Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark/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 make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; 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/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

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

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

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 cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Zephram Stark

[edit] Overview

This matter is an objective example of the ongoing debate over administrator/editor rights. Who are to be the real members of the Wikipedia society? Are administrators to be the only ones with real editing power, or shall administrator tools be used solely to preserve a level playing field for all? The outcome of this arbitration will set a precedent influencing future decisions in this pivotal area.

Four years ago, the article on terrorism conveyed information (See December 2001 edit, for example). Today, thanks in large part to User:Hipocrite and User:Stevertigo, it conveys information again. In between, however, it degraded into this: July 2005 Smyth Edit. Please take a look at the article because Smyth's version, or one very similar to it, is what Jayjg and SlimVirgin were fighting to keep so adamantly that they were willing to bad-mouth and perma-block people who proposed changes.

  • The first sentence basically says that we don't know how to objectively define terrorism.
  • The second sentence is a nation-centric quote from a U.S. military advisory board (The CSIS).
  • Next, Smyth adds a misquote from the OED. He didn't like the OED description of "terrorism," so he modified the OED definition of "terrorist" and falsely claimed that it was the OED definition of "terrorism." Since the OED is a subscription service ($295/yr), nobody caught the misquote until I demanded repeatedly that he provide a source we could verify. He finally confessed the true definition, but only after labeling me a troublemaker. Later, when Uncle Ed and SlimVirgin tag-team blocked me for days, Smyth tried to sneak it in again. Even though anyone could read about what happened in the history, the guy who caught it again was permanently blocked and accused of being me.
  • Smyth then says that "terrorism" has always been a pejorative term, something that his OED source proves is not the case.
  • A nation-centric reference to terrorism as defined vaguely by the War on terrorism follows.
  • Next, the article deconstructs any objectivity still associated with the term by saying it covers "almost any enemy action perceived as being an immoral use of violence."
  • Smyth added that "terrorism" is used exclusively to refer to others, something that his OED source proves is not the case.
  • The next sentence says the same factually incorrect thing in different words.
  • The article reiterates that the author cannot figure out any common ground in the usages of the term.
  • Then we get a grab bag of possible meanings so we can mix and match our own definition.
  • If the reader's head hasn't exploded by then, the great editing team of Smyth, Jayjg and SlimVirgin cap off the intro with this sentence, "None of these are universally accepted as being either necessary or sufficient."

How could this happen? At first glance, you might suspect that this is proof of the popular admin notion that most editors are idiots and we need more top-down control, but take a closer look. The condition of this article was caused by top-down control gone very, very wrong. Two of the most powerful people in Wikipedia, Jayjg and SlimVirgin helped push the article in that direction, and protected it once it got there. Anyone who tried to edit the introduction to better convey information, while assuming good faith, became deeply frustrated. I've had good editors tell me, on their talk pages and mine, that they have lost faith in Wikipedia because of administrators like Jayjg and SlimVirgin.

What is their agenda? I can only guess. Politically, some groups would benefit from not having a definition of terrorism that conveys information. I would think that soldiers in the U.S. army, supporters of President Bush, and pro-Israeli organizations would rather that the term be undefined. People on my talk page have told me that Jayjg and SlimVirgin regularly team up to "push pro Israeli POV." As someone with Jewish blood from both parents, I always thought of Jews as just another piece of society, not as an separate entity fighting to redefine history and suppress useful definitions of words. Yet here, I had direct evidence of it. It really made me mad. How dare Jayjg come in here, declaring himself a member of Wikiproject:Judaism and represent our people this way? I don't want to be thought of as a member of a group that subverts and confuses information. I want to be thought of as a human being, part of society, working with people to uncover the truth and create definitions of words that help us more effectively convey information. Although I have Jewish blood, I consider anyone banding together to promote anything outside of the good of all society to an outside group. If they want their group to be called "Jews," and use their admin power to bias articles with Jewish POV, so be it, but the rest of Wikipedia should know that this is an outside group that has nothing to do with those of us who have Hebrew blood and refuse to adopt a bias against the rest of society.

