Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blocked for 8 hours, because of the personal attack in his latest edit summary. Uncle Ed 23:47, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that one was a personal attack. The "turd blossom" reference was because he was correcting the spelling of Karl Rove's name (somehow, ZS believes that Jayjg and I are "Rove's boys" in a "corrupt little band"). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. – Smyth\talk 06:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Thirded. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re: Outside view by Skoblentz

Re: "Everyone involved in this needs to take a Wiki-Vacation..." With all respect, I want to share my own personal observation that Stark's uncompromising, thoroughly alienating approach on this page appears to have been worse when I returned this past week from a two-month Wiki-break than it was when I left. I think perhaps it's time for Stark to take a vacation from this page, so we can all see what kind of effect that has on this situation. BrandonYusufToropov 04:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of Libel

Zephram has twice removed the term "sockpuppet", while adding numerous IPs that allegedly support him. See [1] and [2]. However, it's his summaries for these edits that really concern me:

  • "Removed libel. Damaging statements presented as fact that can be proven false in a court of law have been successfully prosecuted in cases of Internet publication"
  • "Removed libel again. Removal of libel, and the explanation as to why libel needs to be removed, is not a legal threat. Reversion to reinstate libel is inappropriate."

I believe this falls under Wikipedia:No legal threats. Specifically, the part of the policy that states, "Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and you should not use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article."

Libel is very serious, as are accusations of libel. I'd like opinions from other editors before any other actions are taken. Carbonite | Talk 15:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

    • It's not a legal threat. Claiming something is libelous is not tantamount to saying one is going to take legal action. It bloviating, but it isn't a legal threat. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying that *Zephram* threatened legal action himself, but he did use potential legal action as his reason for removing the information. This seems to violate the excerpt of the "No legal threats" policy I referenced above. I'm not worried at all about legal action, but I am worried about a user who makes accusations of libel in order to remove information. Carbonite | Talk 17:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not worried about being sued, but he is blatantly violating the RfC rules by editing the accusations against him. – Smyth\talk 17:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, certainly. It's also petty. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Namecalling.

Is the beginning of this RfC needlessly negative about the individuals that support ZS? What is the positive reformative benefit that calling things "sockpuppets" and "appearing within minutes and hours to revert to ZP's versions," provide? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to call a spade a spade. These "individuals" almost certainly are sockpuppets. Please note that I'm not making a judgement on whose sockpuppets they are. It's necessary to make the point that it's not two sides struggling over the definition. Despite numerous request, Zephram has yet to list the many other legitimate editors he claims agree with him. Carbonite | Talk 13:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, but do you need to call a spade a "rusty garden tool" or a "spade."
"user has no edits prior"
"IP address has no edits prior."
Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
If the spade actually is rusty, then calling it a "rusty spade" would be most accurate. Anything other name could lead people to mistakenly believe that the spade was in good condition. Carbonite | Talk 14:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
But have you actually examined the spade, or just the holes it's digging? We'll just have to agree to disagree. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Anon IP comes to Wikipedia, makes first and only edit by echoing ZS's edits: once, sure, maybe not a sockpuppet. But when it happens repeatedly, there's not much room or doubt. There's not even any reasonable doubt. Especially when zero such IP's have come to express the opposing opinion, or any opinion whatsoever. One gets to come to reasonable conclusions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this improvement?

[3] Or is it gaming the system? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)