Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motion for Default Judgement in favor of the Respondent
Whereas User:Carbonite is the initiator and petitioner of this arbitration request; and Whereas User:Carbonite is no longer contributing to said arbitration; and Whereas an equitable seat of judgement requires that the respondent be confronted with the witnesses against him; and Whereas the arbitration committee is an equitable seat of judgement; and Whereas User:Carbonite has been served notice of Possible Default Judgement in this case; Now therefore, in User:Carbonite's absence of the proceedings that he initiated, it befalls the arbitration committee to pronounce a default judgement in the favor of the respondent. Respondent requests that this case be resolved equitably for the good of Wikipedia in that further undue control of content be stemmed through removal of the administrative powers of User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin. 16:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The real parties in interest are Wikipedia and its readers Fred Bauder 17:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree on that. Let's solve the problem that Wikipedia and its readers are interested in: the problem of increased vandalism and decreased editing quality due to content control by a few corrupt administrators.  --Zephram Stark 22:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Thryduulf 16:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that the arbitration committee is an equitable seat of judgement, but whether or that is so, we need to resolve the problem. The problem was caused when User:Jayjg started blocking everyone who disagreed with him on the content of the terrorism article.  Knowing that this would look funny, he got his meat-puppet User:SlimVirgin to continue blocking people who opposed Jayjg's content.  SlimVirgin stated that she was not there to contribute to the article, only to "enforce the rules."  Yet, SlimVirgin didn't block anyone based on a rule or principle of Wikipedia.  She accused them of being sockpuppets, something that is not on the list of reasons to block, and showed absolutely no evidence to support her assertion, nor has she ever since, even though four of the people she permanently blocked still have no way to defend themselves.  They are not allowed on the WikiEN-I mailing list, SlimVirgin has protected User:talk pages against editing, and when the people she bans defend themselves directly by email to administrators, SlimVirgin threatens other administrators who become involved.  This problem cannot be solved by shooting the messenger.  --Zephram Stark 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Motion to Grant Equal Editing Rights to All Editors
I propose the following, that: Wikipedia shall adopt as its highest principle that all editors have equal editing power; all administrative and bureaucratic tools shall be used exclusively to ensure this principle; specific rules shall be adopted to limit administrative corruption and to demote administrators who abuse their tools; among these rules shall be that administrators cite a specific rule when a person is blocked with enough evidence that an independent party can verify the reason for the block, and that when administrators fail to do so, that they shall be demoted. --Zephram Stark 17:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * All editors do have equal power, provided they are actually editing. We attack corruption and demote Bureaucrats and Administrators. Sockpuppet blocking is not an exact science. We are working on getting more people authorized to use the checkuser system. Fred Bauder 00:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What good will that do? Even when people are verified to not be the same IP or even from the same part of the world, they are still blocked and nothing happens to the administrators who block them.  In regard to the terrorism article alone, there are still four people that I know of who are still permanently blocked who did nothing wrong.  None of them participated in any votes or did anything but express an opinion contrary to that of Jayjg.  If we look at the core principle of Wikipedia editing, it is to achieve consensus, which means that one person's voice should be just as powerful as twenty if what he's saying makes sense.  If it doesn't make sense, it wouldn't do him any good to create multiple logins.  Granted that in extreme cases, consensus cannot be reached and a vote must be called, but none of these people took part in any vote.  In fact, one guy was permanently blocked after his first edit.  Take a look at Professor Stevens' only edit and tell me how someone could think that was me, and permanently block him for that.  The only common denominator is that Stevens suggestion something in discussion that Jayjg didn't like.


 * I know you don't want to stir the water, but Jayjg has contributed to this arbitration and is therefore a party of it. None of this would have happened if Jayjg hadn't used his administrative powers to unduly influence the content of an article by blocking people and threatening to block those who did not agree with him.  I ask that you show your good faith in this matter when you say that you "attack corruption and demote Bureaucrats and Administrators" by also allowing for the arbitration committee to vote on whether or not Jayjg should be demoted.  --Zephram Stark 22:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't "contributed to this arbitration", I have recused from this case, and commented on the Workshop page in the "Comments by others" section, as can any editor. Commenting on the workship page does not make an editor a "party" to that arbitration. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand the rules of arbitration, anyone involved in the original dispute who adds their comments to the arbitration is a party, not an other. Since this situation wouldn't have happened without you, you were definitely involved in the original dispute.  --Zephram Stark 02:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * From where do you get this "understanding" of the rules of arbitration? Parties to an arbitration are those who are brought to arbitration, or who bring the arbitration itself. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So, you consider yourself an outside party to this? --Zephram Stark 18:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * There is no point in proposing a motion that the arbitrators have no ability to grant. This applies to all the rest of your soapboxing below. – Smyth\talk 11:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the arbitrators could at least request that the administrators involved cite one of the rules when blocking someone. --Zephram Stark 22:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Motion to Create a Wikiproject to Study Contribution Based Voting
In a perfect consensus based system, respect should be high enough that voting would never needed. Because we never achieve perfect respect for each other, however, sometimes a vote is called for. Revert wars, for instance are essentially a type of voting when consensus has failed. Also, voting to demote administrators is the only feasible method proposed to stem administrator corruption. Yet, any type of voting immediately raises the questions, "Who is worthy to vote?" and "How heavily should their vote be counted?" The root issue of this arbitration goes to these questions. No problem would have existed if SlimVirgin and Jayjg had not blocked over a dozen people with the stated accusation of their being "sockpuppets." Yet, the only ligitimate concern about sockpuppets is that they would influence voting. Since there is apparently no method for someone to prove their innocence of a faulty sockpuppet charge, we must find a method of voting that does not give an advantage to sockpuppets. If we can do that one thing, legitimate concerns about sockpuppets will disappear. I propose that we create a Wikiproject to study the development of a system to create weights for user votes based on some method of calculated positive contributions. Such a algorithm might be a recursively-weighted user based method of signifying that an edit is useful, similar to what is done manually at netflix.com or automatically at google.com. Or, the algorithm might simply count up the number of words added that were not deleted or reverted over a ten day period and average it with long-term contributions. (This last method would encourage development of less exotic articles.) The most important aspect of unbiased voting, of course, would be the addition of a tool to allow secret ballot voting. I'm sure we all agree that consensus is better than voting, but the ability to cast secret ballots and express opinions without being labeled a sockpuppet is an essential tool needed in our quest for consensus. --Zephram Stark 03:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Good idea but I don't think it's relevant to this case. Fred Bauder 00:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The only reason this case came up was because Jayjg was able to falsely label people sockpuppets.  With contribution based voting power, whether or not someone is a sockpuppet would be irrelevant.  --Zephram Stark 22:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Motion to Allow For Minority Resource Creation When Consensus Cannot be Reached
I submit that there is no way to achieve consensus unless we allow for non-consensus. If a black-and-white decision must be made in every case, "consensus" becomes nothing but a vote, so why call it anything else? Why fool ourselves into thinking that we can achieve consensus here at Wikipedia? What happens when a minority interest truly believes that the majority opinion is factually incorrect? Can the minority interest keep the majority definition from becoming the article? Would it be consensus if it could? Would this issue be any different if we called consensus a 60% majority or even a 55% majority. Of course not.

In the end Wikipedia:Consensus has only one implementation, a 50.0001% majority rule. Administrators can always step in to "apply common sense", but does that improve consensus? It does if editors respect the opinions of those administrators over their own. From what I can tell, gaining that respect is the goal of many administrators here, but is that goal achievable? Will Wikipedia editors ever become truly subservient to the whims of administrators? I submit that they will not, and I offer an alternative to this increasingly absurd path: the possibility for non-consensus to exist.

