Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08:15, 5 October 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC).

• (IZAK | talk | contributions)

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

1.Anti-Semitism charge example 1:

"The big question now arises as to why User:HistoryBuffEr is now resorting to personal rantings rather than contributing facts and staying rational and logical rather then taking on arguments that sound like classical

Anti-Semitism. Makes it sound like he would vote for the "Final Solution

" if that was possible. IZAK 06:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2. Anti-Semitism charge example 2:

"(By the way who is SpaceMonkey and why is he afraid to have a valid Wikipedia User name as there is no word "User" in front of his "signed" name, check it out for yourself by clicking on the "edit" page. It just shows up as --

Anti-Semite

afraid to face the truth???) IZAK 12:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

3. Anti-Semitism charge example 3:

"User/s": "SpaceMonkey"; "Susvolans"; "HistoryBuffEr"

"It should be pretty clear by now that the seemingly "new" "Users": "Spacemonkey"; "Susvolans", and "HistoryBuffEr" (by the way, check their User contributions) (and presumably more to come) are probably all one person out there, obviously very familiar with the world of Wikipedia, making up Wiki-user names at random, wasting everybody's time in good old

Anti-Semitic

agenda, his/their comments and tactics should be totally ignored, and this entire vote cancelled unless Users who are better known, responsible and reliable are willing to handle this subject. Rather than follow "HistoryBuffEr"'s desire for kangaroo court tactics as evidenced here thus far. It's time to smell the coffee...IZAK 06:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

4. Spamming and smear campaigns.

IZAK was involved in a major spamming/smear campaign (see "Sam Spade" section below). IZAK is currently engaged in another major spamming/smear campaing, posting baseless charges and out-of-context quotes all over user and article Talk pages, including this very page and its associated Talk page. See IZAKs contrib log for details.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Warning 1:

"I would definately add gratuitous accusations of anti-Semitism, and even racist genocide to that list. It's an extremely offensive remark to most people, especially when made gratuitously, and it trivialises anti-Semitism and racism in general. It also qualifies as a personal attack, a violation of Wikipedia policy - pir 12:57, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

2. Warning 2:

"IZAK please refrain from gratuitous accusations of anti-Semitism. In the absence of any evidence to support that claim you violate a basic Wikipedia policy of personal attacks, and you banalise anti-Semitism. - pir 12:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

3. Warning 3:

"You're right, of course. And the next step, if policy violators don't take the hint from Let's not, is to drop a notice on their user talk page. I just hate to do that, because (a) it's so time-consuming and (b) I tend to wander away from compliance with policy myself from time to time (Hi, Jayjg!). --Uncle Ed 13:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

4. Warning 4:

"IZAK, I suggest that (with SpaceMonkey's consent) you remove the personal attack from the VFD page. You will also notice that the page is unlikely to survive in its present form... JFW | T@lk 10:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

5. Warning 5:

"IZAK, I'm going to very, very strongly suggest that, in the future, you make no accusations that any Wikipedia editors are anti-Semitic. In the past you have thrown that accusation around extremely freely, and it only hurts your cause. If you find your fingers typing such an accusation in the future, please reconsider posting, as many times as it takes until you finally delete the accusation and deal with the articles themselves, and not ad hominems about the editors. Jayjg 19:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

6. Warning 6:

"Unfortunately you have displayed a dismaying inability to distinguish ducks from chickens, turkeys, and other domesticated birds. There is no need to call people anti-Semites, regardless of whether or not it is true; these statements are ad hominem and only distract from the actual issues at hand. Stick to editing the articles to NPOV, there's no need to pass judgement on the editors, and it does far more harm than good. I'm trying to help you here, IZAK, not criticise you. Jayjg 21:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

7. IZAK's response:

"Yea, lots of chickens and turkeys are also around, that's true... IZAK 21:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

8. Warning 7:

"Isaac, much as I sympathize with you, Buff is right about the requirement for you to avoid personal remarks. In the heat of discussion, it's easy for even the best of us to forget the, er, debate rules. I suggest you take the "moral high road" and issue a unilateral apology.

