Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:55, 5 September 2005

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC).

• Zephram Stark (talk · contribs)

Statement of the dispute

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

In a discussion on Talk:Terrorism now spreading over two months and 45,000 words, Zephram Stark, and nobody else, has persistently claimed that there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with the article's introduction. Despite receiving no support whatsoever and overwhelming opposition, he has stubbornly continued repeating the same complaints and frequently making low-quality changes agreed to by nobody except himself.

With his thick-headedness he is single-handedly holding this article hostage.

Evidence of disputed behavior

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

Users agreeing with ZP:

• Zephram Stark (talk · contribs)
• Serena7 (talk · contribs)
• EKBK (talk · contribs)
• 67.136.36.2
• 4.124.74.165
• 211.26.218.9
• 69.174.193.208
• 4.124.93.149
• 72.11.72.185
• 64.114.81.166

Users disagreeing with ZP:

• Smyth (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs)
• BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs)
• Calton (talk · contribs)
• El_C (talk · contribs)
• Willmcw (talk · contribs)
• Noitall (talk · contribs)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)

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

• Jpgordon (talk · contribs)
• Carbonite (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

Applicable policies

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. – Smyth\ 18:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Noitall - I dislike doing these things, but with regard to this one page, he is one odd bird. On such a controversial page, it is difficult to obtain consensus. ZP has done this. The consensus is against every edit he makes on that page. That said, except for this page, I did not have any problems whatsoever with him so any solution in my mind should be limited to this one page. --Noitall 19:26, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC) - I wasn't involved with the article in question at all until another editor asked me if I could do something about a revert war that was going on. I did what I think was appropriate: I protected the page without consideration of what version was being protected, and stated what I had done, and why, on the talk page. The net result of this was a constant stream of abuse from Zephram Stark, to the degree that I've considered washing my hands of the whole thing. I've still not paid any attention to the disputed content -- rather, I've observed the process on the talk page, and I've come to the conclusion that Stark cannot be reasoned with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Carbonite | Talk 18:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
2. SlimVirgin 20:31, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
3. Willmcw 21:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
4. Kafziel 23:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
5. BrandonYusufToropov 00:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Jayjg 02:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Dsol 08:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

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

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

Outside view by McClenon

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

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

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

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

1. Robert McClenon 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Skoblentz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

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

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

Discussion

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