User talk:Zephram Stark

File:BushOppressed.gif

Archive1 - A Wikilynching

Unalienable Rights

File:HappyToPlease.gif

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)

That's easy. I just Archive all the boring crap so we can talk about something interesting. --Zephram Stark 23:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Okay here goes: You have posted elsewhere the following statements (I have cut down to the critical ones):

With the absence of government, social hierarchies instantly start forming. For example: Wikipedia. Social hierarchies that weren't supposed to be part of this project cannot help but form because of human nature.

• What is the fundamental aspect of human nature which causes social hierarchies to form?

We all want to control our destiny and the destiny of our society to the greatest extent possible. The social side of evolution requires us to do so.

• Evolutionary theory would say, to the contrary, that "the destiny of our society" is something that individuals will have no interest in whatsoever - all an individual is interested in is its own destiny, and the aggregated effect of individuals looking after number one will be greater complexity in design space (I would cite Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Susan Blackmore and of course Adam Smith, among others, as support for this - evolution is a classic "invsible hand" theory). It seems to me your assertion that "social" evolution requires the desire to control the destiny of society gernerally, contradicts mainstream evolutionary thought, and is difficult to justify. What's your basis for making this claim?

Survival of the fittest doesn't only apply to our physical beings, but also to our hopes, aspirations, and thoughts for society. The best ideas should rise to the top. When they don't, we know that the system is corrupt.

• on what basis (in the absence of a political system of laws which decrees a good and bad, better and best, can we ever judge what is a "best idea"? Indeed, according to mainstream evolutionary/memetic theory, isn't the better explanation that the ideas that rise to the top are the best ideas (in the sense of being most successful at replicating themselves in people's brains)?

To stem this corruption, we create organized systems of government designed to keep people from imposing undue influence on social ideas.

• from whence do we derive this value of "undueness"? Bear in mind "from the constitutive documents of that organised system of government" is not a satisfactory answer: to avoid begging the question, the ability to ascertain what is due and undue needs to exist in advance of the organised system of government whcih implements it, QED.

If it were possible to keep undue influence from occurring in any other way, we wouldn't need government at all.

• what if the notion of undue influence were shown to be meaningless? would we still need government then?

The potential corruption due to our competing desires to both maximize our personal life and work with others for the benefit of society leads us to put systems of information and tools of equality in place.

• how do we derive these "tools of equality"? Bear in mind that no-one, in 5000 years of trying (not Plato, not Aristotle, not Hume, not Mill, not Kant, not Marx, not Hobbes, not Locke, etc etc), has managed to set out a coherent account of how to organise and prioritise competing "moral" preferences. If they can't do it, how do we do it?

Interested in your thoughts. ElectricRay 22:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Undue

I agree that the word “undue” without any other explanation is a construct. It appears, from your questions, that I did not give the term enough explanation in context. Therefore, I would like to explain what I mean by the term. I hope that I will be able to convey two ways that the term “undue” in reference to social influence is meaningful.

Deception can be proven. If everyone agrees on the rules of a game, and someone cheats, that is undue influence on the game.

• You are attributing some sort of moral quality to that idea of "deception" - you must be - without it, what significance can "undueness" possibly have? But from whence do you derive this moral quality? This seems to be the gating problem of any moral analysis. This "moral quality" needs to exist in advance of any scheme of laws, prescriptions etc if it isn't to be wholly subject to those laws (ie, there's a turtles and elephants problem otherwise). I can't for the life of me see where that could come from, unless you accept the idea of moral truth or objectivity, at which point you really do have a turtles and elephants problem, because these can only be revealed by God (where else could they reside?). If that's what you think; fine - our discussion is done (we'll never convince each other of our positions, so it would be pointless). But I think you implied you're in the AI field, so I can't believe you'd believe in God. Assuming you don't, your starter for ten is "where do these moral truths reside in the universe, and how can I uncontroversially establish what they are? (having Moral Truths whcih you can't uncontroversially identify is like owning a car the whereabouts, model and colour of which you don't know - completely useless to you).

