Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence

Turnsmoney
Frankly, the argument that Turnsmoney is Snowded's sock makes no sense. If Snowded wanted to accuse Kjaer of canvassing, he could have just as easily done this using his main account. Snowded has already accused Kjaer of a number of infractions, and there would be no point in him making an extra account just to accuse Kjaer of one more infraction. I have no evidence regarding this matter, so this is just my $0.02 Idag (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just run a checkuser but as you say there would be no point -- Snowded  TALK  20:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He doth protest too much

 * I question whether these talk page comments are appropriate. It would seem like an attempt to circumvent the 1000 word limit.  But until that ruling is made, (in which case, please do earse this remark) I would simply comment that I nowhere asserted in my evidence that Turnsmoney is Snowden's sock puppet. Kja er (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then who do you think he belongs to? It looks to me as though you are simply trying to discredit him. Also, I would support a checkuser on him, if we suspect that he is a sock. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I would also support a checkuser on Turnsmoney if there's reasonable suspicion that he's a sock. Idag (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are being disingenuous Kjaer -- Snowded  TALK  22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Throwing baseless and absurd sock puppet charges is standard practice for Kjaer. CABlankenship (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Supporting evidence required
Some of the comments provided on the evidence page make strong claims, but lack diffs and archive links to back up the claims. Please provide supporting evidence for the arbitrators and other parties to review. General comments, replies, and "essay-like" contributions will be moved from the evidence page to this page page in a few days. Vassyana (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The move has been undertaken. Parties submitting evidence have been notified. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

General context
It would be appreciated if some talk page archive and noticeboard archive links were provided. I would like to see some illustrative examples of the editing environment and the kinds of responses received when the topic area has been raised on noticeboards. Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, for myself, I raised the issue twice on WP:AN and WP:AN/I. I have provided one link, which points to a call for comment on my protection and blocks, and I see that Idag has provided the link to the other. The responses were meagre to say the least. Hence my comment in the initial statements that the adminsitrative body has let this article and its editors down by being inactive too long. Is there more that is needed?  DDStretch    (talk)  12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any content noticeboard threads that have not been noted and linked in the evidence should be added. If there are some additional article talk page archive links that are illustrative of the general editing climate, or of the atmosphere at its worst and best, those would also be helpful in better understanding the context and consequences of the dispute. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, there were only two noticeboard threads (the ones that Ddstretch mentioned) Idag (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My section is not evidence, but a response to accusations. I would of course understand if it were removed. CABlankenship (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If a section is removed from the evidence page, it should be relocated to this talk page. Arbitrators will consider comments here in the same fashion as other feedback on case talk pages. The evidence talk page is simply better suited for diff-/link-less responses, observations and comments. Vassyana (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing impact
Some of the evidence provided relates to motivations and statements. I understand why an editor is taking a position can be important and is considered in our project principles (such as discouraging soapboxing and managing conflicts of interest). However, what the editor has done and how these actions have impacted the wiki are vital considerations. Further evidence of the impact on article editing and the formation of consensus would be appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher Debate
I know that ArbCom doesn't deal with content issues, but the philosopher debate has now been referenced a number of times in the context of behavior issues, so I wanted to provide a brief overview:

Argument for Rand being called a philosopher:

There are a number of notable sources that call her a philosopher, and, therefore, she should be called one pursuant to WP:V.

Argument against Rand being called a philosopher:

There are hundreds of sources that would be expected to call Rand a philosopher if she was one, yet they fail to do so. Therefore, simply calling her a philosopher would violate WP:Undue.

To other parties: I'm just providing an overview to make it easier to understand some of the diffs, there's no need to engage in the philosopher debate on this page.Idag (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that debate should be here either, but you seem to have already done that. There are hundred's of sources that call Rand a philosopher.  If it isn't Original Research, could you point out the source that will tell us how many is enough?  And, could you point out the many sources one would expect to see that object to her being called a philosopher in response to those sources that do? --Steve (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've stated above, that post was intended to be an overview, as some of the behavior evidence mentions this specific content issue. I'm not getting into the content debate here. Idag (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Limits to Acceptable Incivility
TallNapoleon has a section on the ArbCom project page labeled "Potential further evidence of Steve's POV-pushing." - This is supposed to be about evidence. It should not be about "potential" but "actual" and what is the "further" a reference to since only one diff is provided. That diff is to an entire talk page on a different article where I had a discussion that was never about anything but an epistomological argument. Branden, who was an Objectivist, wrote an article on the Stolen Concept fallacy. I used that as a source in to point out that Proudhon's "Property is Theft" statement commits a self-refuting type of fallacy. It happens to be an identical argument made by Karl Marx. People attempted to claim in that talk page that I was pushing an Objectivist POV - but anyone that reads what I wrote will see that I am addressing only the logical nature of that proposition and I used Branden's argument because it fits far better than any of the three other sources I could have used. This flimsy accusation by TallNapoleon, by itself would never have motivated me to write on this talk page.