Here at Wikipedia, self-justification doesn't win you any points. Just ensure that your future conduct is above reproach, and all else will be well. --Uncle Ed 14:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

9. Warning 8:

"It looks like a straight fowards smear campaign to me. I note that a least one person has now voted in favour of adminship for Sam Spade because of it. I doubt that was the result your were looking for? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

10. Warning 9:

"This sort of attack campaign is exactly what should NOT be happening here. I find it hypocritical to accuse someone, yet use these tactics. I have added IZAK's action related to this vote to the

RFC that already exists against him. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK#Sam Spade's adminship. -- Netoholic @

22:20, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)"

• IZAK subsequently responded, firmly indicating that he was aware of Netoholic's warnings.
• IZAK continues to attack and insult other users (see Special:Contributions/IZAK) and still uses similar "spamming" methods.

11. Warning 10:

"I'm not going to revert, but I would appreciate it if you would read MeatBall:ForestFire and then consider replacing the lengthy copied section with a link to the relevant text. If not, well, that's unfortunate; nobody is served by having the debate on HistoryBuffEr's behavior spread out across dozens of user talk: and article talk: pages. Thanks. —No-One Jones ^(m) 02:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

12. See also "Sam Spade's adminship" section below, where a number of users have warned IZAK about his behavior.

13. This RfC was initally open on Oct 5. This RfC itself is a warning to IZAK, which IZAK has subsequently ignored.

Sam Spade's adminship

Recently,

Evidence of disputed behavior is found in the contribution history of IZAK – first on 6 Oct 2004 (from 21:33 to 21:49) and then again on 10 Oct 2004 (from 08:38 to 10:17).

Policies violated in this effort:

• Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox
  )

Users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Netoholic @ 17:07, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
2. Simonides 00:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:41, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
4. Talk-o Deposit
   01:04, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
5. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. — Kate Turner | Talk 07:40, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
7. irismeister 16:15, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
8. Though I was the first to oppose Spade's adminship, I agree that IZAK's campaign was uncalled-for. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. Spam is bad as a general rule, and this was meanspirited and unfair IMO> Sam [Spade] 22:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. ugen64 21:49, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
11. Xed 13:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
12. fvw 03:22, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
13. I noticed the messages in quite a few pages when I was thanking people for voting in favour of giving me admin access. Personal attacks like that are just not on. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
14. Andre (talk) 19:17, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
15. I have to endorse this, as HistoryBuffEr isn't the one on trial here, IZAK is. Shane King 04:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Netoholic @ 18:55, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC) -- On the basis that he posted accusations on multiple user pages relating to Sam Spade's nomination, which is in line with the description of the complaint above. My previous "Outside View" documented below at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK#Sam Spade's adminship can be considered an attempt "to resolve a dispute with this user" regarding his personal attacks and user page spam. I also put forth that those efforts have failed and he continues to spam insults about other users, referring to his edits on 13 Oct from 08:26 to 08:40 (see Special:Contributions/IZAK).

   Netoholic, please post up in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section above your personal attempt to resolve the dispute with IZAK. Otherwise your certification will also be invalid. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:21, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Stop trying to police this RFC to death. My effort was sound, has been turned back, and he continues to spam. He is in the wrong. -- Netoholic @ 19:43, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

   First, I am not arguing that IZAK is in the right (or wrong). Second, spamming is not the subject of this RfC. You can bring a different RfC against IZAK for that if you choose. See the guidelines. I checked the other RfCs at the same time I checked this one. They are in compliance except for the one against Chuck F, where I could find on certifiers efforts and I notified

   the editor. There seeme to be valid complaints here. Why so difficult to follow the guidelines? -- Cecropia | explains it all ®

   19:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   The validity of this certification is disputed. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   I have added Netoholics's warning to "Evidence" above. HistoryBuffEr 04:23, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

2. IZAK, your comments (as quoted above) technically go against Wikipedia guidelines. Rather than protesting that Buff is just as bad or worse, I suggest you simply agree to stop calling Buff "anti-Semitic" and to avoid speculating that he's in favor of the Final Solution (i.e., the
   Holocaust). Do that, and I'll recommend that this 'case' be closed. --Uncle Ed
   14:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   (See 1 For Ed's warning.)