For example, editors might contribute to Wikipedia with the understanding that, as the original Esquire article put it [1], they are part of a “community which builds their articles from the ground up.” Reading through the Wikipedia guidelines, it’s pretty easy to see where the Esquire reporter got this idea.

• I haven't read the Esquirte piece but it seems to me it's a good idea. It's consistent with evolutionary thought, and it doesn't involve any appeal to morals. If you don't like the way people carry on, your option is to leave. There are competing projects (Encarta for example). Additionally, if enough people disagree with the "undue influencer", the "undue" effect will be counteracted.

Wikipedia purports itself to be a system of equals, specifically delineating that administrative power is not to be used to bias the content of edits.

• Again, i think you're making the assumption that "equality" is somehow imbued with some positive moral value. You need to explain your grounds for this belief.

Under these agreed rules, then, it would be deceptive for one to use his administrator power to influence the content of an article toward his point of view. To the extent that this deception can be proven, we can say that the administrator leveraged undue influence in a meaningful and objectively defined way. The rules of the game are a construct, but deviation from those rules is a matter of fact.

The second way that “undue” social influence can be tied to fact, not morals, is in regard to intelligence. Consider this postulate: “Intelligence is the ability to create objective reality from subjective constructs.” A tree has no intelligence because its reality is based solely on fact. An ant has limited intelligence because it implements marginal constructs. Wolves have a complex system of hierarchal authority that they recognize as reality, but humans are the most intelligent of all because very little of our reality is based on fact. If this postulate were true, the simple act of constraining one’s reality would make that person less intelligent. A creature without enough self-will to create actionable reality would cease to be considered human, or for that matter, even an intelligent being. Thus, it becomes impossible for one to relinquish his self-will and still be human. “Undue influence,” in this context, would the acts of one human trying to reduce the self-will of another human.

• This isn't very convincing. It sounds all very a priori and circular - and depends on your initial premise being correct. The notion of "objective reality", in particular, is highly problematic of itself, and I don't think (even if it weren't) that your definition has much to recommend it.

Objective Reality

At one point in our history, Euclidean geometry was considered to be the only mathematical reality because it was the only known geometry that was internally consistent, with truths, like the Pythagorean Theorem, that always worked regardless of placement, direction, or scale. Since then, hyperbolic and elliptic geometries have also been discovered, not because there is any physical evidence to support them, but because they are internally consistent, with their own set of unfailing truths that allow for everything that happens in those realities. As an artificial intelligence programmer, I am faced with the increasingly difficult task of producing an internally consistent reality for thinking machines. As these systems evolve, the truth of the postulate in the above paragraph becomes increasingly necessary to support internal consistency of the environment.

• that is only the case if you buy the notion of "objective reality" and the definition of intelligence that you've set out, though.

Intelligence cannot exist without freedom to pursue and incorporate subjective constructs into an implementable reality. Diversity of constructs can only exist in a social setting. Therefore, from an evolutionary standpoint, societies that fail to promote diversity of ideas would devolve intellectually. Indeed, I found that to be the case within the competing colonies of pseudo-intelligent processes in my raster-to-vector mapping program.

• Evolutionary theory says that individuals that behave in a way which is "more intelligent" will flourish, and therefore the society will tend to increase in its complexity and sophistication. The very point is that no-one needs to have "the increase in complexity and sophistication of society" as an end goal in order for this to happen - indeed if that were the case we would not be sitting here arguing about this, since the "individuals in a community" for 99.999% of the history of our existence have been single cell organisms and the like, who clearly have no capacity to act for the benefit of community. they don't even know they're acting in their own self interest.

I realize that I haven’t answered all of your questions yet, but we have to establish some accepted axioms on which to build. If you could tell me what parts of the above foundation need more explanation or different assumptions, it would help me know how to proceed. --Zephram Stark 07:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think your big problem is defeating Bentham's argument on natural rights, and at an even more basic level, moral objectivity. With no moral objectivity, no natural rights. If no natural rights, then any concepts of "undueness" (etc) are pretty much meaningless. ElectricRay 08:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Objective Morality

It sounds like you want to debate with someone who believes in objective morality. Since I’m quite sure that the term is an oxymoron, that person would not be me. I am not attributing any sort of moral quality to the idea of deception. Deception exists outside of any moral context as simply “use of an act to cause to believe what is not true.” Of course, you could then argue that there is no truth, but then the truth of your argument against truth would be untrue as well.

• Truth and objectivity: Well, I'm not sure about that. If that's all deception means, what is your particular problem with it? It's just a logical statement, like "red and yellow makes orange". You do seem to have a problem with it, which seems to have some sort of value-laden foundation. If it's purely subjective - ie, an expression of your own values, then why should anyone else care about it? Re "truth" - I don't think you can slip the shackles that easily. I don't have to argue that there is no truth, any more than I have to argue there's no god, no toothfairy, or no abominable snowman: your logical conundrum isn't really relevant. Do I take it from this that you do want to assert "truth"? - if you do (it seems like it), it's up to you to prove it: The onus of proof is on a person making an existential claim (else we'd have to argue about all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence whatsoever).

Evolution cares about one thing only, survival of the fittest.

• Evolution doesn't "care":I don't think you are correctly representing evolutionary theory here. Have you read Dan Dennett's book on evolution, or Richard Dawkins? The point is, evolution doesn't care about anything. It's an invisible hand account - "no strings attached" - you seem to be imputing some congnitive faculty. It doesn't have one.

Does intelligence make a species more fit? Ask the dinosaurs. They were a lot smarter than cockroaches, but they weren’t as fit to survive.

• Not sure I see your point. To the extent it has any content, it seems to contradict what you're saying.

Statistically, however, people are more likely to survive and propagate when they live in a society. Societies are more likely to survive and sustain people when the inhabitants give more than they take to the whole.

• Non sequitur? Is the second sentence somehow predicated on the first? I don't know what your statistical source for the first is, but your second is surely unfounded. since the time of Adam Smith people have recognised that the society which progresses fastest is one where people pay no attention to the greater good of the society, but pursue their own selfish interests. This is the original Invisible Hand theory. There is no evidence whatsoever for the contrary, and indeed a great deal of evidence against it.

Death

Rest assured that the overwhelming sense of death you feel when you no longer contribute to society is an evolutionary force.

• I don't know what you mean by this.

Thank your lucky stars for that (assuming you believe in lucky stars). Perhaps you have seen someone get demoted at work or a full-time mother send her last kid off to college. They often describe the feeling as "death" or "worse than death." The cog that they were in the great machinery of society is no longer needed. They were of tremendous benefit to society and they knew it, but now they are not. Without another social purpose to fill that void, depression becomes overwhelming and one might even consider Prozac. --Zephram Stark 20:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don’t have a fixation about God, as so many people apparently do on both sides of the issue. If God wants me to have a fixation about Him, I’m sure that He’ll tell me.

• Is this a god thing? Do you believe in God? I don't mean to ask personal questions - but if you do, I will move on. No point either of us wasting further of our precious time.

We live in exciting times, my friend. Before now, the only way to prove or disprove postulates about humanity was through the implementation of massive political change over long periods of time. In the United States, for instance, we are only now seeing the full detriment of what Jefferson predicted would be the effect of Hamilton’s federalist philosophies. With the exponential jumps demanded in artificial intelligence for Massively Multiplayer Online Environments, among other things, we now have the ability to prove elementary postulates through social simulations. Granted, the physical limitations of computer hardware are far from the quantum capabilities of human brains, but even with these limitations, many of the basic postulates of philosophers from Plato to Kurzweil can be fleshed out in simulation. In fact, it isn’t possible to create a believable environment without complex philosophical laws governing the actions of the simulated intelligences.

• Again, Darwin, Smith, et al would completely disagree with you here.

In creating a viable social system, internal consistency is the key.

• look mum, no hands! where does the idea come from that there is any need to create a viable social system, that viable social systems don't just arise by an algorithmic process? Isn't that exactly the lesson the internet - and wikipedia - teaches? There's no need for a creator.