Next, TallNapoleon has a section labled, "Evidence of Steve's failure to assume good faith." This is in response to the following statements I made: 1) "When the professor emeritus of the department of philosophy, in a major school like Univ. of Calif. Berkley says in an article on Epistemology, that, though he disagrees with some of her position on universals, he considers her work worthy of study, she is a philosopher. Those who keep arguing against this position, after seeing these sources, prove they only want to edit from a negative POV." Yes, that addresses motivation, but it does so in a very civil, and reasoned fashion and without name calling, and after a long tortured history of negative editing.  It suggests that a respect for reliable sources is required to avoid looking biased. 2) His second piece of 'evidence' is my pointing out that Snowded is calling for people to not edit now, but when the most editing was being done, he was not just silent, but doing the editing. Where is that a failure of AGF? 3) In this post I call Snowded to task for implying that a scholar is writing with a bias and for implying that the quality of that scholar's work is questionable. I did not lie, as TallNapoleon claims ("make things up") and I specifically addressed what Snowded had written in the preceding post.  What in the world is TallNapoleon talking about? 4) The remaining two diff TallNaploeon mentions were discussed in my reply to him. I don't see any big problems, and this plus his accusation above would not have me writing anything here... but what he did next goes too far.

Finally, TallNapoleon goes too far and puts up a section called "Mendacity" and puts a claim that I am lying. He states that I have been making highly deceptive edits on the talk page that are not true. TallNapoleon accuse me of acting with less than good faith while while he/she is calling me a liar and without even any evidence.

Someone, preferably someone in authority, needs to tell this person how far out of line and how very wrong-headed those accusations are. (I haven't answered for Kjaer, but I expect he will be as outraged at this libel as I am). I would like for the admins who will be working to resolve this to weigh in at this point and either tell me that this kind of thing needs to be tolerated and point me at the policy that allows for it, or to tell TallNapoleon that that kind of post is out of line. --Steve (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * TallNapoleon's section on mendacity reverences my prior edit. That linked to a recent post of Kjaer and makes no mention of you at all Steve, check it out and you will see, I hope you will also see that the label is appropriate.  I've answered your other points on the pages concerned and the above represents a considerable misrepresentation.  You still haven't named your California Professor by the way.  -- Snowded   TALK  01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowded, TallNapoleon states, "...I believe is a consistent pattern of mendacity on the part of Kjaer and Steve." So, you are wrong - he does refer to me.  That label is totally inappropriate.  Nothing that I have mentioned in this section represents a "considerable misrepresentation."  I have called for Admins to look at this.  Please start your own section somewhere if you don't agree with this.  Libel is a serious offense in most civilized nations. --Steve (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I mention that libel is a serious offence to state a fact... And NOT as a threat to take legal action. I notice that TallNapoleon is still claiming that I am a liar that the only admin to show up is someone named in this action - who perhaps should have behaved differently before, and should perhaps be advising TallNapoleon to withdraw his libelous changes (which I am NOT threatening to take legal action against). --Steve (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Libel" is also a criminal offence (certainly in the UK and I think also in the USA), requiring legal action in order to identify and label it as such. I do hope this is not an indication that legal action is being considered here, as wikipedia would certainly have its hand forced if this were so. I suggest you revise the statement immediately, SteveWolfer.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is entirely true that I believe that both Steve and Kjaer are engaging in mendacious editing, and consistently distorting and misrepresenting the arguments of others and for that matter of many of the sources they claim to cite. Incidentally, I only mentioned the word "lying" in conjunction with Kjaer's post on Brushcherry's talk page. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if its a criminal action in the U.S., but its certainly a civil action. Steve, you need to edit that statement immediately, as there are serious consequences to threatening legal action.  See WP:NLT Idag (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake: in the UK criminal libel can be an offence, but it is usually a civil offence. In either case, it would constitute legal action, and SteveWolfer does need to withdraw that immediately it is meant to imply some sort of legal action: please withdraw it, Steve. This is an honest piece of advice offered in good faith.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DDStretch, I have followed your advice and made it clear that I am NOT making any legal threats. Now, when do you do you duty as an admin and tell TallNapoleon that calling someone a liar violates WP in a most serious way?  This entire issue is the result of TallNapoleon's unfounded character assasination!  When does TallNapoleon remove his statement that I am lying?  When do you offer him your honest advice about how a person can be banned from the community for personal attacks? --Steve (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Mendacious editing? Our edits say one thing but they mean another? "Everything he says is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" I suppose next you'll say I edit in the nude? Thanks for the laughs, guys. This is better than Monty Python. Kja er (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * . TallNapoleon (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

DDStretch Drops Neutral Pose
DDStretch, after many posts declaring himself to have been abused while doing nothing but trying to be a neutral admin and editor has decided to attack me, again and again in his 'evidence' section. He also attacks Kjaer, but to read his posts there are no others at fault, and he paints himself as blameless in the dispute, to the degree that he would do differently, even with hindsight. He has clearly decided to take a partisan position on the ArbCom page (He finds no fault with anyone but Kjaer and me, and he puts a significant effort into seeking out and posting what he believes to be evidence of our wrong-doing and nothing on anyone else), but I guess that is his right and his choice, even if it isn't logically defensible. His last 'evidence' post, for example, is a prime example. He said my post on the Ayn Rand talk page about SmashTheState was unsigned - if it had been unsigned what would that have had to do with anything... I have never been shy or secretive in my postings, - but I just checked, I did sign it. The more important point, is that my post was to include SmashTheState will Snowded, TallNapoleon, CABlankenship and any others that engage in name-calling - the quote I gave had SmashTheState using the terms Randroid and cult. These are terms that have been applied to editors by others and they have been warned repeatedly. Notice that DDStretch had nothing to say about TallNapoleon calling editors liars (above). I guess he wasn't wearing his admin hat when he decided to ignore that. His posturing as neutral is getting to look downright silly. --Steve (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been accusing me of not being neutral all along. Your and Kjaer reports point out numerous occasions when others have attacked you, whilst you both appear to state that you are the innocent victims in all this. I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies in your approaches, as is dictated by the section header, and since no one else mentioned your message, why should I not do so? You, Kjaer, and others have adequately mentioned the faults of the others, and so do Arbcom want a repetition of the reports? I say that they do not. On the matter of signing the post, on the diff I provided, you did not, as far as I can see, but if you later did, I apologise and withdraw that part of my report. Here is a diff to your message on my talk page where you react badly and make a number of other accusations which make assumptions which are not the only explanations of what you see as my non-neutral replies.  DDStretch    (talk)  00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Last edit to Talk:Ayn Rand was this one on 13 January 2009. I had become involved before that time, and had made no use of the tools nor written any message that an editor could not have been justified in writing since before then. I had posted a message to AN/I about the need for uninvolved administrators to get involved. By this time, I am clearly not acting as an administrator, and I was merely pointing out the fallacy being used by SteveWolfer in the message I quoted. It fits in with the section heading I had already established on the evidence page. This objection is a little like the ones that accuse any administrator or editor of mounting a personal attack for merely pointing out, correctly, that their behaviour falls short of what is normally required on wikipedia.   DDStretch    (talk)  00:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon's Lack of Evidence
TallNapoleon accuses me of lying and then refers to the whole sorid Native American discussion on the Ayn Rand talk page as his 'evidence' - Let's take a look at that.

