
  2. Talk:Israel#Jayjg, Wikipedia is not your private sandbox: Jayjg, despite what your mom may have told you, this and other Israel related pages are NOT your personal property. And no one needs your permission to edit this or any other page on Wikipedia. So, instead of whining ask mom to get you your very own private sandbox where you can dictate who can do what. Meanwhile, leave Wikipedia editing to adults. HistoryBuffEr 04:48, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)(I encourage you to restrict your comments to discussions of proposed edits, rather than the continued ad hominem statements. Jayjg 04:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC).) Have you learned to read yet? I said that no one needs your approval to edit. Now, go back to reading "Pet Goat" and leave this page alone. HistoryBuffEr 05:04, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)."

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons:

  1. "...The user archives any critical remarks and newcomer guidance to this page in violation of Talk etiquette. The user was notified that this is a violation and moved the notification to this page. The user continues to engage in uncivil behavior and other etiquette/policy violations, and his summary rejection of criticism makes any progress on these problems impossible. Delete. Gazpacho 04:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis:

  1. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis#This VfD has expired: (HistoryBuffer tries to close off a vote that goes against him.): "...Notwithstanding HistoryBuffEr's strange math, a VfD is live and can continue being voted on until an admin gets around to ruling on consensus. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

User:HistoryBuffEr:

  1. User:HistoryBuffEr: (Negative Attitude): "Leave rants and unsolicited advice messages here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons&action=edit&section=new).

Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 06:01, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

User talk:HistoryBuffEr:

  1. User talk:HistoryBuffEr: (More negatives): "...General Rants and Unsolicited Advices will be promptly moved to subpage User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons. If your message is of this type, please post it directly there..."

User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons:

  1. User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons#Hi: "...We seem to be talking in vain. Each of your posts looks almost identical to each other. Also, I don't see how putting "alleged" in every sentence is helpful when I had already put in a disclamer in the first paragraph. And I have already shown you that the term "occupation" is well settled (eg: Iraq was bombed twice on much less evidence). This and all other points are well supported by documents and history books (including Israel's). HistoryBuffEr 07:43, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)"
  2. User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons#4 Reverts in one day: "That's four reverts in one day on Arab anti-Semitism, HistoryBuffEr. You know this is a violation of guidelines. Jayjg 05:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)Having problems with simple counting? How did 3 become 4 for you? HistoryBuffEr 05:40, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) Read the edit history again; you first reverted RK, then me 3 times. Jayjg 05:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) You read history again, I didn't revert RK, I NPOVified the article (compare to prev versions.) HistoryBuffEr 05:45, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) Actually, you POVd the article, RK reverted, and then you POVd it again. Jayjg 06:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) Reread the above until you understand it. This discussion is over as far as I am concerned. HistoryBuffEr 06:05, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons"."

Arab anti-Semitism:

  1. HistoryBuffer attempts to remove: "Genuine anti-Semitism exists in the Arab world." [62]
  2. HistoryBuffer attemtps to insert: "This article is about views of some Arabs considered by some Jews or their supporters to be anti-Semitic. Most Arabs dispute anti-Semitism charges, stating that their views are merely reciprocal to Jewish hostility towards Arabs, and based solely on Israel's Occupation of Palestine and neighboring lands and Israel's oppression of Palestinians. Some Jews and their supporters consider any opposition to the existence of the State of Israel and any criticism of Israel's actions to be anti-Semitic. Moderates on all sides point to the need to separate legitimate criticism from irrational hatred..." [63]
  3. History tries to insert: "...This article discusses Jewish allegations of anti-Semitism within the Arab world. These allegations are disputed by Arabs, stating that the only cause for hostility towards Israel is Israel's Occupation of Palestine and Israel's hostility towards Palestinians and Arabs...Some people claim that the Palestinian Authority's hostility to Israel constitutes anti-Semitism in itself; others regard this claim as absurd, noting that hostility to an enemy nation need not imply hostility to the associated ethnicity..." [64]
  4. HistoryBuffer tries to delete: "...Articles in many official Arab government newspapers (notably those of the Palestinian Authority, Libya and Saudi Arabia) claim that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous anti-Semitic forgery, reflects actual facts, and thus points to an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world... Zionist conspiracy theories regarding the (September 11, 2001 attacks) Across the Arab world, a fair number of Arab media outlets, some government-sponsored (such as those of Libya and Saudi Arabia, and some of those of the Palestinian Authority),...and therefore believed that people perceived to be enemies of the Arabs must really be to blame; many others disagreed. After Al Qaeda acknowledged their role publicly, these claims lost credibility, and came to be widely seen as a conspiracy theory." [65]

[edit] Calling a spade a spade: Counter response by User:IZAK

It seems that HistoryBuffEr is unaware of the scope of his own very serious Anti-Semitism even though it has been laid out for him above. It is outrageous that HistoryBuffEr can:

[edit] Response by User:IZAK to User:Netoholic: I am not "spamming"! This is normal communication for a very active Wikipedia user