Bentham

Bentham made some good observations, but he hardly delved deep enough to create anything implementable from his conclusions.

• Isn't that the point? Why does someting need to be 'implemented'? That implies an 'implementer',and universally applicable laws of 'implementation'. Even if it could be implemented, would it really work? Isn't the example of government regulation telling: a nice idea which generally ends up achieving precisely the opposite of what it intended to do?

It isn’t enough to know that people are motivated by pleasure and pain. We also have to know what things gives them pleasure and pain. We have to know what happens when these things conflict with each other and with the constructs of society. For instance, the most pleasure for the most people is hardly enough to create a stable government if those outside of the pleasure loop are motivated to blow stuff up.

• All of these assertions assume the need for a central, designed, implemented, societal superstructure. Where does this design come from? on what values is it based? Surely it must be designed according to some "rules of engagement" which (whether you like it or not) must have some sort of moral basis. Aren't you really a closet moral objectivist?

In concentrating on the personal manifestation of pleasure and pain, Bentham blinds himself to the possibility that being a contributor to society might be a fundamental requirement of humanity.

• Blinded Watchmaker?Again, onus of proof time: what Bentham says is if there are natural rights, someone needs to put up some evidence and rational explanation for them. I might be blinding myself to the suggestion that the moon is made of blue cheese, but that doesn't make it any more likely or plausible that it is.

From an evolutionary standpoint, social interaction is needed to perpetuate the species. Each member of society may take and give to the whole, but when more is taken than given, the society will fail.

• See comparative economics. Also, how can you reconcile this with evolution, which for the longest time was comprised of every organism taking as much as it possibly could from "society"? Didn't seem to do the ecosystem too much harm?

If you were to create a self-sustaining artificial intelligence society, then, it would be necessary to give each entity a desire to benefit society.

• You may think that, but there is good data which suggests it is simply not true. Robert Axelrod's "genetic prisoner's dilemma" experiment is pretty cogent evidence that interactive strategies which are most succesful are generally benevolent ones. That is, over time, malevolent strategies will tend to fail, or will evolve into co-operative ones.

Likewise, evolutionary forces would tend to favor characteristics that promoted environments conducive to propagation and survival.

• agree with this, but it is a much weaker statement than the first, and in many ways contradicts it. If this is the case, there is no need to "programme in" or "design" co-operation: it will happen anyway, algorithmically. In which case, no need for a central implementer.

Above all, an intelligence of any sort, even my little Sims, must have the ability to create a reality for themselves that they can implement. Only when they have the liberty to make their own choices, do they exhibit the type of intelligence needed to build their civilization. Therefore, the number one highest priority for my little Sims must be that nothing can be more important to them than their liberty. Otherwise, the naturally occurring social hierarchies use that element of greater importance to control the actions of each other to the point that the underlings lose their liberty permanently, and after a few generations, also their intelligence. --Zephram Stark 01:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• you're going from is to ought here. Don't think you can justify that (See Hume).ElectricRay 21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

God

The central theme of your arguments seems to be that there is no God because there is no proof of morality or His divine hand in anything. If that is the case, why bother even arguing about God? How is a non-existent God so threatening that he even bears discussion or thought? We build our reality from constructs. When we can, we try to keep those constructs in line with known facts. The idea of God is a productive construct for most people. The idea of an encyclopedia is another productive construct for most people. Is an encyclopedia true? Do these words have an existence outside of our context for them? An encyclopedia is as real as we believe it to be. Our words are only productive if we believe in the generally accepted meaning for them. Your public denial of God is more than personal opinion. It reduces the power that God has in our society. When you make a choice that potentially hurts our civilization, you have to ask yourself more than, “Is my statement true?” A responsible party will ask himself, “Do my actions strengthen or weaken our civilization?” If you were to confuse the meaning of “terrorism,” for instance, by saying that you heard someone use it in the context of “violence for evil purposes,” your statement would be true, but does that give us more or less ability to use that word to communicate distinct information? A human society cannot exist on truth alone. We also need to believe in constructs that we create.

