Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark

Case Opened on 21:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties


On the complaints of:



Statement by Carbonite
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Zephram Stark's behavior has been a serious problem for many months. In addition to the complete lack of respect for the idea of consensus, he had made personal attacks, used disruptive sockpuppets and made frequent rants against Wikipedia administrators. One extremely offensive edit summary 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."

His behavior has been especially poor on Terrorism, where he has consistently made edits and additions that are opposed by virtually every other editor of the article. He's created sockpuppets to support his positions and completely ignores consensus. Carbonite | Talk 16:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Commodore Sloat
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Zephram Stark's behavior on Talk:Terrorism has brought progress on that page to a complete standstill. He constantly engages in personal attacks and he keeps trying to commandeer the agenda to hilight his own original research. When his original research is shot down again and again, sockpuppets appear to defend him out of the blue. EKBK's very first contribution to wikipedia was to jump in the middle of the discussion Stark was disrupting and to claim that he uses the term "FISA-terrorism" (a neologism invented by Stark) all the time. (He claimed this after people asked Stark to quit adding original research to the article). It seems odd that a user's first edit to wikipedia would be to jump into such a controversial fight on a talk page, to make a highly unlikely claim. Stark has also made the "fucking Jews" comment another editor noted above -- whether he is Jewish or not, such attacks are entirely inappropriate for wikipedia. He keeps trying to hijack the discussion on the talk page to focus on his agenda - sometimes laying out "criteria for definition" with the goal of turning everything back to his original research (and ignoring the fact that there already are definitions of terrorism in wikipedia that are not original research and could be useful. I haven't been paying as close attention but I have noted that he is similarly disrupting the Declaration of Independence page with a bizarre theory about the word "unalienable."  But it is not the content that people are objecting to here; it is his conduct, which has severely disrupted work on these pages. --csloat 19:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Smyth
I concur with everything Commodore Sloat says. Zephram Stark is such a difficult person to deal with because, at least on the surface, he does not appear to be a straightforward troublemaker. But as anyone who tries to engage with him quickly discovers, he is unreasonable, belligerent and utterly dishonest, frequently resorting to blatant lies, personal attacks, and consipracy theories about the cabal of administrators that prevent him and his sock drawer from turning articles into his personal playground.

I have not been involved with his argument about whether "inalienable" and "unalienable" mean the same thing, but a quick glance at the pages involved shows that the sequence of events is the same as with Terrorism. He makes low-quality opinionated edits, shows a total disregard for the consensus against him, repeatedly fails to provide even the smallest shred of evidence to support himself, and makes increasingly hollow pronouncements that a compromise is close. Then we have the sudden appearance of a sockpuppet army and his descent into lengthy paranoid political rants.

I don't know what a reasonable remedy against him would be. Banning him from editing only the articles he has disrupted so far is unlikely to help, as he has shown no inclination to give up during the months this has gone on, and there are hundreds of other pages he could quite easily give the same treatment to. – Smyth\talk 13:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by jpgordon
I became aware of the issue of Zephram Stark when an editor requested that I look at Terrorism and consider protecting it. As an edit war was clearly in process, I did as requested, and explained it on the talk page. From that point on, it was clear that reasoning with Mr Stark was going to be, to put it mildly, exceedingly difficult and wearying. Mr Stark has shown no sign whatsoever of understanding the nature of cooperative editing on Wikipedia; rather, his insistance on the introduction of idiosyncratic, highly POV original research, his continual attempts to control and manipulate discussion, his assumption of conspiracy and accusations of "corruption", and his invocation of sockpuppets to imitate consensus make it clear that neutral third parties need to study the evidence (sorry about that -- it includes wading through months of Talk:Terrorism) and come up with a solution to this problem. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by BrandonYusufToropov
A cursory examination of Talk:Terrorism and its archives will reveal what we're dealing with here. Zeph is, I am afraid, a one-person filibuster out to prove that any deviation from his point of view is inherently subjective, outlandish, ridiculous, biased, part of a lynching party, etc. His perpetually chaos-inducing editorial philosophy may perhaps be powered by the Energizer Bunny; no amount of reasoning, or turning the other cheek, dims the surrealistically obesessive nature of his quest to remake this article according to his own eccentric standards. He is the single most consistently disruptive personality operating under a recognizable screen name I have yet to encounter on WP. I suspect he is one of those characters who is somehow entertained by inviting disciplinary action. which means we may be reinforcing bad behavior here, but folks, it has been months and, as he still refuses to put down the one-note megaphone he has hard-wired into this article.... BrandonYusufToropov 18:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Zephram Stark
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Carbonite, don't you get tired of shooting yourself in the foot? If you don't want people to call you on your corruption, stop being corrupt. It's that simple. Trying to kill the messenger won't do you any good because everything you do on Wikipedia is transparent. That's the beauty of it. Anyone who wants to see if your accusations have merit is going to come to the same conclusion that they did the last time: that your accusations of "sockpuppets" are unfounded, that you are the one disrupting terrorism while I am actively trying to resolve differences, and that your allegations fall squarely into the definition of idiocy (most notably because everyone knows I'm Jewish). --Zephram Stark 17:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, please look up the word consensus before trying to use it again in a sentence. --Zephram Stark 17:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[Moved from other party's area James F. (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)]