TallNapoleon starts this whole thing, starting a new section on the Talk page called, "Rand and the Native Americans" where he said, "I seem to recall reading, at some point, a quote from Rand where she basically said the Native Americans had it coming. I'll look it up when I can, but that might be relevant. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)"

CABlankenship said, "That would be consistent with her Anglophilia. CABlankenship (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)"

TheJazzFan states, "Nothing like unsubstantiated innuendo to move an intellectual discussion along, eh? Don't worry, just back it up when you get around to it...maybe. Of course, no doubt we'll see the same (lack of) accuracy I've come to expect regarding these so-called "quotes" you reference."TheJazzFan (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, replying to TheDarkOne, says, "Your last sentence ignores the context of history and is borderline racist." 

TallNapoleon, replying to TheDarkOneLives, says, "Millions of Native Americans were killed by whites up through the end of the nineteenth century, and millions more perished due to European diseases. See Population history of American indigenous peoples."

CABlankenship said, "The vast majority of people around the world consider the genocide of the Native Americans to be horrifying. Fringe ethics and apologetics are meaningless on wiki. CABlankenship (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)"

Brushcherry makes the following observation, "Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."

I said, " It appears that Snowded, TallNapoleon, and CABlankenship were using inuendo to paint Rand as a racist. Which is consistent with their remarks being uniformly negative about Rand. Then, and I'm referring to the Native American section above, Snowded goes so far as to call another editor a "borderline racist." When one reads the exchange they can see that there is no justification for that kind of character assasination. Again, I hope that ArbCom can look into this kind of editing. --Steve (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)"

TallNapoleon says, "It's not the racism that bothers me about it, and I actually believe Rand when she says she is not a racist. What bothers me is the attempt to justify democide and ethnic cleansing."

Referring to when Snowded asked, "What's wrong with a direct quote," I said, "TallNapoleon did NOT provide a direct quote. He provided a hacked up, inaccurate, out of context paraphase of an answer she gave during the question period at a lecture in 1974 and managed to butcher the heart of what she said. Her statement, which is too long for me to type, gives a different picture. She was asked, "When you consider the cultural genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the relocation of Japanese Americans during WW2, how can you have such a positive view of America?" She said, in part, "America is the country of individual rights. Should America have tolerated slavery? Certainly not." And she went on to describe the early compromises that failed to implement individual rights eventually led to the civil war, and she stated that as long as Americans held the concept of individual rights it was going to lead to the overthrow of slavery. Everything she was saying was addressing individual rights. She said that she believed that most portrayals of the savage treatment of settlers by indians was not just Hollywood but fact. She stated that one should not believe that some people are entitled to something just because of their race. Most of her statement flowed from describing a country that believed in individual rights, whose settlers were being attacked by aggressors, who belonged to tribes that did not respect individual rights - and that rights are lost by aggression. She made a distinction that all individuals have rights, but a nation does not have rights, particularly if it does not respect any of its member's rights. I've condensed and paraphrased this to about 1/20th of its size. She was opposed to the relocation of the Japanese Americans and pointed out that this was FDR's call who she opposed as an enemy of free enterprise. All of this was from a speech given at West Point in 1974. The heart of what she was saying is that those who do not respect individual rights can not expect to have theirs respected. And out of that hacked up misquote, he painted her as a racist and an advocate of violating peoples rights, and the anti-Rand crew leaped aboard! --Steve (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)"

Anyone that wants can confirm that I have been accurate in my description of Rand's answer, it is in "Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A" Ed. Robert Mayhew, New American Library, NY, NY. 2005, pg. 102 through 104. ---

TallNapoleon says, "The continuous casting of aspersions on editors' intentions and the misrepresentation and distortion of their arguments also qualifies as mendacity. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)" On the ArbCom project page. What, I wonder, does he think calling someone a liar is? All I can say is that his evidence doesn't fit his nasty accusations. --Steve (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that Steve and Kjaer have been seriously dishonest in the way that they have presented the sequence of events and described the arguments and positions of others, despite repeated clarifications on their part. I have no intention of issuing any such retraction. Furthermore, it is not libelous at all for me to state that I believe they are dishonest, because it is entirely TRUE that I do. Oh, and in another example of the distortions, I never accused Steve of lying. I accused him of dishonesty and distortion--a distinction which may admittedly be fine--but the only accusation of outright lying I have leveled is against Kjaer, and specifically for his post to Brushcherry's page, which in my opinion goes beyond distortion and in my opinion is so dishonest as to be a lie. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * TallNapoleon, you said, "...I believe is a consistent pattern of mendacity on the part of Kjaer and Steve," and in my dictionary, and everywhere I've looked, "mendacity" means a lie and you continues to say you believe me to be dishonest, which means "disposed to lie, cheat... deceive" and that too is an attack on my character that is presented without evidence. If someone called you vile horrible names and didn't give the kind of evidence that justified that, how would you feel?


 * TallNapoleon, let me ask you this. I have done nothing to you personally.  I have not called you names.  I have not attacked your character.  And all of the things you have brought up are clearly disagreements that revolve around the article and differences of opinion in that area.  Why has your attack on me become so personal?  I can only think of one reason.  You were upset over my interest in those things you wrote about Rand where you called her an idolator.  Have you decided that I am an idolator?  Do you consider me to be an evil, godless idolator?  There must be something that makes you see 'dishonesty' where none exists. I'm sorry that you choose to throw mud at someone you don't know.  --Steve (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To all parties
Kindly keep your evidence section as concise as possible, with statements backed by diffs and links. Please be reminded to observe the decorum of the arbitration process (including its talk pages), as any behavior issues during the participation of this case itself would reflect poorly on oneself, and may also be taken into consideration by the arbitrator(s) when remedies are set. The arbitrators will make their own judgments when they go through all the evidence. More information on how to best present your case can be found here. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted my old entry (which was basically an essay) with some evidence that may be relevant one way or the other. CABlankenship (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification?
I'm not sufficiently familiar with how ArbCom works to know, so I'd deeply appreciate it if some vaguely-official uninvolved party could answer:
 * 1) Is it the intent or desire of ArbCom that no edits whatsoever be made to Ayn Rand until there's a ruling?
 * 2) If not, then is there any specific standard for what is permissible in terms of consensus, type of edit, and/or location of edit?

Thank you, arimareiji (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, unless ArbCom has issued an injunction on particular actions or the case prominently features specific highly-contentious issues. Those exceptions are straight-forward.
 * 1) Speaking as an individual arbitrator, an arbitration case generally should not impede normal good practices, barring obviously contentious issues. For example, still feel free to do copyediting, raise issues on content noticeboards, work on non-controversial sections of the article, raise proposed significant changes on the talk page, and so on. If there exists a clear and broad consensus about how to handle any contentious issues, please do not let an ongoing case impede the resolution of those particular issues. That all said, avoid raising points sure to turn the conversation ugly and to leave dead issues alone. As regards behavioral issues, if there are continuing problems, editors should still feel free to raise the issue at the adminstrator's noticeboard or other appropriate venue (and admins should feel free to act).
 * I hope this helps clarify. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Separately, the talk page is now up to 570k - would it get in the way of your work to reduce MiszaBot's threshold from 30 days to 14? arimareiji (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all! See mmediately below. Vassyana (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Consensus on all but one issue?
It seems that the only real sticking point is now the need for a ruling on how to address the "philosopher controversy." See recent talk page comments under here and here. I post this here to bring this possible way forward to the attention of all. I hope there is consensus on moving forward this way. Kja er (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether that is or is not the only sticking point, I can no longer tell, but it is merely a content matter, and that is only one type of issue raised in this arbitration. Arbcom may well want to attend to all the alleged behavioural issues. Amongst these are outstanding issues concerning the unsatisfactorily high levels of edit-warring, personal attacks directed by editors towards each other, the attempts to force an inappropriately conducted and concluded RfC onto the article where offsite canvassing took place, attempted "smear tactics" by members of "one group" to disparage members of a "different group" (to go along with the polarisation that has happened or been encouraged to happen, which may not be a good idea at all), and the failure to abide by WP:TALK guidelines. In the light of these allegations, we are far from having merely one issue that is outstanding. If, however, editors would like to apologise and withdraw all allegations about other editors which violate the policies of wikipedia, and do so without reservation prior to an Arbcom decision on these matters, I imagine that would go some way to satisfying them that there was and is a marked improvement in editors' behaviour. If an undertaking was also made to abide by all wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning behaviour I imagine this might help. Of course, I'm speaking only from the basis of what I imagine their attitude would be, and I do not nor would I want to pre-empt them or force their hands at all (which would be stupid, as I couldn't obviously do that or be justified in even trying) but I do think prior apologies and withdrawal of all inappropriate messages directed at other editors would help. It is now up to the editors on Ayn Rand to consider what now needs to be done.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Ddstretch per above, but would like to add that there are still behavioral issues, as evidenced by this section being added only two days ago: Idag (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Ayn Rand
This page is now over 600k, but people are reluctant to archive due to the pending Arbcom case. Could a member of Arbcom clarify whether we should or should not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs)
 * Please feel free to archive the article talk page. Archiving does not destroy any information. On the contrary, it makes it easier to locate information and posts than by digging through a huge page history or tryings to scan an overbloated page. Barring some injunction or specific reason to believe otherwise, presume that acting within the bounds of normal good practice is not only permissable, but encouraged while a related ArbCom case is ongoing. Vassyana (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Syntacticus
Philosopher