Viable non-consensus allows consensus to happen. Only when one has a practicable choice to go against popular opinion can he feel free and part of the community at the same time. This sense of combined liberty and social responsibility allows people to weigh the two often-conflicting conclusions they reach when considering each separately. If they are still part of the community, a person will generally weigh their social responsibility very heavily, and only opt for something else when it is blatantly false or against the good of the whole.

Implementation of real consensus can only come when there is a third alternative to adoption of a majority article or adoption of a minority article. When someone has a specific phrasing that they feel is better than the one adopted by the general community, and they will not yield to the wording of the majority, there must be an easy way to identify and view that alternate wording from the main article. This link should not detract from the main article, but it must be clearly identified and allow for the fact that the dispute may never be settled. If such a program were implemented, it would raise our "consensus" threshold from, realistically, the 50.0001% that it is now to 95% or better. More importantly, it would allow us to quantify exactly what we mean by Wikipedia:Consensus, thereby reducing arbcom wars and vandalism (the only current methods of minority expression) while elevating the respectability of Wikipedia.

Responsibility is inextricably tied to decision making. When an institution grows to the size that the people feel stewardship for its success, they are necessarily bound to also influence decision making. Wikipedia has grown to this size. It belongs to the people. Recognizing this fact and enabling people to express themselves without treading on the rights of others will preserve its existence as it grows into the world's greatest resource of information. I know your views on giving more power to the people have been skeptical, but I hope I've presented the beginning of an implementation that addresses both a reduction in vandalism and relief for the overworked arbitration committee, while also increasing the viability of information retrieved from Wikipedia. --Zephram Stark 03:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'm sure you are proposing something profound, but I don't understand it. If you could rephrase it in simply language I might agree. A guiding principle - Majority vote never trumps NPOV Fred Bauder 00:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a good guiding principle, but it has one flaw. What decides NPOV?  Are there some editors who God has granted the power of NPOV-identification while restricting that gift from others?  How shall we know these super-unbiased editors from the rest?  This, of course, is the same age-old argument of any form of government.  If people can't be trusted to rule themselves, how can they possibly rule someone else?  As soon as you say that one person is unilaterally more qualified to spot NPOV than another person, you open yourself up to the kind things Jayjg did at the "terrorism" article.
 * The answer to the NPOV quandary that I propose above is to make Wikipedia even more transparent. If someone is so sure that there is POV that he will not yield to consensus, let him make a second version of that part of the article, signified by a little unobtrusive red icon placed next to the text in question.  Clicking on this icon will replace the text in dispute with the second most popular version and highlight it for easy reading.  A button bar comes up with two options:
 * Keep this version (this is more NPOV); or
 * Restore the original version (it was more NPOV)
 * The votes are tallied according to positive contributions of the editor and the second most popular version can become the most popular at any time. The user can have an option of seeing the third most popular version if he doesn't like the first two and a whole array of versions can be accessible at the touch of a button without detracting from the main article.  This is different from a majority vote in that positive contributions (number of words that remain in main articles) determines the weight of each person's vote.  The more severe a person's bias, the less "positive" contributions he will make because his contributions will be subject to deletions and reverts.  Of course, positive contributions would carry slightly less weight as they age so as to not completely overwhelm the votes of a newbie.
 * All of this may sound ambitious, but think of the effect it would have on editors. No longer would someone fight tooth and nail when they think their minority opinion will get lost in the history.  They can just place an alternate version icon next to the main text and people with "more common sense" will have the chance to see it and say that it is better any time in the future.  When this happens, the workload for admins will drop to nothing.  In fact, with a tiny bit more shuffling, there wouldn't be a need for admins.  Admins who use their power for content control might object to this, but it would definitely be better for Wikipedia than the growing vandalism and infighting problems that are scaring off our best editors.  --Zephram Stark 02:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Violation of these principles involves more than one party Fred Bauder 17:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
3) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As per my evidence, neutral content is impossible where administrators are willing to use their power to bias the article unless people like me and FuelWagon stand up for the NPOV of the article. We succeeded in neutralizing most of the article on terrorism, despite the extreme efforts of SlimVirgin and Jayjg.  The examples section is obviously still POV, however.  The opinions expressed are not cited, or even internally consistent with any definition of terrorism.  If you want to see exactly what the real issue here is, just try using a non-admin login to introduce a Neutral Point of View in the Examples section of Terrorism.   --Zephram Stark 23:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Civility (alternate version)
4) Civility and No personal attacks are core working principles. Editors are expected to keep their cool.  Personal attacks may not be returned in kind.  Even the presence of obvious baiting by another editor does not excuse personal attacks or other uncivil behavior. [proposed principle by The Uninvited Co., Inc., an uninvolved party]


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * By way of example, this edit from this very page is a gross violation of the principle. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee not empowered to determine article content
5) Determination of article content is outside the remit of the arbitration committee. Accordingly, any determination of whether a particular phrase, reference, or quote is NPOV, or whether it is suitable for an article, is left to editors to resolve.  [proposed principle by The Uninvited Co., Inc., an uninvolved party]


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Admins given judgement in identifying sock puppets
6) Due to concerns about privacy and openness, the Wikipedia community has chosen as a matter of policy not to utilize technological means that can conclusively identify sock puppets. While administrators are given considerable leeway to block probable socks and revert their edits, it is unreasonable for Wikipedia to take disciplinary action against purported operators of sock puppets in the absence of conclusive evidence. [proposed principle by The Uninvited Co., Inc., an uninvolved party]