   I don't see Ed Poor directly engaging IZAK in your example. We can't assume IZAK read a general comment by Ed, and Ed did not mention "anti-semitism," the subject of this RfC. But I have contacted Ed directly, and he can tell us what he has done, rather than speculate. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Why not simply read Ed_Poor's comment, in which he concurred with "Pir" who warned "IZAK" and warned everyone involved (myself, "IZAK", "Jayjg", "Viriditas" ...) Plus, Ed_Poor's sig here should be taken as certifying that. HistoryBuffEr 19:59, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I have added Ed_Poor's warning under "Evidence" above. HistoryBuffEr 04:07, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

3. HistoryBuffEr 01:58, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC).

I opened the original RfC on Oct 5 as a warning to IZAK. IZAK has subsequently ignored that warning. The RfC cert has been restarted by Cecropia and includes both old and new issues. My cert now meets the RfC criteria.

4. irismeister 16:04, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

As an old experienced subject of RfCs, campaings, debriefings and not only spamming from

Western Civilization

, he only said this:

What do I think about the

1. fvw 03:26, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
2. Simonides 23:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) - IZAK's nonsensical accusations reminds me of a certain User:RK. HistoryBuffer, there is a huge group of such biased editors on Wikipedia and you will find it hard to get in any word about them edgewise - and as you notice from the above Uncle Ed, one of many apparently neutral editors, is not particularly interested in the facts either.

I'm interested in the facts. I'm just more interested in quick closure. Izak should just apologize and stop making personal remarks. ----Uncle Ed (Rod Poe) 19:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response by HistoryBuffEr

• User:IZAK refuses to admit that he violated Wikipedia policy, even though this is obvious.
• User:IZAK has not explained why he called User:SpaceMonkey and User:Susvolans anti-Semites.
• User:IZAK's response does not prove he was justified in calling any of users anti-Semites.
• User:IZAK has failed to apologize for his flagrant violations.
• User:IZAK has failed to promise that he will not violate Wikipedia policy in future.
• Even worse,
  Nazi
  .
• Several users endorsing User:IZAK have violated policy themselves in their posts.

This RfC should be kept open until User:IZAK acknowledges his mistakes and promises not to repeat them. -- HistoryBuffEr 20:24, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

The main objective of this RfC is to change udesirable behavior. On the positive side, IZAK, while loudly insisting that he was in the right, had at first toned down his heated rhetoric. This commendable improvement in behavior had kept this RfC in the state of hibernation and the RfC appeared to be on its way out. However, for some reason (perhaps Cecropia's attempt to try to kill the sleeping RfC with legalese), IZAK has now relapsed.

IZAK continues posting baseless charges, and is spreading lengthy tracts of out-of-context quotes with his highly POV interpretations (in bold letters) seemingly anywhere he can get to (see Evidence 11 above.)

The fact that IZAK, unlike Alberuni on his RfC, refuses to admit obvious mistakes and apologize is less important, it's a matter of personal views of morality and integrity. What is important is that he modifies his behaviour in face of numerous complaints, so Wikipedians can get to the task of writing articles, rather than wasting time on fruitless debates about behavior.

The proposed intermediate verdict:

• This RfC should be kept open until IZAK tones down his rhetoric and ceases unsolicited promotion of his POV about several users all over Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. HistoryBuffEr 02:31, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC).

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

See(HistoryBuffEr | talk | contributions)

Hi, I am

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)"

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)."

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)"

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. 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
   "."

1. HistoryBuffer attempts to remove: "Genuine anti-Semitism exists in the
   Arab world." [1]
2. HistoryBuffer attemtps to insert: "This article is about views of some
   anti-Semitic. Moderates on all sides point to the need to separate legitimate criticism from irrational hatred..." [2]
3. History tries to insert: "...This article discusses Jewish allegations of
   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..." [3]
4. HistoryBuffer tries to delete: "...Articles in many official Arab government newspapers (notably 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." [4]

Calling a spade a spade: Counter response by User:IZAK

It seems that

• Praise Hamas: :"...Israel is also disputed by some, so what about terms "Israel" and "Israeli areas", aren't these terms POV as well? Ever heard of "Hamas" et al?" HistoryBuffEr SeeTalk:Occupation of Palestine#A problematic phrase.
• Calls for the bombing of Israel: "...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)..." See User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons#Hi.
• Attempts to remove mention of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion See [5]
• Hurls personal insults at admins: Talk:Israel#"Jayjg": Who are you?: "...keep your bullying tactics for extremists like yourself. HistoryBuffEr 03:50, 2004 Sep 26" (UTC)". "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. ...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)."
• Constantly hurls the terms
  Israel or Israelis", as insulting PEJORATIVES as in Talk:Occupation of Palestine#NPOV or Zionist extremist POV? and Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Losing NPOV marbles to bullies
  .
• Seeks to close off a vote on
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis#This VfD has expired
  even though at least FIFTEEN users oppose his move. (Which is where this dispute started).