 * I agree with TheJazzFan that Rand was unquestionably a philosopher. She created a new philosophy and wrote extensively about same. It was sophisticated, had epistemology, ethics, etc. It was a complete package even if some don't agree with (it is the height of snobbery to deny it is even a philosophy). Accordingly, I disagree with TallNapoleon and do not understand why anyone would even argue with the idea that Rand was a philosopher. Who decides whether she is a philosopher anyway? Is there an Academie Philosophique somewhere I don't know about? For what it's worth, the definition at dictionary.com is helpful. It defines philosopher as []:
 * "1. 	a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.
 * 2. 	a person who is deeply versed in philosophy.
 * 3. 	a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc.
 * 4. 	a person who regulates his or her life, actions, judgments, utterances, etc., by the light of philosophy or reason.
 * 5. 	a person who is rationally or sensibly calm, esp. under trying circumstances." [Obsolete #6 omitted here]
 * Re 1, she offered views and theories on profound questions etc. Re 2, she was deeply versed in philosophy. Re 3, she established the central ideas of a movement (and according to critics, a cult). Re 4, she claimed to live her life by the light of philosophy and reason. Re 5, maybe not so much. So she qualifies as a philosopher using at least four definitions of the term. Love her, hate her, but don't deny what she was. Syntacticus (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead section obviously negative
I'm new to this party so I will only make one point. The lead of the article sets an obviously negative tone on the subject. 4th paragraph states: "Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature, a lack of rigor, and a limited understanding of the issues she wrote about."

This sentence is well cited and I have good faith it's true. But it must belong in the Criticism section, not the Lead. Stevewunder (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum
(My apologies if this isn't serious enough for this august body; I thought perhaps a humorous tack would be a welcome change of pace.)

As I understand it, the core argument of those who are arguing that Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher is: No one bothers to contradict the false claims of her supporters, and therefore we must interpret dictionaries and search engines which don't explicitly call her one as meaning she's not one. It's too hard to prove a negative, and therefore we must extrapolate.

My question would be this: Aren't the terabytes of arguments on Talk pages ample evidence that if someone gets pissed off at a false claim, they'll spend uncounted hours trying to disprove it? Hence, is it believable that no one has contradicted this false claim of hers because no one cared enough to write an RS? arimareiji (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

prior evidence
The subject of this arbitration, I assume, is the Ayn Rand article, and not, primarily, myself. So, I would ask that the arbitrators focus on the inclusivity and completeness of that article.

But first, i would mention two side issues, accusations of meat puppetry against myself, and the behavior of my primary accuser. Kja er (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Canvassing
I plead guilty to the charge of canvassing. But as to meat puppetry, I plead innocent. Indeed, if I am the puppeteer, who is the puppet?

I have indeed (as I myself noted on the talk page, and Dave Snowden has quoted) posted on Objectivist related sites, and have made other editors aware of what is going on the Ayn Rand page. But if I am guilty of communicating with others, I am not, like others, guilty of sock puppetry, [Turnsmoney, CABlankenship] editing in bad faith, or in any way pushing a personal POV on the article. My edits have been most fair, and I challenge anyone to show a POV innovation of mine to the article. Kja er (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Violation of Consensus
After the block by DDStretch was removed, there were an immediate series of over 100 edits by TallNapoleon, Idag, SlimVirgin, Snowded and Peter Damien instituting a wholesale revision of the article according to one POV. These edits were repeatedly challenged on the talk page with requests for a wikipedia policy to motivate them. None was given, rather a "new consensus" was adduced as justification:

It is clear that a new consensus is developing. …TallNapoleon (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a new consensus developing. Idag (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet, no such consensus exists, as per the RfC. Kja er (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Kjaer
I accept TurnsMoney's explanation that he did not wish to provide Randites with his IP address--I certainly would not wish to either. Furthermore both myself and other editors, including I believe Snowded (correct me if I'm wrong) have stated that we would have no problem with a CheckUser being done on TurnsMoney. Furthermore, the 3RR rule states that more than three reverts is forbidden. I reverted thrice. Under normal circumstances I would not even have done this, but it was clear that you and Steve were attempting, after a sham RFC, to force your POV on the article and override the views of other editors, and frankly I did not wish to permit this.

And BTW, there's a difference between telling someone they might be interested in an article, or talking about one's experiences on Wikipedia, and giving direct instructions on how to participate. That is clearly and indisputably attempted meatpuppetry--regardless of the extent of its success. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And heaven forbid that an administrator should have a POV about Ayn Rand! Editors and administrators are allowed to edit articles on subjects about which they have a POV. You are yet again violating WP:AGF by attacking Stretch for having a POV about Rand and insinuating that his POV was his primary motivation. Would you have had such a concern if his POV were favorable to her? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Steve
Last I checked it was not against Wikipedia policy to edit an article about a figure one disagrees with, or even one about a person one considers to be evil. Steve's statement is further evidence of a failure to assume good faith. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented that I have been attempting to push my POV on the article--only that I have one. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nilges
Someone above has mentioned Mr. Nilges' efforts on the talk page. Nilges is a banned user, who keeps returning using anonymous IPs to harass editors at [{Ayn Rand]] and a few other pages. The fact is that myself and Idag, neither of whom hold a favorable opinion of Rand, both played a major role in stopping attempting to deal with Nilges and preventing him from using the article to push his POV (unfortunately he's back again... sigh). I opposed the inclusion of a criticism by Raymond Boisvert that Rand was "out of sync", as I felt that the criticism lacked substance and context (out of sync with what? how is being out of sync a bad thing?). I took a great deal of flaming from this individual, and along with Ethan A Dawe was the recipient of legal threats from him. I think the fact that I have continued editing despite this and strongly opposed Nilges' attempt to push a negative POV about Rand speaks well of my good faith and my own willingness to put my POV aside. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to SteveWunder
I'm inclined to agree with you, but ArbCom doesn't settle content disputes. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:brushcherry
This is outside of the current dispute, as this user doesn't appear to belong to either "camp". However, this new user has kept a consistently disrespectful and flippant tone in most of his posts to the Talk page. It seems like he could probably use a mentor. Diffs coming later. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mendacity
Snowded's last post demonstrates what I believe is a consistent pattern of mendacity on the part of Kjaer and Steve. Simply put they have been making highly deceptive edits on talk pages that simply are not true. Whether this comes from premeditation or ignorance I do not know, but it has become utterly infuriating. No one is claiming that the 360 sources say Rand is not a philosopher; Snowded, Readings et. al. are simply stating that there exist a number of sources that do not refer to her as such, preferring author instead. Furthermore the edit Snowded linked shows Kjaer frankly lying about the series of events that took place. It's appalling. More diffs coming later. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Editors deleted validly sourced material, engaged in original research and POV to excuse dismissing whole sections with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveWolfer (talk • contribs)

Response to TallNapoleon

 * TallNapoleon is wrong. I don't object to people with strong negative POV editing, unless, as in the case of many of the editors here, that negative POV influences their edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveWolfer (talk • contribs)

Issues on proving a negative
There is a near total silence outside the US in respect of Rand. She does not appear in Directories of Philosophy or even in OUP books on American Literature. The sheer number of philosophical sources who simply ignore her is overwealming, the majority of US sources come from her followers some of whom have academic associations. There needs to be some guidance on this. -- Snowded  TALK  07:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Context issues and POV pushing
Whenever something critical of Rand in any way is made then an explanatory text is added. Chomsky is an "activist", Buckley is a "Catholic" and resents Rand's criticism. This applies on all pages associated with Rand. Criticism sections then have Response to the Criticism sections added. -- Snowded  TALK  07:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Novelist or Philosopher or what
This has been one of the more contentious issues in the debate. It is clear and undisputed that Rand is an author, and (in the US and to a lesser degree internationally) a popular author. I read Atlas when I was a teenage (despite not being American) and the notability is undisputed (I make no comment on the quality). There is a whole article devoted to Objectivism, the name she gave to per peculiar (I am using this in the sense of unique) view of the world. However in the article Ayn Rand her primary identity is novelist and screen writer. We need to decide what is the model here. A lot of novelists express philosophical ideas as least as profound as those of Rand. One thinks of Fowles, Dostoevsky and Joyce. My view has always been that her primary identity is novelist and then she created a philosophy that she called objectivism. I personally think its a bad name as some of her work is the exact opposite of what I understand (from the perspective of the philosophy of science) objectivism to be. But that is what it is named, so, so be it. Now there is a world of difference between having a philosophy and being a philosopher. Acknowledging that she created a philosophical movement is beyond question. calling her a philosopher is a different matter. The net recommendation here is that a page should be found for a novelist who had a philosophical bent (possible a Russian as she is ethically and to a degree ideologically in that tradition) that has featured article status, and use that as a template to create the main article.

The level of emotion being expended on the issue of her status as a philosopher may be disguising a more important issue. While the behaviour of editors is a part of this arbitration, the major issue for WIkipedia is that of weight. Is one authoritative citation enough to establish a fact (if so then she is a Philosopher), or the absence of citation where you would expect it to be evidence (in which case she is not). There is a linked question here of US centricity. This is a major issue for WIkipedia and its authority which goes way beyond what is when all is considered an minor article. -- Snowded  TALK  07:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Responses
I'm only going to respond here on serious issues. If I don't respond on a specific criticism then I am either confident in a fair review of the edit (and the associated talk) or I think the editor concerned is shooting him or her self in the foot or both.
 * Steve's reference to "Borderline racist" wasmy response to this fairly extreme statement in what had become a somewhat off topic thread. -- Snowded   TALK  16:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kjaer's reference to my blog of the 7th November 2008 (the date is significant).  I blog everyday on average about what I am doing, and its easy to track down who I am as the blog is declared on my user page.   The blog referenced is not about Kjaer.  It is about another editor on another article who attempted to insert Rand's definition of philosophy (and edit warred against consensus) into the lede of Philosophy without acknowledging his source.  His user page pointed to an article he had written in which he advocated that the US should nuke Iran (in its own self interest).  I was appalled at the time and still am at that sort of attitude and will feel free to comment in any public forum.  If you check back you will find I have blogged about frustrations with the Knowledge Management article on three occasions in three years.  Oh, and in the recent interests of full disclosure I recently tweeted about what I consider Kjaer's (in his other persona) appalling lack of taste using the Twin Towers as his personal image on a discussion forum.  I made no reference to the WIkipedia in that tweet.  -- Snowded   TALK  20:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote up my 4 main points and here they are
1) There is way too much philosophizing on the article talk page. If we could eliminate the interesting, but irrelevant discussion that would go a long way towards making progress workable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

2) Some editors have exhibited a strong bias against Rand and have acted and communicated an agenda to cut her down to size. This isn't conducive to collaborative editing. Creating a well balanced and tightly edited article (the Rand article is already fairly thorough) needs good faith collaboration. Most of the editors seem willing to include a variety of perspectives and expert opinions, but the opinions of the editors themselves are irrelevant and that sort of distraction is unhelpful. Editors are welcome to work on the articles of other philosophers if those articles are too short by comparison.
 * See Steve's comments for diffs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3) All sides have to put forth good quality sources for their positions. When one group puts forth numerous sources supporting, for example, Rand's being considered a philosopher, those who object can't simply cherry pick places where she isn't mentioned and say that evidence of absence is evidence that she isn't a philosopher. There is also a clear distinction between academia and mainstream media coverage of her popular influence. I think both perspectives should be included.
 * Here's a diff including numerous sources about Ayn Rand being a philosopher (including her New York Times obituary) . Here's another example of an editor providing a source . The counter argument is that there are sources where she's not included. This is an example of the long arguments against calling her a philosopher despite her developing a philosophy that's widely discussed, debated critqued etc. and another . You'll notice it doesn't include or refer to a single citation or source. I also think long ideological comments tend not to be helpful, see point 1. People need to stick to sourced, verifiable information. And as there is no official list of who is and isn't a philosopher, we have to trust good sources. Her not being listed in some sources does not exclude her being a philosopher. Not a single source has been provided arguing that she isn't a philosopher. The other argument from Peter Damien was that our coverage of other philosophers is poor, so her article is too long, I think speaks for itself. When he quoted a British philosopher criticizing Rand, I pointed out how very short and poorly written this person's article was and that they didn't seem very notable. But no one has edited it. Instead of trying to exclude Rand and chop her down, why don't they build the others up? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

4) There are efforts to say she's been ignored, but then these same editors want to include lots of criticism. If she's somehow not a philosopher and has been ignored, then it's not appropriate to include big sections of criticism of her philosophy. If, as several good sources indicate, she is a philosopher, then criticism is welcome in the appropriate context. Clearly Rand isn't popular in academia where her philosophy and politics have been criticized. This also wasn't her audience. And her books are long so they are not well suited to most classes. On the other hand she was and is very popular and influential in the mainstream (ie. outside academia) as the continued popularity of her novels attests. These distinctions need to be made, but one area of influence isn't the end all be all. We don't exclude mainstream sources that are outside academia.
 * The refusal to stick to sources without doing original research has been compounded by Peter Damien's promotion of off Wiki discussion first at Wikipedia review and now some other site. He also has posted numerous uncivil and pointy comments such as today's with digs at editors such as "The last one is quite funny, because Harry Binswanger, who is the closest thing to a bona fide philosopher, turned up, and even he got irritated by the Rand camp-followers and their incoherent ranting ('Randing') and interminable non-sequiturs." Speaking of nonsequiturs, he often offer personal opinion that incited divisiveness and arguments on the talk page distracting from useful progress " Ayn Rand tries to address the fundamental questions certainly, and is a 'philosopher' in the broader bar-room, cocktail-party sense. She really doesn't have a clue about the other bit, though." This has extended to comments on Jimbo's page and elsewhere, and isn't conducive to collaboration or productive editing. I'm not much on Wikispeak, but I would describe this behavior as trolling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Word Count Violations
It seems that everytime I turn around DDStretch has added 'evidence.' The rules say, ''"Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely." '' Currently, his section exceeds 2,000 words. Is this a new standard? In the interests of fairness, do the rest of us get another 1,000 words? --Steve (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems like a victimisation campaign on your part. I can do nothing without you leaping in to attack me and make allegations about myself and/or others who you think are behaving unfairly. I do hope Arbcom note it. The evidence is required as it all uses diff to back up the claims. If Arbcom recommend trimming I will oblige.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For reference: Idag's evidence is 1600 or so words; Kjaer's evidence is 1275 or so words; and SteveWolfer's evidence is 1370 or so words. I think there is evidence of selecetive accusations here. DDStretch   (talk)  23:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For reference, DDStretch, may I very politely suggest that you miscounted. My word count for my entry is 971 and I haven't changed anything recently.  I also counted Kjaer's and Idag's and they BOTH were under 1000 at the time I did my count (which was just before I created this section.)  I would not have accused you alone, if others were in violation as well.  Do you have any idea how your count could be so far off? --Steve (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I will raise the broader issue of word counts on evidence pages with the other arbitrators. In this case, I individually chose to focus on standards of supporting evidence in judging what to remove from the main evidence page. The size limit is intended to keep evidence limited to a pool of information comprehensible to the arbitrators and other parties. Unless there is a concern in the light, let's leave the issue be. Focus on finalizing evidence and moving on to discussions at the workshop. Vassyana (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to hear what you find out. I'm happy with long or short evidence sections and I agree with it being quality evidence as opposed to unfounded or rambling accusations.  Is there any sense as to the time table we are looking at?  --Steve (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is just my opinion (and the opinion of one of Wikipedia's humorists wrt policy), but I think the word limit is as much for the benefit of an arguing editor as it is for ArbCom's benefit. If an editor chooses to vastly exceed the limit, they run an increasing risk of being taken less seriously. I know it's easier to say than do, but try not to worry too much about other editors' cases - just keep your own clear and concise. arimareiji (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have trimmed the section down. I believe it now complies with the 1000 word limit. DDStretch   (talk)  12:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ddstretch's Response to comment SteveWolfer about my inaction, and other inconsistencies
 (This section is now largely made redundant by a new section on the main evidence page called "Inconsistencies, etc".)  