The particular bias of the group I ran up against, however, is not what we have to solve. The bigger picture is that Wikipedia enabled and encouraged the corrupt power of that group to utterly decimate the introduction to a good article and keep it in that state against the will of all the other people in the seven archives who desperately tried to promote a definitive introduction to terrorism. You may argue that people are too stupid to rule themselves here at Wikipedia, but how then can they be smart to rule others? This little clique mentality of administration must end. --Zephram Stark 21:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked without Breaking Rules

Below are some of the people that Jayjg and SlimVirgin blocked for doing nothing more than expressing their opinion on the terrorism article. If you check their edit history, you will see that they did not break any rules. These people simply expressed an opinion that Jayjg and SlimVirgin didn't like and were blocked as "sockpuppets" for doing so. This is the epitome of what I have been talking out about. I unequivocally state that I do not have any sockpuppets, meatpuppets, flesh-puppets, or whatever User:Jayjg and SlimVirgin want to call them. User:Jayjg and SlimVirgin have no reason to think otherwise. They simply block anyone who even suggests something that goes against their viewpoint. --Zephram Stark 01:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


1 ) 21:45, 4 October 2005, SlimVirgin blocked EKBK (infinite) (contribs) (sockpuppet used to violate policy)

EKBK was blocked indefinitely after making this statement on the terrorism talk page. He was accused of being a sockpuppet by SlimVirgin.

2 ) 01:44, 23 September 2005, SlimVirgin blocked Professor_Stevens (infinite) (contribs) (Zephram Stark sockpuppet)

Professor Stevens was blocked indefinitely after making his first contribution: this proposal on the terrorism talk page. He was accused of being my sockpuppet by SlimVirgin.

3 ) 03:23, 11 September 2005, SlimVirgin blocked Go_Cowboys (infinite) (contribs) (sockpuppet created by User:Zephram Stark to violate policy)

Go Cowboys was blocked indefinitely after making this section proposing that the definition of "terrorist" be split from the article on "terrorism." User:Jayjg called him a sockpuppet of me and SlimVirgin blocked him for it. She also blocked me because she said that I created him.

4 ) 01:09, 12 September 2005, SlimVirgin blocked Felice_L'Angleterre (infinite) (contribs) (sockpuppet created to violate policy; probably User:Zephram Stark)

Felice_L'Angleterre was blocked indefinitely after refusing to give User:SlimVirgin and User:Calton the name of the corporation where she works.

SlimVirgin claims that there are at least eleven other people she and User:Jayjg have blocked (see her comments on my user talk page) under the guise of being my sockpuppets. Although Wikipedia is supposed to be transparent, most of the people SlimVirgin blocked in relationship to the "terrorism" article had only a vague reason given similar to "sockpuppet used to violate policy," like the description of EKBK's infinite block above. On all of her blocks and "perma-blocks" in this matter, SlimVirgin failed to annotate a rule that she thinks each person broke:

Without knowing which rule each person allegedly broke, in which discussion or article he or she allegedly broke the rule, or which contribution showed evidence of that rule being broken, it is very hard to gather examples that shows the true extent that SlimVirgin has damaged this community. If the number of people she blocked without citing a rule is any indication, SlimVirgin has effectively banished dozens or even hundreds of people for no reason other than that her POV did not agree with their edits.

I have gone through the entire block log from the time that I joined, and can find no other reference to my name (except for the times when she blocked me, of course). I only kept track of the count as each person was blocked and accused of being me in the discussion. Before I spend the hours going through the mountains of archives to find and prove each of these references, I need to know from the arbitration committee if it is going to make any difference. I have only scratched the surface of this corruption, and I'm willing to dig as deep as needs be in order to stop people like SlimVirgin and Jayjg from using their administrative powers to create article PoV, but I believe I have already given ample evidence of what is going on. Is more evidence required? If it is, will any amount of evidence against User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg result in their demotion and the restoration of a level playing field here at Wikipedia?

[edit] IP Lookup of blocked Contributors

Below are the some of the IP numbers of people that User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg blocked under the guise of being my sockpuppets. These numbers are taken from either the block log or from discussions where an administrator with m:CheckUser power revealed them.