 * All I ask is that people take nothing Commodore Sloat says at face value. I always try to find something that is true or at least an exaggeration in a critique, but the good commodore has got me stumped.
 * Talk:Terrorism is currently more active than normal
 * I am engaging no personal attacks, although I defend myself when attacked when no other options are available
 * I have made no sockpuppets, and from what I have read, people affected are taking these accusations up with Wikipedia founders
 * EKBK contributes to many discussions on subjects that I know nothing about. His claim that he heard the term FISA:Terrorism is not unlikely because I have heard the term used since the late seventies to describe the difference between dictionary-defined terrorism and the official USA version.  EKBK is only one of over a dozen users that have been blocked for doing nothing but expressing their opinion.
 * I certainly did not invent the neologism FISA-Terrorism. Anyone who has heard the term used in colleges and discussion around the country can verify that.  This, of course, is irrelevant because the term has been dropped from that proposal for weeks.
 * The section that was deleted had only verified quotes and summaries from the U.S. President, Osama bin Laden, and a New York Times bestseller. How anyone could call that original research is beyond me.
 * I made no racial attack, as would be evident if Commodore Sloat or Carbonite would bother quoting me in context.
 * My only agenda is to help create an article for terrorism that conveys information, the same as everyone else who is honestly trying to improve the article (as evidenced by actually contributing to it instead of just deleting whole sections of relevant and fully cited information).
 * The last time Commodore Sloat accused me of hijacking the discussion, I had listed the four proposals and asked for each member's feelings on them, which many people gave and we got much closer to a consensus. After Commodore Sloat interupted the conversation to make accusations and allegations that something was wrong with discussing the proposals, people started talking about his accusations instead.  Don't take my word for it, look at Talk:Terrorism.  Actions talk and B.S. walks, Commodore.


 * Does everyone want to hear my alleged "bizarre theory" about the word "unalienable" that is supposedly disrupting the Declaration of Independence? I assert that "unalienable" means "cannot be alienated."  BIZARRE, isn't it!!
 * In recognition of the hard work you have done to railroad someone based on absolutely no factual information at all, I award you superbsbarnstar, Commodor. --Zephram Stark 01:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I, Zephram Stark, do hereby nominate Smyth for The Most Hilarious Contradiction of Terms of the Day Award: "shows a total disregard for the consensus against him" ~Smyth

Is it possible to request comment from SlimVirgin? It doesn't feel like a normal lynching without the whole gang. --Zephram Stark 13:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by EKBK
Please limit your statement to 500 words


 * The things you say about Zephram Stark are simply untrue. You and your friends have been calling me a sockpuppet since I agreed with him on some points on the terrorism page, and what followed after I contacted a number of administrators was enough to make me sick. I was put in the position of "proving" I'm not a "sockpuppet", which I did to several administrators satisfaction, and I even emailed the founder of Wikipedia on this, because the principle of the thing was enough for me to do so. Just because I was formerly a "user" rather than an "editor" should not have made any difference in how I was treated, and I have since observed this fiasco with interest. I will re-iterate-I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--EKBK 18:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

 * Recuse. Personally involved. Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Fred Bauder 22:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept &#10149;the Epopt 11:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision=

Civility
1) Wikipedia requires reasonable courtesy toward other users, including assumption of good faith on their part, see Civility and Assume good faith


 * Passed 5-0

Neutral point of view
2) The central policy of Wikipedia, the pole star, is Neutral point of view which contemplates inclusion of an article of fair statements of all significant points of view on the subject.


 * Passed 5-0

Probation
3) Users may be banned either directly or via the mechanism of Probation from editing articles which they disrupt by tendentious editing or other activity.


 * Passed 5-0

Focus of dispute
1) Zephram Stark engaged in tendentious (exhibiting a strong POV) and disruptive editing with respect to the article terrorism over an extended period of time, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6 and Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence.


 * Passed 6-0

Ethnic slurs
2) Frustrated by opposing editors, Zephram Stark made an edit on his talk page referring to them as "fucking Jews".


 * Passed 6-0

Disruption of talk page
3) Zephram Stark has removed others' comments from article talk pages.


 * Passed 6-0

Extended disruption
4) Zephram Stark's editing of terrorism is marked by dogged persistence and lengthy argument. Opponents are many, supporters few; see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6.


 * Passed 6-0

Wikilawyering
5) Zephram Stark has engaged in "Wikilawyering" involving dismissal of this case on spurious grounds and has attempted to alter proposed decisions in this arbitration case against him.


 * Passed 6-0

Ban for multiple offenses
1) Zephram Stark is banned for six months for personal attacks, edit warring, and attempted interference with the arbitration case against him.


 * Passed 6-0

Probation
2) Zephram Stark is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any article the editing of which he disrupts by lengthy argumentation or edit warring.


 * Passed 6-0

Ban from terrorism and related articles
3) Zephram Stark is banned from Terrorism and all related articles.


 * Passed 5-0-1

Blocks enforcing bans
1) Should edit any article or talk page from which he is banned he may be blocked briefly, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.


 * Passed 6-0