[edit] Netoholic faces his own Request for Arbitration

See the accusations Netoholic faces in his own Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence. Makes one wonder, doesn't it? IZAK 05:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is in no way evidence in your case, nor remotely relavent, and frankly is nothing but an attempt to slide in a personal attack against me. -- Netoholic @ 06:38, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Netoholic, you know, your tactics puzzle me: On the one hand you object when I insert my responses when you pose "evidence" in your self-declared "IZAK-free" sections on this page, yet on the other hand, you seem quite comfortable interjecting with YOUR comments in areas "reserved" for ME to make my case. Well at least I will not do what you often do to me and ask that my comments (related to the topic being discussed) be deleted or place them (without my approval) on the talk pages or scream bloody hell as you often do when you don't like the line of reasoning that appears to go against you. My sole point in bringing up the fact that there is a another RfA against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence by other users on Wikipedia is that there are others on Wikipedia who do not look kindly upon your tactics and manners at all times, and I am not and do not want to drag them into this case, as they have their own serious gripes against you. So cool it man. IZAK 21:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

  • Update: I must call readers' attention to the fact that at the present time I am involved in a back and forth discussion with Netoholic directly over a number of issues on various pages. Instead of him treating the discussions in good faith he takes sections of what I say out of context and then twists them into "evidence" against me. I have therefore isssued the following call: Netoholic: Please do NOT act as the prosecutor, Judge, and executioner, all rolled into one !!!. Stop misquoting me. If you are an ardent believer in Sam Spade positions and you even voted to have him as an admin it is obvious that you must either share or not oppose his views. Do not take a passage as you have with: "Accusation of Jew-hate and Anti-Semitism IZAK posted the above comment after I asked him to stop levying other (more minor) accusations related to Arbitration" which was a general satement NOT related to just the present RfA, and stating an obvious fact that any normal person should ALWAYS be opposed to Jew-hate and Anti-Semitism. Furthermore, please stop creating the incorrect impression that you are some sort of "innocent victim" of mine, when it is you who has chosen the path of confrontation with me as you so often take with other Users in your now common usage of these frivolous Requests for Arbitration. How come you don't take Sam Spade to task for his atrocious views and ask for a RfA against him, or do you agree with everything he says? Your zeal to "convict" reveals your true POV intent. IZAK 06:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] See the following examples of Netoholic's previous POV rush to judgments and accusations:

Clarification: The following ten brief quotes are from OTHER Users who have leveled serious complaints against Netoholic's pattern of harrasment and breaking of Wikipedia's rules. They are NOT "incoherent" as Netoholic claims, and they are not "slurs" (they are detailed quotes), on the contrary they show that Netoholic is far too eager to upset the normal functioning of Wikipedia, and at the present time he has chosen me (IZAK) to be the target of his selective criticisms. The moral being: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Please note that after I had posted the citations below, Netoholic has moved his archived pages to his "history" page via deleting his comments, how odd, at any rate see [[67]] as an example now. What does he have to hide?

  1. User talk:Netoholic/Archive1#refactoring: "...don't refactor ongoing discussions or discussions in which your neutrality in refactoring might be in doubt...If you think a conversation in which you're involved needs refactoring, ask someone who wasn't involved to do it"
  2. User talk:Netoholic#VfD Vandalism: "...I have tried to be nice, and I will try again. DO NOT remove VfD nominations. It is neither your place nor your ability to decide for others whether the nominations are valid..."
  3. User talk:Netoholic#Request: "... I still believe that you acted with the utmost contempt for the group consensus when you chose to impose your will on the television naming conventions page, and you cannot deny that other people also believe that you acted with undue haste to impose your view of what the convention should be and to implement that view without the consultation of a sufficient number of people to make a consensus as the current state of the totally bogus poll that you started on that page indicates..."
  4. User talk:Netoholic/Archive2#Warning re: refactoring: "If you don't stop removing comments from talk pages (and in some cases actually replacing them with your own (cf. this example, you will be blocked from editing this site. While you continue to cite Wikipedia:Refactoring, the bottom line is that many, many respected editors have asked you to stop, to follow the guidelines more carefully, and to stop selectively applying guidelines as "policy," and you have refused..."
  5. User talk:Netoholic/Archive3#Re: comment at your RFA: "...I don't really know what this is all about, since I don't know you that much, but according to the other votes, you have called Snowspinner (whom I really, really respect and admire) a "fuck" in private IRC messages, consistently rubs users up the wrong way by acting unilaterally and lacks the humility to to accept a majority views that opposes his own, and way too antisocial, I cannot support you. Sorry!..."
  6. User talk:Netoholic/Archive3#Starting fresh: "... I don't mean to have the wrong idea about you. On further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that you are well-meaning but can be hot-headed. If you can try to use less offensive language, and to discuss controversial changes you intend to make before making them, I'll forget that we got off on the wrong foot..."
  7. User talk:Netoholic/Archive3#Vacuum's user page: "...Netoholic, please don't modify user pages without permission. You didn't even leave a message on my talk page as to why you changed it..."
  8. User talk:Netoholic/Archive3#RfC Certification: "...Netoholic, your certification is invalid unless you can show that engaged IZAK directly on the issue of anti-semitism. I am moving your certification until you show that and restoring the notice. Ed Poor's certification is also in doubt, and I have contacted him directly. Please understand that there appear to be valid complaints against IZAK and I am no way approving of the behavior that is alleged. I engaged HistoryBuffEr at some length in the simple method he could have become a valid certifier, and he refused. Do not remove the notice again. Consider this a formal warning..."
  9. User talk:Netoholic/Archive3#Request for Arbitration: "... have requested arbitration against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration..."
  10. User talk:Netoholic/Archive3#RFA: "...You seem to have learnt nothing from the RFC you started against me and seem to be continuing annoy other users in several areas by continually ignoring the views of others..."


