Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | IZAK
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IZAK (talk | contribs) at 08:54, 7 November 2004 (→Thank you for your attention. I would like to state my case very succinctly as follows:). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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)

Evidence from the original RFAr

Continued activity

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)

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

  • 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)

Thank you for your attention. I would like to state my case very succinctly as follows:

  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 communiations 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 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.
  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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK/Evidence&oldid=7182473"