If you have ever felt the deep spirituality that comes from praying, pledging allegiance to the flag, or cheering a football team to victory, you know with every fiber of your being that there is something outside of yourself—-something larger, of which you are a part. You can describe that overwhelming feeling of connectedness as a gift from a Creator, or you can say that we need a socially productive feeling to survive the rigors of Evolution, but I’m not aware of any other possibility. Are you? --Zephram Stark 19:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Or not to God

I find posting on a point by point basis - and responding as such - helps tease out individual lines of reasoning which otherwise get confused. In any case, this is your page, so I will do as you ask.

• Why bother argue about god? I would really rather not, as a matter of fact. I find it very tiresome. I wasn't trying to start an argument about god - I wanted to know whether you believe in it (confirmed - thanks) precisely so I could make the decision to stop discussing this with you.

• What I am interested in is understanding societal organisation, and pretty much every account I have come across assumes some form of natural rights or objective morality. I want to get to the bedrock of these - to understand whence they come (my hunch is that they don't come from anywhere, which is why every account is deficient). The only defences of natural rights inevitably reduce down to a belief in god. There are no remotely compelling arguments for the belief in god. If you want to believe in god, you go right ahead. I have no interest at all in arguing the toss with you about it.

• For the record, the answers to your question "have I ever felt the deep spirituality..." etc, in each case, is "no". "You know," said Arthur thoughtfully, "all this explains a lot of things. All through my life I've had this strange unaccountable feeling that something was going on in the world, something big, even sinister, and no one would tell me what it was." "No," said the old man, "that's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the Universe has that." (Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy)

Thanks for taking the time to correspond, all the same.ElectricRay 23:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Eleventh Dimension

I've been discussing social evidence of absolute truth with my friends and I've come to a conclusion that a professed disbelief in God may not be the best test for determining moral subjectivity. Allow me to illustrate with a personal story.

Many years ago, a friend of mine asked if I believed in the eleventh dimension. I'm sure that an eleventh dimension is an important part of reality for those who can implement something based on the concept, but I was not one of those people. I told my friend that the existence of an eleventh dimension was so unimportant to me that I hadn't bothered to form an opinion on the subject. He was appalled, and proceeded to explain to me exactly why the eleventh dimension was of paramount scientific importance and how its existence could not be denied. Soon, our online friends were also trying to convince me of the existence and importance of the eleventh dimension in our chat group. Apparently this angered those who thought the eleventh dimension was pure poppycock. I started receiving the emails and message board postings of experts from various different countries explaining the importance of not believing in the eleventh dimension. Now I'm sure that one, and only one, of these postulates is true: either the universe has eleven dimensions, or it does not, but why should I care? I'm not likely to be arguing extra-dimensional hyperbolic space with Stephen Hawking any time soon, and even if I were, I can't imagine what good would come of it. Requisitioning a considerable tract of my brain to wrap around consideration of an added dimension simply did not appeal to me, especially when the same gray matter could otherwise be used for something constructive. My friends and online acquaintances started feeling that they had to interpret their views for me. They didn't feel like they could assume certain axioms because those axioms were founded in either the belief or non-belief of the eleventh dimension. What both the believers and non-believers failed to realize is that I needed no translation. I could see their point of view. I could adopt their assumptions when communicating because I had no prejudice. Once I convinced my friends that I could communicate using their axioms, I became an insider to both realities.

It occurred to me that believers in the existence of the eleventh dimension and believers in the non-existence of the eleventh dimension were purporting perception as fact. Neither belief system could be proven via the scientific method, but each group asserted that their viewpoint was absolute truth based on its benefit and goodness to science and the human race. "Goodness" and "benefit" are moralistic arguments. Therefore, every person who took a side in the eleventh dimension argument tried to create some type of objective morality. Only those who could empathize with the members of both groups retained their moral subjectivity.

