Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Zephram Stark

Overview

This matter is an objective example of the ongoing debate over administrator/editor rights. Who are to be the real members of the Wikipedia society? Are administrators to be the only ones with real editing power, or shall administrator tools be used solely to preserve a level playing field for all? The outcome of this arbitration will set a precedent influencing future decisions in this pivotal area.

Four years ago, the article on terrorism conveyed information (See December 2001 edit, for example). Today, thanks in large part to User:Hipocrite and User:Stevertigo, it conveys information again. In between, however, it degraded into this: July 2005 Smyth Edit. Please take a look at the article because Smyth's version, or one very similar to it, is what Jayjg and SlimVirgin were fighting to keep so adamantly that they were willing to bad-mouth and perma-block people who proposed changes.

• The first sentence basically says that we don't know how to objectively define terrorism.
• The second sentence is a nation-centric quote from a U.S. military advisory board (The CSIS).
• Next, Smyth adds a misquote from the OED. He didn't like the OED description of "terrorism," so he modified the OED definition of "terrorist" and falsely claimed that it was the OED definition of "terrorism." Since the OED is a subscription service ($295/yr), nobody caught the misquote until I demanded repeatedly that he provide a source we could verify. He finally confessed the true definition, but only after labeling me a troublemaker. Later, when Uncle Ed and SlimVirgin tag-team blocked me for days, Smyth tried to sneak it in again. Even though anyone could read about what happened in the history, the guy who caught it again was permanently blocked and accused of being me.
• Smyth then says that "terrorism" has always been a pejorative term, something that his OED source proves is not the case.
• A nation-centric reference to terrorism as defined vaguely by the War on terrorism follows.
• Next, the article deconstructs any objectivity still associated with the term by saying it covers "almost any enemy action perceived as being an immoral use of violence."
• Smyth added that "terrorism" is used exclusively to refer to others, something that his OED source proves is not the case.
• The next sentence says the same factually incorrect thing in different words.
• The article reiterates that the author cannot figure out any common ground in the usages of the term.
• Then we get a grab bag of possible meanings so we can mix and match our own definition.
• If the reader's head hasn't exploded by then, the great editing team of Smyth, Jayjg and SlimVirgin cap off the intro with this sentence, "None of these are universally accepted as being either necessary or sufficient."

How could this happen? At first glance, you might suspect that this is proof of the popular admin notion that most editors are idiots and we need more top-down control, but take a closer look. The condition of this article was caused by top-down control gone very, very wrong. Two of the most powerful people in Wikipedia, Jayjg and SlimVirgin helped push the article in that direction, and protected it once it got there. Anyone who tried to edit the introduction to better convey information, while assuming good faith, became deeply frustrated. I've had good editors tell me, on their talk pages and mine, that they have lost faith in Wikipedia because of administrators like Jayjg and SlimVirgin.

What is their agenda? I can only guess. Politically, some groups would benefit from not having a definition of terrorism that conveys information. I would think that soldiers in the U.S. army, supporters of President Bush, and pro-Israeli organizations would rather that the term be undefined. People on my talk page have told me that Jayjg and SlimVirgin regularly team up to "push pro Israeli POV." As someone with Jewish blood from both parents, I always thought of Jews as just another piece of society, not as an separate entity fighting to redefine history and suppress useful definitions of words. Yet here, I had direct evidence of it. It really made me mad. How dare Jayjg come in here, declaring himself a member of Wikiproject:Judaism and represent our people this way? I don't want to be thought of as a member of a group that subverts and confuses information. I want to be thought of as a human being, part of society, working with people to uncover the truth and create definitions of words that help us more effectively convey information. Although I have Jewish blood, I consider anyone banding together to promote anything outside of the good of all society to an outside group. If they want their group to be called "Jews," and use their admin power to bias articles with Jewish POV, so be it, but the rest of Wikipedia should know that this is an outside group that has nothing to do with those of us who have Hebrew blood and refuse to adopt a bias against the rest of society.

The particular bias of the group I ran up against, however, is not what we have to solve. The bigger picture is that Wikipedia enabled and encouraged the corrupt power of that group to utterly decimate the introduction to a good article and keep it in that state against the will of all the other people in the seven archives who desperately tried to promote a definitive introduction to terrorism. You may argue that people are too stupid to rule themselves here at Wikipedia, but how then can they be smart to rule others? This little clique mentality of administration must end. --Zephram Stark 21:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked without Breaking Rules

I am currently looking up all of the people who were banned for doing nothing more than expressing their opinion on the terrorism article. This is the epitome of what I have been speaking out about. I unequivocally state that I do not have any sockpuppets, meatpuppets, flesh-puppets, or whatever User:Jayjg and SlimVirgin want to call them. User:Jayjg and SlimVirgin have no reason to think otherwise. They simply block anyone who even suggests something that goes against their viewpoint. --Zephram Stark 01:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

1 ) 21:45, 4 October 2005, SlimVirgin blocked EKBK (infinite) (contribs) (sockpuppet used to violate policy)

EKBK was blocked indefinitely after making this statement on the terrorism talk page. He was accused of being a sockpuppet by SlimVirgin.

2 ) 01:44, 23 September 2005, SlimVirgin blocked Professor_Stevens (infinite) (contribs) (Zephram Stark sockpuppet)

Professor Stevens was blocked indefinitely after making his first contribution: this proposal on the terrorism talk page. He was accused of being my sockpuppet by SlimVirgin.

3 ) 03:23, 11 September 2005, SlimVirgin blocked Go_Cowboys (infinite) (contribs) (sockpuppet created by User:Zephram Stark to violate policy)

Go Cowboys was blocked indefinitely after making this section proposing that the definition of "terrorist" be split from the article on "terrorism." User:Jayjg called him a sockpuppet of me and SlimVirgin blocked him for it. She also blocked me because she said that I created him.

4 ) 01:09, 12 September 2005, SlimVirgin blocked Felice_L'Angleterre (infinite) (contribs) (sockpuppet created to violate policy; probably User:Zephram Stark)

Felice_L'Angleterre was blocked indefinitely after refusing to give User:SlimVirgin and User:Calton the name of the corporation where she works.

SlimVirgin claims that there are at least eleven other people she and User:Jayjg have blocked (see her comments on my user talk page) under the guise of being my sockpuppets. Although Wikipedia is supposed to be transparent, most of the people SlimVirgin blocked in relationship to the "terrorism" article had only a vague reason given similar to "sockpuppet used to violate policy," like the description of EKBK's infinite block above. On all of her blocks and "perma-blocks" in this matter, SlimVirgin failed to annotate a rule that she thinks each person broke:

• Vandalism
• Excessive reverts
• Bans
• Anonymous & open proxies
• Disruption
• Improper Usernames
• Public accounts
• Bots
• Personal attacks which place users in danger
• Exceptional, widespread community support for the block

Without knowing which rule each person allegedly broke, in which discussion or article he or she allegedly broke the rule, or which contribution showed evidence of that rule being broken, it is very hard to gather examples that shows the true extent that SlimVirgin has damaged this community. If the number of people she blocked without citing a rule is any indication, SlimVirgin has effectively banished dozens or even hundreds of people for no reason other than that her POV did not agree with their edits.

I have gone through the entire block log from the time that I joined, and can find no other reference to my name (except for the times when she blocked me, of course). I only kept track of the count as each person was blocked and accused of being me in the discussion. Before I spend the hours going through the mountains of archives to find and prove each of these references, I need to know from the arbitration committee if it is going to make any difference. I have only scratched the surface of this corruption, and I'm willing to dig as deep as needs be in order to stop people like SlimVirgin and Jayjg from using their administrative powers to create article PoV, but I believe I have already given ample evidence of what is going on. Is more evidence required? If it is, will any amount of evidence against User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg result in their demotion and the restoration of a level playing field here at Wikipedia?

IP Lookup of blocked Contributors

Below are the some of the IP numbers of people that User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg blocked under the guise of being my sockpuppets. These numbers are taken from either the block log or from discussions where an administrator with m:CheckUser power revealed them.

• 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

Please note that these are the IP numbers of editors with login accounts. For instance, the last one, 206.176.211.72, is the IP address of EKBK. They are shown for the purpose of proving that they couldn't all be one person.

David Gerard was contacted about this matter and failed to provide any evidence that there was a connection between the people who were blocked and me. He alluded to the possibility of open proxies. Based on every test I know of, none of the people that User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin blocked from the "terrorism" article use open proxies or anonymous IPs.

I don't really have a problem with anyone but the two administrators who block people and lock their user talk pages to keep them from expressing their opinions clearly within the rules. It kind of sucks that administrators like Carbonite are so fixated on administrative hierarchy that they unquestionable support each other, but the vast majority of editors who are here to improve articles can overcome administrative bias if they aren't afraid of getting blocked without reason.

Carbonite Dipute of Fact

Please look at the evidence Carbonite provides. I don't believe that it matches the conclusions he reaches. For instance:

After Carbonite showed that I said I voted for President Bush and then tried to have him impeached, Carbonite says, "The evidence is included to show a pattern of Zephram making whatever statement is helpful to his argument at the time." ~Carbonite (below)

Carbonite's conclusion is in error. I voted for President Bush in 2000 because I am conservative and Bush espoused conservative values. When Bush instead took the United States 2 trillion dollars farther into debt and started a war based on a lie, I obviously no longer though he was conservative.

If you think the Carbonite's conclusion in the above example was a stretch, try looking at the rest. I think they speak for themselves. -- 23:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Smyth Dispute of Fact

I believe that Mr. Smyth's conclusions are not consistent with the links that he provides. His link to Mr. Gerard does not list any evidence of a connection. Mr. Gerard's feelings are apparently based purely on speculation which he justifies as being theoretically possible via open proxies or similar. Since there are tests for open proxies or similar, I invite Mr. Gerard to give us the results of those tests instead of abstract conjecture. --16:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

New Developments

• On Dante Alighieri's talk page, SlimVirgin is trying to convince Dante that it is not his place to get involved. If administrators cannot police themselves, who will police them? Editors certainly don't have any method of demoting administrators. We can complain all we want, but ultimately unbiased administrators must make the decision to involve themselves in the dispute in order for a corrupt administrator to be demoted. --01:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

After I posted the above, SlimVirgin apologized to Dante. --21:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• According to User:David Gerard, EKBK has been sending email to administrators asking that she be unblocked and that her user page be unprotected. I can find nothing in EKBK's contributions that is against the rules, nor was she accused of doing anything that warrants blocking for even 24 hours. Nevertheless, EKBK was permanently blocked and her user talk page was protected against editing. Can you think of any legitimate reason why someone would lock down a user's talk page? How many administrators recognized this as wrong and did something about it? So far, Dante Alighieri is the only one. Despite Dante Alighieri's efforts, EKBK is still blocked from even editing her own user page. --21:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• On the Administrator Notice Board, SlimVirgin claims that she only blocked four people under the guise of being my sockpuppets, but in the same paragraph she threatens to block me and User:Black Angus. For what, she doesn't say. I can't see anything in the contributions of Black Angus that would remotely be considered against the rules. Aparently his contributions to the "terrorism" article are reason enough. --22:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• "the only reason Zephram isn't blocked is that he's up before the arbcom, but I'm beginning to wonder whether that should necessarily stop me." --SlimVirgin (AN/I More Threats) 11:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ed Poor

Jeez, I hate these templates. Let me just say that I blocked Zephram twice in a row for nasty language toward other users. I think the effing Jews thing was my block: I forget, and I'm too tired to go look it up.