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Focus of dispute
1) The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6 and Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Jayjg and SlimVirgin were along with a number of other editors Zephram Stark's "opponents". However they seem to have been engaged in ordinary editing. Fred Bauder 15:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Even more specifically, the issue was about the content of the introduction section of terrorism. Thanks to Stevertigo and Hipocrite, the version that Jayjg and SlimVirgin were willing to block people to protect no longer exists.  When administrators resort to calling people sockpuppets to block them in order to protect an introduction like this, something needs to be done.  If you look through the 8 pages of archives you can see that nothing short of what I did was effective.  Even though I succeeded and terrorism now has a definition that conveys information, I am not willing to go through that again for an article.  Unless you want Wikipedia to be controlled by a few powerful admins, you have to demote the ones who blatantly use their power to belittle other editors and promote their POV in articles.  --Zephram Stark 23:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * With respect, the summary in "focus of dispute" above does not appear to me to capture what has actually been happening at this page, unless "aggressive editing" means "not instantly implementing Zephram Stark's unliateral directives."
 * Zeph has been extremely disruptive on this page, has refused to listen to the viewpoints of others, and has done his best to impede meaningful work there. In my view, he has violated both the letter and the spirit of the law along the way. I want to point out too that editors of very different philosophies and outlooks, prone to serious disagreement themselves, have found, amazingly, common ground in resenting Zeph's high-handed, ceaseless attempts to remake this page according to his own views. He is the only one who holds those views, and he will not stop until they are bolted into the article. That's not a matter of "aggressive edits" from other people, but a sustained pattern of antisocial behavior and relentlessly lousy editing from Zeph. BrandonYusufToropov 21:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zephram has also described those who opposed him as "Carbonite's gang", and was in fact opposed and reverted by all sorts of editors, including Smyth, Csloat, BrandonYusufToropov, Ashenai, etc. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said in the evidence section, I think it's a shame that some administrators blindly support each other, but that is not what caused this problem. You and SlimVirgin blocking everyone who disagreed with you at the terrorism article was the problem.  These people did nothing wrong and four of them, that I know of, are still permanently blocked.  WTF?  --Zephram Stark 02:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This proposed finding of fact is nowhere near accurate. There were no aggressive actions by any of the editors on the page: in fact all editing ground to a halt because of Zephram. And the campaign he waged was to have his own original research (and it wasn't only original research; it was also nonsense) inserted into the introduction of the article, which was opposed by about a dozen editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry Slim, but actions speak louder than words. Anyone looking at the Evidence (of which you provided none) can see that dozens of us would start talking about solutions, only to be interrupted by threats, accusations of sockpuppetry, and when that didn't work, permanent blocks placed on the accounts of editors who did nothing wrong.  You still haven't undone those blocks even though you know that they are real people.  According to the information I received, you told one of them that you would unblock her if she promised to not voice her opinion in this arbitration.  How corrupt is that?  You block her user:talk page.  You threaten other administrators not to get involved, and you think nobody is going to say anything?  You can make all the threats you want, but I, for one, am going to call you on it.  --Zephram Stark 20:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The finding of fact uses the language, "according to Zephram Stark"; you have a different viewpoint Fred Bauder 19:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There are three problems with it: (1) It's Zephram Stark's point of view that you're repeating, when he was the only person who held it. Shouldn't the majority point of view of the dozen or so editors who opposed him be (at least) included too? (2) You refer only to Jayjg and SlimVirgin, whereas Stark accused several editors of thwarting him, so why the focus on only two? (3) It's only the first sentence that says "according to Zephram Stark." The second sentence is stated as fact: "He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents." I don't believe any of his opponents would support this as a finding of fact. It's a misrepresentation of what happened. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Editors who hold an opposing view of Zephram Stark's actions: Carbonite, csloat, Jayjg, Jpgordon, BrandonYusufToropov, Calton, Smyth, El C, Noitall, Willmcw, Dsol, and SlimVirgin. So why would the finding of fact make exclusive reference to the tiny-minority view, which was held in fact by just one person? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a real interesting way of determining fact. Do you call that the "fact by way of majority vote of people who haven't said anything in this arbitration?" (Zephram Stark)
 * What's even more interesting is that we all opposed your edits and conduct nonetheless, which not everyone has the time or inclination to deal with considering how obvious the disruptive behaviour is. El_C 16:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry El_C, but I can't take accusations that I disrupted your agenda to be anything less than a complement. Wikipedia will eventually become NPOV despite your best efforts to control it.  The only question remains, will it become NPOV as a dead website that rotted from the inside from vandalism and administrative control, or will it embrace the NPOV of peer proofing and consensus?  "The lack of humility before nature being displayed here, staggers me." ~ Professor Malcolm  --Zephram Stark 16:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not sorry, and there was no agenda. Several people asked me to look at your rewritten lead and I found it highly lacking (not that I liked what was there, either). End of story. El_C 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The focus of the dispute needs to be phrased in a more neutral manner. Certainly, Mr Stark will put everything in a light most favorable to himself; however, the nature of the dispute is that of a single editor holding a topic hostage by refusing to yield to consensus, generally by generating vast amounts of verbiage in multiple venues to wear down his opponent. Finding of facts that say "Party 1 feels this way" unless they are coupled with "Party 2, Party 3, ..., Party N feel otherwise"; otherwise, they are statements of opinion, not findings of fact.  --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Aside from the wording "free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents" not explicitly being presented as ZS's opinion, there is a more important problem – this is not actually his opinion. The complex ambiguities were already present in the article, and had been for months or maybe years before ZS appeared see this comment by ZS. ZS does not assert that these ambiguities were introduced by any of the people involved in this dispute and that he was attempting to "restore" a better version that never existed, only that they were maintained in opposition to his attempts to make what he believed were improvements.


 * Also, it is not correct to say that terrorism is the only focus of this arbitration. While it is somewhat smaller and involves different people, the inalienable rights debate is also important, as it demonstrates a pattern of editing and debating behaviour which is not limited to one topic.


 * Therefore I suggest this wording:


 * One focus of this dispute is the article terrorism, especially its introduction, which according to Zephram Stark required significant rewriting. He claims that his attempts to improve it were opposed by aggressive editing and blocks by Jayjg, SlimVirgin and others, and he has waged a campaign to produce what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities supported by his opponents. See Talk:Terrorism/Archive 6 and Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark/Evidence.


