Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was created at 18:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

In a discussion on Talk:Terrorism now spreading over two months and 45,000 words (the bulk of which is now on Talk:Terrorism/Archive 6), 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.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

To give an idea of the scale and sheer one-sidedness of this dispute, here are lists which can be verified by searching Talk:Terrorism for the names in question.

Users agreeing with ZP:

Anonymous IPs appearing within minutes and hours to revert to ZP's versions

  • 67.136.36.2 (talk · contribs) - 1 edit
  • 4.124.74.165 (talk · contribs) - 1 edit
  • 211.26.218.9 (talk · contribs) - 1 edit
  • 69.174.193.208 (talk · contribs) - 2 edits
  • 4.124.93.149 (talk · contribs) - 1 edit
  • 72.11.72.185 (talk · contribs) - 3 edits
  • 64.114.81.166 (talk · contribs) - 1 edit

Users disagreeing with ZP:

Users who have not participated in the argument itself, but have expressed exasperation at ZP's attitude:

Now to specific evidence. Providing diffs is impossible in such a massive history, so I will provide unique quotes instead.

Pretending to have consensus when all the consensus is against him:

  • "When I say "our," I'm talking about everyone who actively worked on the new introduction for months before posting it." (The introduction in question was written by nobody but himself.)
  • "Regular users from all around the planet are choosing the definition that is consistent with usage over your grab-bag of evasive ambiguities."

In the last couple of weeks he has become much more offensive and childish, repeatedly calling people Nazis and claiming that there is some sort of massive conspiracy among the admins:

  • "The Wikestapo gang isn't going to vote because they don't care about a good definition..."
  • "JP isn't God. He isn't even interested in making "terrorism" a good article. He only locked the definition because he could see that more people liked the one the one that his buddy Jayjg was opposing"
  • "Most of the people are only here to keep the term from ever being defined."
  • "In your mind [Jpgordon's], we're the workers and you're the overseer."
  • "Institutions, such as this [Wikipedia], derive their just power from the consent of the governed, not from a pack of self-appointed reality police with a confessed ulterior agenda."

Updates (added after endorsements):

  • [1] He deletes two users' comments because they don't conform to his "rules". For this, SlimVirgin bans him for several hours.
  • [2] Edit summary: "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." For this, Trilobite bans him for 48 hours.
  • September 11 – He evades his block by creating Go Cowboys (talk · contribs), concealing the account's newness by making a crude copy of Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs)'s userpage. SlimVirgin bans him for another 48 hours.
  • September 12 – Another sockpuppet, Felice L'Angleterre (talk · contribs), claiming to be a newspaper editor looking at the articles on terrorism (and other articles Zephram is involved in) on a tip-off to find out "what's really going on at Wikipedia". – Smyth\talk 17:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

For future reference, here are descriptions of the three instances where Zephram has made substantial changes to the article Terrorism. – Smyth\talk 10:08, 25 September 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 [3] and had received no comments at all.
Jayjg reworks the text considerably [4], 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 [5]. 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. [6].
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] Applicable policies

