Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Proposed decision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: This section is in response to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Evidence of Sam Spade contributing beneficially to Judaism / WWII subjects:
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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Re: IZAK RfA 

message: 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)
replies: text: This section is in response to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Evidence of Sam Spade contributing beneficially to Judaism / WWII subjects:
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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: IZAK and Sam Spade

message: 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#Recent anti-Jewish/American comments by Sam Spade  IZAK 06:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is in response to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Evidence of Sam Spade contributing beneficially to Judaism / WWII subjects:
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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: IZAK, Sam Spade, and Netoholic

message: 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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK#Response by User: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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence#Evidence submitted by User:IZAK 
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#Notice  where the admin "supervising" the procedure clearly states:
<BR> I have moved this dispute to the list of disputes not yet certified.<BR>
When this began I informed the original complainant User:HistoryBuffEr that he did not have standing to certify the action<BR>
unless he made some attempt to come to terms with User:IZAK, and I even suggested approaches,<BR>
but he indicated he could not, or would not, deal with him, So he is not in a position to certify<BR>
and User:Ed Poor has not given evidence of his own attempts to reach IZAK.<BR>
The only users in a position to certify right now are User:pir, User:JFW and User:Jayjg.<BR>
The 48-hour clock has started again. If complainants really want to put this forward, surely you can find two people<BR>
who have engaged IZAK, been rebuffed, and are willing to certify. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: IZAK and HistoryBuffEr

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: One year???

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any User can utilize Email