 * – Smyth\talk 10:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is Jayjg leaving a message under "Comments by others" as opposed to under "Comments by parties," given that he is named in "the focus of this dispute?" Can his comments, and the many many responses to it, also mostly by parties to the dispute, be moved to the correct section? Marsden 22:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I left comments in the "Comments by others" section because I am not a party to the dispute, as is clearly explained above. I did not bring a case against Zephram Stark, nor did I enter any evidence against him. The fact that Zephram continually goes on about me does not affect reality. Jayjg (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I found no clear explanation above of you not being a party to this dispute, Jay. Also, SlimVirgin, whose relationship with you I am confident you would describe as "meatpuppetry" were it exhibited between two people who tended to make edits contrarty to your own, is party to this dispute. Don't you think that as a meatpuppet of one of the parties to this dispute, as well as being specifically named by your meatpuppet's opponent in the dispute as being responsible for "the focus of this dispute" would tend to make you, for all intents and purposes, a party to this dispute? How does it serve Wikipedia for you to present yourself as a disinterested outsider, and what harm would it do Wikipedia for you to acknowledge the reality of the situation and to accept that you are party to this dispute? Marsden 01:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that you were unable to find the explanation. The parties to this RfAr are Carbonite, Commodore Sloat, Smyth, jpgordon, BrandonYusufToropov, Zephram Stark, and EKBK. The people who have entered evidence are Zephram Stark, Ed Poor, Vizcarra, Carbonite, Smyth, FuelWagon, Kainaw, Thryduulf, and JW1805. Neither SlimVirgin nor I am in either group.  Regarding your leading questions above, I naturally decline to answer. As for your confidence in my descriptions, it is sorely misplaced.  However, given your persistent violations of the Civility policies in your comments to me (see above), and given that you see your role on Wikipedia as "holding a stick over my head" and making SlimVirgin's Wikipedia experience "very unpleasant", it's clear that your relationship with SlimVirgin and me can be accurately described as hostile, abusive, and in violation of Wikipedia policies and norms. This also clarifies why you have come to this RfC to comment in this way.  Please desist from persisting in this unacceptable behaviour. Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In other words, keep your mouth shut or we'll RfC you too. Same old Jayjg.  Same old blatant corruption and abuse of power.  If anybody has any question about what went on above, imagine an editor without administrative power saying the same thing.  Wikipedia is rotting from the inside out because the system enables administrators to get away what Jayjg just did.  It doesn't seem to bother anyone that serious editors consider Wikipedia to be a joke—a playground for sandbox dictators who use their administrative power to impose reality on the definitions of the English language.  It could be so much more if just a few additional people took a stand against corruption.  --Zephram Stark 19:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a party to the dispute. Marsden, I wonder what miniscule percentage of your posts to talk pages contain no personal attacks or ad hominems? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Slim, that you and Jay have caused such an immense amount of disruption and hostility on Wikipedia that you are having to start franchising out you requests for arbitration does not exclude you from being party to yet another dispute that you were instrmental in starting. I would guess that the percentage of my posts that contain no personal attacks is somewhat higher than the percent of requests for comment/arbitration that do not involve you. Thanks for asking. Marsden 19:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't know what you're talking about, Marsden. Go and read the archives of Talk:Terrorism and you'll see how many people were involved in trying to oppose Zephram, and they were from all political persuasions. Then read the history of the article and check out his contributions. They were nonsense, and deliberately so: he's too smart for it not to have been deliberate. You've said you want to make editing Wikipedia an unpleasant experience for me, so you may be pleased to know that you're being singularly successful. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But I do know whom I'm talking about, Slim. Thanks for letting me know of my success with you; maybe in the future you'll be a little more cautious in blind reverting people as Jay's meatpuppet. Maybe in the future you'll be a little more cautious in trying to intimidate new editors of Wikipedia. Maybe in the future you'll decide that making a general ass of yourself was not the wisest life-style choice you'd ever made. Maybe, but I doubt it -- there must really be something wrong with people, eh Slim, that you piss so many of them off. What else could possibly explain it? Marsden 20:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * These personal attacks are out of line. If you're not prepared to outline evidence in a propper venue and cease from personal attacks and incivilities, obviously you were never truly serious to begin with. El_C 22:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Marsden 06:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This belated act does not addreass the personal attacks and your impunity in continuing to direct personal attacks at editors seemingly indefinitely. El_C 09:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess you'll have to begin the complaint to address your concerns about that, then. In the meantime, perhaps you'll follow your own advice about such things, and cease complaining about them until you're ready to begin that complaint. Marsden 16:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Negative; you will have to begin such a process against myself once I block you for the next willfull disruption and unrepentent personal attacks. I'm positive you can find a few allies in such a quest (involving research on your part, though) among far-right and fundamentalist-theist leaning editors. See you at my Request for de-adminship. El_C 00:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Lessee -- Fred Bauder has looked at changing his statement of the focus of this dispute, partly in response (I think) to my comments here. What purpose, beyond being uncivil, making personal attacks, and makng an ass of yourself have your comments here served? Go ahead and use your unilateral and missplaced authority, El C. You would seem to be naked without it. Marsden 15:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I was an editor for half a year without administrative powers, which I never sought. When I was offered it at first I first refused. So I challenge that isn't a fair statement on Marsden's part, not that it matters. As for the "general ass" and all the rest of the innuendo, Marsden has been blocked for 24 hours, and the block will be extended for any additional attacks and incivilities. Personal attacks, epescially the mean-spirited, vicious sort exhibited by Marsden here and elsewhere have no place on WP. El_C 19:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Focus of dispute, pt.2
Thanks for the compliment Slim, but I really was trying to make the article better, and I succeeded in helping it to become that way. In the end, an article that conveys information is the only thing that matters to the reader. I succeeded in helping to provide an introduction that conveys information despite all of the confusion, hostility, and elements of fear that you and Jayjg created around your horrible non-definition. Why would you fight to protect an article that conveys no information? Who knows. I've been told that Jews don't want terrorism to be defined, but I'm not sure that's it. As ridiculous as this sounds, I think it may have come down to a matter of pride. As administrators, you don't want your actions questioned, so you protect your position even when it becomes absurdly evident that it is wrong. That's the real root of this issue, and the reason that I only want you and Jayjg to say that you are sorry and will abide by Wikipedia policy in the future. We all have something to add here, not just the administrators. You are not above other editors. Admin power does not make you a better writer or give you enhanced perception of right and wrong. I will never seek administrative power at Wikipedia, but I will always be your peer and I demand to be treated that way. --Zephram Stark 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute." Sorry Slim, but there doesn't appear to be any ambiguity.  You are definitely participating in the arbitration and you definitely had a role in the dispute.  You are not, however, an arbitrator, so you have no right to police this arbitration or to revert things that you don't like.  --Zephram Stark 19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, if the "focus of the dispute" sentence is going to describe itself as being "according to Zephram Stark," why has his prefered description of Jayjg's and SlimVirgin's alleged misdeeds, namely, "use of administrative power to control content," been changed? It speaks very ill of this arbitration if its subject is not even allowed to speak for himself. Marsden 22:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't helpful. Please take your grievences to its logical conclusion via another channel of the dispute resolution process, one which focuses on your allegations, aiming at a comprehensively-documented narrative. This increment is counter-productive to the process. El_C 16:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This "process" needs a bitch-load of "counter-productivity" if trying not to mischaracterize the position of one of the parties "isn't helpful" to it. You must have your beret on too tight, El C! Marsden 16:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, this type metaphorical language is indicative of a lack of emtoional restraint; challenging a process without studying it is counter-productive in all possible respects. If you want to pretend you've challenged the system (through personification rather than systemic analysis and work involved), that's your prerogative. So, no comprehensively-documented narrative on your part, I suppose. Not to mention anything concrete relating to this specific case. Why am I (increasingly) unsurprised at the poorly-thought out approach. No evidence; no consideration. El_C 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I kind of think that you're an unrepentent Stalinist, El C, but even so: I think I'm going to give you first shot at moving the complaint against Fred Bauder ahead if he can't be anything like objective in this arbitration. A lot of people grow out of Stalinism, El C, and you could, too. Marsden 06:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Who needs to grow out of (a lot) and who needs to grow up seems rather clear here, too. Needless to say, I feel utterly crushed and greatly humilated by the sheer poignancy of your un-patronizing, brilliant criticisms. The futility of keeping Marsden (and his ever-so volatile emotions) on-topic, there's an essay topic. El_C 09:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you decide to put that essay in the form of a formal complaint. In the meantime, could you shut up about it? It just makes me think you're a hypocritical idiot, and I doubt anyone else even reads your heart-felt utterances of woe. In the meantime, Fred Bauder has expressed his intent not to change his mischaracterization of Zephram Stark's position on the focus of the dispute. Would you like to send him a second notice of disapproval? I know that, according to you, Stalin was a great man and a liberator, and that sometimes it is necessary for great men to suppress freedom and open debate in order that the correct outcome can be obtained. But would you at least consider the possibility that Bauder's efforts at mischaracterizing Stark's position might not be part of such an occasion? Thanks in advance. Marsden 16:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * With great off-topic verbosity, as always. If you continue to intentionally violate WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and other applicable policies, unrepentently and with impunity, you will be blocked from editing without any further warning. Which most certainly extends to your next response here. You do not need nor hold a special right to insult others to get your point across. But I suspect that's what you want, drama is easier than work or emotional restraint. TIA. El_C 19:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah Marsden, your comments aren't helping this kangaroo court reach its predetermined conclusion. They don't want to want to be presented with evidence that they are putting words in the respondent's mouth.  (OMG, I said "respondent."  I guess that I'm guilty of Wikilawyering again—LMAO) --Zephram Stark 16:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * He can certainly submit it as a proposed alternative version, as have others. Jayjg (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This part of the focus is factually incorrect: "...according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing." In truth, I never claimed that, nor do I think that.  Administrators using their power to control content is what made the content deteriorate.  When Jayjg and SlimVirgin stopped blocking people, we were able to create the terrorism article we have today.  --Zephram Stark 23:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I've restored accuracy to the statement of your position, Zephram. Anyone who disagrees with the accuracy of Zephram's position may of course say so; any attempt to misstate his position would potentially be grounds for a complaint against the person attempting such dishonesty. Marsden 01:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Marsden, please stop changing this. Fred wrote it, not Zephram. If Zeph wants to write another, he may do so, though there's little point because this version is already being voted on. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to help, Marsden. These guys are going to arrive at their predetermined decision no matter what the facts of the matter say.  Please don't take it out on SlimVirgin.  In her reality, power equals moral right.  She simply doesn't know any better.  We have to change the system of hierarchical content control, not the individual administrators who've been corrupted by it.  --Zephram Stark 02:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC) --Zephram Stark 21:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of focus of dispute