  • 67.136.36.2 —— Vancouver, WA
  • 4.124.74.165 —— Broomfield, CO
  • 211.26.218.9 —— Milton, QLD, Australia
  • 69.174.193.208 —— Coudersport, PA
  • 4.124.93.149 —— Broomfield, CO
  • 72.11.72.185 —— Beaverton, OR
  • 64.114.81.166 —— Burnaby, BC, Canada
  • 206.176.211.72 —— Wausau, WI

Please note that these are the IP numbers of editors with login accounts. For instance, the last one, 206.176.211.72, is the IP address of EKBK. They are shown for the purpose of proving that they couldn't all be one person.

David Gerard was contacted about this matter and failed to provide any evidence that there was a connection between the people who were blocked and me. He alluded to the possibility of open proxies. Based on every test I know of, none of the people that User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin blocked from the "terrorism" article use open proxies or anonymous IPs.

I don't really have a problem with anyone but the two administrators who block people and lock their user talk pages to keep them from expressing their opinions clearly within the rules. It kind of sucks that administrators like Carbonite are so fixated on administrative hierarchy that they unquestionable support each other, but the vast majority of editors who are here to improve articles can overcome administrative bias if they aren't afraid of getting blocked without reason.

[edit] Carbonite Dipute of Fact

Please look at the evidence Carbonite provides. I don't believe that it matches the conclusions he reaches. For instance:

After Carbonite showed that I said I voted for President Bush and then tried to have him impeached, Carbonite says, "The evidence is included to show a pattern of Zephram making whatever statement is helpful to his argument at the time." ~Carbonite (below)
Carbonite's conclusion is in error. I voted for President Bush in 2000 because I am conservative and Bush espoused conservative values. When Bush instead took the United States 2 trillion dollars farther into debt and started a war based on a lie, I obviously no longer though he was conservative.

I trust that, in all these matters, the ArbCom will consider the evidence by itself. For that reason, and in respect to the Arbitrators' time, I don't think it will be necessary to take each one of Carbonite's exaggerations and outright lies and say what really happened. The information in the links that Carbonite provides speaks for itself and has very little to do with the conclusions that Carbonite reaches.

If you want to see an example of the lengths that Carbonite is willing to go to control this situation, take a look at the edit history of this page. [2] Even though the instructions on this page explicitly and repeatedly tell people to edit within their own section, Carbonite apparently couldn't help himself. The urge to spin and falsify the evidence that I provided simply must have been too much for him. He misleadingly added links in my section from the IP numbers to the contributions of those IP numbers, not the log-ins for those IP numbers. As a result, he tried to make it appear that those editors had not made very many contributions. I, of course, changed it back. He responded by making additional unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, personal attacks, lies, and threats of "more to come...". While I will respect any decision of the ArbCom, I will never subjugate myself to Carbonite, Jayjg, or SlimVirgin regardless of how many threats, blockings, or rumors they throw my way. A yes-man can't possibly add anything to Wikipedia. Really good editors are being driven away from this project because the attitude here is to reduce them to yes-men. Then, we look around and wonder why the quality of edits is decreasing. I submit that yes-men cannot make good edits, which negates the entire concept of a hierarchy of power at Wikipedia. Wikipedia must be a level playing field. The members of this Arbitration Committee have the power to get the ball rolling in that direction again. --Zephram Stark 15:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smyth Dispute of Fact

I believe that Mr. Smyth's conclusions are not consistent with the links that he provides. His link to Mr. Gerard does not list any evidence of a connection. Mr. Gerard's feelings are apparently based purely on speculation which he justifies as being theoretically possible via open proxies or similar. Since there are tests for open proxies or similar, I invite Mr. Gerard to give us the results of those tests instead of abstract conjecture. --16:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] New Developments