  1. Respect other contributors
  2. No personal attacks
  3. SEEK CONSENSUS

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. During this discussion, Smyth attempted to answer each of ZP's objections. The result was that ZP decided there were irreconcilable differences, and that the solution was to post two versions of the introduction side by side [7]. After repeatedly restoring this "solution" and declaring the matter closed, ZP was blocked for violating the 3RR.
  2. Some time later, ZP replaced the intro with this version (the edit summary is, of course, completely false). As it was somewhat better than his previous attempt, Jayjg trimmed it rather than reverting it (see Talk:Terrorism/Archive 6, section starting "I've removed the neologisms and original research..."). When ZP refused to accept this change, despite all other users being in agreement, a sudden flood of anonymous editors appeared and started restoring ZP's version. Jpgordon protected the article, and it remains locked.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. – Smyth\talk 18:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Noitall - I dislike doing these things, but with regard to this one page, he is one odd bird. On such a controversial page, it is difficult to obtain consensus. ZP has done this. The consensus is against every edit he makes on that page. That said, except for this page, I did not have any problems whatsoever with him so any solution in my mind should be limited to this one page. --Noitall 19:26, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC) - I wasn't involved with the article in question at all until another editor asked me if I could do something about a revert war that was going on. I did what I think was appropriate: I protected the page without consideration of what version was being protected, and stated what I had done, and why, on the talk page. The net result of this was a constant stream of abuse from Zephram Stark, to the degree that I've considered washing my hands of the whole thing. I've still not paid any attention to the disputed content -- rather, I've observed the process on the talk page, and I've come to the conclusion that Stark cannot be reasoned with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. csloat 09:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Stark attacked me over and over on that page, and never even attempted to respond to criticism; instead, he would use personal attacks and assert that he had arrived at his edits through months of discussion and collaboration - but he could never produce a single piece of evidence for this claim. He insisted over and over again on using absurd neologisms that were not supported by the literature (indeed, were not supported by any literature) and would not listen to reason in response to arguments against that practice.--csloat 09:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Carbonite | Talk 18:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:31, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Willmcw 21:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Kafziel 23:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. BrandonYusufToropov 00:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Dsol 08:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. I have stayed out of this fray for the most part. ZP's response below tho, with its disingenuous statement that he tries to work with other editors (if that were the case, we wouldn't be here right now...) as well as its, uh, "interesting" appeal to authority, is a classic example of the complete failure ZP has in recognizing or addressing the problems other editors have with him. Tomer TALK 19:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Merovingian (t) (c) 12:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Calton | Talk 13:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC) I've frequently reverted ZP, but since I've confined myself to engaging him only on his blatant original research contributions, I feel it's more appropriate to sign here.
  11. -- Soir (say hi) 03:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. El_C 05:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. I said that I would endorse if the subject did not agree to refrain from personal attacks. I do not see such an agreement. Robert McClenon 11:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. FRCP11 16:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Viriditas | Talk 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

[edit] Zephram Stark

I believe that my comments, taken in context, speak for themselves. When I'm attacked, I defend myself. When I see administrators libelously calling other editors "sockpuppets" and blocking them because they don't support their agenda, I call them on it. When I see an encyclopedia definition sit for years without an objective introduction—-anything that would convey information—-I work with everyone trying to remedy that, and oppose anyone trying to keep the definition undefined.

George Washington's farewell speech can be equally applied to the organized factions exerting artificial influence on Wikipedia definitions, and the effect it will have on Wikipedia: "All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -GW --Zephram Stark 14:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Zephram Stark 14:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

This is a content dispute that has become a conduct dispute. Such disputes are very difficult and subtle to address fairly. I would normally say that content disputes should go to mediation before they become the subject of a user conduct RfC. (I will restate the contention that I have stated on other pages that a user conduct RfC is more serious than an RfM, and language on the RfM page stating otherwise misrepresents consensus.) I do not see any evidence that mediation has been tried. I think that normally mediation would be in order, to try to counsel the editors with different viewpoints on how to resolve their differences as to content.

Unfortunately, as the RfC notes, within the past week or so, Zephram Stark has gone to making personal attacks on the other editors and questioning their good faith. I think that their good faith is obvious. What I think would be the best resolution would be for Zephram Stark to agree not to engage in any more personal attacks, and for the other editors to agree which one will represent them in mediation, and for both Zephram Stark and the other editors to agree to mediation.

I will wait a few days to see whether he will agree to cease and desist from personal attacks and to agree to mediation. If so, I would suggest that this RfC be put on hold, and that if the mediation is successful, it should be archived. If he does not agree to cease and desist from personal attacks, then I will endorse the RfC because of conduct issues.

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

  1. Robert McClenon 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC). A reasonable solution to a difficult problem. The user conduct problem will go away when the content dispute does.
I'm confused. Are you saying that the user conduct problem is acceptable as long as the content dispute exists? Carbonite | Talk 13:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm saying this user does not have a conduct problem seperate from his obvious frusteration over his content dispute. Solve the content and the conduct will be resolved. Obviously, the user needs to avoid getting so angry about the project, but this is not an example of a "problem user," rather a "problem issue." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
If you continue making trouble about a content issue for months on end, failing to grasp that everybody disagrees with you, then you do have a conduct problem. – Smyth\talk 17:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Well put. This is precisely our problem at Terrorism. BrandonYusufToropov 00:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Zephraim Stark and User:Go Cowboys have a similar problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unalienable rights. Septentrionalis 05:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Skoblentz

Let me first state that while this user name is new, I have been involved in Wikipedia for about 24 months under another, now defunct name. Those who wish to take my comments may do - those who wish to discount my comments may also do so.