After many months of fighting, I'm pleased to say that my friends on both sides of the issue stopped seeing each other as Satan-incarnate. They got along, and in doing so, assumed certain axioms during the course of discussion that allowed for efficient communication. My happiest moment came when Steve, a member of the non-believers, understood the premise of eleventh dimensional space enough to make a unique suggestion that furthered the postulates of the believers' group. At that point, the issue was no longer about people; it was only about ideas.

I suggest to you that requiring a disbelief in God is fundamentally no different than requiring a belief in God. Instead, I propose that a true test of subjective morality is when one can profess a belief that no person in the history of the world has ever been evil. --Zephram Stark 01:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed drops in for a friendly visit

Glad to see you smiling again, Zephram. And thanks for your remark about "heart in the right place" in the arbcom discussion.

I hope you get a chance to work in your ideas about the meaning of "terrorism". How about writing Definitions of terrorism with me, to compare and contrast the various meanings of the term terrorism and how they shape the current debates (as over the "War on terrorism")? Uncle Ed 20:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I never stopped smiling since I got here. It's not often that you get to see evidence of Jeffersonian philosophy played out in such a short period of time. It sometimes takes years or even generations for natural law to overcome an usurpation of power, but here at Wikipedia, it took merely weeks. When Jimbo said that "there is something profoundly political about what we’re saying," I don't think that even he knew how true that statement was. I would be happy to help in any way that I can. --Zephram Stark 20:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If I was able to provide you with a personal example, I am happy to have served. Uncle Ed 21:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

From what I know of you and your motives, I can't think of anyone less susceptible to corruption. Therefore, your actions speak not about you, but of the system that nourishes such malfeasance. I want to do anything I can to change the hierarchical government that has sprouted here apparently in defiance of Wikipedia original intent. If even the purest of administrators cannot avoid corruption, imagine the kind of tyranny that others with lesser intent can wreak.

Actually, you don't have to imagine it. Evidence is available in the section below. It appears that it will take a little more than a few weeks to rid ourselves of tyrants. In the meantime, here's a passage from the Pulitzer Prize winning book "Founding Brothers" by Joseph J. Ellis, "Like Voltaire, Jefferson longed for the day when the last king would be strangled with the entrails of the last priest. The political landscape he saw in his mind's eye was littered with the dead bodies of despots and corrupt courtiers, a horizon swept clean of all institutions capable of coercing American citizens from pursuing their happiness as they saw fit. Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man captured the essence of his vision more fully than any other book of the age, depicting as it did a radical transformation of society once the last vestiges of feudalism were destroyed, and the emergence of a utopian world in which the essential discipline of government was internalized within the citizenry. The only legitimate form of government, in the end, was self-government."

I believe that a full implementation of Jefferson and Paine's shared vision was not technically possible at the time due to the existing hierarchy's ability to limit and distort communication. Below we see attempts to do the same here at Wikipedia. While I am restricted from defending myself and the article, Carbonite and Jayjg are having a field day distorting and confusing everything accomplished with the terrorism introduction while repudiating those who are trying to contribute. Now that we have the technology to exist purely by self-government, isn't it time that we implement it? --Zephram Stark 16:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

For personal attacks and ongoing disruption of multiple pages, you have been blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw the way you were making insinuations on an anonymous user on the talk terrorism page, Carbonite. Do you really think your insinuations are any less ugly than what you consider personal attacks? I think they are more so, and a good editor realizes POV is subjective, and then makes every effort at objectivity in his decision making.--EKBK 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Like I said to all the new editors whom you were trying to intimidate with this statement, "It seems like this talk page seems to draw lots of editors with fewer than 100 edits. The strange thing is that these editors all seem to agree with each other. Interesting...":

The Wikipedia social hierarchy is nothing but hot air. I have been bullied and beaten by these administrators, but I am still standing. As long as I am standing, you can know that Wikipedia is not completely corrupt. Zephram_Stark

Want to see something really sick?