  • On Dante Alighieri's talk page, SlimVirgin is trying to convince Dante that it is not his place to get involved. If administrators cannot police themselves, who will police them? Editors certainly don't have any method of demoting administrators. We can complain all we want, but ultimately unbiased administrators must make the decision to involve themselves in the dispute in order for a corrupt administrator to be demoted. --01:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
After I posted the above, SlimVirgin apologized to Dante. --21:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • According to User:David Gerard, EKBK has been sending email to administrators asking that she be unblocked and that her user page be unprotected. I can find nothing in EKBK's contributions that is against the rules, nor was she accused of doing anything that warrants blocking for even 24 hours. Nevertheless, EKBK was permanently blocked and her user talk page was protected against editing. Can you think of any legitimate reason why someone would lock down a user's talk page? How many administrators recognized this as wrong and did something about it? So far, Dante Alighieri is the only one. Despite Dante Alighieri's efforts, EKBK is still blocked from even editing her own user page. --21:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • On the Administrator Notice Board, SlimVirgin claims that she only blocked four people under the guise of being my sockpuppets, but in the same paragraph she threatens to block me and User:Black Angus. For what, she doesn't say. I can't see anything in the contributions of Black Angus that would remotely be considered against the rules. Aparently his contributions to the "terrorism" article are reason enough. --22:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


  • "the only reason Zephram isn't blocked is that he's up before the arbcom, but I'm beginning to wonder whether that should necessarily stop me." --SlimVirgin (AN/I More Threats) 11:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


  • On the Blocking Policy discussion page, I propose that "a rule should be cited when a person is blocked." Carbonite says, "please do not unilaterally change policy.[3]" --16:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Ed Poor

Jeez, I hate these templates. Let me just say that I blocked Zephram twice in a row for nasty language toward other users. I think the effing Jews thing was my block: I forget, and I'm too tired to go look it up.

Since those two blocks, Z. has apparently been trying to swallow a sizeable chill pill, and that's to his credit!

He's also made some friendly overtures - to me at least.

This is the Wrong Place to suggest it, but maybe he should just be encouraged to get some dialogue going about his ideas on definitions of terrorism. I've created some other Definitions of... pages which have stood the test of time, e.g., definitions of Palestine and Palestinian.

Maybe a WikiProject to collaborate on defining terrorsim would be just the thing. Uncle Ed 03:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] <day1> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] <day2> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] Evidence presented by Vizcarra

[edit] 17 August 2005

  • 21:31
    • According to SlimVirgin [4] I was "temporarily blocked for disruption because of [my] recreation of a personal attack page that was deleted".

Such "attack page" wasn't such, it was the user page of SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon rather. And Jayjg blanked it (which is vandalism) because it was a "personal attack" when it contained criticism towards the SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordong tag team ("It only contained this phrase "SlimVirgin violates Wikipedia rules: on Civility and 3 Reverts. SlimVirgin dishonesty violates 3R with jayjg and a tag-team of other blatantly Zionist/Jewish-centric Wikipedia propagandists.").

Screenshot of edit history of SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon's user page
Enlarge
Screenshot of edit history of SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon's user page

Ryan Delaney noted this and reverted the blanking of the page. The Jayjg blanked it once again, but this time he qualified his edit as a "minor edit". I then added my rationality of why such is not a personal attack and should be kept for future reference, such as cases like these, since numerous wikipedians have affected by POV pushing by this trio. I reverted the blanking once again and for edit summary typed "see talk page". This time SlimVirgin reverted my change (as she often does after Jayjg) with no reponse to my opposition in the talk page, and also qualifying her change as a "minor edit" (again, something common for him when involved in controversial activities). I once again reverted the change and typed "take discussion to the talk page".

This was SlimVirgin's rationale to block me: "disruption: recreating an attack page".

I asked why by e-mail and she responded "We're here to write an encyclopedia, not engage in personal attacks or vendettas...But if you descend into personal attacks you'll lose everyone's sympathy". Then again, he accused me of engaging in personal attacks when I was, in contrast, defending a user page being vandalized. She also mentioned that "When an admin deletes a page, you're well within your rights to complain or to put it up for VfU, but you're not supposed to recreate it immediately, particularly not when it constitutes a personal attack".

He also mentioned that he "deleted the talk and user page more than once, and [I] re-created them".

Interesting to note, however, is that it was Jayjg who deleted it twice and then SlimVirgin once. So now I think:

  • Is SlimVirgin a sockpuppet of Jayjg?
  • Is SlimVirgin a meatpuppet of Jayjg?

--Vizcarra 05:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Carbonite

There are several negative behaviors of Zephram Stark that have caused problems on Wkipedia: personal attacks, insertion of POV, disruption, sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and unwillingness to compromise or accept consensus.