I'm at a loss where to post this so I am posting it here. The "Focus of dispute" as worded is purely from Zephram Stark's point of view. Please review the archives to see that it is a very self-serving representation for Mr. Stark. The focus of the dispute as I recall was Stark's persistent disruption of the discussion on Talk:Terrorism with a series of personal attacks and other incivil behavior designed to browbeat other users into accepting original research by him as the "definition of terrorism." Attempts to explain what was wrong with including such original research in wikipedia were met with openly hostile derision. It is Stark's aggressive editing that was the problem, not the edits of SlimVirgin or jayjg. It is correct to say "he waged a campaign," but the campaign was not to restore an adequate article; it was to introduce original neologisms to a wikipedia entry where they were unnecessary and confusing. When other editors including myself complained about these bizarre neologisms, he personally attacked them over and over, and he invited sock- or meat-puppets to join the discussion, making obviously false claims such as "I use the term FISA-terrorism all the time." When editors made reasonable suggestions like turning to definitions of terrorism that were commonly used in the scholarly literature, Zephram treated them to constant and often bizarre personal attacks, even accusing Wikipedia editors of "aiding and abetting terrorists" when removing his neologisms. Zephram was the only one arguing for these ridiculous neologisms (aside from a few obvious sockpuppets with anon ids; see discussion below); yet he continually misrepresented his changes as representing a "consensus" of users after "months of deliberation." Somehow the users involved in the deliberation never materialized. He also insisted on changing the color of his entire posts in order to "stand out", making the whole page difficult to read. When other users complained about the color he simply ridiculed them. Of course, poor aesthetic choices were the least bothersome of Zephram's constant disruptions on that page. To turn the "focus of dispute" around to be about Jayjg and SlimVirgin's attempts to fend off Stark's disruption of wikipedia is a complete misrepresentation of the issue.--csloat 20:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Please remember this is the /Workshop page, not the final version of the finding of fact. We are considering other language, but no matter what version we pick, please remember that the emphasis is and ought to be on Zephram Stark's tendentious editing. I don't think his work is worthless, but his dogged technique of struggle is disruptive. Such disruptive behavior changes the focus from content to behavior which is what is addressed in our proposed decision. It may be that those who ganged up on him have advanced POV positions themselves, but that is not what is being focused on. Fred Bauder 21:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never heard so much horseshit in my life, Commodore. Don't you think that anyone will check out the facts behind your allegations?
 * Fact: I stated over a dozen times that all I wanted was a definition that conveyed information.
 * Fact: This version did not. As per evidence, every single line of the introduction was either a misquote, an extreme POV, contradictory, or so vague that it rendered the term useless.
 * Fact: The version of terrorism that exists today conveys information.
 * Fact: You and your little cabal of admins were protecting this version.
 * Fact: User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin blocked over a dozen people to protect this version and versions very similar to it. Many of those people are still permanently blocked today.
 * You can lie your ass off and confuse the issue all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. --Zephram Stark 21:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Likewise. I remember the terrorism today is largely Islamic terrorism editor, and rollbacked that myself enough times. Who is trying to conflate what with what now begs the question. Your personal attacks, calling people asses (or was it Marsden? He's also fond of phrase), lying out of there asses, horseshit, etc., is getting a bit much. Is it even possible for you to conduct yourself with civility, or this what we should expect indefinitely? Rather crude and simplistic rhetorical devices which lead nowhere. El_C 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You can expect me to call horseshit by its name and to explain why. --Zephram Stark 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Negative; I am only interested in the well-documented explanation. Emotionalist expressions are of no interest to me, or anyone, here. El_C 01:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Zephram, which people did I block? Can you name them? Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously claiming that you didn't block anyone? Is this some busy work to keep me occupied?  You know you blocked people for speaking their mind at terrorism.  Some of those IPs are people you blocked and others are blocks by SlimVirgin.  Since Slim was only there to support you, does it really matter which ones were yours and which ones were hers?  I admit that she blocked more people than you, and that she's responsible for all of the infinite blocks, but you definitely blocked people who were merely expressing the opinion at [terrorism] and your implied threats toward other editors did even more damage, driving people away from Wikipedia who were good editors and honestly trying to make the articles better and less POV.  --Zephram Stark 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Zephram, in all that verbiage I didn't catch the names of the people I blocked, the ones you have mentioned many, many times. Could you please name them? Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I assume, by names, you mean IP numbers or login names. Those are in the evidence section.  I don't know their real names, of course.  --Zephram Stark 00:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Any particularly notable account you'd wish to highlight, possibly? El_C 00:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. That Help:Edit summary p.s. was extended to everyone. I realize it's an extra effort in this type of setting, but its very useful when reviewing the history. El_C 01:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What are you getting at? You don't have to circle-talk me.  If you have something you want to ask, just ask it.  I have no secrets.  I've always painted a correct picture and I'll continue doing so.  You want to know if you and I can ever be friends?  Sure!  I like you.  I don't want anyone here to get the idea that I think they're bad.  My only concern is producing great articles and I speak out when I see people doing things that prevent that.  Maybe I'm way off base as to what you meant by that question, but I'm not sure what you mean by it.  --Zephram Stark 01:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * From the top of my head, my latest question was here. El_C 01:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Like I was telling Jayjg, I didn't keep track of which bans were his and which bans were SlimVirgins at the time of the bans, only how many there were and some of the IP numbers. When I went through the block history to try to identify the ones associated with the terrorism article, these two listed things like "Sockpuppetry" as a reason, making it impossible to tie back to terrorism or to me.
 * I want you to realize that the people who were banned didn't do anything wrong. They didn't participate in any votes at terrorism and they didn't influence content any more than if they had all been one person.  Calling them sockpuppets is ridiculous.  Why would someone create sockpuppets that were not used for voting or influencing content more than they could under one login?  Take Professor Stevens for example.  He made one edit on a talk page that was neither a vote, nor support for any other member: Professor Stevens Proposal.  It was a proposal apparently taken from his coursework.  I disagreed with some of the things he said, but he certainly had the right to voice his opinion.  Like other people who proposed any type of objective definition of terrorism, however, he was banned for life.  The official explanation was, "(Zephram Stark sockpuppet)."  WTF!!?  I don't have anything to do with this guy!  I don't even agree with some of the things he said.  He certainly didn't support me or anything I had ever said.  Why was he permablocked?  More importantly, why is he still permablocked?  Why are the others permablocked?  What did they do wrong?  The only common thread is that they expressed their opinion at terrorism.  --Zephram Stark 02:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That sound too far fetched, I'm afraid. And we're not here to do your research for you; if you didn't keep track, the onus nonetheless is on you to reconstruct it using the pertinent logs. El_C 02:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That as per who does what. Alas, it is highly suspect that lots of new users would suddenly arrive on the scene in support of your idiosyncratic version that everyone else objected to. I doubt that the same sporadic support was extended to the present, more inteligable one. El_C 03:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Professor Stevens" made exactly one edit, coming in just at the right time on the talk page to defend you by offering another proposal full of bad but idiosyncratic "original research" that ignores the work of actual scholars in the field. Can this "professor" claim to be an expert on terrorism, and yet betray not a shred of evidence of having actually read any of the work of published experts on the topic?  He thinks the standard for defining terrorism is what his students say in his classes?  What's more, Zeph, he writes just like you!  Sentences like "Here is my proposal, which I think is better than Zephram Stark's, which is better than a blank page, which in turn, is better than the current article" are pretty dead giveaways.  He might as well have posted in dark green.--csloat 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL!! SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? What is too far fetched? I gave you links to everything. You can verify it for yourself. I didn't extrapolate anything from the facts. I merely listed them. Click on the links if you don't believe me. Where is there any ambiguity? If the evidence weren't right there in front of me, I wouldn't believe it either, but this is the stuff that has been happening. Why do you think I'm so pissed? --Zephram Stark 03:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Links to everything? Where were the links to names of the people I "banned"? Still waiting. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said above, if you want the login names and IP numbers, they are in the evidence section. If you want the names on their birth certificates, I don't have that information.  --Zephram Stark 18:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Links, Zephram, links. It's not that hard to understand. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not sure on what basis he decides that Jewish ethnicity has anything to do with anything. Fred Bauder 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I just like to say the F word followed by someone's religion. I'm sure you can understand that, you fucking Catholic.  --Zephram Stark 00:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The accusation that I made an ethnic slur is really quite funny since both of my parents have Jewish ethnicity. I obviously wasn't talking about an ethnic group, but the group of people who claim to exist at Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting Judaism in articles.  I object to any group promoting their personal agenda over the quality and NPOV of an article.  The kind of article Jayjg was protecting at terrorism is just one example of what's been going on.  Take a look at Talk:State_terrorism.  Jayjg starts out by threatening Zain that if he doesn't comply, he will revert the article to one that neither of them like, and it goes downhill from there.  I think Jayjg sums it all up himself in the reasons for his revert of the Wikipedia:IAR.  He states, "whatever version we use, it can't be one which asserts that Wikipedia rules are solely for dispute resolution"  Oh really?  What other reason does Wikipedia have rules, Jayjg?  For content control?  Like this version of "terrorism" that you were using your admin powers to protect?   --Zephram Stark 02:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I explained on the Talk: page itself, the rules of Wikipedia are for a number of things, primarily for creating a great encyclopedia. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, should Wikipedia create a great encyclopedia by enabling a relatively small number of super-editors to control content, or by enforcing a level playing field for all editors? --Zephram Stark 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that Stark is a Jew. He first came up with that after making his "fucking Jews" edit summary. But even if he is, it's unconnected to his disruption. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally. I wasn't talking about you when I referenced fucking Jews.  In fact, I doubt that you ever get any.  --Zephram Stark 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is what we are up against, people. Please read the above comment carefully several times. Yes, he really did write that.'BrandonYusufToropov 10:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The above comment is pretty representative of Mr. Stark's objectionable behavior. Comments about the sex life or religious culture of another editor are simply unacceptable, I think. I find it odd that Stark is trying to claim that "fucking Jews" is not an ethnic slur - I'm not sure what other context one would use such a phrase, and his implication here and elsewhere that he means to refer to the sex lives of Jews is just ridiculous. Such comments are inappropriate no matter what the context, and his claim that he's talking about a group of people editing articles about Judaism is also silly - he is not being accused of messing with the articles on Judaism, I don't think, and it's clear from the context of his comment that it was intended as a slur. And it doesn't matter whether he is Jewish or not -- his religion and culture are simply not an issue here at all.--csloat 01:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like Commodore Sloat isn't getting any either. Am I the only fucking Jew here?  --Zephram Stark 04:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments such as the above confirm for me what I have long suspected -- Mr. Stark is simply trolling; his main goal is to infuriate people and make us waste our time. Mr. Stark I am simply not interested in your religion or your sex life.  I am here to edit an encyclopedia.--csloat 05:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's very commendable, Commodore. I propose that we drop this whole issue and do exactly that.  --Zephram Stark 14:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * "Fucking Jew"? "Jews fucking"? This contempt toward the community at large, and the committee and participants of this RfAr, truly begs belief: This intransigence, disrespect and insensitivity on the part of Zephram Stark must be dealt with in all due severity. El_C 12:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the term "Jews fucking." It gives me a mental picture of my parents.  --Zephram Stark 14:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your approach is contemptible as is the crude humorism. Even regardless of your ethnicity, which was scarcely verifiable then as it is now. ? אתה מבין מה שאני אומר El_C 15:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can bring some Mitochondrial DNA to the next Las Vegas get together if you'd like. --Zephram Stark 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. Whatever. El_C 00:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Struggle over Noam Chomsky's perspective
3) Some of the latest struggle over content of the article has revolved about this information:

Noam Chomsky, senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, says that "the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state." After President Bush declared a "War on Terrorism," Chomsky stated:

"The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” [...] If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The above quote is from the existing version of terrorism Fred Bauder 17:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Initial insertion
3.1) This information was initially inserted by FuelWagon in this edit as

Some maintain that the USA is the leading state terrorist government. Noam Chomsky states


 * The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This represents Fuelwagon putting his oar into an article he had previously not been involved in after noticing the Request for comment regarding Zephram Stark, essentially a provocation. Fred Bauder 19:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reverts
3.2) This information, from a prominent, if minor, critic of state terrorism, was immediately reverted by Texture with the comment, "rm addition of USA as state terrorism based on flismy support" . A series of niggling objections follow as well as an extensive discussion on the talk page, see Talk:Terrorism


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The provocateur succeeds Fred Bauder 19:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Last I heard, Monthly Review had over one million subscribers, featuring many prominent figures throughout the years. El_C 02:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverts
4) Zephram Stark has removed others comments from article talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Isolated instance or regular pattern? Fred Bauder 19:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Every time we started making progress toward a definitive introduction, Jayjg and his cohorts would interrupt the discussion with personal attacks and attempts to belittle other editors. After trying to move Commodor Sloat and Jayjg's personal attacks to a more appropriate section and having them moved right back, I simply deleted them.  They didn't have any relevance to the discussion except to end it.  As long as those attacks were there, nobody else would contribute.  --Zephram Stark 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mr. Stark is the king of personal attacks; for him to remove other people's comments on the basis that they are such attacks is terribly hypocritical. In any case, the comments in question were not personal attacks but expressions of frustration at Stark's repeated incivil behavior on that page.  In the example cited above, my comment that he removed had come at the end of a long series of attempts by Stark to shift the discussion back to his original research -- a series of definitions of terrorism that were not backed up by any scholarly, journalistic, or other sources besides Mr. Stark and his suspected sockpuppets. --csloat 01:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mr Bauder, you have said "Zephram Stark has removed others comments from article talk pages" and have supported this as a "disruption of talk page." If other parties of this arbitration deleted comments from an article talk page, would you also support their action as a "disruption of talk page?"  --Zephram Stark 14:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That's what I thought.  --Zephram Stark 14:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I focus on whoever is causing the trouble, in this case you. Fred Bauder 15:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Would that make me a "trouble-maker?" --Zephram Stark 23:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * An attempt to characterize the global situation Fred Bauder 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Dogged persistence paid off this time, but like I said, I'm not willing to do it again. You can plainly see the problem now: Wikipedia has no viable reputation management.  Managers can become as corrupt as they want without being demoted.  I've made a few suggestions to fix the problem above.  You can take those suggestions or you can pretend that the problem is me.  I'm willing to donate my valuable time to this work if there is any method to create NPOV articles.  Of course, NPOV articles are impossible if we allow a few top administrators to control content.  --Zephram Stark 01:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Use of administrative powers to advance a point of view is treated as a serious offense. Fred Bauder 14:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well...   you have ample evidence.  In fact, four people, that I know of, are still permanently blocked who have done absolutely nothing wrong.  --Zephram Stark 03:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Supporters are not only few, but seem to all be new, one-topic editors. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of them claimed to be regular editors at Wikipedia who wanted to state their opinion without Jayjg knowing who they were. One editor has contacted me by email recently saying that she would like to contribute to this discussion but is permanently blocked, locked from her user page, and not allowed to join the WikiEN-I mailing list to state her claim.  WTF?  This is not what Wikipedia purports itself to be.  --Zephram Stark 03:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of sockpuppets
6) Zephram Stark has apparently used a number of sockpuppets in pursuit of his editing objectives, see Requests_for_comment/Zephram_Stark rather clear example.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have made no sockpuppets. I think everyone here knows that.  --Zephram Stark 02:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * When Zephram couldn't get his way, an number of first time (typically one-edit only) editors and IPs showed up to revert for him. Meatpuppets are also sockpuppets, they're listed in the definition of sockpuppets. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppets are people who don't have any interest in the article, but are just there to support you. Under that definition I wouldn't have any, but Commodore Sloat, SlimVirgin, and the recently departed Carbonite would be your meatpuppets.  They contributed little, if anything, to the article, but they had pages of slams for anyone objecting to your behavior.  --Zephram Stark 04:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just take a look at mine and these other users' edits to see clearly that we are not meatpuppets; each of us has many edits on various topics. The editors rushing in to support Zeph in his time of need are often making their first edits ever, and they don't seem interested in editing other articles on wikipedia, and they sometimes have entire user pages that are obvious copies of other legitimate users.  In any case, can someone ask Dave Gerard, or another admin with such powers, to publish more conclusive information about the IPs used by Zeph's accused sockpuppets?  My suspicion, as that of others, is that they came from computers in a nearby location, perhaps from the same computer.  Of course, such information is never completely conclusive, since it would be trivial for a user as determined to disrupt as Mr. Stark to get access to proxy IPs for posting purposes.  But if we can at least publish the IPs themselves we can find out more about them -- postings from known proxies would of course be suspect.--csloat 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the sum total of all the information you have even proposed be added or changed in the terrorism article: Revision as of 17:46, 23 August 2005. Everything else is just you supporting your little cabal of administrators.  If that's not being a meatpuppet, I don't know what is.
 * We have already looked up the IP numbers of many of those accused of being sockpuppets. As I'm sure you already know, here are the results:
 * 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
 * Nice try though. Got any more bullshit to throw our way?  --Zephram Stark 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL... I'm supposed to take your word for it, I suppose. What I meant was the IP addresses of your named sockpuppets, like EKBK and Go Cowboys. But I agree with Fred's comment below - as far as the circumstances of discussions here, these ids are sockpuppets based on their behavior.-csloat 02:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