Since those two blocks, Z. has apparently been trying to swallow a sizeable chill pill, and that's to his credit!

He's also made some friendly overtures - to me at least.

This is the Wrong Place to suggest it, but maybe he should just be encouraged to get some dialogue going about his ideas on definitions of terrorism. I've created some other Definitions of... pages which have stood the test of time, e.g., definitions of Palestine and Palestinian.

Maybe a WikiProject to collaborate on defining terrorsim would be just the thing. Uncle Ed 03:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

<day1> <month>

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

<day2> <month>

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

Evidence presented by Vizcarra

17 August 2005

• 21:31
  • According to SlimVirgin [2] I was "temporarily blocked for disruption because of [my] recreation of a personal attack page that was deleted".

Such "attack page" wasn't such, it was the user page of SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon rather. And Jayjg blanked it (which is vandalism) because it was a "personal attack" when it contained criticism towards the SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordong tag team ("It only contained this phrase "SlimVirgin violates Wikipedia rules: on Civility and 3 Reverts. SlimVirgin dishonesty violates 3R with jayjg and a tag-team of other blatantly Zionist/Jewish-centric Wikipedia propagandists.").

File:SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon incident.PNG

Screenshot of edit history of SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon's user page

Ryan Delaney noted this and reverted the blanking of the page. The Jayjg blanked it once again, but this time he qualified his edit as a "minor edit". I then added my rationality of why such is not a personal attack and should be kept for future reference, such as cases like these, since numerous wikipedians have affected by POV pushing by this trio. I reverted the blanking once again and for edit summary typed "see talk page". This time SlimVirgin reverted my change (as she often does after Jayjg) with no reponse to my opposition in the talk page, and also qualifying her change as a "minor edit" (again, something common for him when involved in controversial activities). I once again reverted the change and typed "take discussion to the talk page".

This was SlimVirgin's rationale to block me: "disruption: recreating an attack page".

I asked why by e-mail and she responded "We're here to write an encyclopedia, not engage in personal attacks or vendettas...But if you descend into personal attacks you'll lose everyone's sympathy". Then again, he accused me of engaging in personal attacks when I was, in contrast, defending a user page being vandalized. She also mentioned that "When an admin deletes a page, you're well within your rights to complain or to put it up for VfU, but you're not supposed to recreate it immediately, particularly not when it constitutes a personal attack".

He also mentioned that he "deleted the talk and user page more than once, and [I] re-created them".

Interesting to note, however, is that it was Jayjg who deleted it twice and then SlimVirgin once. So now I think:

• Is SlimVirgin a sockpuppet of Jayjg?
• Is SlimVirgin a meatpuppet of Jayjg?

--Vizcarra 05:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Carbonite

There are several negative behaviors of Zephram Stark that have caused problems on Wkipedia: personal attacks, insertion of POV, disruption, sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and unwillingness to compromise or accept consensus.

8 July

• 18:46 8 July 2005
  • Zephram Stark's first edit to Wikipedia (List of conflicts in the Middle East) was marked as minor, but actually introduced POV material into the article.

• 19:46 8 July 2005
  • Zephram's first (of many) edit to the Terrorism article was a major rewrite of the introduction. The edit summary was "Rewrote Introduction from a Neutral Point of View from the Generally Accepted to the Controversial Specifics but the edit was highly POV and was reverted within minutes. With this edit Zephram also removed the NPOV tag from the article.

• 21:24 8 July 2005
  • After having his rewrite of the intro reverted by User:Jayjg, Zephram began demanding that his version must either be critiqued or used in the article. Zephram's attitude of "Discuss things by my rules" have been a constant problem on talk pages.

• 21:54 8 July 2005
  • Despite having made his first edit to Wikipedia only a few hours prior, Zephram insults Jayjg, asking him "Are you purposefully trying to destroy the philosophy of Wikipedia" and telling him "It is time that you start working with the members of our community instead of against them"

• 23:08 8 July 2005
  • Zephram posts in Jayjg's userspace, stating that "Unless he starts working with other members, it may be time to take him down a notch." This is only Zephram's 10th edit to Wikipedia.

9 July

• 00:07 9 July 2005
  • Zephram returns to List of conflicts in the Middle East to re-add POV that was previously reverted.

• 15:15 9 July 2005
  • Zephram's first edit to Talk:Al-Qaeda is another personal attack against Jayjg: "If you’re going to rely on User:Jayjg’s book of Doublespeak for your definition, I guess you could justify anything you want." He also provides his reasoning for his definition of Terrorism being rejected: "Wikipedia has no definitive definition of terrorism because codifying it in ANY manner would show how our beloved president’s use of the term is inconsistent, contradictory, and brimming with irony."

• 21:35 9 July 2005
  • Zephram continues his attacks on Jayjg, back on Talk:Terrorism. He searched out criticism of Jayjg and compiled it on the article's talk page, stating "If you feel the same way, the next step should be to have him demoted and blocked from articles that he reverts."

10 July

• )1:31 10 July 2005
  • Zephram has turned Talk:Terrorism into a debate about Jayjg, saying that he's read Jayjg's talk page and "In every instance that I read, User:Jayjg had trashed a well-written, objective and NPOV article in favor of a revert that only served to confuse and hide historical facts." and "If they keep doing it, we have no choice but to block them from changing the definition."

• 03:16 10 July 2005
  • In response to a statement by User:Smyth, Zephram claims ..."I voted for Bush as president...". This is very much at odds with Zephram's other statements and actions, especially this petition [3] organized by Zephram Stark to impeach President Bush. The evidence is included to show a pattern of Zephram making whatever statement is helpful to his argument at the time.

11 July

• 01:27 11 July 2005
  • Although there's no consensus on the talk page, Zephram makes another major change to the Terrorism intro. This introduction of original research is soon reverted by User:BrandonYusufToropov.

• 15:17 11 July 2005
  • Zephram again adds his original definition of terrorism with the edit summary "Put the Subjective POV in the Subjective Side. This ends the NPOV dispute. Please make further edits to only your side of the argument. If you can’t understand the other's claim, you can’t edit it. ". Once again, Zephram's rewrite is reverted, this time by User:Smyth, who requests that Zephram use the talk page.

• 17:43 11 July 2005
  • Zephram again reverts the Terrorism article, this time without any edit summary. He also removes the NPOV tag. He is quickly reverted by Jayjg. Zephram claims on the talk page [4] that there is no longer a NPOV dispute and instructs User:Smyth, "Do not delete the objective definition.

• 18:04 11 July 2005
  • Zephram once again reverts the Terrorism intro, with the edit summary "Your hostile editing will no longer be tollerated, Mr. Jayjg. There is an objective definition for Terrorism. Do not edit something you, yourself, have said you don't understand. This isn't a revert." Jayjg reverts and points out that it was indeed a revert. He also cautions Zephram about violating the 3RR, providing a link to the policy.

• 18:29 11 July 2005
  • Zephram reverts the intro yet again to his version, with the edit summary "You do not have the right to arbitrarily delete definitions, Mr. Jaygj, even if you team up with someone else to revert. If you continue hostile editing, I will have no choice but to request a block." Smyth reverts this edit within minutes.

• Zephram is blocked by User:Carbonite for violating the 3RR. See report here.

• 19:09 11 July 2005
  • Shortly after Zephram was blocked, an anon IP User:206.176.211.72 (later proven [5] to be User:EKBK) reverts to Zephram's version with the edit summary "This is a much better definition than we've ever had. We can start with this because it represents the peaceful POV as well as the war POV." This edit was the IP's first and only.

Evidence presented by Smyth

Zephram claims above that "David Gerard was contacted about this matter but failed to provide any evidence that there was a connection." This is a lie [6] and in any case, Zephram is so paranoid that he does not even trust David Gerard to tell the truth [7].