[edit] Sockpuppets / Meatpuppets

Zephram has not only used sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets, but he has lied about their existence multiple times. He has also lied about having knowledge of registered users' IP addresses.

  • Zephram claimed that he was able to learn the IPs of registered users from the block log. [5]. However, this was proven to be false. [6] Zephram has never explained how he knew the IPs of registered users. The only plausible way that Zephram knew the IPs of registered users is because these users were actually his meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Carbonite | Talk 02:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

More to come...

[edit] Personal attacks

  • One extremely offensive edit summary [7] made by Zephram was "This place is a joke. It's too bad, because it had possibilities before all you fucking Jews came along. The funny thing is, I never had anything against you before this. Now I see what people mean."
  • [8] "I picture Carbonite as a little Cartman, running around in a cop uniform saying, "Respect my authority!!""
  • [9] More taunting
  • [10] Yet another personal attack

More to come...

[edit] Disruption

  • Twice [11] [12] attempted to unilaterally change the blocking policy despite have made no comments on the talk page.

More to come...

[edit] 8 July

  • 19:46 8 July 2005
    • Zephram's first (of many) edit to the Terrorism article was a major rewrite of the introduction. The edit summary was "Rewrote Introduction from a Neutral Point of View from the Generally Accepted to the Controversial Specifics but the edit was highly POV and was reverted within minutes. With this edit Zephram also removed the NPOV tag from the article.
  • 21:24 8 July 2005
    • After having his rewrite of the intro reverted by User:Jayjg, Zephram began demanding that his version must either be critiqued or used in the article. Zephram's attitude of "Discuss things by my rules" have been a constant problem on talk pages.
  • 21:54 8 July 2005
    • Despite having made his first edit to Wikipedia only a few hours prior, Zephram insults Jayjg, asking him "Are you purposefully trying to destroy the philosophy of Wikipedia" and telling him "It is time that you start working with the members of our community instead of against them"
  • 23:08 8 July 2005
    • Zephram posts in Jayjg's userspace, stating that "Unless he starts working with other members, it may be time to take him down a notch." This is only Zephram's 10th edit to Wikipedia.

[edit] 9 July

  • 15:15 9 July 2005
    • Zephram's first edit to Talk:Al-Qaeda is another personal attack against Jayjg: "If you’re going to rely on User:Jayjg’s book of Doublespeak for your definition, I guess you could justify anything you want." He also provides his reasoning for his definition of Terrorism being rejected: "Wikipedia has no definitive definition of terrorism because codifying it in ANY manner would show how our beloved president’s use of the term is inconsistent, contradictory, and brimming with irony."
  • 21:35 9 July 2005
    • Zephram continues his attacks on Jayjg, back on Talk:Terrorism. He searched out criticism of Jayjg and compiled it on the article's talk page, stating "If you feel the same way, the next step should be to have him demoted and blocked from articles that he reverts."

[edit] 10 July

  • )1:31 10 July 2005
    • Zephram has turned Talk:Terrorism into a debate about Jayjg, saying that he's read Jayjg's talk page and "In every instance that I read, User:Jayjg had trashed a well-written, objective and NPOV article in favor of a revert that only served to confuse and hide historical facts." and "If they keep doing it, we have no choice but to block them from changing the definition."
  • 03:16 10 July 2005
    • In response to a statement by User:Smyth, Zephram claims ..."I voted for Bush as president...". This is very much at odds with Zephram's other statements and actions, especially this petition [13] organized by Zephram Stark to impeach President Bush. The evidence is included to show a pattern of Zephram making whatever statement is helpful to his argument at the time.

[edit] 11 July

  • 15:17 11 July 2005
    • Zephram again adds his original definition of terrorism with the edit summary "Put the Subjective POV in the Subjective Side. This ends the NPOV dispute. Please make further edits to only your side of the argument. If you can’t understand the other's claim, you can’t edit it. ". Once again, Zephram's rewrite is reverted, this time by User:Smyth, who requests that Zephram use the talk page.
  • 17:43 11 July 2005
    • Zephram again reverts the Terrorism article, this time without any edit summary. He also removes the NPOV tag. He is quickly reverted by Jayjg. Zephram claims on the talk page [14] that there is no longer a NPOV dispute and instructs User:Smyth, "Do not delete the objective definition.
  • 18:04 11 July 2005
    • Zephram once again reverts the Terrorism intro, with the edit summary "Your hostile editing will no longer be tollerated, Mr. Jayjg. There is an objective definition for Terrorism. Do not edit something you, yourself, have said you don't understand. This isn't a revert." Jayjg reverts and points out that it was indeed a revert. He also cautions Zephram about violating the 3RR, providing a link to the policy.
  • 18:29 11 July 2005
    • Zephram reverts the intro yet again to his version, with the edit summary "You do not have the right to arbitrarily delete definitions, Mr. Jaygj, even if you team up with someone else to revert. If you continue hostile editing, I will have no choice but to request a block." Smyth reverts this edit within minutes.
  • 19:09 11 July 2005
    • Shortly after Zephram was blocked, an anon IP User:206.176.211.72 (later proven [15] to be User:EKBK) reverts to Zephram's version with the edit summary "This is a much better definition than we've ever had. We can start with this because it represents the peaceful POV as well as the war POV." This edit was the IP's first and only.

Much more still to be added...

[edit] Evidence presented by Smyth

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Zephram claims above that "David Gerard was contacted about this matter but failed to provide any evidence that there was a connection." This is a lie [16] and in any case, Zephram is so paranoid that he does not even trust David Gerard to tell the truth [17].

[edit] ZS's changes to Terrorism

Here are descriptions of the three instances where Zephram has made substantial changes to the article Terrorism, as opposed to its talk page. The fallout from these incidents explains the total distrust with which many users now view him. – Smyth\talk 09:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

2005.07.11 After failing to get consensus for a new introduction he suggested, Zephram places his introduction and the existing one side-by-side on the page.
There is a revert war, with three established users opposing this change. One of Zephram's reversions has the edit summary Put the Subjective POV in the Subjective Side. This ends the NPOV dispute. Please make further edits to only your side of the argument. If you can’t understand the other's claim, you can’t edit it. Another one has the edit summary Your hostile editing will no longer be tollerated, Mr. Jayjg. There is an objective definition for Terrorism. Do not edit something you, yourself, have said you don't understand. This isn't a revert.
Zephram is blocked for a 3RR violation.
2005.08.22 – Zephram replaces the introduction with a new version written by him. His edit summary is: Updated introduction to match the NPOV introduction we exhaustively discussed and agreed upon in Talk. In fact, this version had been displayed on the talk page for less than two days [18] and had received no comments at all.
Jayjg reworks the text considerably [19], citing original research and neologisms. Zephram reverts to his original version, saying: Revert hostile-edits by Jayjg. As per the talk page & ATTENTION tag of the article: extensive discussion has been given to the NPOV wording of the Introduction; please first discuss changes to intro.
There is a revert war. Four established users support Jayjg's version. Zephram, alleged sockpuppet EKBK and six IP addresses support Zephram's version.
SlimVirgin makes a substantial whole-page revision [20]. Zephram rejects all her changes and reverts to his original version, saying: Please edit as per the Wikipedia Writer's Rules of Engagement. Wikipedia is about building the best article, not loyalty to a small group of admins. Please copy-edit the version we've been working on.
There is a revert war, with three established users against Zephram and three IP addresses. One of Zephram's reversions is given the edit summary: Fixed link in current definition as per Ruzmanci's 18:56 edit. [21].
An uninvolved administrator protects the page.
2005.09.23 – Without discussing it on the talk page at all, Zephram adds a large section called "The Importance Of Objectively Defining Terrorism".
There is a revert war. Five established editors remove the new section. Zephram, EKBK, and two IP addresses restore it.
An uninvolved administrator protects the page.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:FuelWagon

This evidence was posted 21:35, 16 October 2005 by FuelWagon. (I forgot to sign it then)

On October 7, Vizcarra asks me to look at the RfC against Zephram Stark. I take a look, see it points to the Terrorism article, and take a look at that page. I insert a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify it's accuracy. I am reverted by a number of editors. Zaphram Stark is the only editor who proposed a compromise. It gets reverted by the same editors who reverted me. The RfC against Zaphram lays the blame for all the troubles with the Terrorism article squarely on Zaphram's shoulders. I make a comment on the Zaphram Stark RfC saying that it doesn't appear to be entirely his fault, that some of the editors who RfC'ed Zaphram appear to be contributing to the disptue. In response to my comment on the Zaphram RfC, one of those editors comes to my talk page and threatens to RfC me.

I'm not sure if this arbitration case is an extension of teh RfC against Zaphram or if it is a different take on the dispute between teh editors. The RfC against Zaphram says in its "Statement of Dispute":

Zephram Stark, and nobody else, has persistently claimed that there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with the article's introduction. Despite receiving no support whatsoever and overwhelming opposition, he has stubbornly continued repeating the same complaints and frequently making low-quality changes agreed to by nobody except himself.
With his thick-headedness he is single-handedly holding this article hostage.

And it has been my experience that of the editors involved with the Terrorism article from October 12 to present, Zaphram Stark didn't show stubbornness, low-quality edits, or single-handedly holding the article hostage. Some of the other editors involved did show themselves to work in concert with one another to oppose a single verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify it that I tried to insert. i.e. a number of long-term editors traveled in packs to resist what should be a legimate edit.

[edit] October 7

06:05, 7 October 2005 Vizcarra posts on my talk page, telling me of RfC against Zephram Stark. I take a look, see that it says Terrorism is article of concern, and I take a look at the Terrorism article. (I mention this because Carbonite will later question how I came to the Terrorism article and hint at charging me with harrassment.)

[edit] October 12

03:53, 12 October 2005 I quote Noam Chomsky and providing URL.

16:15, 12 October 2005 completely reverted by Texture as "flimsy".

[edit] October 13

14:33, 13 October 2005 on talk page, Carbonite describes Noam Chomsky as a political activist equivalent to Sean Penn, and unworthy of being quoted.

15:24, 13 October 2005 Carbonite changes article describing him as a "linguistics professor".

16:42, 13 October 2005 I explain Chomsky's relevance as an expert, why his pov is notable, adds quote from "Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers" (DoMAP) calling Chomsky "one of the most influential left-wing critics of American foreign policy".

[edit] October 14

18:21, 14 October 2005 I remove reference to Chomsky as being a "linguistics professor", since that isn't why he is notable here.

18:28, 14 October 2005 Carbonite does a complete revert, removing quote from DoMAP and calling him a "political activist" instead, saying "no need to describe how great Chomsky is"

20:10, 14 October 2005 I revert to DoMAP quote.

20:15, 14 October 2005 Jayjg reverts, calling sourced quotation calling Chomsky influential critic of foreign policy to be "gratuitous flattery".

21:31, 14 October 2005 Zaphram Stark proposes a compromise.

[edit] October 15

01:33, 15 October 2005 SlimVirgin undoes compromise, calling it a "tweak".

[edit] October 16

16:25, 16 October 2005 I change "politial activist" to "senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies".

18:32, 16 October 2005 I post an outside comment on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark.


19:36, 16 October 2005 Carbonite questions my outside comment on the RfC against Zaphram Stark, calls the entire comment essentially a rant against him and several other editors, accuses me of being disruptive, hostile, and uncivil, and indicates he is thinking of RfC'ing me.

19:51, 16 October 2005 I inform Carbonite that on 06:05, 7 October 2005, Vizcarra told me about the RfC against Zephram Stark, I checked it out, followed it to the Terrorism article, tried to insert a verbatim quotation from a notable source and a URL to verify it, got reverted by the same people filing the RfC against Zaphram, and that I decided the RfC needed an outside comment.

21:35, 16 October 2005 Previously, Carbonite had told me that Zephram RfC had moved to arbitration, therefore I reformat my RfC comment and submit it as evidence to Arbitration.

23:36, 16 October 2005, Carbonite creates an RfC against me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Kainaw

I don't have any interest in Zephram's complaints in the Terrorism article. However, I do have evidence that he is not working in good faith. In fact, he is purposely trolling.