The following is taken from User_talk:David_Gerard#Sockpuppet_check_request

Repeating (you might have missed this interspersed above): Could you try one more? Professor Stevens (talk • contribs), compare and contrast with Zephram Stark (talk • contribs) as above. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Could also take a look at EKBK (talk • contribs) in regards to Zephram Stark (talk • contribs). Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 15:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already blocked Professor Stevens. I'm minded to block EKBK too. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is the sockpuppet blocked but not Mr. Stark himself? --csloat 07:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: As of 23 Sep 2005, arbitration has been requested against Zephram Stark. One of his suspected sockpuppets EKBK (talk • contribs) has made a statement supporting Zephram. Carbonite | Talk 18:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


16 people have now been blocked

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .because they agreed with me.

So what about it, David Gerard? Are they my sockpuppets? Are any of the sixteen people who have been blocked, many of them permanently, my sockpuppets?

I have never created another Wikipedia login besides Zephram Stark, and I think everyone here knows it. To the Jayjg team, I say, "Railroading me is one thing, but in doing so, you have also railroaded sixteen other people. Their only crime was in disagreeing with your point of view." --Zephram Stark 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you didn't want them blocked, you shouldn't have invited them to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of acting as your flesh-puppet reverters. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that other people reading the article and responding to it is against Wikipedia policy? --Zephram Stark 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please reference the policy regarding meatpuppets. Specifically, it states "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community.". The policy also states that "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.". Carbonite | Talk 02:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Under the definition of being "brand-new" to an article with a blatant "single-purpose" of disrupting and intimidating other editors without contributing one bit to the article, it appears that you, Slimvirgin, and CSloat are the meatpuppets of Jayjg. As for me, I have no meatpuppets, and I think you know that.

Your actions speak for themselves, Carbonite. This is supposed to a community focused on one thing, the improvement of encyclopedia articles. Instead you and Jayjg's other puppets try to make it a hierarchy of control, where highly relevant and factual information is subverted because you don't want people to know about it. You disgust me. --Zephram Stark 15:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

US constitution

good for you on your recent attempt to straighten up the populo-baloney on the United States Constitution article. what's being stickled there is not NPOV, but rather the most popular (wrong) view. it's nice to see somebody clubbing the puffing conventiona-lites. you were correct in trying to lift the article out of the "here's how somebody lied about the obvious" dreck. the article should be primarily about what the constitution says, and it's hardly as unclear as the slurpreme court (etc.) worshipers need to pretend for their view of an obvious disaster to be somewhat comfy. modern constitutional analysis: "if it's being allowed, it's constitutional, so shovel crap any way you need to for 'alignment'." you are right. 65.129.201.20 10:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "terrorism" no longer has anything to do with "terror," the U.S. Declaration of Independence is a moralistic plea based on theological principles or naturalistic fallacy, and the U.S. Constitution doesn't limit legislative power to the legislative branch. Jeffersonian philosophy says that corruption like this shouldn't happen in a society of equals where content is king. Was Jefferson wrong or is Wikipedia actually a hierarchy of power masquerading as a level playing field? --Zephram Stark 16:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

i think you got it pretty much straight in your user page essay. wikipedia has a tough road ahead a few years from now, though likely it will be the world's most popular web site soon. the adminazis repel the best editors with their childish bossiness, and controversial subjects are sorted out more by bullheadedness than rationality. i'm done with it, except to monitor the destruction by pedants of articles i used to protect. 65.129.201.20 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Sometimes it seems anyone that can't be bought with percieved power is driven away. Keep in touch. — Zephram Stark 432-224-6991 zephramstark@yahoo.com

Email

Hey Zephram, how often do you check your email? I am thinking about dropping you a line, but didn't know if you would see it. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I check my email at least every other day, but I get all of that WikiEN-l stuff in it. If I don't respond immediately, just leave me a mail icon as a secret symbol that you've sent me something. --Zephram Stark 18:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

File:Royal Mail logo.gif

Sure thing. It might take some time to contruct my note. I'll let you know. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The deed is done. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy

Hi. Please discontinue your disruption of this page. If you would like to introduce a major change to the policy, please propose it on the talk page and establish some sort of consensus in its favor beforehand. Regards — Dan | Talk 02:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocks_may_be_used. This is not a change policy. This IS the policy. (See also Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Annotating_the_reason_for_blocking) --Zephram Stark 03:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If the policy has changed to "Whatever rules the administrators want to make up," it would be nice to let people know, instead of having a set of enumerated objective rules that administrators don't even try to follow. --Zephram Stark 21:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mr. Stark. You can count me to "watch your back" anytime in return. I wouldn't be surprised if I was on the wrong end of Redwolf24's or Essjay's artitrary blocks soon.Shelburne Kismaayo 03:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations on Talk:George W. Bush

Hi there. I'm taking this discussion to our user talk pages because Talk:George W. Bush is for working on our encyclopedia article about GWB, not personal bickering.

Anyway, if you take offense at being called a troll, I understand. I said so on Talk:George W. Bush based on what I saw on that page and elsewhere on the wiki. In particular, it seemed obvious to me that the discussion you started served only to stir up acrimonious debate just for the hell of it. Still, I apologize for any hurt feelings.

That said, the accusations you made against me are, to be frank, too bizarre to take seriously. Can you name one instance where I tried to "suppress" good-faith discussion about Bush? You seem to be claiming that I'm trying to enforce a pro-Bush bias, an allegation that a quick look at my user page should easily dispel. No, the only thing I oppose here is acting like a dick in a public forum, and setting off a needless, acrimonious flame war. No, I'm not here to "control content". I'm here to write an encyclopedia. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 23:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I just meant that you placed that "ignore the troll" thing there that stopped the voting about George Bush. I haven't looked at any of your other stuff. It was kind of funny timing, you have to admit, because discussion was done and we were just voting. It kind of looked like you were trying to sway the vote. If that was your intent, you certainly succeeded. Apparently nobody wanted to labeled a troll. --Zephram Stark 01:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that was the last thing on my mind. I wasn't even thinking about the poll when I made my edits. In the time I've been on WP, I"ve found most polls don't get much response, so I wouldn't take it too personally. People here aren't usually willing to participate in polls unless they're clearly the only way to solve a dispute. For more information, check out Don't vote on everything and Polls are evil on Meta Wiki, and VotingIsEvil on MeatballWiki. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 06:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that polls are no good for solving a dispute. I believe in unanimous consensus, which certainly can't be achieved in a poll. However, polls are often useful to draw more people into a conversation. When a few powerful speakers are dominating the conversation, meeker editors might want to say something, but are afraid of being slammed. With an open invitation to speak their mind, if only with one word of Agree or Disagree, we can start getting insight from these valuable resources. Of course, your immediate implication that anyone responding would be a troll destroyed any chance of drawing these meeker editors out of their shell. --Zephram Stark 12:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPET!

I once again re-iterate, and thank you Zephram Stark for trying to draw attention to this FACT! I have broken no rules, and Slim Virgin said she would unblock me if I stayed off the the Terrorism talk page and your pages. I said I don't need a babysitter, and even though I have little interest in going on those pages, when I do have a comment I shouldn't be barred from the same user rights everyone here is entitled to. --EKBK 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I know that you're not my sockpuppet. That's for sure, and that's what Slim accused you of. I'm glad to see someone finally did the right thing and unblocked you. I wouldn't bother giving in to SlimVirgin's demands to stay out of any particular articles, however. Wikipedia is too transparent for her to get away with threats like that. --Zephram Stark 19:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody unblocked me, I simply didn't log in. I want to be unblocked and my user page unprotected. I wasn't even able to answer there after this happened. Dante tried to help me too, and got nowhere. I'm not asking for anything more than the same rights every other user here has. --EKBK 20:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You are in violation of the 3RR on Inalienable rights. I have reported your activity at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Have a nice day. --JW1805 03:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Very funny. You know there is blatant original research on that page. Are you so corrupt that you would rather have a bad article as long as you can railroad me? --Zephram Stark 03:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on [[3rr violation on Inalienable rights. When you return, please stop edit-warring. -Splash^talk 03:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)