We really don't need to do this. If a bunch of new editors, who have never edited anything else show up they are sockpuppets for our purposes. Fred Bauder 21:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you differentiate between a new user and a sockpuppet? --Zephram Stark 21:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppets show up suddenly in packs in support of an editor who has no real people supporting him. Your story that these are actually crowds of cowering oppressed anonymous people who are too scared to oppose the Big Bad Admins is almost as pathetic as your jokes about being a "fucking Jew". – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 22:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that I get some every night and sometimes in the morning too. --Zephram Stark 22:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you most definitely cannot, nor does it interest anyone here. El_C 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, El C, but its just so funny to me that everyone tries to fit the term "fucking Jew" into every accusation they make. Why not "fucking Gentile," or any of the other pejorative terms I've used?  What makes Jews so special?  Oh, I forgot.  We're God's chosen people.  I'm glad I'm not one of those non-Jews that God didn't select.  How terrible it must be for them to look at the content control of Wikipedia that God has sanctioned and know that they will be smitten if they object.   --Zephram Stark 23:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of the "fucking Gentile" comment. Incidentally, I'm an atheist. El_C 23:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fucking athiest    [[image:Wink.gif|align]]

Use of sockpuppets (alternate)
7) There is no conclusive evidence that Zephram Stark operated a sock puppet.  However, there is sufficient evidence that Zephram Stark operated sock puppets to support the actions of several administrators in blocking and reverting the edits of affected accounts.  [Finding suggested by The Uninvited Co., Inc., an uninvolved party]


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

<OL> <LI>What would that evidence be? --Zephram Stark 14:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC) <LI>User talk:David_Gerard. Either that is conclusive evidence that Zephram Stark operated a sock puppet, or David Gerard is a liar. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 19:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC) <UL> <LI>One thing's for sure, either you are a liar, or David Gerard is a liar. Since you are misrepresenting what David Gerard said, my money is on you. --Zephram Stark 21:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC) <LI>"Go Cowboys appears to be Zephram Stark using their work connection instead of their home one. As if it wasn't obvious from the edits themselves. Felice as well, amazingly enough." That's what David Gerard wrote. In what way did I misrepresent it? – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC) <LI>You called it "conclusive evidence." --Zephram Stark 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

</UL> <LI>Let's settle this thing once and for all right now. I have created no sockpuppets, and I am sick and tired of having my reputation tainted by allegations with no evidence. If anyone can produce any type of direct evidence that I have ever created a sockpuppet, I will grant them any Wikiwish I can offer. --Zephram Stark 21:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

</OL>


 * Comment by others:

Tone of commentary
8) Zephram Stark has utilized inflammatory, ethnically divisive language in edit summaries. Such language is destructive to the positive editing environment necessary for Wikipedia's ongoing success.  Zephram Stark has also engaged in personal attacks.  [Finding suggested by The Uninvited Co., Inc., an uninvolved party]


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Some examples? Fred Bauder 20:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Failure to cite one of the Wikipedia reasons for blocking
9) As per Blocking without Breaking Rules and IP Lookup of blocked Contributors evidence, Jayjg and SlimVirgin have repeatedly failed to cite any of the Wikipedia reasons for blocking.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Failure to admit blocking mistakes
10) As per the Blocking without Breaking Rules and IP Lookup of blocked Contributors evidence, Jayjg and SlimVirgin have repeatedly failed to admit their mistakes when blocking someone who falls outside of any Wikipedia reason for blocking.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Use of blocks to influence the content of articles
11) As per the links in the Evidence Overview, blocks by Jayjg and SlimVirgin on editors who did not commit any of Wikipedia's reasons for blocking, influenced the content of the "terrorism" article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Threats of use of administrative power for content control
12) As per the links in the Evidence Overview and talk:State_terrorism, Jayjg and SlimVirgin threaten editors that they will use their administrative power unless the editors agree to certain content.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Relinquish Administrative Powers
1) User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin relinquish their administrative powers until such time as they agree to: cite rules when blocking people, admit when they are wrong about a block, and not use blocks or threats of blocks to influence the content of articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The funny thing is, if I were an administrator, I would agree to use my power in that way. In fact, can we say that any administrator who would not agree to the above is anything but corrupt?  --Zephram Stark 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This proposed remedy makes sense only if there is first a finding by the ArbCom that User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin abused their administrative privileges. I do not see evidence to that effect.  Mabye Zephram Stark can provide that evidence.  It would be entirely reasonable for the ArbCom to state, as a general principle, that administrators in general should:  cite rules when blocking people, admit when they are wrong about a block, and not use blocks or threats of blocks to influence the content of articles.  It would also be reasonable, but is not something that we can demand, for User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin simply to agree to follow those rules, since those are basic rules for admins.  This proposed remedy is flawed because it would require a finding of fact that has not been made or proposed.  Robert McClenon 23:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification of the procedure. I'll propose these issues first in the Proposed findings of fact section.   --Zephram Stark 19:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing
1) One possibility is that we do nothing. On the surface, this was a content dispute that Carbonite lost, plain and simple.  The other members of Carbonite's team, Jayjg and SlimVirgin, bowed out gracefully, but Carbonite is apparently concerned about the principle of the matter: you don't question the authority of an administrator.  Is that true?  Are administrators above reproach?  If so, maybe Carbonite has a point, because I definitely spoke up when I saw Jayjg and SlimVirgin blocking everyone who disagreed with them on the terrorism article.  Was it wrong for me to speak up?  If so, I think that Wikipedia should be up front about it and plainly state, for new people, that anything an administrator says goes.  --Zephram Stark 00:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't appreciate the assertion that I have a "team". Yes, Jayjg and SlimVirgin generally agree with me that your behavior has had a negative impact on Wikipedia. If that's the only criteria for being on my team, then my team is very large indeed. I also know that they have not "bowed out" as you stated. It's absolutely absurd to frame this as a content dispute between you and me. Your behavior has gone miles beyond one article and one editor. Refer to your RfC for a partial list of editors that also have issues with your behavior. 13:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like Jayjg showed up finally. He didn't block as many people as SlimVirgin though—people who were merely trying to express their opinion at Talk:Terrorism.  --Zephram Stark 03:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg and SlimVirgin both finally joined the arbitration, so it looks like "nothing" is no longer an option. Either the Arbitration Committee with shoot the messenger or deal with the root of the problem.  Time will tell.  If anyone thinks I could have accomplished the same thing without going through all of this, I am certainly open to suggestions.  --Zephram Stark 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still haven't joined the arbitration, I've just commented on the Workshop page, as can anyone, and as have many others. I'll let you know if I do join the arbitration, though. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a little late to weasel out of it now. You caused the problem, and you are here contributing to the arbitration of the problem.  Pretending that you are just an outside observer is almost as silly as what Carbonite did.  People with honor stand up and take responsibility for their actions.  Be one of those people.  --Zephram Stark 21:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't harass other users Zephram Stark Fred Bauder 21:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't. I stand up to blatant corruption and I encourage you to do the same.  --Zephram Stark 19:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Nobody "bowed out gracefully". Rather, some of us stepped back to give the RFC and then the RfAr time to go through the process. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And then jumped on the bandwagon when it was safe? What would you have done if the ethical members of the ArbCom had spoken up and this had gone the other way?  Would you have joined on their bandwagon instead?  --Zephram Stark 19:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, just shut up, please. (That is, after all, what people are trying to say here, but everyone's too polite.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ban for ethnic slurs
1) Zephram Stark is banned for one month due to making ethnic slurs.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Based on one egregious incident Fred Bauder 14:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have made no ethnic slurs. I have a problem with any group taking control of an article, regardless of their ethnicity.  As you can see when you take my words in context, I was certainly not talking about an ethnic group.  If I was, I would have to include myself because I have Jewish blood from both parents.  I was talking about a group of editors who use their administrative power to bias articles, and call themselves Jews.  --Zephram Stark 02:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Which ones "call themselves Jews"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Csloat has called himself a Jew, as has SlimVirgin. You have taken it one step further and officially put yourself on the list of WikiProject_Judaism.