  • User:Netoholic has just posted his own highly misleading statement/s at the top of this page. He has evidently NOT read what I said (earlier) in my rebuttal in point 21 below: ("21. In order for me to let them know about this RfA I will need to contact my fellow editors, so will that also be called "spam" as it is abviously not?!"), which makes me wonder if he has noted anything I said at all, or is just out for my metaphoric scalp for his POV (anti-Israel) reasons? My postings are ONLY related to issues of Judaism, Anti-Semitism, Zionism/Anti-Zionism, Israel, Hebrew Bible, and Holocaust articles 99% of the time. All the users I contacted are the same ones I always contact, so obviously Netoholic does not know what he's talking about and must have his own POV agenda behind his accusations. He evidently does not even like the people I contacted as per his comment that I "...inflame passions among his associates". I am not doing my work on Wikipedia in a vacuum, as Netoholic would wish to make it sound that I am simply a "random spammer" with "nothing better to do" and doing things that are not connected to each other or to other Users on Wikipedia. Shame on you Netoholic for such disjointed and unjustified assumptions. Take a good hard look at all the subjects and articles I was involved with for yourself and see what they deal with. IZAK 08:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It happened because the situation upon cursory examination seems extreme. This may simply be due to a well-written complaint or may actually be the case. If you wish to mediate the matter make a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and contact Netoholic and other concerned users. If you can get mediation going and agree to quit "spamming" for the duration of mediation we could perhaps wait until the completion of mediation before proceeding. Fred Bauder 13:57, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Fred: Thank you for your input. I am not the one initiating anything here. If User:Netholic has a problem, he should have brought this matter up as a Request for Mediation FIRST and also have contacted me on my talk page and I would have gladly discussed and hopefully resolved things with him. He did neither of these things and without warning jumped to this Request for Arbitration. It makes no sense to say that I should ask for a Request for Mediation because User:Netoholic has not followed the correct Wikipedia procedures by jumping and incorrectly obtaining this Request for Arbitration. I have no interest in "spamming". The case that Netoholic mentions regarding User:Sam Spade is history, and in subsequent discussions between me and Sam Spade I had apologized to him and he had accepted my apology, see User talk:IZAK#Hi IZAK: "...it was NOT meant to be anything personally harmful to you as I do not have anything against you personally as a fellow Wikipedian and as a human being. I am sorry for any discomfort and hurt you may have experienced and I hope that we can continue a positive dialogue in the future. Thanks again for your sincere words and patience. IZAK 00:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)" acceptance by Sam Spade: "OK, I can accept that, but please do not to use slurs like "anti-semite" "bigot" or "nazi" on the wikipedia in the future. Sam 13:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)". I assume it's fine to contact one's friends on Wikipedia, and so far I have about 30 people on my own friendly Users list. So far any one of them that has left comments here has been appreciative and positive of my contacting them. It is not "spamming" to contact friends is it? Furthermore, it is very rarely that I have had to contact all or some of them, unless it has been a matter of urgent mutual concern. Unfortunately the tone of User:Netoholic's communications conveys a sense of mass-hysteria not befitting this kind of discussion. Thanks again for your feed-back. IZAK 21:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your attention. User:IZAK's case Re:User:Netoholic allegations

