Revision as of 04:39, 3 November 2005

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

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 Misplaced Pages 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:

1. The real parties in interest are Misplaced Pages and its readers Fred Bauder 17:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on that. Let's solve the problem that Misplaced Pages 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:

1. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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: Misplaced Pages 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:

1. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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:

1. 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\ 11:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
2. 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:

1. 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Consensus, thereby reducing arbcom wars and vandalism (the only current methods of minority expression) while elevating the respectability of Misplaced Pages.

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --Zephram Stark 03:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. 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 Misplaced Pages, the pole star, is Misplaced Pages: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:

1. 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. By way of example, this edit from this very page is a gross violation of the principle. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to take disciplinary action against purported operators of sock puppets in the absence of conclusive evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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#NPOV_solutions and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

1. 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."
2. 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)

1. 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 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 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 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 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?"

• 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∇∆∇∆ 21:03, 2 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:

1. Not sure on what basis he decides that Jewish ethnicity has anything to do with anything. Fred Bauder 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:IAR. He states, "whatever version we use, it can't be one which asserts that Misplaced Pages rules are solely for dispute resolution" Oh really? What other reason does Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages are for a number of things, primarily for creating a great encyclopedia. Jayjg 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In your opinion, should Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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)

Comment by others:

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:

1. 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:

1. 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#how_great_Chomsky_is

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The provocateur succeeds Fred Bauder 19:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reverts

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Isolated instance or regular pattern? Fred Bauder 19:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. 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)

1. 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)

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#NPOV_solutions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. An attempt to characterize the global situation Fred Bauder 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. 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: Misplaced Pages 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:

1. Supporters are not only few, but seem to all be new, one-topic editors. Jayjg 21:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of them claimed to be regular editors at Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Zephram_Stark#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior rather clear example.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

1. 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 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)

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. What would that evidence be? --Zephram Stark 14:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
2. User talk:David_Gerard#Sockpuppet check request. Either that is conclusive evidence that Zephram Stark operated a sock puppet, or David Gerard is a liar. – Smyth\ 19:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
   • 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)
   • "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\ 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
   • You called it "conclusive evidence." --Zephram Stark 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
3. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages's ongoing success. Zephram Stark has also engaged in personal attacks.

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:

1. 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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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:

1. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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)

Comment by others:

1. 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∇∆∇∆ 21:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ban for ethnic slurs

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Based on one egregious incident Fred Bauder 14:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. 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 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Judaism.

This user is a member of the Judaism WikiProject, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of Judaism on Misplaced Pages.

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 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. 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.
2. 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∇∆∇∆ 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)

Probation

2) Zephram Stark is placed on Misplaced Pages: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:

1. 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:

1. 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.

   Better than overuse of banning Fred Bauder 03:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

2. 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)

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:

1. 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)
2. 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:

1. 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:

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. Some very recent examples: José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero Inalienable rights Carbonite | Talk 13:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Examples from Talk:Terrorism Example One Example Two Carbonite | Talk 13:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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 Misplaced Pages should he edit any article or talk page from which he is banned under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Probation

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. 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: