User talk:Peter McConaughey

Welcome to my talk page I use this page to discuss current issues, and I delete sections when they are complete. If I have deleted a discussion to which you would like to add something, please feel free to restore that section from the edit history. File:Caduceus.gif

File:PeterWithoutGlasses.jpg Important message from Peter As you can see, User:Carbonite has blanked my user page, accused me of being a "sockpuppet," and blocked me infinitely from editing anything but my talk page. Don't expect to ever see any direct evidence of his allegation because there isn't any. The strongest case Carbonite can make is that there are a handful of articles that both I and this other editor edited out of our thousands of contributions. If you want to see Carbonite's motivation for doing this, read Wikipedia_talk:User_Bill_of_Rights Most of the bias we now see in articles comes from administrators and "connected" editors using their power and influence to introduce controversial, unverifiable conclusions and original research. Here's a couple of recent examples out of literally hundreds I have seen and/or dealt with: Founding of the World Islamic Front - User:Commodore Sloat added the uncited claim to the article that "Terrorism experts consider the World Islamic Front Statement to be the founding document of the organization." Since I had seen no evidence of this, I asked Commodore Sloat to cite the reference. This started a half dozen pages of him refusing and me insisting that controversial content be verifiable. He accused me of not being as knowledgeable as him, of being a trouble maker, and even of secretly being someone with whom he previously had problems. The commodore went so far as to log some complaint on one of the Cabal boards and collude with Lord Voldemort to frame me for something someone else did (calling me a "sock puppet," which gave User:Carbonite his idea). Finally, Sloat changed his story to say that the statement was really only the first document of the WIF, not the document that started the WIF, so I changed the article to reflect that. My question about this incident is, would all of this drama have been necessary if Commodore Sloat didn't think he could use the Cabal to intimidate me? Criticism of the US Declaration of Independence - This section has been tagged for cleanup of its uncited allegations for months, but nobody can clean it up because there are no references to cite. It is almost pure original research. It's like a little essay that some American-hater spewed while high on gas fumes, but the little hoard of POV pushers at that article guard the essay with their lives. Looking through the history of the article, you can even see where they have used their influence to cause trouble for editors who have pushed too hard to make the criticism more neutral. Assuming good faith when I arrived, but finding the section one of the most biased I've seen, I made it easy for the editors to fill in the blanks by putting {fact} tags where citations were needed[1]. User:Nikodemos immediately deleted all of the citation requests[2] saying that they were unsightly. So, if we can't delete the section, we can't cite the section, we can't modify the section to be NPOV, and we can't even identify the places where information needs to be cited, is the article just supposed to sit forever with an {Unreferenced} tag on it? More importantly, if the people protecting the article weren't able to use their administrative and influential powers at Wikipedia to protect the original research, would it have been fixed a long time ago? Try fixing it and see what happens. I go through this crap every day. Bringing a neutral point of view to an article that everyone can agree with is easy, in every instance, unless the content has become the pet project of an influential administrator or one of the loyal members of the Cabal. In those cases, they will throw everything they have at me to protect their POV. After I successfully restored two of User:Carbonite's hijackings (note who starts the failed AfD, then the article disappears, then the article is hijacked, now watch User:Carbonite try to do the same thing to WP:0RR), User:Carbonite made it personal and is now doing everything he can to punish me for pointing out the obvious, including blanking my user page, indefinitely blocking me, and complaining to his "loyal friends" about made up charges. Let's face it. Top-down policing results in biased content and bad articles. It doesn't work, and it never has throughout history. Any successful social venture must have a balance of power to enable members to police themselves. Otherwise, we get people like User:Carbonite with no easy way to reign in their abuse of power and POV content control.

Conspiracy theory

Hello Peter, I agree and could use your assistance on Talk:Conspiracy theory to help convince our fellow wikipedians that we need a definition that sufficiently disassociates and clearly explains how the phrase's discrediting works. Currently, I am pretty much the only one advocating radically changing the definition or signifying the foundation of the phrase's discrediting potential. zen master T 04:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that there was also a proposed project to change the names of articles that used "Conspiracy theories" in the title to a more neutral point of view. There are two ways of looking at this, and I think they should both be represented. One is that the current use of the term is almost always used in a derogatory sense and therefore cannot be NPOV. The other way to look at it is that terms should mean exactly what they say, even if they have been used in a derogatory sense to change their meanings. --Peter McConaughey 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but I think the phrase is perhaps tainted beyond repair given the genre/derogatory sense. If the "conspiracy theory" ostensibly dubious genre still exists it makes it way to easy to discredit something by structuring language to use it in a discrediting or de-advocating sense. Even though I think I know how "conspiracy theory"'s disrediting works I would read someone else saying "This theory is a conspiracy theory!" as implying dubiousness (though I could then fault that person for using confusing language apparently to trick people). I have done a first attempt at fixing the Conspiracy theory intro/definitions/meanings, let me know either way. Additionally, I think we should mention the possibility the "conspiracy theory" genre is disinformation in the intro somewhere with more details below. zen master T 05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Peter, the intro you came up with on Conspiracy theory is great and thanks for taking a look at it. I may be confused or misunderstand but I don't think "...and that it presents only the facts and factoids that support its case" is accurate, are people that use it pejoratively really arguing "theory X presents the issue one-sidedly", I interpret them to be subtly saying "theory X is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of serious consideration". Also, did you catch my check in comment about the word "term" which seems to imply the phrase is an adjective or is descriptive (perhaps illegitimately)? I suppose "conspiracy theory" is a term but that just doesn't seem 100% neutral to me, but your version is still 100 times better than anything I came up with, thanks again. zen master T 05:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. Several people have tweaked it since and I agreed all of their updates except "sometimes" instead of "often." "Sometimes" is still within my tolerance level, but I honestly think that most people use the term pejoratively, thus making "often" more fit. However, I will consent to the will of the majority on that.

I don't think anyone is trying to say "theory X is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of serious consideration." If someone said that to me, it would peak my interest in theory X. Whenever I ask someone why they consider something to be a "conspiracy theory," it boils down to arguments of POV or ignorance.

Your case against use of "conspiracy theory" as part of a title is a no-brainer. You don't have to argue that "conspiracy theory" is not a term in order to win your title argument. You merely have to appeal to common sense. Wikipedia must be NPOV in order to be credible. Calling something a "conspiracy theory" in the title is obviously making a biased statement about the subject. Nothing more needs to be said about it. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that calling something untrue or doubtful where there is no proof either way, is POV. These editors aren't so stupid that they don't get it. You don't have to keep explaining it to them. They know very well that they are violating Wikipedia policy by placing POV in the title and they think they can get away with it. To get away with it, they merely have to get you so riled up that you break Wikipedia rules. Will their strategy work? That is entirely up to you. Patience and the assumption that most editors are here on good faith will win the day. --Peter McConaughey 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the current intro doesn't directly mention the "narrative genre" at all so it's kind of hard to disassociate things when an incomplete and needlessly commingled definition is present. My point is: discrediting usage of "conspiracy theory" is effectively saying "theory X is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of serious consideration" at a very subtle subconscious language level. If the counter critic of a theory is successful in getting you to unquestioningly accept their categorization of the theory as an "ostensibly dubious story" instead of as a scientific allegation it eases discrediting (you won't even examine the allegation expecting facts, evidence and a logical argument). Given the fact that numerous wikipedia articles titled with "conspiracy theory" currently exist are you saying wikipedia editors lack common sense, or they know they are POV pushers? I am afraid I don't buy your "them" vs "us" dichotomy, the new majority seems to think it knows exactly what it is doing and also seems to want to preserve the charade. Though, having said all that, I am open to any assumed-good-faith suggestions and assistance you have to offer for going about fixing "conspiracy theory" generally. zen master T 22:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears from your comments in Conspiracy theory talk that you adamantly believe that "Conspiracy theory" should not be added to the names of arguments in their title. Your adamancy on this topic leaves little doubt that you consider your stance to be an absolute truth. You are no longer considering other viewpoints because your mind is made up. At this point, your only objective seems to be of convincing others of the truth. Yet, other people can't seem to see it. Why is that? There are only four possible explanations:

1. You are incorrect. (Given the fairly obvious evidence, I don't think is the case.)
2. You haven't explained the evidence in enough detail. (Given that your explanation runs for volumes, I think it's safe to discount this possibility as well.)
3. The people you are explaining it to are dense. (Given the brilliance of their articles, this theory seems absurd.)
4. Those that oppose you are promoting interests contrary to what they belie. (Even though this explanation is hard to imagine, it's the only one left. If you discount the other options, you must allow that this small, powerful group is conspiring to discredit these articles.) --Peter McConaughey 00:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In number 4 do you mean "those that oppose you are intentionally using 'conspiracy theory' to cover up certain subjects"? I "imagine" that quite often and easily. What is odd then is why there are seemingly less and less people openly opposing those that do that. Though in an opposite way, it seems very odd that Slim, Willmcw, and Jayjg and others do not revert the current intro of "conspiracy theory" -- eventhough the definition is incomplete the current intro does a very good job of indicating how the phrase discredits (maybe they have yet to notice?). I remain skeptical and surprised by all this in equal measure. zen master T 00:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I imagine that most people stay out of it because claiming that there is a conspiracy theory over the definition of conspiracy theory sounds kind of silly. --Peter McConaughey 00:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't your #4 above a conspiracy theory to use "conspiracy theory" to discredit? If someone is consciously using the confusing language of "conspiracy theory" to discredit surely they would also want to defend and keep hidden the mechanics of that language confusion? zen master T 01:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Peter, it my interpretation the intro of Conspiracy theory has suffered a significant neutrality setback, but your interpretation is your own, please help us resolve this dispute. zen master T 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

American Terrorism

Please stop reverting this article. The American Terrorism article was not deleted; it was moved to Terrorism by United States of America. Please contribute to that article if you'd like. Restoring the American Terrorism article through cut-and-paste is actually a violation of the GFDL because the edit history no longer exists there. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Carbonite | Talk 15:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"American terrorism" is documented and cited as a widely used term. There was no consensus to delete, rename, or redirect that article. It is against Wikipedia policy to make up neologisms like Terrorism by United States of America. It is also against Wikipedia policy to delete, rename, and redirect articles without consensus. I will not give my "cooperation" to people who are violating Wikipedia policy. --Peter McConaughey 15:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The place to dicuss moving the article back would be Talk:Terrorism by United States of America. What absolutely can not be done is to have the old article exist at a location (American Terrorism) without edit history, because the GFDL requires us to attribute edits. Again, please note that the article was not deleted. Carbonite | Talk 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Talk:Terrorism by United States of America is a joke. You made up that neologism and I will not support it. You renamed "American Terrorism" to your made-up neologism and then changed the definition, essentially deleting the original article. You can claim that you didn't delete it, but the effect is the same. Do you think people are so dense that they can't see what you're doing? People like you who ignore consensus, force their will on others, and justify their actions through misdirection, are the reason that Wikipedia fails to live up to its potential. --Peter McConaughey 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down for a second. I didn't create the article or the talk page. I didn't rename the article. I didn't delete or move the article. I did remove the vast majority of POV and original research that made the previous version quite unacceptable. In fact, the previous version of the article was essentially created to prove a point. Before you start ranting, at least get your facts straight. Carbonite | Talk 15:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The straight fact is that you helped hijack an article without consensus. Politically correct or not, the term "American terrorism" is widely used to mean terrorism perpetrated by Americans. The "descriptive sentence" that you and your cohorts made up is not used by anyone to mean anything except as misdirection to hide the fact that Wikipedia rules were broken, that an article was effectively deleted without consensus. --Peter McConaughey 15:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Have to agree here -- this is all looking very high-handed. Was the article kept or not? Do I get to redirect any article that survives an AfD, literally minutes after the vote is concluded? What possible "consensus' could there be for such a move? Please clarify, Carbonite. BrandonYusufToropov 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following you here, Brandon. This seems rather straightforward. The article wasn't deleted. A majority of editors favored outright deletion, but consensus wasn't reached. By default, the article was kept. The article was moved to a new title (not by me), with the history 100% intact. It was restarted as a stub (by me) and is looking like a real article now, only hours after the AfD closed. That's great progress as far as I'm concerned.

Do you think an article should be moved to a new title without consensus? --Peter McConaughey 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I know it is annoying when they (admins) move articles suddenly. Still at least they did not delete it. It happened to me with a page i had just made and then he copyviod it, and i did not know that i had to give the url of the legitimate source do it got deleted.Dolive21 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Before joining, I read quite a lot about the setup of this website. According to what I read, the administrators are only here to make things go smoothly. They aren't our bosses, at least from what the policies say. I though that someone was just being heavy handed at "American terrorism," but you seem to be saying that this sort of thing happens all the time. If that's the case, I had better apply to be an administrator to keep people from taking advantage of me. --Peter McConaughey 21:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree with the title change, you're certainly encouraged to discuss this at Talk:Terrorism by United States of America. However, I don't appreciate the tone taken by Peter and I'm quite surprised that you're agree with him. Carbonite | Talk 19:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Would a tone more respectful of your position be agreeable? --Peter McConaughey 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Peter: Re: Chaosfeary, please e-mail me at your convenience at yusuf.toropov@gmail.com. BrandonYusufToropov 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think everything should be above board and where people can see it. I don't agree with editors reaching conclusions about other editors behind closed doors. For that reason, I don't list my email and I don't write other editors. The paranoia is bad enough around here without also adding an element of secrecy. --Peter McConaughey 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I hear what you're saying, and certainly respect your position. Above board, then: Certain editors are best compared to a bad skin rash. Unfortunately, there's very little admins are actually willing to do to stop them, even when the sockpuppetry and vandalism are painfully obvious. People like you and me are left to deal with their duplicity on a practical level, and we are often targeted for expressing views forthrightly. Short message: Don't expect much to change, but do keep in touch. I'll file the 3RR thing if you want. BrandonYusufToropov 22:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your working with me on this. I don't consider Chaosfeary to be akin to a skin rash, but I do think it is all of our jobs to keep each other in line. Everybody wants to rule the world, but we don't want anyone else to rule it. Chaosfeary is testing his boundaries and it is our job to let him know that they aren't any bigger than that of anyone else. After he figures that out, I think he will be a positive force at Wikipedia. Thanks again for taking the time to help this process. --Peter McConaughey 22:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

K.D.

What a sad, romantic story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. I didn't know if condensing thirteen volumes of journals down to a few paragraphs would get any of the feeling across. --Peter McConaughey 20:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

American or US terrorism

G'day Peter,

I've taken a look at the issues with the page names. It looks like the page was originally at American terrorism, then after just barely scraping through AfD it was renamed Terrorism by United States of America. At which point you objected to the new title, and started a duplicate article at the old location. Am I close?

Okay, there's two things to bear in mind. First of all, the article has not been deleted. It still exists. It's even possible to move it back, although a little more difficult and needing admin help. Secondly, any duplicate – or duplicate-sounding – content will be and should be merged into the original article; hence, the redirect. Rather than try to create a second article that attempts to say the same thing as the original, you're better off trying to convince people through rational and calm argument that the article should be moved back. Heck, if you can manage that, I'll move it myself. What's not a good idea is you and User:Chaosfeary constantly attempting to undo one-anothers' edits.

Happy editing, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. When a crime has been committed, the last thing you want is for the perpetrators to benefit from the crime. The most important action to be taken is that of restoring the damage that was done through the use of illegal activity. In a civil society, concerns of punishment are secondary to that of fixing the problem.

In this case, User:Chaosfeary has been punished with a 72 hour block that could become indefinite, but the damage he did has not been reversed. By punishing the user while allowing the crime to continue, we are telling editors that they can ignore the rules at Wikipedia in any heavy handed way they want and that, even if they are caught, the results of their criminal activity will remain.

In this case, we can undo the damage simply by restoring the "American terrorism" article. The article needs a great deal of work, of which I am happy to oblige, but the term "American terrorism" definitely exists in usage and has nothing to do with the made-up "umbrella term" "Terrorism by the United States of America" --Peter McConaughey 15:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter, I don't know the details of this dispute, but I just read your post (I was the admin who blocked Chaosfeary, so I was interested to read what you were saying about it), and I think I have to take issue with your view that the term "American terrorism" exists in usage. I've been unable to find any neutral, reputable source who has used the term. If you google it, many of the references are to sentences like "American terrorism study," meaning a study of terrorism by America. The sources that use the term the way you want to use it are highly partisan. We can't start naming articles the way Fisk and Chomsky might prefer. Also, usage of the term "terrorism" is increasingly frowned upon, especially in titles. Palestinian terrorism was changed not long ago to Palestinian political violence in order to avoid the stigma and loaded nature of the word "terrorism." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, you may have missed this on the AfD, but there are many many many references like those offered below. It is manifestly mainstream, and far better sourced on this front than many other comparable WP articles.

Examples of published mainstream use of this term, in this context

War on Terrorism and the Terror of God

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

by Lee Griffith - 2004 - 399 pages

Page 81 - ... Walzer's description of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as American terrorism cannot be dismissed as the rantings of a pacifist. ... [[3]]

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism

HarperCollins

by Sean Hannity - 2004 - 352 pages

Page 166 - ... militarist leaning' in the US media, and what he described as the history of American terrorism in Nicaragua, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina, ... [[4]]

Race Matters

Beacon Press

by Cornel West - 2001 - 144 pages

Page vii - 'The unique combination of American terrorism—Jim Crow and lynching—as well as American barbarism—slave trade and slave labor—bears witness to the ... [[5]]

Increasing use in news media too:[San Diego Tribune]. BrandonYusufToropov

Even if you are dead set against the existence of the article, I think you would agree that it should be deleted through an AfD, not through renaming and redirection without consensus, as was done by Chaosfeary. --Peter McConaughey 15:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey hey

Sorry, I got annoyed and left yesterday before you left that message. I think it's too late now to file a complaint. Sorry! --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. User:Chaosfeary has been blocked for 72 hours. Now we merely have to undo the damage. --Peter McConaughey 15:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL

If that comment about becomin an admin was directed at me ... well, let's just say I pretty well shot down any chances of that long ago. This place is a bureaucracy like any other, and I'm too $%^&* blunt with bureaucrats about things to make nice to win any support for that job. (I lost a vote a while back, and things have only gotten more polarized since then.)

You, on the other hand, are direct and relatively polite when p****d off about manifest trollery, so I think I'd be more inclined to nominate you at a suitable time. Interested? (BTW, if you are, don't self-nom, it doesn't look great if things don't fly and you want to try again later.) BrandonYusufToropov 13:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not be interested in becoming an admin to balance the POV of the other side. However, I would be interested from the standpoint of maintaining neutrality of articles and fairness for all members.

Thank you for your generous offer. Let me know when you think the time is right. --Peter McConaughey 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should revisit this after final resolution of outstanding questions at American terrorism. And you're right, the whole point is to maintain neutrality and fairness. That's why I voted for User:Ramallite and it's why I would be proud to nominate and vote for you. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 15:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

September 11th

I've restored the graf as clearly superior to the blatantly biased graf. Assertions that the graf is worse than the previous version display bad faith bording on outright dishonesty. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 22:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I added an NPOV section tag instead. Let's talk about this in the discussion area. Your points are correct, but your methods are not encyclopedic. --Peter McConaughey 22:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, and your accusations are complete garbage - I have stated facts - Bush claims the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. The DoD tracks it separately and it was authorized under a separate vote from the congress. What people think of those facts is up to them, but, as noted, critics claim Bush's statements are ridiculous. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 17:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that my reversion of your contribution was a personal attack. I realize that it can feel that way. I agree with your information, but the format has to be different in order to be included in Wikipedia. An encyclopedia entry is stated as information, not as an argument. An encyclopedia entry is assertive, not aggressive. An opinion is considered only as strong as the source. Of course you consider yourself to be a strong source. In your mind, people only need to fact-check assertions by seeing that you said it, but those who don't know you might want to draw their own conclusions. They might want sources to the information that you used to draw your conclusions. I personally know that you are right because I have researched it extensively myself, but most people reading your conclusion will not have researched it. They want proof in the most concise form possible, not unsubstantiated assertions. --Peter McConaughey 18:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

In case you don't have it on your watchlist, I've removed the proposals section you've written, as I don't believe it should be part of the article. It could be part of something else, but not an encyclopedia article. (Followups to the the article talk page.) JRM · Talk 18:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you know as well as I that the entire article is against WP:Point. It was written to lead the reader to one conclusion: that Wikipedia should be run as a despotic system. Anything that gives a viable alternative to that extreme POV is deleted, but the WP:Point article itself remains. Welcome to the cabal. --Peter McConaughey 19:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it, in full unawareness of any past deletions that may have occurred (were there?). I'm not a cabal, I'm one person, and I'm happy to defend my own decisions, and reverse them when necessary. The section you added was deleted not on grounds of offending some cabal, but on grounds of being an essay.

I'd be the last person to claim that article is a bed of roses. It's got more problems than my dog has fleas. That said, buying your dog a collar is easier than editing an article that's mired in Wikipedia's own culture. Be that as it may, adding your own views to an essay-like piece to provide balance is still not encyclopedic.

This article is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. That's something else entirely. You can argue that this article violates NPOV, and you're free to raise the neutrality issues on the talk page. A lot of things in there are completely unsourced and may very well be impossible to source without running afoul of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, but I won't say it's impossible.

I've been shouting for months now that we need to rewrite this thing, but the task looks big and terribly ungrateful, so I've been shirking away from it. If you want to help improve it, please. You're very welcome. Tear the thing apart on the talk page, demand sources for statements, whatever. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and two wrongs don't make a right. Do the right thing. Also see the comments I made on the deletion debate. JRM · Talk 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say that "this article is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point," is your contention that it is not disrupting Wikipedia, or that it is not illustrating a point? --Peter McConaughey 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Both. You want WP:WWIN and WP:NPOV for articles. WP:POINT applies to actions undertaken by individuals. JRM · Talk 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There, I just changed it so that it applies to cabals as well. --Peter McConaughey 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Very helpful. I'll just wait for someone else to revert that, since I wouldn't want to look partial or anything. I'm sure anyone who comes across it will be able to exercise common sense and recognize it for what it is. JRM · Talk 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone using common sense would see how it fits, but I agree that the cabal is probably on the way. --Peter McConaughey 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, right on schedule. Carbonite reverted it with the following comment: "groups are made up of individuals, thus if all individuals in a group follow the policy, the group follows it" --Peter McConaughey 04:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and two wrongs don't make a right," how did you make the choice about which self-referencing "wrong" to delete? --Peter McConaughey 20:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's easy. Delete that which is not verifiable, delete that which is written as an essay, reword and source that which is not neutral, and above all collaborate with others in doing it. I already said why I deleted your section. If you have problems with what remains, state them on the talk page. If you believe that what you wrote was not inappropriate per our article guidelines, also state that on the talk page. If you believe I was totally baseless in removing what you wrote and brighter minds should judge, reinsert it. I will not revert, per the 1RR. JRM · Talk 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Delete that which is not verifiable, delete that which is written as an essay" - Thanks for the invitation. ...don't mind if I do. --Peter McConaughey 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I bet I forgot to mention that common sense, while not policy, is still a good idea as well, right? But I'm sure you wouldn't undertake anything too radical, like blanking the article. Oh, and don't forget that if it's not verifiable, a good idea is to move it to the talk page and demand sources, rather than outright removing it. JRM · Talk 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like someone should take his own advice. --Peter McConaughey 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Unverifiable statements and essays are different things. But, for the hundredth time, this is what we have talk pages for. You don't need to convince me what you wrote was not an essay and does belong in the article. I am no more an authority than anyone else. If you are want me to apologize because I ruthlessly removed what you wrote rather than trying harder to find some way to keep it in, no problem. I honestly wish I discussed it with your first, and I'm honestly sorry I didn't. JRM · Talk 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's mighty big of you, but unfortunately, I can't revert it because I'm a member of the WP:0RR. --Peter McConaughey 04:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, a noble initiative indeed. I'm pretty certain that's irreconcilable with WP:BB, though. JRM · Talk 04:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say, "I'm not a cabal, I'm one person," and "I deleted it," is that different than the way any member of a management cabal would delete things? --Peter McConaughey 20:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Do the members of the management cabal generally engage in open discussion? Do non-members of the cabal delete things in a different way? JRM · Talk 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that the WP:1RR sounds like a very non-cabal thing to do. --Peter McConaughey 21:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If you were hoping to get in a good old revert war, I'm afraid I don't swing that way. JRM · Talk 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You can always spot a cabal member by the way he preaches what he doesn't practice. --Peter McConaughey 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You're being antagonistic because you disagree with my actions and the way I justify them, which is your good right. This back-and-forth personal sniping serves no purpose, however.

Since you seem unwilling to engage in any editing to make this thing go anywhere, I'll start by reverting my removal and highlighting the problem with your addition on the talk page. I'd like to point out someone else expressed doubts before me. JRM · Talk 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks JRM, I think it's best that we bring up solutions as well as problems. For instance, in this NYTimes article, not only are problems brought up, but Jimbo also has some interesting solutions that are worth talking about. --Peter McConaughey 04:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Solutions which have been very long in the making, at least as far as the idea of reviewing goes. Wikipedia 1.0 was the first conception of that, I believe. JRM · Talk 04:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

9/11

This belongs more on an individual talk page than on article talk. If you advocate NPOV terms I'd suggest substituting service members for servicemen. I joined the Navy because, as a woman, it was the branch that let me get closest to the action. I wore three rows of ribbons by the time I returned to civilian life. Durova 22:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll make the change. --Peter McConaughey 03:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I abhor the barnstar thing but were you (and your cabal) to stop preserving NPOV here then WP would be a much worse place. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 09:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Vote

Image:BoycottWikipedia.jpg Please vote to keep my image on Wikipedia. You may voice your opinion on whether or not to have the image deleted at [Dec 10th images]. I also wanted to let you know that it looks like my WBC personal subpage will remain on Wikipedia.--JuanMuslim ^1m 22:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Impressed

Hi Peter, I'm impressed by your remark about civilisations going down the drain because the meaning of words is messed with so that a term supposedly doesn't mean anymmore what it says. What was it based on, or were you just exaggerating to make a point? Harald88 22:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Every great civilization has a Noah Webster, who expanded American vocabulary by over 20,000 distinctly different terms, or Shakespeare, who used 29,066 different words in his plays. The works of Webster and Shakespeare give us terms to efficiently convey and combine complex ideas. The movie Writers on the Borders shows, first hand, what happens when ideas and concepts have no method of conveyance. In Palestine, language has been perverted to where each word means several different things and most of those meanings are pejorative or complimentary. Even terms that referred to distinct periods of history were confused with subjective connotations of good or evil. As a result, those who had a definitive language, who were able to coordinate and express ideas, were easily able to control and manipulate the much larger pre-1948 Palestinian population. While Muslims like to blame the effective exile of 84% of the Palestinian population on help by the United States, our arms sales have very little to do with it. The truth is that Palestinians enabled a physically weaker Israel to take over by failing to keep their language pure.

Over the past few decades, we have seen this "Hollywoodization" of language affect our ability to communicate in the United States as well. Thousands of words that used to convey distinct information are now nothing more than synonyms for "good" or "evil." We are actually fighting a war based on a term that means anything our president wants it to mean. "Terrorism" in the minds of most Americans means nothing more than "evil violence" because its definition has been so distorted. While wasting trillions fighting something we can't define is a tragedy, an even bigger catastrophe is that we have no method to discuss the real root of the problem. The concept that used to mean "terrorism" no longer has a word associated with it. We don't have a term that means, as Webster put it, "a mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation." We can't discuss that concept as a distinct idea because we can no longer count on "terrorism" meaning Webster's definition in the minds of those with whom we are communicating.

If we could discuss the concept and ramifications of "Webster's terrorism," we could form working historical models and proofs of where such philosophy works, and where it doesn't. We could predict, beforehand, if a method of governing by intimidation would succeed in Iraq or if our efforts there would lead to our slinking home with our tails between our legs. We could look at why bin Laden's methods of opposing our external jurisdiction were so effect that they led to our wasting two trillion dollars since 9/11 and creating legislation that circumvents our most sacred Bill of Rights.

Why does terrorism work on us and not on them? We can't find the answer because we can't ask the question. And we can't ask the question because "terrorism" doesn't mean anything any more. Just like Palestine, the United States is ripe for a take-over from the inside. Our failure to keep our language pure is enabling a physically weaker force to control and manipulate us. --Peter McConaughey 01:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I have no opinion about your claim about what happened to the Palestinians, but I agree with the language problem: I don't mind if language is enriched, but I strongly oppose it when words are so much abused that people start to deny its true meaning for it's indeed very impractical -- stupid is what I call it.

Thanks, Harald88 13:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to the Kurds, the Shites and the marsh arabs who lived under the tyranny of Saddam. Tell that the Saddam's two son-in-laws, the dead Iranians from an agressive war he waged against them in the 1980's. Tell it to the Kuwaitis and his own poeple, at least 1 million of them gone, no trace left or heaped in a mass grave, one of 300 mass graves scattered all around Saddam's "eden".--MONGO 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about confusion of the language and how the same thing led to the downfall of Palestine. What are you talking about? --Peter McConaughey 05:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about the rant above. What the heck are you talking about! Look out...Bush and the U.S. are going to lead us down a path of ultimate ruin!:-)--MONGO 05:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush is a politician. Politicians always try to make up rules, but just like the WP:0RR, those rules only have power over us if we buy into them. Otherwise, they are just words. We can't blame Sensenbrener and Bush for what's happening to our Bill of Rights. They are only two people. The USA PATRIOT Act, the War on Terrorism, and every other act of despotism created by our federal representatives only has power if we believe in it. If these things to destroy the United States, we have only ourselves to blame. --Peter McConaughey 14:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter...here's a revelation for you...you are NOT a conservative...name one instance in which the Patriot Act has adversely affected your life...--MONGO 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The USA PATRIOT Act circumvents the minimum civil guarantees that this country was founded upon. It is an attack against the most important part of our Constitution, the only part that was written by the people: our Bill of Rights. We become the greatest nation on Earth because we so jealously guarded our personal freedom. Tens of thousands of people have died protecting these liberties from enemies both foreign and domestic. We spit on their graves when we give our most sacred liberties away to the USA PATRIOT Act. Anyone who supports the destruction of our Constitution is a traitor to our country and a enemy of our people. Along with millions of others in the armed forces and higher levels of our government who have made similar vows, I promise to protect the Constitution of the United States of America from enemies, both foreign and domestic, with my fortunes, my life, and my sacred honor. --Peter McConaughey 22:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Where am I going to be suspended to?

[6] and your edit summary "Restore to FT2. MONGO, you are clearly in violation of the WP:0RR. If you continue, I will be forced to "move the name of the violator [you] to the 'Suspended' section." You have repeatedly violated this "rule" yourself as I can clearly demostrate through your edit history. I've been around here awhile so I'm interested in seeing what you think the "Suspended" section is...move the name of the violator? Violate what?--MONGO 04:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule clearly states that "Upon detecting a rule violation (i.e., reverting anything instead of discussing the revert), any member in good standing may move the name of the violator to the 'Suspended' section." Since I am a member in good standing and I have detected that you broke the 0RR, I can move your name to 'Suspended' section. Once you are there, you will not be considered a member in good standing by the 0RR, so you will not be able to suspend my name, unless of course, you make a preemptive strike in anticipation that I might suspend your name. But in that case, you would be in violation of the no-preemptive clause of the 0RR, which will state (after I add it) that a member who is preemptively suspended just to avoid suspending another member shall be free to take his name off of the suspended list. --Peter McConaughey 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

THAT is some funny stuff Peter...you actually made me laugh!:) Are the reverts you do over mine, in which you also have reverted without discussing why, place you automatically in the naughty corner? I mean, since you are a member and I am this POV edit warring thug, shouldn't you be held to a higher standard?--MONGO 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Peter, you have made numerous edits to the September 11, 2001 attacks and they are mostly close enough in the text to make your edits well in excess of the 3 revert rule. I never block anyone I am in disagreemnet with, but I do not hesitiate to report such violations. I politely ask you to refrain from editing the article in the same manner anymore for at least 24 hours. You can add or subtract from other sections of the same article if you feel that you must, but be careful not to engage in an edit war over sections.--MONGO 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You know as well as I that I am editing the article in good faith to find a compromise, MONGO. I haven't even violated the 1RR, let alone the 3RR. Please stop using your administrative power to intimidate other editors. (See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Evidence) --Peter McConaughey 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You need to read WP:3RR. I am NOT abusing admin powers...if I did block you, that would be abuse. Anyone can report another editor if they violate 3RR, yourself included. It is a resource designed to prevent edit wars, not as a form of punishment and my reminder was simply that...a reminder.--MONGO 18:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I recognize the WP:0RR as my rule set. I make every effort to never revert someone else's work. I recognize them as contributors and their contributions as valuable.

Now, when a heavy-handed member of the Cabal, like User:Carbonite, starts trying to enforce his POV on an article through reverts and aministrative threats, I have been known to restore the damage he causes, but undoing a revert supports the spirit of the WP:0RR, which is a much higher law than the WP:3RR and the one that I follow. --Peter McConaughey 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You certainly do have some eccentric views. Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the POV pushing isn't coming from the evil Cabal? Carbonite | Talk 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because I haven't discovered any other members of the Cabal yet, doesn't mean that they don't exist. It is technically possible that you're working alone, but that would be giving you much more credit than I care to bequeath at this juncture. --Peter McConaughey 19:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've heard of the Cabal...but I guess since I have only heard of it, I must not be a member. I am pretty much a stand alone...sort of like good ole Peter.--MONGO 19:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

All chess pieces are pawns in the sense that they are equally controlled by the outside player. zen master T 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:BITE

Regarding this. That was a snap judgement, sorry. Should have thought more carefully (I blocked the account for his username [Names with "Wikipedia" are confusing], but interaction has shown me that he is a good faith contributor). Anyways, I'll try to think a bit more carefully in the future, and thank you for pointing out my mistake. Cheers, Sean|Black 02:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Complaint

Due to your ongoing efforts to combat me...I have opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Peter McConaughey/Evidence.--MONGO 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

LMAO Good luck with that. --Peter McConaughey 20:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem with me?

You seem to have some sort of vendetta against me, to the point that it appears you've started Wikistalking me. It may come down to the fact that we have different views of Wikipedia. You seem to have a conspiracism worldview, while I think accusations of cabals and conspiracies go a bit too far. I also think your claims [7] at RfD are some of the craziest I've seen. You get some points for imagination, but zero for accuracy.

Listen, you're certainly entitled to whatever opinions you wish. If you'd like to believe that I'm part of some cabal that runs Wikipedia, go right ahead. But the harassment and accusations need to stop. There's already numerous civility violations on your part, but I'm quite willing to put them in the past if you agree to stop this harassment campaign. Let's end this. OK? Carbonite | Talk 16:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You were doing pretty good until you got to the threats. Asking nicely works better. Want to try again? --Peter McConaughey 16:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Threats? I'm offering to put everything in the past, provided you stop your harassment. How is that a threat in any way? Carbonite | Talk 16:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Antisocial personality disorder is identified through a patient's inability to socialize with peers in a context outside of rewards and punishment. In extreme cases, the patient doesn't even realize that he threatens people. When I see editors being treated as dogs, I try to stay as far away from the situation as possible. I certainly don't follow you around. Also, I never adopt vendettas against people I feel sorry for.

Carbonite, I want you to know that help is there if you want it. All you need to do is reach out.

We care. --Peter McConaughey 17:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Peter, please try and keep civility in mind when dealing with others. Also, intimating that an editor has Antisocial personality disorder is in violation of the no personal attacks policy. I do not know you or Carbonite, but please try to refrain from attacking other editors, no matter who they are. Thanks, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for civility, Lord Voldemort, and thank you for expressing your opinion about intimating things. I agree that we should always try to communicate in the nicest way possible. In a case where an editor specifically asks me what problem I have with him, I would consider it rude to not give him a direct answer. --Peter McConaughey 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That is good, except when your answer includes personal attacks. Even the worst troll or vandal needs to be dealt with with a little civility. And a seemingly good, genuine editor like Carbonite deserves more than a little. Saying he has a personality disorder is in violation of policy and continuing your personal attacks will end in a block for you. This isn't a threat, it is just a word of warning on how people are treated around here. Thanks for your time. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort, how can (emphasis mine) "the harassment and accusations need to stop - there's already numerous civility violations on your part, but I'm quite willing to put them in the past if you agree to stop this harassment campaign", be logically interpreted any other than as a threat (on top of a personal attack), especially in the light of your clarification? And logically, the assumably honest denial of having had that intention despite the evidence can not but lead to a serious association with a personal problem of the one who is in denial. Don't you think, isn't it a little exaggerated and one-handed to call that a "personal attack", without at the same time calling the action that led to that response (apparent threat + direct accusation of "harassment campaign") a personal attack as well? Or can people just go around making personal attacks and threats as long as it remains subtle?! I just noticed this conversation by chance, but it's really food for thought, psychology wise. Sincerely, Harald88 20:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, your comments got lost in all the others. I never said all of Carbonites actions were perfectly fine. I was strictly commenting on Peter's personal attacks. I definitely see no "threat" from Carbonite's comments. He does accuse him of Wikistalking and harassing him, and I might be inclined to agree with him, given the actions on JPGordon's page et al. Asking someone to stop bothering them is waaaay different than saying someone has a severe mental disorder and that need to get help. I am sorry you cannot see that. Thanks for the questions. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Voldemort your response was very fast, actually! From what I see, their harrassment is mutual, and it's difficult to judge without a full investigation who started it or who is more "guilty" of it (and I don't really care). Assuming a honest response, I see so far no alternative to Peter's analysis, which I interpreted as a hyperbole -- it certainly wasn't name calling. You still provided no alternative explanation of how to interpret the phrasing of Carbonite other than implying a threat accompanied by a personal attack, and what to think of Carbinite's apparent unawareness of the same. I wrote the above comment without seeing further below that this is indeed how Peter understood it as well. I like to see your text analysis of Carbonite's remarks, as it apparently differs strongly from mine, while that of Peter is exactly the same as mine. Or, in other words, apparently your answer to my question is a 100% YES: If we like we can go around making subtle personal attacks and covered-up threats in order to either get our way or obtain that the victim of our attacks makes the mistake to reply outspokenly so that he is judged to have "crossed the line".

For a comparison, here is my rephrasing of Carbonite's comments stating what he wrote according to you:

"Hi Peter, please listen, you're certainly entitled to whatever opinions you wish. If you'd like to believe that I'm part of some cabal that runs Wikipedia, it's your good right. Let's stop with our mutual harassments and accusations, that's counterproductive. I'm quite willing to put all our quarrels in the past if you agree to do the same. Let's end this. OK?"

Harald88 22:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I will answer momentarily on your talk page. No use clogging this page up further. See ya in a sec. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, good idea -- especially as this isn't really about Carbonite or Peter, but about Wikipedia policy. Thanks, Harald88 22:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion about "how people are treated around here." I can assure you that systems of punishment are not the norm for most editors of Wikipedia. While some people might get off on sadism or masochism, and while they may find a few people here at Wikipedia to indulge their parental fixations, I would not be one of those people. Where I come from, one man trying to spank another usually gets a sock in the eye.

Carbonite will find it much easier to have an adult relationship with me than to allege: "numerous civility violations," that my thoughts are "some of the craziest he's seen," and that I'm "harassing" him for trying to get yet another article restored that he hijacked. (See Carbonite's hijacking of American Terrorism and WP:0RR without consensus.)

Despite all of the ridiculous accusations that Carbonite made in his first post, I understand that may be his true perception. As such, I want to assume good faith that he would really like to have an adult relationship with me, but at the end of his post, he implied that he would take action on his perceived "numerous civility violations" unless I "agreed to stop this harassment campaign." I merely want to restore the WP:0RR that he moved without consensus. Since I don't have any "harassment campaign" against User:Carbonite, it would be impossible for me to "stop" it. --Peter McConaughey 18:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I don't really care about the history between the two of you. I am not your parent, mediator, or judge. I am merely warning you that if you continue with personal attacks, there is a good chance you will be blocked. I don't really care who is right in your previous debates. I do care that editors are not being shown the respect they deserve. Maybe Carbonite shouldn't have called your views "some of the craziest [he's] seen", but you definitely shouldn't attack him personally. It looks to me that Carbonite was willing to put past discretions behind you two, and bury the hatchet. You then label him as suffering from Antisocial personality disorder. That is crossing the line. Carbonite was agreeing to disagree. You, however, couldn't even agree to that. You stepped over the line. Truly, you are lucky you have not already been blocked.

Just try and be more civil. Not everyone here is out to get you. Thanks, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter, on the WP Incidents WP:ANI page Carbonite is claiming you voluntarily or agreed to move WP:0RR to your user space, is that not true? It seems Carbonite is pre-emptively accusing you of what he seems to be doing to you? zen master T 19:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:ANI? That's so funny. Of course I didn't agree to move the WP:0RR to my user space. --Peter McConaughey 19:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OMG, Carbonite's created three ANIs about me.

ROFL

The last time I smelt this much obsession, I was at a Calvin Klien show. --Peter McConaughey 19:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Toward a solution

Hmmm, then Carbonite's statement "Well, it was the page's creator that didn't want it to be a proposed guideline" at WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule seems to be provably false. This appears to be a very serious stifling of a proposed guideline and a false presentation of history, your edit here seems to sum it up. Going forward, to clear up confusion I think we should refer to it as a "proposed guideline"? zen master T 19:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

He's probably getting that from the fact that I didn't want the goofy looking "proposed guideline" sticker on the page. Groups of people, even small groups, don't have to go through an approval process to adopt rules for themselves. We can adopt any additional guidelines we want for ourselves, whether Carbonite approves or not.

I understand how the concept of self-rule might threaten someone like Carbonite, but it really is the only stable system that works. The country where I live, one that has been remarkably stable since its inception, was founded on the concept of government by consent of the governed. --Peter McConaughey 19:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I was somewhat unaware of the details, since people disagree it is an inferred guideline then perhaps "proposed guideline" is ok? It seems very unjust that it was moved to your user namespace because of the {guideline} vs {proposed} disagreement. zen master T 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That is true, guidelines are judged simply by how many people follow it, if only 2 people follow WP:0RR it still is a guideline. Given the cabal's apparent dislike of WP:0RR perhaps going the "proposal" route will expose the "guideline" to a larger segment of the community? We can also clean up the wording in the {proposal} template. Though, at this point I would support moving it back to WP:0RR with the {guideline} template at the top, what is your plan? We could write our own compromise header template that states something to the effect of "this is a new guideline that the entire community may not be aware of" or some such? zen master T 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to run with it, I have no problem with that. I started the WP:0RR guideline to codify the way many people show respect for each other here at Wikipedia. If you want to try to get it "approved," I have no problem with that. For me, I've never asked for approval to define the ways that I control myself. I don't have any interest in proposing something that I have already adopted. --Peter McConaughey 20:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Aren't you interested in making the entire community aware of a respectful work policy that you consider beneficial? In your most recent entry at WP:ANI at the bottom I suggest we move the contents of the "Zero-revert rule" back to WP:0RR and then try to work on a compromise header text somewhere between {guideline}, {selfrule} and {proposal} that is acceptable to all parties, what do you think? zen master T 20:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That is one possibility. If we want to use the existing Template:Guideline, the issue comes down to knowing exactly how many people are required to say that "many editors agree with" it. The Template:Guideline does not say that the guideline was approved by the Cabal, so we can use any process we want to get the "many editors" to formally agree with it if we want the Template:Guideline sticker. Personally, I don't like that template, nor do I think that Carbonite would ever commit to a specific number of people as being "many editors." For that reason, I agree that we should create our own template that does not require "many editors," and probably has better looking graphics, but I don't see why we would have to get the new template approved by anyone except those affected by it. --Peter McConaughey 20:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter, I doubt that you correctly understand the difference between the procedure for an official Wikipedia Guideline and a page that a few people prepare for themselves without much involvement of others. If you want to make a rule for you and a few others only, then IMO it doesn't even belong mention in Wikipedia. Sincerely, Harald88 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting the guideline in the Wikipedia namespace with an appropriately worded header is precisely trying to make it available to more than a few editors. zen master T 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the concept of not reverting widely practiced. I've discussed it so many times, including on this talk page, that I thought it would be beneficial to have a central repository of information to which anyone who adopts this concept can add. If the Cabal has a monopoly on the word "guideline," then we can call something else, but these principles don't belong to me, and I'm certainly not the only person who follows them or who can benefit from their use. Placing them in my personal user space gives me more credit than I'm due. I first noticed other editors like User:Ed_Poor and User:Angela implementing these principles instead of reverting. --Peter McConaughey 21:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Self-rule and Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule

Greetings:

After considerable reflection, I feel that wikipedia would be better served by having the pages mentioned above back in their original locations within the Template and Wikipedia namespaces, respectively.

I feel that Carbonite was actually making a good faith effort to avoid the deletion of your work at these pages by userfying them, since Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators indicates that good-faith efforts to create content should be moved to other namespaces if possible rather than deleting content outright.

That said, it appears that a more robust discussion of these two pages is needed. And for that to take place, they need to be in their original places. So I have made the move and, assuming no one has reverted me between the time I made the move and the time you read this note, that is where they will be found.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the time and effort you spent. --Peter McConaughey 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. However, please be advised that directly and unilaterally reversing decisions made in good faith by my fellow admins is something that makes me uneasy. Therefore, as a matter of courtesy, I will honor a request by Carbonite to move them back should he so desire. I don't think it will come to that, but I wanted to point it out in the interests of full disclosure. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 22:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That goes without saying. Everyone who's edited for more than a week knows that content takes a back seat to Cabal loyalty at Wikipedia. --Peter McConaughey 22:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Disruption

Cool it, or you are likely to be blocked as disruptive - David Gerard 12:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC) (member of at least five Wikipedia cabals)

We should probably discuss censorship issues and inappropriate use of developer powers in the proper place: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/David Gerard/Evidence

--Peter McConaughey 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks, particularly this one - David Gerard 22:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how an interpretation/accusation of another editor being a "troll" (based on interaction with them) is a "personal attack". Perhaps Peter should have clarified exactly what he finds disagreeable with Carbonite's apparent disinformation and obfuscation and instead have filed an RFC or requested arbitration but a block seems woefully unjustified and inappropriate in this case. Given Carbonites move of Peter's guideline to userspace over a mere header dispute in my interpretation the "troll" comparison is apt though a bit informal. That also is a small glimpse of context of Carbonite's behavior that predated and provoked Peter's comment. Using the "logic" behind this block everyone that has "personal attacked" me as being "disruptive" on conspiracy theory and race and intelligence should receive a 24 hour block. zen master T 22:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Note to Peter: I went on #wikipedia on irc and requested an outside admin look into your block but most of the folks on there seemed to be of the same "ilk" as David Gerard and Carbonite... zen master T 23:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard, when you block everyone who has called anyone a troll, then you can block me for implying it. Otherwise, the truth will come out about why you really blocked me. It might be better if the editors of Wikipedia heard it from you. Out of respect, I'll give you a short period of time to come clean. --Peter McConaughey 22:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Because it is 1:30 a.m. in London right now, I will wait until tomorrow morning before I reveal why it is that you blocked me for implying that Carbonite was a troll, but failed to anyone else for doing the same thing.

I'm giving you every opportunity to stand up and take responsibility for your actions rather than embarrassing yourself by having someone else reveal your indiscretions.

I'll wait until morning for your answer. In the mean time, here's a little light reading:

• California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003

• OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data
• http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/toc.htm
• Privacy Online: Fair Information Practices in the Electronic Marketplace
• Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy

--Peter McConaughey 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Privacy

As I'm sure many of you have surmised, there is something going on behind the scenes to which most editors of Wikipedia are not privy. My purpose here today is to expose it. In doing so, you may be tempted to minimize the problem by vilifying David Gerard or Carbonite, but their actions are only part of the surface manifestation, and penalizing them will only accentuate the dilemma. Finding fall-guys to punish will not fix the problem because the underlying problem is the system of punishment.

Very interesting, though perhaps it is more accurately called a "system of control through punishment"? In your interpretation how is say the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy complicit in encouraging a system of punishment? And FYI, some admins seem to be trying very hard to portray you as some sort of extreme troll with few beneficial edits here. I suspect they are setting the stage to ease future discrediting of your WP:0RR guideline and probably your "system of punishment" theory now too, be ever watchful. zen master T 21:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Punishment, by itself, cannot produce a system of control. Expectation must exist in the subject along with fear of not reaching this expectation. Punishment and deception are tools used to create this fear.

Everyone involved with this case realizes that deception exists - they understand that Carbonite and David Gerard are mischaracterizing my actions in order to build a case, but they don't know why. Why would they be trying so hard to pretend that I'm "persistently behaving in a disruptive way" when all evidence is to the contrary? Why would they push to bring this thing to trial when they know that they can't point to a single instance of "disruption" that is enforced equilaterally ?

The Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy can shed some light on the issue.

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs will not be released by the developers who have access to it, except as follows:

1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement
2. With permission of the affected user
3. To Jimbo Wales, his legal counsel, or his designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints.
4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.
5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers
6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

Here we see that the Wikimedia privacy policy allows administrators to snoop on an editor when they have first established that the editor is "persistently behaving in a disruptive way." It therefore becomes important to create a case against the editor before researching the developer database for his private information. This isn't just a matter of ethics. Laws such as the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 make it illegal for a website to violate their own privacy statement.

The Cabal is hoping that vague innuendo will be enough to create an official case. After they gain the legal right to snoop my personal information, they will be free to reveal what they already know. Don't be surprised to hear something along the lines of, "We had no idea about this before the case opened, but look what we have discovered now that we have a legal right to investigate the personal information about this editor!"

Of course, none of the information they reveal will be direct or a threat to Wikipedia in any way, but it will be enough to hang me in the court of public opinion. We all have skeletons in our closet. The danger in giving our representatives a set of keys to our personal lives is that they can't help sneaking a peek in the closet, even when they have no ethical or legal right to do so. --Peter McConaughey 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I know for a fact that if they reveal any personal information that does not "reveal... a threat to Wikipedia in any way", a lot of us not in the cabal will complain and things will get changed. Don't worry, the people with the power to snoop will not reveal any personal info, you have not already made public. Just keep up the good work. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't relevant to Carbonite's accusations against me, but your statement brings up a question of principle. In your opinion, would it be ethical or legal for people to snoop personal information against the privacy policy when one of the people they investigated ended up being a potential threat? --Peter McConaughey 18:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am not here to talk hypothetical anyways, but what makes you think people are snooping into personal information exactly? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't have any way of proving that to you before the predictions I've made above come true, but when they do, I'm sure you'll know. The funny thing about dealing with people that have pride issues is that they can't let go of something, even when they know the outcome. --Peter McConaughey 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just know that "when they do", people will be by your side defending you. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Systems of punishment

On Jpgordon's talk page, we see Carbonite punish the administrator with a forced "time out." In response, Jpgordon leaves a message on Carbonite's talk page saying, "Good call." Jpgordon's subservience to the system of punishment is directly evident in this example. Methods of indirectly empowering systems of punishment also exist.

We can disagree with Carbonite's methods while enabling them at the same time by acknowledging Carbonite's ability to control our will. But, does Carbonite have the innate ability to control our will, or do we grant him that power? Obviously, Carbonite cannot coerce us without our agreeing to allow him that authority. Our mind is our own, and our will is based purely on the systems we acknowledge.

When we buy into a system of punishment, as many of us have at Wikipedia, we are purchasing the whole package. It come complete with vandals, disrespect, flame wars, and content ultimately controlled by a very few individuals with little or no prescriptive editing experience.

Prescription

Language requires prescription. This is evident with a little thought-experiment involving two extremes. If you could only communicate with words that remained the same indefinitely after they are coined, communication would be entirely possible. However, in the opposite extreme, where official definitions instantly amended whatever meaning every disparate context assumed, propaganda and "misuse" would soon render that language ineffectual.

Within the intended construct of Wikipedia, we don't have to understand how strong singular definitions empower a civilization. The Darwinism of thousands of disparate editors and competing ideas will naturally lead to a prescriptive definition. In areas of Wikipedia where we don't have top-down control of content, this is exactly what happens. Unfortunately, systems of punishment have become the rule at Wikipedia instead of the exception. Our love for this project creates expectations for its potential, but the fear of not reaching these expectations allows others to control us, closes our eyes to corruption and content control, and ultimately destroys the thing we love. --Peter McConaughey 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

There isn't much we agree on, but I wanted to tell you that the "cabal" you are concerned about, is going to hang you out to dry. I fully recognize that you have a good sense of humor and I appreciate it...it is actually refreshing...and I appreciated your humor commencing with this response to my question a few days ago. I have no problem with you and I can see that you are intelligent and can make useful contributions. What we need to do is to understand that even if the rules seem to be or are stupid (and many of them are) they are the product of several years of effort by all editors to work out a system that (hopefully) helps us build a better encyclopedia. Your imput as to the effectiveness of this is more than welcome as are any productive edits you wish to make. Coming up with the Zero revert rule is fine and I can see your point in that the hope will be that editors won't just revert an edit they have disagreement with. I personally don't think it will work, because even though it clearly states that we can of course, always revert vandalism, many edits are not vandalism, but they are so incorrect or full of POV that for those of us that have worked on certain articles for awhile, when that type of edit content shows up, we revert due to it's preposterousness. I agree that all points of view should be expressed, but not necessarily in article space...it definitely wouldn't be encyclopedic. Anyway, you tell me what you want to do... I would much rather have you continue to contribute here, but if things keep going the way they are, the "cabal" as you put it, won't have it. Try to work within the concensus and I will, no matter how much I dislike the content of your edit, make every attempt I can to not revert, but instead to incorporate what you write.--MONGO 01:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: "going to hang you out to dry"

Thank you for your kind words and your warning. I've been aware of Carbonite and the Cabal's attempts to "hang me out to dry" for some time. It's hard to miss it when he accuses me of "Wikistalking" him at pages that I either created or edited before him. Does he really think that people won't try to verify his claims? Based on this scary little exchange, it appears that some people act blindly on what Carbonite says, even when he is proven to have violated policy. Nevertheless, I have faith that a preponderance of the editors at Wikipedia are like you, more interested in good articles and harmonious editing than in pushing POV through their influence and administrative powers. --Peter McConaughey 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:0RR

The WP:0RR works amazingly well for me as a guideline. I think it's important to empathize with the editor whom I am contemplating reverting. How would I feel if my contribution ceased to exist? That depends entirely on what my motivation was behind the edit. If it was to cause trouble, I wouldn't be offended by a disappearing contribution, but the assume good faith guideline prohibits a reverting editor from assuming a disruptive motivation. Therefore, adopting one guideline requires the adoption of the other in any real and implementable sense. --Peter McConaughey 17:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: "if the rules seem to be or are stupid"

Please understand that I consent to all of the objective policies of Wikipedia along with most of the optional guidelines, but that doesn't preclude me from: creating additional guidelines to live by, declaring that I live by those guidelines, or talking about them with others. Guidelines that are at the consent of the governed only concern those who agree to follow them. Unless the Cabal agrees to follow the WP:0RR, it has no business changing it, merging it, removing it, or weakening it.

Imagine how silly it would be if one country forced another country to adopt certain requirements for its constitution. Wonder if it were revealed that these requirements benefited the people of the forcing country at the expense of the one creating the constitution. Would you expect rebellion? Would the people of the country being forced ever give up? Would they ever submit themselves to laws that are not at their consent? The Principles of the U.S. Declaration of Independence say no. We have ample evidence throughout history that these principles are true, but none affect our lives as greatly as the example we are living right now. If it were possible to create a stable system of laws that are not at the consent of the governed, my nation could go into Iraq and force those people to obey a constitution that is not at their consent. When we fail, will we view that as evidence that the principles founding our nation were right all along? I, for one, will, and I'll continue applying those principles successfully to every aspect of my social life, including here at Wikipedia. --Peter McConaughey 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How should we handle the merge request?

Hello Peter, it seems there is a coordinated effort to merge WP:0RR to ROWN, voting has begun, how should we respond? Perhaps we should just create a section in Wikipedia talk:Zero-revert rule for "people that support this guideline" which will hopefully obviate the merge request and garner support for the guideline at the same time? zen master T 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. If I weren't on vacation with friends I would help out more. Thanks for the good work you are doing for Wikipedia. --Peter McConaughey 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Negative portrayal

Be aware of an apparently highly coordinated negative portrayal campaign against you here. Coincidentally an editor seems to accept as a given (or wants other people to accept as a given) that you should be blocked indefinitely immediately after I pointed out the already unfairly negative portrayal on that page... zen master T 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate all the nice things you said. I'm kind of embarassed that so much fuss has been made over me. Perhaps if everyone worried more about controlling themselves instead of each other, we could get more work done on this Wikipedia project. That's what I'd like to see happen. --Peter McConaughey 20:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

RfD: Huge Cock

I award this Barnstar to you for making me spit coke out of my nose while reading RfD

Sceptre ^(Talk) 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My first barnstar!! I have to admit that it was a retelling of the story my friend, Iacopo Decesaris, told me. He really deserves the credit. --Peter McConaughey 19:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Counteraction

Hello Peter, I have been thinking that this is perhaps a great example of how an editor is sometimes excessively negatively portrayed by a small group of administrators and editors for the purposes of discrediting them and their arguments. I think some sort of case could be made against at least some of the administrators and editors that took part in what I interpreted to be a sometimes subtle, sometimes overt smear campaign against you, but I wanted to ask you if you think pursing such a thing is worthwhile? zen master T 20:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You and I have something in common with every person involved with that: we all want to do what is best for Wikipedia. We all want Wikipedia to have the best articles and be the most trusted resource on the planet. I think it's fair to say that most of us would also rather be writing than involving ourselves with internal politics and drama. I believe that the best way to get all of these things done is to control ourselves rather than trying to control other people.