Links have been provided that show that Kjaer considers I should not have taken any action as an administrator (another example, and that SteveWolfer considers my administrative actions as questionable (see previous links, above). Indeed, after I withdrew from editing, as the constant accusations, together with my other comments that were meant to assist the debate sensisbly, meant I was too involved. Now in this edit on this page's talk page, I am condemned for not taking action! This seems to be a case of "damned if I don't, damned if I do" made all the more disappointing because I was trying to help SteveWolfer avoid being thought of as making legal threats on wikipedia (see here.) Elsewhere, Kjaer has been shown to take exception to my involvement (diffs already provided, above), and yet he asked me for advice, in another example of inconsistency in approach to my involvement (here and my detailed response, for example). This and this are the messages I placed on the talk pages of the editors Kjaer talked about. This and this responded to this and a later message by Peter Damian. It appeared that I had already been condemned for taking administrative action, and yet I was still and am still being sought out to take administrative action and to be condemned if I do not, despite having expressed a desire to withdraw from the whole matter here, here, and here  DDStretch    (talk)  09:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, this recent message from Kjaer contains attempts to contain sentiments that were included in various warnings I made on Talk:Ayn Rand on various occasions about editing style which Kjaer took exception to (on the grounds that I did not have a neutral POV - see previous diffs) and yet, despite most certainly having a POV, though not in direct correspondence to mine, we see that Kjaer is posting similar ones. However, their exact content, style, and interpretation and application of wikipedia policy and guidelines may be less similar, as is less similar its use on individual editors' talk pages. The most relevant similar message of mine is this one, whose breach led to Kjaer getting blocked for 24 hours, and which he took great exception to (diffs given previously). See also here, here, and here. I think there are either (a) serious inconsistencies in behaviour here that has the effect of trying to argue that a message like this directed at him is unfair, but at others, perceived to be "on the other side" are acceptable, or (b) Kjaer has changed his mind about the appropriate nature of the messages I posted, but has not seen fit to withdraw his complaints about my use of such messages, or (c) some other explanation that may need clarification. DDStretch   (talk)  01:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This diff. Unsigned addition by SteveWolfer. Note inconsistency between edit summary and content, which uses a "guilt by association" fallacious tactic to cast doubt on a number of other editors by quoting a message from a different editor (Smash the State) who has been posting inflammatory messages attacking those who are positive towards Rand. DDStretch   (talk)  23:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And angry response to my post of the above paragraph from SteveWolfer, which makes additional accusations and supposed explanations of my intentions behind them, which are not the only explanation for why I have done this (see section header.) SteveWolfer may think that now my "posturing as neutral is getting to look downright silly.", but he misses the point that (a) I had already withdrawn from editing or being involved in any administrative role on Ayn Rand. Last edit was here on 13 January 2009, (b) I had already announced this in a number of messages, including the call for uninvolved admins on AN/I (diffs already given). The title of this section makes my report quite valid and consistent with it. Enough reports have been made by SteveWolfer and Kjaer about other people's failures to assume good faith and personal attacks on Talk:Ayn Rand, and so it is quite acceptable to list those which have not been reported to avoid wasting ArbCom's time with duplicated reports. For the record: I feel mistakes have been made by the list of editors SteveWolfer mentions in his talk page message, but their errors have already been reported on this page. DDStretch   (talk)  00:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * SteveWolfer states that he did sign the message: it does not appear to be signed on the diff I supplied, and so it must have been my mistake in not noticing a later addition of the signature. I apologise for this and strike out the "unsigned".  DDStretch    (talk)  00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In a recent complaint SteveWolfer has been quite in consistent in levalling this complaint about the length of my evidence, whilst failing to mention that other editor's evidence also exceeds 1000 words. DDStretch   (talk)  23:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * DDStretch, I'd respectfully suggest that you recheck your counts. In that post above other editor's evidence you don't have accurate numbers.  At the time I counted, and currently, Idag is no where near 1,600.  You say that I have over 1,300 but my total has been at 971 for days.  And I counted Kjaer's (everyones actually) before I made that post about your word count exceeding 2,000 and his was also below 1,000.  You are falsely accusing me of attacking you selectively.  I didn't do that.  Please check again and I'm sure you'll find that your initial word count was in error.  Thanks, --Steve (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've repeated them and got substantially the same results as I got the first time. What I did was go to edit each editor's contribution, including responses to other points raised (are these included or not?), and then merely select all the text, then copy it into a text editor (editplus in my case), then do a word-count, and that gives me the results I obtained. It is possible that this may not be the way others are using, and not the way the arbcom clerks, etc would use, and so I think we should probably merely rely on their actions to inform us of over-runs than take it upon ourselves to initially complain about other editors' behaviour here. So, I withdraw my figures, but they were arrived at in my honest opinion that they would give a rough and ready accurate figure. If they are inflated by the technique I used, then my own contributions would also have been inflated, and they were roughly in agreement with the figure given in your initial complaint.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Interpreting Idag's evidence in conjunction with GRBerry's
As far as the background of the Ayn Rand article, I only put up the events that I observed happening after I began editing the article. I was unaware of this article's colorful history, and I thought that this was the first time that a dispute of this magnitude had taken place. Therefore, GRBerry's background information should be given precedence whenever it conflicts with mine, as he is clearly more familiar with the article's history. Idag (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * More accurately, more familiar with how to research history using Wikipedia's history function, logs, and other tools, and somewhat familiar with other disputes involving Rand. I don't think I've ever edited Rand's page or its talk page myself, and certainly don't have it on my watch list.  GRBerry 14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)