Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IZAK
Temporary injunction[edit]
IZAK seems to have still not gotten the message about the mass-posting. As documented Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Continued activity, minutes after posting a long response on the Evidence page, IZAK contacted twenty-five twenty-eight users directing them to it - in the same manner as the complaint has stated. I request that some sort of temporary injunction be put in place. -- Netoholic @ 07:57, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
- I actually proposed an injunction prior to reading this... :) Martin 00:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Objection to Netoholic by IZAK[edit]
- "User:Netoholic has just posted a highly misleading statement above. 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)
IZAK. It is of absolutely no help for you to keep re-posting the same paragraphs all over the place. I can assure you that every page related to this is being read, and your persistent copying is not helpful and actually just creates confusion. Please keep your arguments and evidence on only one page. -- Netoholic @ 10:05, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Hi Netoholic, thanks for the advice, but how will I know that what you just told me is true as you seem to have failed to read many of the backround related pages, discussions, and you have even over-looked votes??? How can I trust your word when YOU seem to be in such a hurry to move this "case" into high gear without even hearing the arguments??? Not everyone is on Sam Spade's side you know, so perhaps you think by rushing it you will do better??? So I say to you forget it, and if you pull any fast dirty tricks on me, I will have you brought up for arbitration for your unfair treatment of many Users. But I will try to say focused. In my opinion, due to the scope and complexity of the issues here, it will be unavoidable that there will be a justified overlap. I will try to keep it in check. IZAK 10:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please do not interpret "chose not to respond" as "failed to read". Even if I were to respond to any of your comments, I only want to do it on the original page. When you re-post sections over and over again, it invites the discussion to split apart unnecessarily. -- 17:50, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Comment by The Cunctator[edit]
Even though I think IZAK's largely right about his opinions of Sam Spade, this should only be "fought" through productive editing. It might be productive to consider asking Spade to stay away from Judaism/WWII stuff. The Cunctator 23:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I find this greviously offensive, and will be compiling evidence as to just how ill founded a statement it was, since it appears he is not willing (or perhaps unable) to discuss the matter with me.
Hi Sam: I am not sure who you are referring to, me or User:Cuncator? As for me, I have always, AFAIK, responded to any communication or posting you have directed to me in a mostly polite way. The major difference is that you always seem to come down on the side of a POV that may fairly be said to view the Nazis and Hitler in a more favorable light (at least that is the impression that you create), whereas I am more critical and reject the Nazzis and anything that may serve to cast Hitler in a favorable way, and for this you have lately resorted to calling me a "racist", even though I have made the decison and stick to the policy of not to resort to calling people I don't know "Nazis" or "Anti-Semites". So where is that old civility of yours? IZAK 11:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think its pretty obvious I was refering to The_Cunctator. Get a clue, man. Sam [Spade] 16:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No problem. IZAK 21:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Inquiry[edit]
Ambi asked me to comment on this case, so I will.
Given that we have never had any sort of rule limiting or prohibiting discussion on user talk pages, it seems unwise to me for the ArbCom to issue a ruling directly on that point. There are a lot of problems I can envision with having such a rule, but the point is that right now, we don't have any such rule.
I'm sure you will all predict (correctly) that I'm uncomfortable with people using talk pages to campaign for particular editing outcomes, but there are some great difficulties here. If he successfully campaigned for the deletion of the article Occupation of Israel, well, hmm, it was deleted by the outcome of the vote, right? At what point does calling a problem to the attention of other editors constitute spamming? Is it wrong only because the ArbCom thinks the result was mistaken (i.e. should the article have not been deleted?), or is it wrong to bring other editors into a discussion (if done too aggressively?)?
I would recommend against this portion of the judgment. We don't seem to have a general problem of talk page spamming for POV positions, and it seems likely to me that we don't have to worry about it very much. It's likely to be counterproductive, after all. But if we do have a problem with it, then the community should develop policies about it, and those can be enforced by the ArbCom.
It is entirely possible that I've completely missed the point and am blathering on senselessly. Don't hesitate to correct me if that's the case. :-) Jimbo Wales 10:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you Jimbo for clarifying this based on your vast experience and application of Wikipedia policy-guidelines. IZAK 06:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)