  1. First of all I would like to refute an accusation against me above that "Targets of these messages seem to have come from the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, users who regulary edit articles relating to Judaism, Israel, or the Palestinian Conflict"...this FALSE statement seems to allege that I try to somehow "disguise" my messages behind other users, which is absolutely not true! In the vast majority of cases I have signed my user name via the use of ~~~~ or in few case where I have been pressed for time I have relied on the "history" of edits on each page for the Users I have contacted to know that the message came from me. I never leave anonymous messages and I am not ashamed of what I write.
  2. I have been a registered (and very happy) User and contributor on Wikipedia since 24 December 2002 (almost two years now).
  3. Over the past year (of 2004) I have spent quite a lot of time on Wikipedia.
  4. I have made over 12,000 total edits according to my history of page edits see contributions, and as of 7 November 2004 I am listed as number 72 in the top 100 Wikipedia contributors, see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits.
  5. My main and primary interests remain Jewish subjects related to Judaism, Israel, the Holocaust, the Hebrew Bible, Jewish history, and the Jewish people in general.
  6. Over the course of the past two years I have made (mostly) friendly contact and inter-acted with many of the contributing editors to Judaism, Israel, the Holocaust, Hebrew Bible, and Jewish history.
  7. This means, that I have on my own user "Watchlist" about 30 Wikipedia users, including a number of admins, who seriously share my interest and involvement with issues of deep and profound concern for Jews, Judaism, Israel, the Holocaust, the Hebrew Bible and many topics of Jewish history about which we all share a mutual passion.
  8. There are most definitely times when I wish to communicate with these people OPENLY on their Wikipedia TALK pages, depending on what their own prime interests are. At times, there is the need to alert them to the quickly changing developments on certain pages that are under attack by trolls, vandals and and users hostile to Jews and Israel. I almost never get complaints from those users I contact about my communications with them. On the contrary, the ones who object to my communicating with my fellow Jewish, Zionist, and Holocaust editors on Wikipedia are the same users who espouse views that can (sadly but truthfully) be called Anti-Semitic and hostile to Israel and to Jews.
  9. A common concern that we all share is a rising tide of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Zionist opinion on Wikipedia especially as pertaining to Israel especially by new user User:HistoryBuffEr see the huge amount of edits hostile to Israel and Jews made by that user at contributions and it is with that user that I am concerned
  10. Yes, I was enraged by the motives of those behind the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis (look at the topic yourself!) and it was then when I tried to reach Users and alert them to what I believed to be a gross injustice. Some of those Users I contacted have not been active lately, so contacting them was a moot point, but there was no other way to find out what they were up to.
  11. Similarly, I am shocked and disgusted that there are a few Users who now want to elimate Category:Terrorism and Category:Terrorists...need I explain more? Or is Wikipedia now going to say that terrorism and terrorists should not be called as such? Therefore I contacted some of my 30 contacts to become aware of this move. Is that a Wikipedia "crime", to warn people that terrorists are about to be removed or delisted or renamed on Wikipedia for something more "innocuous"? The net result of that would be of course (an act of illogic and foolishness if ever there was one), that if there are no "terrorists" then there can be no "victims of terrorists"...right?...do we really want Wikipedia to go down that path of Orwellian Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm "new-speak" distortionism?
  12. Since I am at the present time involved with more articles than the average user, I therefore need to be in contact with more Users who share my concerns. The one variation on this was when I felt it was important for users voting for User:Sam Spade who had applied to be an admin to be aware of his positions vis-a-vis Jewish and Holocaust issues as brought to my attention by User:Spleeman at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Racism/Anti-Semitism and in light of my exeriences with his violent editorial treatment of the important Jew article.
  13. The claim above that: "Call for action which incited an edit war on History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – left on thirteen Talk pages", is pathetic. It is totally ridiculous to claim that I have incited an "edit war" in any way, especially if it's User:HistoryBuffEr involved in the History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as in any case all articles related to the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" have always had long-running edit wars long, long before I was involved and will always have them as it's an obviously contentious topic, about which User:HistoryBuffEr continues to incite others, especially those who he derides as "Zionistas" and other epithets of scorn, with his own edit wars constantly.
  14. Considering the fact that at the present time Wikipedia has over 100,000 (one hundred thousand) registered users see Wikipedia:Wikipedians: "...The number of Wikipedians has grown to over 100,000 user accounts, along with an unknown (but quite large) number of unregistered contributors. More detailed statistical information about Wikipedia is available at Wikipedia:Statistics...", so it is ludicrous and mathematically dumb to claim that if a busy Wikipedia user as in my case sees an important need to contact five or ten or fifteen or twenty users that it amounts to "spam", when we all know what spam really is. If I had contacted 50% (=50,000 of Wikipedia users), or even 5% (5,000 of users),or maybe even .5% (500 of users) then it falls into some category of spam, BUT, contacting ten or twenty , and in the extreme case of User:Sam Spade who was "running for office" on Wikipedia it was about 30 messages, is NOT "spam" by any stretch of the imagination.
  15. See the definition of spam at Spam (electronic) "Spamming is the act of sending unsolicited electronic messages in bulk" or Spam (e-mail): "...Spam by e-mail is one type of spamming that involves sending identical or nearly identical messages to thousands (or millions) of recipients..."
  16. On the other hand, what I try to do is write a brief message, copy it in my browser and then by hand, indvidually I refer to my own list of Users and take the time to visit each page, and leave my message on their talk page which is there for that specific purpose of messages. There is NO "automatic" or "malicious" "spamming machine" involved here. And yes, I am that devoted and focused a User!
  17. Perhaps when Wikipedia was still in its infancy with a relative handful of editors things were different. But now with 100,000 users, how in heavens, if one is a heavy Wikipedia user, are you supposed to communicate with proven similar-minded editors when there are now over 350,000 English Wikipedia articles in play???!!!
  18. I do not believe that there have been any guidelines or limits to contacting your fellow editors with messages or alerts on Wikipedia, and it is certainly NOT "spam" if one commits the "sin" of staying in touch and keeping the people you want to keep informed in the loop and in the picture on the Wikipedia given its present super-gigantic scope, membership, and size.
  19. By my definition when I try to alert five or eighteen or similar very, very low numbers of a handful of fellow Wikipedia editors of Judaism and Israel subjects, it's called sending a message or memorandum to my "contact list" as one would do using any Email inter-office system of communication, and they do the same and appreciate it (most of the time, otherwise they would let me know). What else should I do? Not all of them list their Emails with Wikipedia and phoning or writing them is not possible in this medium.
  20. In some of the cases I have contacted my fellow Judaica editors in self-defense, which is no "crime" to ask people to provide a reference on one's behalf.
  21. In order for me to let them know about this RfA I will need to contact my fellow editors, so will that also be called "spam" as it is abviously not?!
  22. I therefore move that this RfA be dismissed at it has no merit in the case of an extremely busy and well-connected editor of Wikipedia.
  23. Or, alternately, that proof be provided or a standard set for what the current limits are for the maximum amount of similar messages a user like myself be allowed to place on his fellow editors' talk pages. I suggest that given Wikipedia's current 100,000 registered Users that up to 100 Users (.1% [i.e one tenth of one percent] of the current total) should be the maximum for a User to contact about a subject of common concern or interest. Is this a "community" or what?IZAK 05:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:IZAK's response Re:User:Sam Spade