 * You must make them very proud. --Zephram Stark 03:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Project:Judaism's membership is open to anyone with an interest in Judaism; being a Jew is not a pre-requisite for membership (and, in fact, the project has non-Jewish members), and becoming a member is not a declaration that one is a Jew.  Regarding your other claims, where have Csloat and SlimVirgin called themselves Jews?  Please bring links to their declarations that they are Jews, as well as those of anyone else (including me) you included in your "fucking Jews" comment. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I only included Jews that fuck in my fucking Jews comment. After discussing the matter with Slim, the Commodore, and JP, I think I may have only been talking about myself and possibly you.  --Zephram Stark 04:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Proposed alternate text: "1) Zephram Stark is banned for one month due to use of ethnic slurs and personal attacks, and is cautioned that escalating penalties may apply if he continues such behavior upon his return."  The Uninvited Co., Inc. [an uninvolved party]
 * Support. It baffles me that Mr Stark can tell us with a straight face that "I have made no ethnic slurs". We can all read exactly what he said about us "fucking Jews". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're not one of them, JP. As for me, I'm a Jew and I definitely fuck.  --Zephram Stark 03:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This is not based on "one egregious incident" but a recurring pattern of abuse and personal attacks.  His continuing emphasis on the religion and sexuality of other editors is totally destructive to this conversation.  When he is frustrated he complains about "fucking Jews" or makes snide references to the Project on Judaism.  When someone doesn't agree with Mr. Stark he tells them they aren't "getting any," and insists that his opposition to "fucking Jews" is not because they are Jews but because they aren't "fucking."  Can someone please explain to me what place such comments have on Wikipedia?  I don't think this guy belongs on Wikipedia at all.  --csloat 06:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree with Commodore Sloat that use of the term "fucking Jew" has no place on Wikipedia, and I also agree to not use that term except in response to where someone else has already brought that term up in reference to me. --Zephram Stark 14:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Based on editing style, not the various contentions, right or wrong, made in terrorism Fred Bauder 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose. Overuse of probation creates a group of second-class citizens on the Wiki, and has in at least some cases escalated conflict rather than limiting it.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. [an uninvolved party]
 * Better than overuse of banning Fred Bauder 03:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I really do not like the idea that one user, no matter what their standing in the community, can summarily ban another user from an article. Much better in my opinion would be "He may be banned from any article... if there is a consensus of administrators in favour of such a ban". The maximum duration of such a ban should also be stated, as bans of different lengths might be apropriate for different articles. IMHO the maximum duration should be 4 months, I feel that anything longer than that should be the result of an explicit arb-com ruling. Would any bans in force automatically expire at the end of the 1-year probation preiod, or would they continue for the specified duration (the 1 year mark effectively meaning only that new bans could not be initiated). Thryduulf 14:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would change "lengthy argumentation" to "bad behaviour" or "trolling". There are some circumstances in which lengthy argumentation is perfectly appropriate, if users maintain basic levels of civility. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 10:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No sockpuppets
2) Zephram Stark shall use one account, not using anonymous ips, except as it may occur accidently.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Although perhaps difficult to enforce, I think that Zephram should be prohibited from using meatpuppets to support his views. On several occasions, an account's first edits were made to support Zephram's contentions. Zephram often challenged admins to check the location of IPs, leading me to believe some of these users were, in fact, meatpuppets. Carbonite | Talk 14:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem using one account. I have always only used one account, and I shall continue to always use one account.  I have no sockpuppets or meatpuppets.  Anyone whom I have contacted about content, I have asked to review the article and give their honest opinion.  --Zephram Stark 01:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

No initiation of votes or straw polls
1) Zephram Stark may not initiate any vote or straw poll for a period of one year. This includes all namespaces and talk pages. He may vote in a poll initiated by another user. Note: If non-arbitrators are not permitted to propose remedies in this section, please move to an appropriate section. Carbonite | Talk 19:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I see your reasoning below, but it is not persuasive. Such "polls" are covered under the proposed remedy of probation as they are just one aspect of dogged tendentious struggle. He should be free to initiate a sensible poll. Fred Bauder 14:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, how about a warning to Zephram not to vote on everything and that polls are evil. If Zephram would agree to greatly reduce his use of polls, formal restrictions wouldn't be necessary. Carbonite | Talk 14:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Under those conditions, I agree to greatly reduce my use of polls. --Zephram Stark 16:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think that's a move in the right direction. Carbonite | Talk 16:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, if you simply would have asked me on my talk page to reduce the number of polls I make, I would have. It doesn't make any difference to me.  I'm just trying to draw more people into the conversation.  If you think that it leads to the perception of any type of impropriety, I naturally wouldn't want that perception to be associated with me.  --Zephram Stark 17:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Noted. Carbonite | Talk 17:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Now I expect you to be true to your word and publicly withdraw your request for formal restrictions. An apology for accusing me of things that had nothing to do with your polling concern would be nice too, but that is your option.  I'm sure people can tell from your statement that there was only one real issue, "If Zephram would agree to greatly reduce his use of polls, formal restrictions wouldn't be necessary."  --Zephram Stark 17:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh... Zephram, civility issues are one of the reasons this case was brought to the ArbCom. When somebody thanks you for your comment, the civil response is not to demand something of them. Fred has already mentioned above that this remedy would be covered under a separate provision. Thus, there's really nothing to withdraw. I'm really trying here, Zephram, but it seems like you crave conflict. Carbonite | Talk 17:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * LMAO—same old Carbonite, making wild accusations and entreatments, but when someone calls you on them you try to pretend you meant something else. There's really only one way to take this statement, "If Zephram would agree to greatly reduce his use of polls, formal restrictions wouldn't be necessary."  You can either stand by what you say, or you can show that your words don't mean anything.  --Zephram Stark 18:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Zephram has often attempted to reduce discussions to a simple "support" or "object" vote This remedy is an attempt to discourage votes and encourage reaching consensus with other editors. Carbonite | Talk 19:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Did your psychic adviser tell you that Carbonite? I don't know how else you purport to know the intentions behind my actions, especially when I state the exact reasons why I encourage more people to express their opinions on matters.  It's to get more people involved so that we can can brainstorm a richer consensus.  --Zephram Stark 00:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Some very recent examples: José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero Inalienable rights Carbonite | Talk 13:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Examples from Talk:Terrorism Example One Example Two Carbonite | Talk 13:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by ban
1) Zephram Stark may be briefly banned (up to a week in the case of repeat offenses) from Wikipedia should he edit any article or talk page from which he is banned under the terms of Probation


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * lol ——  You have administrators that permanently block people who have done nothing wrong.  Shooting the messenger isn't going to solve the problem.  People are still going to speak up when this sort of thing happens, no matter how much of an example you make of me.  --Zephram Stark 02:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: