User talk:Zephram Stark/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:BushOppressed.gif


"For those who haven't noticed, he's now banned for another two days for creating User:Go Cowboys, and crudely cloning the userpage of User:Zzyzx11 to conceal the account's newness." – Smyth\talk

.

W T F ?!!

.

Everyone at Talk:terrorism who fails to support Jayjg's non-definition of terrorism is blocked, discredited, and sometimes even banned permanently (I think Mr. Go Cowboys is the eleventh editor to which this this has happened.) What has he done wrong? Absolutely nothing. His only crime is that he is being accused of being me—-same as the other ten editors. I haven't said anything because it is none of my business. If these editors want to stand up for themselves, I would be happy to help them, but none of them have dared to take a stand. If Wikipedia wants to kick out people who have done nothing except contribute to articles, that is their business. But now I'm getting punished because Jayjg accuses them of being me? Does anyone with administrative powers care what this is doing to Wikipedia? There are over 500 admins. I think it's safe to say that Jayjg doesn't control all of you. Are you afraid that doing something about this will damage your reputation? Does protection of your rep really matter if Wikipedia fails as a result? If it becomes known that Wikipedia supports administrator bias of articles, your reputation here won't be worth a share of Boo.

.

And User:Felice_L'Angleterre, editor of two newspapers and senior manager of an enormous publishing house, is the 12th. You're about to be the 13th. Your block will be extended for another 48 hours for block evasion, and if you create any more sockpuppets, the block will be indefinite for this account too. The joke's worn thin, Zeph. Find a new playground. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I haven't made any sockpuppets, SlimVirgin. You've shot yourself in the foot this time. You're permanently banning real people without any oversight. --Zephram Stark 01:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

.

Contents

[edit] JayG / SlimVirgin / jpgordon / Guy Montag

As a group they are extremely effective in pushing pro Israeli POV - they often rope in Guy Montag to act as a stooge. My advice is -> get together with your pals and do likewise. They are admins - so learn from them - ape their behaviour. You will soon see your POV being pushed just as effectively. But it's pointless whineing because they act as an effective team and the people pushing your POV cant co-operate. They play within the rules - you need to work out how to do the same. 62.252.0.6 11:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If a system is corrupt, the correct course of action is to fix the system, not to give in to its corruption. --Zephram Stark 14:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I also had a bad experience with the JayjG/SlimVirgin/Jpgordon team. I agree, however, that they play by the rules. They are experienced wikipedians and know how to push POV's and still play within wikipedia regulations. Send me a message whenever you need a second opinion in the future so you won't have the same bad experience I have had with them. --Vizcarra 01:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilynching

Please take a look at the Talmidaism page that Jayjg has marked for deletion. After several attempts to merge the artice with the Nazarene page were disputed, he has now decided to delete the article entirely. Jayjg is abusing his position as an administrator to accomplish what he could not do as an editor. Please help prevent a hi tech lynching! --Ovadyah 15:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a very interesting article and well written. Thank you for sharing it. I certainly don't think it should be deleted, but there is a definite lynching mentality to Wikipedia. I consider this forum to be the quintessential test as to whether or not Thomas Jefferson's assertion is true that given unrestricted freedom of communication, people can rule themselves. The programming of Wikipedia is very close to allowing unrestricted freedom of communication, but a few people like Jayjg have still figured out ways to abuse it. The system can be a little bit more complex without infringing on communication. The secret to doing that is through anonymous bottom-up accountability. Voting for representatives is a simple implementation of this, but with complex database programs readily available, Wikipedia can easily create a recursive accountability program, allowing confidence or no-confidence in a user to be weighted by the same confidence level of the anonymous voter. In an efficient bottom-up accountability system, the representative knows nothing personal about his constituency, while the constituency knows everything about their representative. An editor, in the Wikipedia context, acts as a representative of everyone who has an interest in the definition. When he writes or votes for the deletion or reversion of an article, this should be known by all, but votes for that representative's confidence level should remain anonymous. In the history of the world, no top-down method of accountability has ever been shown to be incorruptible. The closest we have ever come to social stability is through systems that enable natural selection based purely on the merits of the issue. Wikipedia has tried to implement that system here, but has needed to give extra power to some users. Accountability for that power is currently determined by a few people at the top—-it is top-down. When the program is written that enables bottom-up accountability, Wikipedia will be fundamentally complete and people like Jayjg will no longer be able to engage in blatant Revisionism. --Zephram Stark 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

Please take a look at the discussion in State Terrorism. Start from the top and tell me what you see going on there.