Hello, I am User:IZAK, in the case of "SamSpade" the evidence he has provided himself is that he (i.e. "SamSpade") is an Anti-Semite especially as exhibited by his views about the Holocaust of Europe's Jews under the Nazis, and he is certainly not worthy of any admin role on Wikipedia as it would be an outrageous disgrace! Please see User:Spleeman/Sam Spade especially:

User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Racism/Anti-Semitism:

  • "Thinks Holocaust deniers should be treated as equally credible to mainstream historians, whom he refers to as "Jewish organizations". [68] (Talk:Jew#call_a_spade_a_spade)
  • "The term "Holocaust" is always POV." (Sam Spade 22:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC), Talk:Jew) Really? I didn't know that!
  • "It would almost never apply in an NPOV, encyclopedic sense, but might in cases of people being vigorously hacked apart, which is not what the nazi's generally did. They mainly worked people to death in reletively unhealthful conditions, gassing the weak (young, old, disabled, etc...). I don't find "slaughter" much more relevent in an encyclopedic sense here than it would be in describing... say the slave ships carrying africans to the new world." (Sam Spade 23:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Jew#call_a_spade_a_spade)
  • Sam uses edit wars and other tactics, such as placing warnings at the tops of articles, to bully his opponents into accepting his POV. Recently, on the Jew page, he placed a "totally disputed" warning on the page [69] because of two sentences he didn't like (Talk:Jew#disputed_sentances). When another editor removed the warning, Sam reverted the page [70] and added an "attention" warning [71]. Another editor put it best when reverting this silliness: "An article doesn't become totally disputed and in need of attention because someone stumbles across it and doesn't like one sentence."

User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Behavioral notes:

  • Constantly chides others for breaking wiki policy, yet often breaks same policies, especially when it comes to civility issues and missing edit summaries [72], [73]
  • Seeks out controversial articles, especially ones that relate in some way to his moral, political, and/or religious beliefs
  • Makes changes to articles in accordance with his POV [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]
  • Frequently engages ideological opponents in online debates; provokes frustration and anger in opponents; starts/participates in edit wars
  • Is convinced other users are out to get him [79], [80]
    • For instance, he believes a group of "rabidly pro-homosexual editors" are trying to prevent him from editing gay-related pages due to their "pro-gay POV slant" (User_talk:Raul654/archive#Thanks)

User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#More on interactions with other users:

Finally from the above multitudinous examples it should be amply clear that "SamSpade" himself is fully guilty of:

Policies violated by "SamSpade"s activities:

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox)

[edit] IZAK is ranked 72nd top User: False accusations about "Spamming"

Hi, HistoryBuffer continues to falsely label my attempts at communicating with other users as "spamming".

Since I am ranked as the 72nd (out of 1000) most active Wikipidians see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits I have come across many users.

It is true that in the case of SamSpade's quest for adminship I contacted about thirty to forty other fellow-Wikipedians. 30 to 40 out of thousands of Wikipedia users is NOT spamming (by the way, has Wikipedia ever expressed a clear definition of how and what constitutes spamming and how many "messages" equals a "Spam session"?)

If you live in an apartment with about 50 other tenants and you wanted to discuss something of importance to all of them, and you sent most of them a note or knocked on their door about a problem of importance, would that also be "spamming"? Obviously not!

I firmly believe that any user has the right to contact a reasonable amount of users over issues important to the Wikipedia community (after all I am not selling ink cartridges etc) and not "sit in solitude" and has the right to contact other users who share his interests and concerns within reason.

Anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and Neo-Nazi activities are a scourge that is surely of concern to all users (except those who are "proud" of those abominations).

In my definition, spamming is when you try to reach hundreds, perhaps thousands, (millions?), of Wikipedidians. (I am certain we ALL know what real spamming is, and can differentiate between a false charge and a concerned citizen). In any case, leaving messages on another eight fellow users or a handful of interlinked pages is not "spamming".

But now HistoryyBuffer looks at my activities and sees me trying to contact about eight other users he deems this "spamming". Please consider that as a very active user with over 8000 (eight thousand edits at least) "official" edits (again see my ranking as 79th top editor with an official count of edits on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits) its actually more as when my comp. sometimes does not get logged in and when many of my early edits were not even attributed to me. Let's get some perspective and sense of proportion here and NOT fall victim to HistoryBuffer's own war against this Jew. IZAK 09:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Buffer keeps moving the goalposts

For some odd idiosyncratic reason best known to himself User:HistoryBuffer keeps on changing the times and dates of old posts in this discussion (if you could even call it that) making it seem that what was discussed and lapsed weeks ago is still "on the front burner", a very sneaky "tactic", and he adds out of context quotations concerning me to make it appear that I am an unreasonable person or that I have "relapsed" recently (which in itself is a loaded and disgusting word for one who aspires to such "civility" and he should apologize and avoid using degrading personal terms)...Be that as it may, Wikipedins sould carefully look at 'Buffer's edits here via the "history" page. His latest "proposed verdict" is a thinly-disguised attempt to cover-up his own agenda of insulting Israelis, Jews, and Zionists and then keeping them "on trial" for defending themselves, a notorious and nefarious tactic. I really feel sorry that 'Buffer does not have the nerve to address me directly and instead relies on edited second-hand quotes from third parties through which he covers his own tracks in the hope that people forget that he thinks he can imply that Israel should be bombed, its own suffering forgotten, or that Hamas is somehow legit, or be a defender of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or back Holocaust denial and expect that no-one will call him an Anti-Semite at some point for disparaging Israel, Zionism, and Jews (see above), a tall order indeed. So the question is, when will he wake up and smell the Wikipedia coffee and make CONSTRUCTIVE contributions instead of harassing the Jewish and Judaism-related editors who work hard at NPOV articles in spite of pressures they are put under by dubious users and editors on Wikipedia. IZAK 08:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:IZAK asks: Is "Sam Spade" also "HistoryBuffEr"?

Hi all, I am curious if "SamSpade" is also "HistoryBuffEr" because their Anti-Semitism is identical. Is this a case of Wikipedia:Sock puppet/s? Is there any way to certify that they are two different Wikipedia users, and not just the same Internet troll hiding behind different user names? IZAK 22:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:IZAK's response to User:CheeseDreams's false claims regarding Category:Bible stories

Hi, I did NOT remove the "category" from any of the articles in question, so please be accurate, as this is a false accusation. User:CheeseDreams seems to be confusing articles with categories. The articles are NOT in dispute, it's the category that is being disputed. And neither were deleted by me at any time! What I did do, was go to each article (listed in the categeory), using the Category:Bible stories (as proof that I did not touch the category or the category links to it from articles on it) and remove the three signs, or "tabs" ("tags"?) or "templates" for one or all of {{cleanup}}{{NPOV}}{{expansion}} about which many other users have complained that User:CheeseDreams inserted these tabs in too many articles and without saying anything on the talk pages of the articles at all. Many users complained about User:CheeseDreams's insertion of the tabs without discussing it in the talk pages. I went ahead and placed messages for the NEED for TALK on the Talk pages for each article in the disputed Category:Bible stories which was hard work, what is wrong with that, as User:CheeseDreams did it his way without any talk, so which is better, placing tabs without any comments or asking for discussions before three tags were placed on the pages within Category:Bible stories first?

I did two things: Bring the category for review at the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion page and reported as follows: "November 18: Category:Bible stories: New Category:Bible stories (started November 17) is very confusing and not needed. Into it have been added anything that is randomly a Bible "story". Here are some problems with it:

  1. First of all there is a big difference between the Old Testament which is referred to on Wikipedia as Hebrew Bible (as many people of the Jewish faith who accept and believe in the Bible are offended by the name "Old" Testament) and the New Testament accepted by Christians.
  2. BOOKS of the Bible , such as Book of Daniel, Book of Job, Book of Exodus are tossed into this category of "stories" with articles that are just "one topic pieces" such as Creation according to Genesis or New Testament view on Jesus' life.
  3. There are already categories Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh, Category:Torah, Category:Jewish texts and Category:Bible, Category:Holy scripture, Category:Christian texts that comprehensivley deal with these topics.
  4. The category is NOT being careful enough, therefore Category:Bible stories category be deleted as it is not needed and confusing (it also seems to be promoting a secular POV as its creator User:CheeseDreams has placed many {{cleanup}}{{NPOV}}{{expansion}} signs an many pages causing much new dispute on all those pages. IZAK 05:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete very soon! IZAK 05:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) [81]"

I subsequently added my responses to the comments and votes by others as they came in. Again, I repeat, I did NOT "delete" any pages (editing only my own comments in trying to make sure they were registered on the page), so the charge is both false and baseless. User:CheeseDreams owes me an apology for making a false accusation.

[edit] Users complain about CheeseDream's tags placed without Talk

Here are the complaints of other users to User:CheeseDream's "editing" (actually just placing tags in them without comment) of articles all within the disputed Category:Bible stories:

  1. Bel and the Dragon: "Check the User contributions of User:CheeseDreams. This is just one of a long series of articles that has been labelled. Wetman" [82] and "there is no dispute unless you quantify it on the talk page so it can be debated. you refuse to do so, so there's no dispute to even respond to. Explain or stop putting the tags there User:DreamGuy" [83]
  2. Belshazzar: "These three labels are being cast about like grass seed by newly-arrived User:CheeseDreams. They are disfiguring, but their value in this entry, where the User has made no edits, can be assessed by a look at this user's contributions. Wetman" [84]
  3. Book of Daniel: "Please explain POV or style problems when adding NPOV and cleanup tags User:Rhobite" [85]
  4. Book of Job: "Please explain NPOV, cleanup, and expansion tags User:Rhobite" [86]
  5. Cain and Abel: "Please explain cleanup tag User:Rhobite" [87]
  6. Creation according to Genesis: "All you have to do is change the page as you see fit. The NPOV tag is not appropriate for this page. User:Rednblu" [88]
  7. Daniel: "No disputes in Talk: page; this article is not a stub User:Jayjg" [89]
  8. Deborah: "no debates in Talk: page; doesn't need two stub notices, one is enough User:Jayjg" [90]
  9. Delilah: No debates in Talk: page; doesn't need two stub notices, on is enough User:Jayjg" [91]
  10. Elijah: "this article is not a stub, and Cheesedreams did not his his NPOV objections. Hence removing those labels. User:Robert Merkel" [92]
  11. Elisha: "There are no disputes on the Talk: page, and you don't need two stub notices user:Jayjg" [93]
  12. Esther: See User:CheeseDreams most Un-Wikipedian rantings as he placed these comments in bold (sic) on the actual article page: (NPOV) BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE VIEW OF THE BIBLE STORIES MEANING.IT FAILS TO POINT OUT THAT HERODITUS LIVED VERY VERY MANY YEARS LATER THAN THE STORY IS SET. IT FAILS TO POINT OUT THE ACTUAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE STORY AND THAT OF ISTAR MORE THAN SUPERFICIALLY. ((expansion)) BECAUSE THERE IS HARDLY ANY CONTENT HERE AND MANY MANY MANY PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN MANY MANY TRACTS, DISSERTATIONS, PAPERS, SERMONS, MEDITAIONS, ETC. ON EVERY BIT OF THE BIBLE, NO MATTER HOW SMALL." [94]
  13. House of Joseph: "it already has a stub notice, it doesn't need two" User:Jayjg" [95]
  14. Jacob: "This article is not a stub, and I see no dispute on the Talk: page. Also, please don't revert blindly, you lost valuable text. User:Jayjg" [96]
  15. Job (person): "No disputes on Talk: page. Also, one stub entry is plenty, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [97]
  16. John the Baptist: "Reverted edits by CheeseDreams to last version by Amgine User:Theresa knott" [98]
  17. Jonah: "One stub notice is plently, don't need two User:Jayjg" [99]
  18. Mordechai: "this is not relevant to the WP:CFD debate" User:Jfdwolff [100] who also thanks me "Well done. Thanks" see Talk:Mordechai [101]
  19. Noah: "- unneeded dispute headers User:Sam Spade" [102]
  20. Talk:Saint Peter: "Whether the category is kept or not, Peter is not a Bible story. I'm confused about why it would be appropriate to list this article in that category" User:Aranel" [103]
  21. Sodom and Gomorrah: "- dispute headers, not helpful here User:Sam Spade" [104]
  22. Solomon: "not convinced of any need to have a cleanup (if you disagree - please copyedit the article yourself) User:Jongarrettuk" [105]
  23. Solomon's Temple: "this article is not a stub, and there is no dispute on the Talk: page" User:Jayjg" [106]
  24. Susanna: "No dispute on Talk: page. Also, one stub notice is enough, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [107]
  25. Ten Commandments: "rv, see talk User:Yoshiah ap" [108]
  26. The Last Supper: "No disputes on Talk: page. Also two stub notices are not required, one is enough User:Jayjg" [109]
  27. Talk:Three Wise Men: "NPOV and Cleanup labels: These have been applied recently to this article (and to others) by User:CheeseDreams. That user's actual contributions to this entry may be assessed at the Page History. Wetman" [110] "What an amazingly trivial matter to raise a formal dispute over. Assuming, of course, that is what he/she is disputing. User:CheeseDreams, would you please clarify here on the talk page exactly what you are disputing, or I will feel free simply to remove those labels. -- User:Jmabel" [111]
  28. Zacchaeus: "No disputes on Talk: page; also, one stub notice is enough, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [112]

[edit] Refuting other baseless claims

As for a charge of "vandalism" that CheeseDreams made at one point, it is totally ludicrous as it was Wikipedia admins who listed User:CheeseDreams himself on the "Reporting vandalism page", and to which I responded, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#CheeseDreams: "It's not really vandalism, but I don't know where else to post it. User:CheeseDreams has been adding NPOV, clean-up and expansion templates over a lot (and I mean a LOT) of religious articles, without offering any explanation as to why (s)he thinks those articles are non-neutral, need clean-up or expansion. I think these should be reverted until CheeseDreams explains his/her position. Could some sysops with more time on their hands than me help? jguk 23:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)" (To which I responded:) "Hi, I am not a sysop, but I went ahead and reverted about 50 Bible articles in Category:Bible stories created by User:CheeseDreams. I also placed on each talk page a brief message: "One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you." IZAK 10:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) [113]. And on top of this you were told: "Someone ought to take this new Abuser aside and explain Wikietiqutte. --Wetman 20:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) [114], and [[User:Mirv} removed all talk of vandalism from this subject, see [115], so a "vandal" I am NOT ! IZAK 04:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