At [22], it is clear that Zephram is arguing the innocence of a man who plead guilty. I repeatedly explained that he plead guilty and provided multiple resources that made it clear he plead guilty. I also called the police who did the investigation and the man's lawyer. I relayed the information to Zephram and he ignored it. Never did he provide any of the references he was quoting. Never did he dispute the facts that I provided except his claim that I was pro-Patriot and I was condemming an innocent man without a trial. Summary: Zephram feels no need to provide references to back his opinions, even when they are counter to references provided by others.
At [23], Zephram disagrees with an argument made by others. He demands references from them. The argument made by others sounds very logical to me, but Zephram refuses to stick to the topic. Instead, he has brought the Declaration of Independence into the argument when the topic is Inalienable Rights. Summary: Zephram feels that others must provide references if he doesn't like what is said.
In both cases, his primary goal is to push his opinion by extending the arguments to the point that everyone is fed up with him - trolling.

[edit] Evidence presented by Thryduulf

[edit] 31 October 2005

I have not had, nor will I likely have in the next few days, time to investigate all of the above. I have however protected the Declaration of Independence (United States) article, based on the edit history and user:JW1805's comments about reverting. I have not otherwise been involved with this article, and do not intend to become so. Thryduulf 11:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • 15:21 - user:Zephram Stark posts a message on my talk page regarding my protection of the Declaration of Independence article. [26] This message contains several personal attacks against user:JW1805 and asks me to violate the Wikipedia:Protection policy by reverting the protected article to an earlier version preferred by him. Thryduulf 15:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1 November 2005

[edit] Evidence presented by JW1805

[edit] Overview

For a while now, I have observed user:Zephram Stark's behavior, mostly on the following articles:

From what I've seen, this user has violated almost all of the important Wikipedia policies, including NPOV, No Personal Attacks, No sockpuppets, Consensus, Assume good faith, 3RR, Soapbox. He is a constant source of disruption, and makes no attempt to work with other editors, refuses to accept it when a consensus is against him, clutters up talk pages with paragraphs of paragraphs of the same argument over and over again (even though no one agrees with him), and is in general one of the worst Wikipedia editors I have ever come across. Actually, from what I've seen, he does very little actual editing, and is mainly engaged in a series of rants on various talk pages. I will add some specific evidence in the section below: --JW1805 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

To get a general overview, I would encourage you to read the discussion at the various talk pages (Talk:Inalienable rights, Talk:Inalienable rights/Archive01, Talk:Declaration of Independence (United States)) to get an idea about how this user doesn't accept it when a consensus is against him.

[edit] 19 September 2005

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unalienable rights - The argument was this: Do the words "inalienable" and "unalienable" mean the same thing. Zephram Stark says that they don't, while every reference (see [28]) says that they are synonyms. The result of the VfD was that every single person agreed that they were the same, and to redirect the old Unalienable rights article to Inalienable rights.

[edit] 28 September 2005

[edit] 29 September 2005

  • 18:05, September 29, 2005 A new editor shows up (User:D'Arby, contribs), whose first Wikipedia edit is a comment on another "inalienable/unalienable" dispute. I believe this user to be a sockpuppet of Zephram Stark's. D'Arby would go on later to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Inalienable rights (see [30] which has a very similar writing style to Zephram).

...more to be added later...

[edit] 17 October 2005

[edit] 19 October 2005

[edit] 31 October 2005

  • View history After I had made some changes at Declaration of Independence (United States), he performs a series of edits where he removes material that he doesn't agree with, including removing the link to Inalienable rights (see talk for details). After I rvt his changes, he complains at User:Thryduulf's talk page and completely missrepresents the situation, including the hilarious comment: "I have asked JW1805 several times to talk about his POV additions" (despite the fact that he had not discussed the new changes on the talk page). --JW1805 21:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1 November 2005

  • 04:00, November 1, 2005 Another rant containing personal attacks, including calling me "Anti-American", and including the oddly worded: "No authoritative source made that or any of your other moronic accusations because nobody else is stupid enough to make such an asinine assertion and sign their name to it". Not sure what that means, but I'm pretty sure it's a personal attack.
  • 18:24, November 1, 2005 Calls me and another editor "corrupt".
  • 19:07, 1 November 2005 Calls me and another editor "Anti-American". This is a common charge that he uses against those who disagree with him.

[edit] 2 November 2005

...more later...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Zephram_Stark_Evidence_e915.html"