Our greatest possession is our will. It is a possession that will always belong to us. We don't have to fight for it or fear that others will take it from us, because it cannot be taken. In fact, no matter how hard we try to trade it for safety, security, commodities, or the Cabal's blessing to edit here, our will still comes back to us. It is part of being human. It is a necessary function of intelligence.

Wikipedia works by having millions of filters for its content, constantly improving it. When the Cabal reverts bold, but flawed, improvements, instead of helping to take out the flaws, that eliminates the other filters and makes it a Cabal article. Intuitively, we know that Wikipedia will fail if this happens and our natural instinct is to lash out, but that is no different in effect than a revert. It is still trying to control the situation, to create a system of Darwinism by eliminating the opponent.

Collective intelligence systems of the future must work with a Darwinism of ideas, not with people, in order to reach maximum fruition. We must see the efforts of other people as necessary contributions to this survival of the fittest edit. Even the worst ideas are at least valuable as reference points for the great ideas, but sometimes they can also spur imaginative great ideas from outside the box. Massive group thought is an exciting place to be, but we can't get there by eliminating the producers of competing ideas. We need everything on that page in your link to show how the Cabal system of loyalty over content does not produce the best articles, and how our system, of firmly making our case for an edit while considering the positions of our peers to be just as valuable, does. --Peter McConaughey 05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not advocating controlling or restricting people, I am advocating making as many people as possible aware of the negative, subtle, duplicitous and stifling techniques some choose to use. zen master T 05:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Good thing zen's not talking about me, or I guess that proves he really never did assume good faith. I hope both of you have a lovely New Year. Happy editing. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

LV, I am talking about you. To repeat, I give you the benefit of the doubt yet I can't ignore your significant, perhaps unwitting, involvement in the campaign to portray Peter, without evidence, as somehow "disruptive". It's interesting you were so adamant to insist you had nothing to do with Carbonite and also that you felt the need to "save" Peter on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Peter McConaughey page, yet you actually supported and defended Carbonite's merge proposal on the original Wikipedia talk:Zero-revert rule discussion page here and here and you even "seconded" Carbonite's merge proposal here. Carbonite's merge proposal, which Peter and I both interpreted was malicious, is the very source of Peter's alleged "disruption". As far as I can see at no time did you let Peter know you were trying to "save" him yet you took it upon yourself to spend significant time reinforcing a negative portray by finding some "good edits" by Peter, or "saving" him as your claim. You somehow got the notion Peter needed "saving" after agreeing with and supporting the person Peter was in a dispute with? All I have been saying is your claimed "help" almost had an opposite effect. zen master T 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha... you actually made me laugh this time Zen. Did you look at the diffs you provided? The first one was simply letting PM know that Carbonite had the right to propose a merge and to play nice. Since this is a wiki, nothing is ever really set in stone. Carbonite, like you, like PM, can propose a merge at any time. That is his right as a Wikipedian. The second diff was merely my explanation of Carbonite's views. It was also reminding you to always assume good faith. Something I think we've established you are not willing to do on my part. In neither of these edits was I "supporting" Carbonite's merge proposal, but rather showing my support for his right to propose a merge. There is a huge difference between the two that I hope you understand. The third diff you provided wasn't a seconding of the merge proposal, but rather an echoing of the call for no personal attacks. That diff was made before the merge proposal was even done. You might want to look into your research before you accuse me of anything. But, hey, at least I got a good chuckle out of this. Thanks Zen. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Having the right to do something doesn't mean it wasn't malicious and duplicitous of Carbonite to do it. Peter and I never disputed Carbonite's right to do it, we accused him of being duplicitous and malicious while doing it. You used the word "seconded" just under Carbonite's merge proposal, that is clearly support. zen master T 23:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, oh wise one, please show me where I placed the word "seconded" under the merge proposal. Good night, and good luck. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it wasn't the merge proposal but it was Carbonite's other position that WP:0RR wasn't a guideline (yet) that you seconded. My point is to show you clearly did/do had something to do with Carbonite despite the fact you repeatedly claimed otherwise on the admin incidents page. The specifics of what you "seconded" are not important compared to the facts: It was Carbonite's position that you supported and Peter (and I) disagreed with you. Just like you claimed to have nothing to do with Carbonite you also claim you were trying to "save" Peter yet your actions had the effect of reinforcing a negative portrayal of someone you (and Carbonite) clearly were in disagreement with, very interesting. zen master T 23:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Ummm... it is possible to disagree with someone on one topic, but agree and try to help them on a different topic. It's called having an open mind and being able to move on from disagreements. Yes, I agreed with Carbonite that it wasn't a guideline, but I also didn't want to see PM get blocked. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I give you the benefit of the doubt. I interpreted your and others effort trying to prevent PM from getting blocked to actually have had the, apparently inadvertent, effect of supporting it. zen master T 17:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Have a wonderful New Year. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You too, may everyone become aware if their actions should ever end up having the opposite effect from what they intended. zen master T 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Test Time!

User:MONGO/Test for Dementia--MONGO 12:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your support vote for Tom harrison was well thought out. There is no doubt in my mind as to your high intellect, regardless of our oft times disagreements as far as politics. It's always a pleasure working with those that state their case and back it up with facts, regardless of how outlandish it may seem to a dullard like me.--MONGO 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories

I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article. Thank you. Blackcats 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights

You may not be in philosophical agreement with the article at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights, however, you input would be greatly appreciated at this moment. --BostonMA 17:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I was telling Zen-master above, just this morning, that we don't have to take action against Carbonite. His perception of how Wikipedia should run is not internally consistent. Eventually his world will come crashing down around him purely by his own doing. When I said that, I didn't realize how soon the end would come. Nobody with an administrative future will stand behind Carbonite's actions at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights. His abuse of administrative power is too transparent this time. With the hundreds people he has despotized, and countless examples they have been logging, patiently waiting for this day, it won't take long to strip Carbonite of his admin powers.

Hopefully, that is where it will end. Carbonite does a lot of good work and is an asset to Wikipedia, but some people simply cannot handle administrative power. The enticement to bias the content of articles with what they believe to be correct is too tempting. In this example, Carbonite has even banned someone and tried to circumvent the Wikipedia proposed guideline process to impose his will on the content of a page. My hope is that when Carbonite is an editor, like most of us here, that he will choose to continue to benefit Wikipedia in the ways that do not require the administrative power that he has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot handle. --Peter McConaughey 17:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure...

Someone has mentioned your name as a possible sockpuppet in a clarification request from the ArbCom: located here. Just thought you'd like to know. Communication is key around here. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated allegations by Carbonite and Fred Bauder don't interest me. These two accuse anyone they don't like of being a sockpuppet. Nobody of any stature takes them seriously any more. They'll rant and rave and even get a few other disrespectable editors to agree with them, but they will never show any direct evidence because the truth is that they don't have any. You can know for assurety that those who claim to support their "sockpuppet" findings without showing the public anything are just as morally corrupt. If you want to know how unethical Fred Bauder really is, click here to read, in his own words, how he likes to coerce the opinions of others on the arbitration committee. --Peter McConaughey 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think the ArbCom clarification request came solely from Carbonite, with Fred Bauder just responding. I was just letting you know your name was being passed around. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I never thought I would be accusing Lord Voldemort of acting naive. ;-P --Peter McConaughey 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am not quite acting naive, I may be a liitle confused at times, but I honestly do not know anything about Fred Bauder or his past. I don't recall ever having a conversation with him or anything. If there is something fishy going on with him, can you point me in the direction of it. Are you referring to this? Do Carbonite and FB have a history together? You could always drop me an email if you want to talk confidentially, off-wiki. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I provided a link above because I thought it would be better for Fred to explain it in his own words. I don't know if you missed it, or if you didn't think it through completely, but here it is again: Fred Bauder in his own words. This was part of a re-election campaign, so Fred thought through his words very carefully. He is truly describing his own vision of what the Arbcom should be, so read it carefully and think through the implications of what he says. Bear in mind that arbcom discussions, trades, and pressures are often conducted in private, but Fred has a real problem with any of the voting being done privately. He wants to see exactly who voted which way and "discuss" it with them, often in secret. You can see the results in virtually any arbcom decision in which he participates. Everyone waits to see what Fred proclaims and then follows his lead. It would be pointless to express any other opinion on each case. --Peter McConaughey 21:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)