In reviewing the dispute at hand, what I am finding is that the conflict has gone from one of content to one frustration by the participants at hand. As with other Wikipedia arguments, the tone has moved from one of details to personal attacks. What ends up happening is that people who all feel that they have something useful to share end up digging their feet in and no one will give up. in the end, its the quality of the information that suffers, and then Wikipedia's reptutation as a place where ideas can be shared. These types of disputes never produce winners, what they do is place people on the defensive from all sides.

From what I can tell, Zephram Stark feels that they have a great deal of capital invested in the article. Other users have sought changes to remove confusing terms and provide help designed to clarify the article. This sense of ownership prevents Zephram Stark from seeing others contributions for what they are. Instead I think the user in question sees these additions and calls for revisions as an attack on themself, personally. On the other hand, those who feel that Zephram Stark is being uncooperative continue to feed the fire by coming right back to the argument, which only fans the flames.

I think that everyone involved in this needs to take a Wiki-Vacation and think about their roles in escalating this argument to the point it has reached. But I also have little empathy for any Wikipedian that attacks the person. To that end, the on-going evidence of personal attacks, as shown in the articles themselves speaks for themselves and should not be tolerated.


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

  1. Skoblentz 20:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by FuelWagon

I didn't get involved in the Terrorism article until October 12th, after the incidents above had already occurred. Since I don't have direct experience of those incidents, I'll refrain from commenting on them. However, I will comment on my experience of the article since I started editing it on October 12th.

I inserted a quote by Noam Chomsky with a URL to verify it [8], and it was reverted by Texture on the grounds it was "flimsy". Carbonite compares Noam Chomsky with political activist Sean Penn and changes the article to dismiss Noam Chomsky as just a "linguistics professor". I responded by quoting the "Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers" saying they consider Noam Chomsky "one of the most influential left-wing critics of American foreign policy", which makes him a bit more of an expert than a linguistics professor. This was then reverted by Carbonite back to calling him a "linguistics professor", saying "no need to describe how great Chomsky is". I revert explaining that the quote explains why Chomsky's opinion is being reported in an article about terrorism. Being considered teh most influential critic of American foreign policy makes him a notable expert. This then gets reverted by Jayjg. Zephram Stark proposes a compromise. SlimVirgin then changes Noam Chomsky's descriptor from Zephram Stark's compromise "Critics of american foreign policy" to "political activist". I then change "political activist" to something that makes him a little more notable than Sean Penn, Chomsky is a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies. The talk page shows the environment isn't much better [9].

Whatever else has happened on the Terrorism page, it would seem that content is losing out to popularity. SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Carbonite, and Texture, clearly resisted inserting a verbatim quotation from a notable source with a URL to verify it's accuracy and an explanation as to why the person qualifies as a notable expert whose opinion is worth reporting. The reasoning escapes me, but I know a number of these editors travel in a pack on several other articles and support each other's edits and revert any edits that oppose them. They may be used to getting it their way.

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

  1. FuelWagon 18:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. WAS 4.250 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Both bullying by (some) admins who work hand in hand with one another and treating articles as property (by fanboys and admins alike) is too common. WAS 4.250 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Zephram Stark 17:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC) The actions of FuelWagon alone are proof that Wikipedia doesn't need a hierarchy of power. In order to win the battle for great articles, we will have to step back from the forest to see it. We have to ask ourselves, "What would a reader most want to see?" not, "What would we most want to show a reader?" The first question has an objective answer that we can reach a consensus about. The second question does not. It's pretty easy to see who is biasing the consensus by simply noticing which question the editor is trying to answer. No blocking is necessary in such a case. People like FuelWagon simply call them on their corruption and invite them to mend their integrity. I have never sought to be an administrator because no administration power is needed in a transparent system like Wikipedia. The integrity of one person can override the artificial power of a dozen corrupt administrators when their actions cannot be hidden and when communication is enabled. Even if we would rather that some of the facts of an article remain hidden, the integrity of the article is paramount. As long as blatantly biased people like SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and FRCP11 cannot keep other editors from communicating, and Wikipedia remains transparent, it is possible to stem the corruption.

[edit] Outside view

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.