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". [6] (
  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
  Talk:Jew#disputed_sentances). When another editor removed the warning, Sam reverted the page [8] and added an "attention" warning [9]
  . 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 [10], [11]
• 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 [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]
• 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 [17], [18]
  • 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:

• User:172:
  • User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172
  • User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172_Revisited
• User:AndyL
  • User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_July_2004_2#Wikipedia_talk:Dealing_with_disruptive_or_antisocial_editors
  • User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_July_2004_2#Rudeness
• User:Hyacinth
  • User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_July_2004#POV_reverts
• User:Nat Krause
  • User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_June_2004_2#Re:Anarcho-talk
• User:GrazingshipIV
  • User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_May_2004#Foolishness
  • User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_May_2004#Troll
• User:Viajero
  • User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_May_2004#Anti-French_article
• User:Bcorr
  • Talk:Pantheism/Archive_2#Before_this_all_began
  • User_talk:Bcorr/Archive_200403#.95_talk:pantheism
  • User_talk:Bcorr/Archive_200403#.95_What_is_your_problem.3F
• User:David Gerard
  • Talk:Pantheism/Archive_2#Carl_Sagan.3F
  • User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_1#Pantheism
• User:Mirv
  • User_talk:Mirv#The_Case_of_Spade
• User:Sunray
  • User_talk:Sunray#Socialism_and_Nazism

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:Wikipedia is not a soapbox
   )

User:IZAK asks: Is "SamSpade" also "HistoryBuffEr"?

Hi all, I am curious if "SamSpade" is also "HistoryBuffEr" because their

Since I am ranked as the 79th (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.

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

See User talk:IZAK#Hi IZAK for the rest of this communication:

Hi IZAK

I think its mean when you call me names. Please don't do that. Have you seen

1. Xtra 05:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) This entire exersise is a rediculous waste of time.
2. While I don't always agree with
   modern anti-Semitism. ←Humus sapiens←Talk
   09:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. I agree here with User:IZAK. There is a growing pheonmena of antisemitism among Arab, and while some of them do deny it or claim they are only anti-Israeli, many Arab publicists admit that Arab antisemitism exists and debunk Arabs and Muslims for using such an ugly tool to promote the political or religious goals. So HisBuff attempts to replace "Arab antisemitism" with "allegation of some Jews about Arab antisemitism" is futile and not approperiate. His attempts to delete facts from the article is also foul. MathKnight 11:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. I agree with
   Nazis sincerely thought they were doing the "right" thing by killing Millions of the "inferior" Jews. Many Nazis today still think so[19]. I think Wikipedia should have the NAKED and RAW truth. No "buffers" should be accepted here.--AAAAA
   12:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. GeneralPatton 00:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. Viriditas 04:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. IZAK 22:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8. If there are bigots in Wikipedia, and they want to promote merely their POV, and decide to make anti-Semitic and other racist, religionist, sexist, (insert your own category here)ist, etc. remarks, then they are using Wikipedia as a soapbox and not being NPOV. If a bigot wants to participate, he or she should do so only by writing from a NPOV on encyclopedia articles, while relegating the POV to the talk pages. Moreover, there IS a lot of Arab antisemitism making the rounds, much of it likely the Nazis' fault (IMHO). Rickyrab 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. Evolver of Borg 20:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. YUL89YYZ 13:59, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
11. 172 10:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Jfdwolff

There is a subgroup of users on the project who are on the verge of trolling in their bias against Israel and the coverage of this country on Wikipedia.

I dispute the allegation of anti-Semitism as leveled by User:IZAK, but (without mentioning names or casting direct accusations) there is a lot of ad hominem, demonisation of politicians and leaders, insulting and faux moralism that makes involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian issue an almost impossible task. I do not pretend to know enough about the issue, and neither do I involve myself in these pages, but I'm repeatedly called upon by trusted contributors to control the wildfire of anti-Israel bias on the project.

Other users have landed themselves in trouble, and I maintain that the words anti-Semite, fundamentalist and ultra-something should be scrupulously avoided, but I contest that the debate can spin out of control sufficiently to prompt these kind of reactions.

Instead of censuring IZAK, I recommend the appointment of a full-time arbitrator (User:Ed Poor comes to mind) as a first port of call for all problems related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, whether it is VfD, RFC, RFM or even RFA. I also feel mediation should be used more often over article content, instead of VfD-ing every contested page. JFW | T@lk 08:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Viriditas 11:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. Frikle 12:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. Jayjg 17:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. --AAAAA 22:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. GeneralPatton 00:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. Xtra 08:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. Ambi 04:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) With the exception that I strongly agree with deleting rant pages, on any subject. Just because it is created doesn't mean that it makes sense to keep it there in any form.
8. (Partially endorsing summary) 1) I am not ready to dispute the charges of anti-Semitism leveled by IZAK; I am only familiar with his charges against one particular user, and those seem to carry some weight, given the evidence IZAK has brought to light above. 2) I do not if Ed Poor is qualified to be an arbiter of neutrality on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (I will elaborate on my partial defense of IZAK later; right now I have to make it to a meeting.) 172 14:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. Josiah
10. As I see it, the only remark HistoryBuffEr said that could in any way be interpreted as antisemitic is his call to a specific group of Zionists to disqualify themselves from editing a specific article. Criticism of Israel's treatment of minorities, for example, does not necessarily constitute antisemitism. At best, HistoryBuffEr deserves a reprimand. IZAK, I appreciate your repeated requests for my opinion on this issue and others, but as I see it, all you've managed to do is create a big hooplah with very weak evidence. The detrimental effects of this action could include a banalization of antisemitism and, in general, a "cry wolf" effect. Even if you maintain that HistoryBuffEr or others hold antisemitic views, IZAK, I recommend that you seek alternative ways with deal with them. Arbitration seems like the best way out of this. Jeru 14:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
11. Leifern 11:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) I don't endorse any kind of ad hominem attack, but I also think that IZAK is right to be upset about some of the historical revisionisn, accusations, etc., that are leveled against Israel and Jews. Sure, a charge of antisemitism must be substantiated, but we have to face the reality that it exists.
12. I agree with every word by Jfdwolff. I have been contacted countless times already to vote/intervene in the Wikipedia "wars" on the Israeli-Arab conflict, and initially I was inclinded to do so, because I really do agree that there is a very serious problem here. The only reason I didn't actually get much involved was simply lack of time, but more recently I have come to the same conclusion as Jfdwolff: it is an "impossible task" and the "wildfire" really cannot be controlled within the stardard wiki process. What we need is an overall solution to the entire problem and all of its related articles, not haphazard efforts, and perhaps a full-time administrator could help. Any other ideas? In any case, I don't think censuring users on either side is the right way to do it (others will always follow quickly in their footsteps anyways). Dovi 17:16, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
13. IZAK should attempt more to reduce the heat in arguments, but I guess at least he does not heat it up on purpose. Gady 19:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Much of this page is representative of the omnipresent, brainwashed, ignorant, persistent and biased contingent that dominates any Israel-related article on Wikipedia. Any criticism directed against Israel is sooner or later interpreted as anti-Semitism, and any criticism directed against Arabs, no matter how incredulous, is trumpeted as much as possible so that any attempt to alleviate or balance it is also construed as anti-Semitism, or some offshoot thereof. Historybuffer is just one of many objective editors, Jewish/Israeli or not, who have tried (and eventually, in most cases, given up) to contribute a disillusioned perspective to political articles without much success - editors who come under scathing group attacks for minor transgressions but have to face baseless accusations and ridiculous propaganda everyday on Wikipedia, about which nothing is done by the larger Wikipedia body (Ed Poor, being a Conservative, appeases some of the reactionaries, is usually present where they are, appears to bring a balanced approach, raps a few knuckles, and effectively allows the trash to continue heaping.)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

• -- Simonides 00:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BakuninXL 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, IZAK continues with his questionable behavior. He has posted yet another

There is now an Arbitration case against IZAK on similar charges. This RfC should be kept open until it is resolved.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. HistoryBuffEr 04:08, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.