[edit] Please add your view

  • I appreciate IZAK's notifications and do not consider them as spamming or trolling. Sometimes I disagree and sometimes communicate that back. Please remove my name from the list/number, as I don't see any violation here. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The main charge is that IZAK is overly zealous in writing to other editors, in particular to draw their attention to particular issues or debates in progress at various places in Wikipedia. I can understand why this may annoy some people, but the difference between this behavior and what many editors do is only one of degree. Have the people he writes to unsuccessfully asked him to stop? Is there a written policy against this behavior? I don't think that one particular user should be punished for doing something that is not obviously against the rules. On the other hand, the AC (whether or not it is their mandate) could usefully debate whether this behavior should be against the rules and, if that is decided, set in motion a public debate. But let's not punish someone who breaks a rule that doesn't exist yet. --Zero 08:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This RfE appeals to motive and insinuates guilt_by_association. IZAK is not a spammer, nor has he engaged in "Talk page spamming". IZAK places friendly notifications on Talk pages of collaborating editors. It should also be noted that IZAK's detractors do the exact same thing. I apreciate IZAK's talk page notifications and I can find no fault in such practices. The charge against IZAK appears to be frivolous. --Viriditas 09:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I accept IZAK notifications as well and don't see them as nuisance but rather as an helpful tool. I am sure that he doesn't forces his notification on people who don't want to get them. This kind of things should be decided only by the user relevant (i.e., the sender and the reciepant). If they both fine with this, I don't see any problem with IZAK's parctice. MathKnight 09:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • IZAK is not a spammer. He did nothing wrong in rallying community support as he was being maligned, attacked, and accused unfairly of a host of charges by a vocal group users opposed to his work... As someone who was actually among the users whom IZAK "spammed," I was very happy to see his message. I was glad that I was given a chance to defend one of Wikipedia's most serious, competent scholars. From IZAK's work, I have learned a considerable amount about Jewish history, Israeli history, the Holocaust, and the Hebrew Bible. (One that note, my grandparents were murdered in fascist death camps, I am Jewish, and I am a historian.) Someone who has added so much to Wikipedia's articles on Jewish studies had every right to ask the community for help. 172 10:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have complained to IZAK in the past about civility and excessive use of boldface, but a lot of his "name-calling" is in response to very real anti-Israel or quasi anti-Semitic trolling from certain elements on the project. I am not at all bothered by his calls to arms (I wouldn't call it spam) - if I'd wanted him to stop I would have told him to. Banning him would be completely over the top. I rather admire his courage for taking on some of the most notorious POV pushers we have around here. JFW | T@lk 10:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • IZAK's additions to my talk page are most welcome. He shares information with me regarding events at Wikipedia that are of mutual interest. His circle of friends at Wikipedia is large and appreciative of his consistently polite and timely comments. Lance6Wins 11:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the messages IZAK sends me. I apreciate that he keeps me informed. Xtra 11:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem with IZAK's behavior. Moreover, if he was ever suggested as ADMIN, I would vote in his favor. On the other hand, I am seeing more and more POV pushers trying to whitewash terrorists (example: Shorne or insert extremely POV comments promoting hatred (example: Historybuffer) that should have no place in Wikipedia. Sadly, it seems that many times the "good" people get voted out and BAD people remain. Seems to be the history of our world...--AAAAA 14:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I haven't been able to find any specific policy against doing this, nor have I heard of any users complaining about this "spamming"; I certainly haven't, as his notices have alerted me to on-going subjects of interest. While I have disagreed with IZAK's tendency to describe others as anti-Semites, and his campaign against Sam Spade, these are minor issues compared to the value he brings the project, and certainly minor compared to the on-going abuses perpetrated by other editors on Wikipedia. In general he is a tireless Wikipedia editor, adding a great deal of valuable information on many articles related to Judaism and Israel. He has also attempted to act as a mediating force in on-going edit wars on Israel related articles, proposing compromises which have at times been accepted by warring parties. Jayjg 19:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Izak, I wish to thank you for your notifications. As with most Wikipedia users, freedom of speech is very dear to me. You notified me about discussions in which freedom of speech was threatened. One of them concerned an attempt to shut up criticism about Israeli organizations. I voted for freedom of speech in all cases, including the one which used harsh language on extreme Israeli organizations. Now it seems they are trying to make you shut up. This is a disgrace. Izak, keep up the good work! Gidonb 20:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know about "spamming". A number of users have called my attention to articles or talk pages in the 3+ years I've been at Wikipedia. I can't remember even one specific case where I felt this was 'excessive'. IZAK only has mentioned articles or issues that he has guessed (correctly) I'd be interested in. Anyway, there's no rule against it, is there? If this is about civility, I think IZAK has toned down the personal remarks of late - at least on the talk pages I myself have been on. What is this really about? Ban people whose POV you disagree with? Sheesh! User:Ed Poor 19:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that Izak is spamming OR trolling when he attempts to contact others. How do you know if someone will like or hate your attempting to contact him or her unless you attempt to contact him or her in the first place? It doesn't make sense, this request for arbitration. Instead of snubbing Wikipedians or calling for referenda, we should be contacting each other and listening to their opinions. Izak, moreover, is a friend of freedom of information, and isn't this what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? (or aboot, since I'm a liberal American... :)) Rickyrab 03:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Being a Canadian my first reaction is for everyone to relax and calm down. I believe IZAK has the best intentions in what he does. He is trying to keep the NPOV philosophy of Wikipedia and ensuring that all concerned individuals are aware of what is occurring. IZAK, keep up the good work. --YUL89YYZ 15:48, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of Sam Spade contributing beneficially to Judaism / WWII subjects

  • Amalek, I wrote most of this, some of my best work here
  • Copious aditions to Adolf Hitler, many of them controvercial, but tellingly, also standing the test of time.

[edit] Discussion

See the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence for further discussions related to this.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_IZAK_Evidence_1d2f.html"