Talk:State terrorism


Here's a summary if you get nauseous and don't want to read the whole thing:

  • Zain asks Jayjg to follow Wikipedia rules.
  • Jayjg threatens to revert several edits unless Zain shuts up.
  • Zain quotes Jayjg's request for documentation and cites that documentation.
  • Jayjg claims that because they didn't specifically use the term "State terrorism," the UN condemnation of Israel's systematic use of terror is irrelevant to the article.
  • Zain reminds Jayjg that it was he who first brought up the issue of condemnation as being relevant and asked for official examples, which Zain supplied.

This goes on and on, but you get the idea.


How is Jayjg still an administrator? How can any other admin see this and the dozens of other examples in his edit history and not ban him? How can Wikipedia function when there is such blatant suppression? Is anyone else willing to admit their outrage at this?


[edit] TheUnforgiven Comments

Yes.

User:Jayjg does this fascism to everybody against his singular maniacal will.

He thinks he is a demigod!

Special:Contributions/Jayjg [1]

TheUnforgiven 8 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

Re the request on my talk page. I'm not doing anything at the moment to this page, as it appears to be an editing conflict between you and another user, with others working constructively around this. I've put a note for the other administrators at WP:AN/I to get their opinions as I've got a feeling that if I do anything unilaterally on this one I'll be drawn in, which I don't want! You might also want to note that requests for protection are normally made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP). Thryduulf 16:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; you are one of the people who keeps this repository honest. --Zephram Stark 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey just a short note to you Zephram. I read through the terrorism talk page and I have to say that while you did come off a little brusque you never stepped over the line and became rude. Unfortunately your arguments with user:Smyth became so convoluted at times that they lost their point. Did you try putting up an example of how you envisaged the introduction and then offering to tweak it according to others' views? --Darxide 10:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Closer to the end of the Discussion page, in Introduction Dispute, I put some proposals for a new foundation on which to build. There are some other good, objective definitions of terrorism in Political Terrorism, State Terrorism, etc, that should be referred to. Perhaps a Disambiguate Page is in order with links to Unconventional Warfare, USA Act, Insurgency, Revolution, Violence, War on Terrorism, Political Terrorism, and State Terrorism, depending on which definition suits the user’s needs at any particular moment. The term has become so convoluted that it has lost its usefulness as part of the English language—-it no longer conveys information except to show that the user enjoys hearing his own rhetoric. Unfortunately, there is no other word that embodies the use of terror for political purposes, so we have to make terrorism viable again as a word of the English language if we are to talk about such things efficiently. I believe the first step in making "terrorism" useful as a word is to write a definition that assumes no innate pejoratives. --Zephram Stark 21:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Not an Enemy: A Response to Uncle Ed

In my edit history, Uncle Ed left me a little note: " 21:53, 7 September 2005 Ed Poor (not an enemy, unless that's how you want it) "

My response is: Wikipedia editors don't need friends in high places. We need a level playing field. The best article should rise to the top, not the one supported by the highest ranking official. If you want to help Wikipedia and her editors, demote administrators that use their power to unduly influence an article, and do it on their first offense. With greater power comes greater responsibility to stave off corruption. --Zephram Stark 21:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Examples in Just One Article Alone

If you need examples, I can name about a hundred, but so could almost anyone else I've talked with about the problem. You could start with Jayjg's blocking and reverting the articles of everyone who disagreed with him at terrorism. You could add his buddy, Jpgordon's, locking of the article in order to avoid the 3RR limit in reverts, which they would have reached, even with their blocking. If that's not enough, you could add SlimVirgin's conveniently forgetting to block anyone who viciously argued her side of the terrorism discussion, while blocking everyone, not already blocked by Jayjg, who argued against her agenda (9 in all, I believe, with legitimate IP service addresses all around the world). You could read in the discussion how all three of them dared anyone to come in and support me using their login accounts, and when they did, how they were immediately blocked and labeled "sockpuppets." You could look through Jayjg's User_talk to see the dozens of people he has done similar things to, but you would have to go to his edit history, because he deletes negative responses from his talk page. --Zephram Stark 21:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The United States Declaration of Independence

After completely erasing the article on Unalienable rights, and redirecting links from the Declaration of Independence to the weaker current meaning of Inalienable rights, the Brits had a heyday slamming the foundation of my country with criticism. I added a section in Support of the Declaration of Independence, but it was promptly deleted. Even though the Criticism section is now called Support and criticism, it is all slams, POV, and misinformation against the founding document of the United States. If you want to add some support, remove the blatantly untrue POV, or restore an older less-biased version, please be my guest. --Zephram Stark 19:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Zephram: If you are interested, I would like to discuss your views on natural rights and inalienable/unalienable rghts with you. What is the best way of doing this without cluttering up your user area?ElectricRay 23:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Bottom Line

The bottom line of any encyclopedia is the quality of the articles. If Wikipedia is bringing truth and knowledge to light, allowing us to use these words to more effectively convey information, the system is working. You decide if the system is working for Terrorism, Unalienable rights, or any of the articles that Jayjg guts and destroys.

Is the system working for Unalienable rights? The article has been deleted because it claimed that the U.S. founding fathers meant: RIGHTS THAT CANNOT BE ALIENATED. Instead, it redirects people from the U.S. Declaration of Independence to an article that says "inalienable rights has often been criticized for being largely groundless, since no explanation is given as to where these rights come from." Later it says, "...this argument can easily be criticized for being a non sequitur and an example of the naturalistic fallacy. The phrase 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' has been accused of being simply a more elegant version of 'Because we said so'."
Is everybody following along here? First they change the wording of the Declaration from "unalienable" to "inalienable." Then they show how "inalienable" is currently being used to mean: things that should not be taken because it is not 'good' to do so. Then they say that such a definition is a naturalistic fallacy. IT WOULDN'T BE IF THEY HADN'T CHANGED THE WORDS AND MEANINGS FIRST! The words of the Declaration of Independence mean exactly what they sound like. Unalienable rights refers to rights that cannot be alienated. Self-evident refers to things that you can obviously see for yourself, unless, of course, you have some ulterior motive.

Is the system working for Terrorism. Does the article convey any information at all? Can you use Terrorism in a sentence based on that definition? Terrorism has never been objectively defined at Wikipedia. The definition has always served to confuse more than inform. The system is not working. Truth and knowledge are being subverted. It should not take four years to define Terrorism. I can find a definition that is true and conveys information better than theirs in five seconds: Terror + ism = "the systematic use of intense fear." You can probably think of a definition better than that, and that's great as long as the article keeps getting better, but it's not! Some people have a reason to keep Terrorism from being defined, and those people are in positions of power here at Wikipedia. --Zephram Stark 19:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

.

Wikipedia will become a credible resource

when the system enables

the best articles to rise to the top,

while allowing definitions weighted

by loyalty and prejudice to sink.


If you'll agree to follow Wikipedia's rules on civility as part of a "level playing field" approach, you should find it quite simple to keep your user account in good standing. Moreover, you do need friends to work well at Wikipedia: specifically, friends at the articles you wish to collaborate on. We are not all equal here. Some writers actually know more than others, and most readers pick up on this distinction readily. Pretense that all writers are of equal ability or know just as much as everyone else is futile and ultimately counterproductive.
Please tell us something we don't know, about terrorism (or how to define it). And do it in a way that most readers will be able to recognize the validity of this. Or you won't make friends, won't influence people, and won't enjoy your time here. Uncle Ed 02:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


I appreciate your opinion, but Wikipedia will never be taken seriously unless superiority of the article, not the seniority of the editor, is the most important factor. You often reference the need for consensus on your User:Talk page, but none of the administrators I've met are interested in consensus. They don't have to consider what anyone else says. Editors who aren't administrators have no real influence on articles here. If an administrator doesn't like anything in the article, for any personal reason, it is wiped out, and there is absolutely nothing an editor can do about it. Your rules of civility amount to doing what the administrators say. Nothing but their personal bias guides their actions and they are accountable to no one.
Take a look at the attempt at consensus I started at Talk:Terrorism#Consensus_in_Action. The spirit of that section is what Wikipedia purports itself to be: consensus in action. But look at how much action there is in that real consensus—-absolutely none. People know that consensus doesn't mean jack squat at Wikipedia, so they don't even try. Kissing up to the most powerful admins is the only way to have any real influence on an article.
You can see examples of how degenerate the concept of consensus has become at Wikipedia everywhere you turn. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unalienable_rights. User:Septentrionalis calls out the expected results of her "consensus" at the top of the page. After that, it is just a formality to have her friends support whatever she wants without any knowledge of the issues or any acknowledgement of dissent.
Is this really what you want for Wikipedia? Do you think nobody will notice? Do you want people to laugh at this resource? I really don't understand why you would support this. A man with your obvious intelligence must realize that corruption like this will kill the project. --Zephram Stark 04:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration requested

Due to your behavior, I have requested arbitration against you. Please add your comments to the page. Carbonite | Talk 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't you get tired of shooting yourself in the foot? If you don't want people to call you on your corruption, stop being corrupt. It's that simple. Trying to kill the messenger won't do you any good because everything you do on Wikipedia is transparent. That's the beauty of it. Anyone who wants to see if your accusations have merit is going to come to the same conclusion that they did the last time: that your accusations of "sockpuppets" are unfounded, that you are the one disrupting the article on terrorism while I am actively trying to resolve differences, and that your ridiculous allegations fall squarely into the definition of idiocy. --Zephram Stark 16:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)