Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

E4 and E4.1
These proposals are, in my opinion, confusing; it should stipulate that blocks pursuant to the explicit bans in this decision (ie. sockpuppeting to avoid the one-year bans, or the one-year bans themselves) are NOT appealable to the community.

The sentiment is (to someone knowledgeable on the history of the Committee) obvious: to allow for community appeals of discretionary-like sanctions such as topic bans, given the recent issues with arbitration enforcement. However, the current wording creates an ambiguity with regards to the other remedies, such as one-year bans, which aren't up for review by the community.

Daniel (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4.1 seems to address the main issue by limiting the scope of review to sanctions "imposed by administrators", thereby exempting the explicit/specific remedies imposed here, such as the one-year bans. Addressing an example you raised, I do not see why evasion blocks should be exempt from the review of other administrators and the community. As I see it, (for example) a block for sockpuppet ban evasion should be open to review the same as any other sock block. On a related note, I do not see this as a situation where wheel warring or deep community division over imposed sanctions is likely. Nevertheless, I am open to being convinced that a more restrictive enforcement provision is necessary. Could you elaborate on your concerns? What leads you to believe that community review could be problematic? Vassyana (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A rose by any other name
So, uninvolved admins can issue topic bans and escalating blocks to anyone disruption Ayn Rand and related articles. Any reason not to just call it article probation? Thatcher 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Replying purely as an individual, the current proposals encourage admins to step in, using topic bans and blocks to deal with disruptive users. It is not asking them to do anything they are not already permitted to do. It also explicitly leaves the blocks and topic bans imposed by admins open to community review, as with normal admin actions. Imposing a formal article probation would do little but funnel all complaints from the normal places (ANI, 3RR noticeboard, etc) into the AE noticeboard and ArbCom appeals. This is not a situation where wheel warring and/or extreme community division is likely to erupt, so the extra formality and force provided by an article probation does not seem to be a necessary evil. Vassyana (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The current wording of Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand/Proposed_decision suggests that admins may unilaterally impose topic bans of whatever duration and scope they wish. This seems like an inordinate amount of power to grant administrators over regular editors. I strongly suggest that topic bans ought only to be implemented after community consensus has formed. Checks and balances are important, especially given the current climate surrounding the behaviour of individual administrators at WP:AE. Skomorokh  21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision provides for community review of administrator actions, providing check and balance against inappropriate unilateral action. Administrators already possess the ability to impose sanctions, up to and including indefinite blocks from the entire site, subject to community review. The proposed decision simply encourages administrators to take action and reaffirms the community's right of review.Vassyana (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic banning with talk page privileges
Will topic-banned editors who are allowed to edit the talk pages of these articles count towards assessments of consensus? If so, the remedies will do very little to alter the status quo of the behavioural problems; stalemates on the big issues will continue, and the preferred version of one side or the other will prevail depending on which can muster enough editors to revert without breaching 3RR. Please clarify this point. Skomorokh 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed that this would not be an issue as edit-warring would be punished more severely by enforcement remedies 1 and 2. However, I would also like to know the status of topic banned editors as far as consensus goes. Idag (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors permitted to participated in the talk page but under a mainspace topic ban are generally expected to productively work towards consensus. This is true regardless of the particular topic area, and regardless of whether or not the topic ban is established by ArbCom or the community. From my perspective, signs indicate that the mainspace topic bans are the right way to go forward. TallNapoleon has started a draft workspace, which I have found to be very helpful in many cases during my time as a mediator, and seems willing to work towards compromise and consensus. Idag has been very polite, cooperative, and accepting of his proposed restriction. Is there a particular reason that the three editors with such a proposed remedy should not be permitted to continue talk page participation? Vassyana (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, but it does not address my concern. I am not objecting to topic-banned editors being able to participate in talkpage discussions, I am questioning the Committee's will as to whether the opinions of those editors will be weighted in determining consensus over content. Banning strongly-disagreeing editors from editing the article is addressing the problem on a superficial level. The Committee has thus far taken the easy option of attacking the symptoms rather than the disease. If you read the edit summaries and associated talkpage threads, you will see that the thrust of the edit war (Peter Damian's soapboxing excepted) was that there was no consensus for one version (e.g. "philosopher") over another, so that the "other side" had no right to restore their preferred version. Attempts at mediation and compromise have been stillborn, as there are a wealth of sources to support a range of very different conclusions and editors are polarized and unwilling to seriously engage with those who disagree with them or write for the enemy.


 * So with the current proposed remedies, we will be left with more or less the same group of editors, the same diversity of perspectives on the topic and the same total absence of consensus on the touchstone issues. The even distribution of topic bans means that the remedies will not cause the weight to shift towards one perspective, meaning consensus will remain elusive unless editors spontaneously decide to co-operate. Incivility and edit-warring are problems on Objectivism articles, yes, but nothing existing venues (WP:3RRN, WP:WQA, WP:ANI) and firm administrators can't handle on their own. The reason this is at Arbitration is because of the failure to resolve disputes, and the current remedies do nothing to address that. Skomorokh  15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) On the contrary, I think the proposed decision makes it clear that continued nonsense and conflict is not going to be tolerated. I believe the vast bulk of editors are going to take that sort of "warning" seriously and that those who do not will find themselves removed from the article. While it's clear that reaching a consensus will not be at all easy, a look at Talk:Ayn Rand indicates to me that people are willing to work towards both short- and long-term agreement. As someone pointed out, if there's a squeaky wheel taking an extremist position against nigh-universally agreed compromises, that is an issue that can be handled through reporting the problematic conduct. Furthermore, if further sanctions are necessary to bring stability and a productive editing environment to the article, this proposed decision explicitly permits and encourages the community and uninvolved administrators to enact them. (See: Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision, Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision, and Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Proposed decision.) Vassyana (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I think it would be wrong to forge a consensus by artificially excluding all editors on one side of a good faith content dispute. From a behavioral point of view, Snowded and I both agreed to Skoromokh's proposed compromise, and the only person to substantively disagree with it was SteveWolfer (TallNapoleon also disagreed, but his disagreement was based on procedural issues).  Speaking for myself, the only reason that I even got into that stupid edit war was because Steve began editing a topic that was clearly still under discussion on the Talk page.  Now I realize that I should have gone to ANI instead of edit warring, but hindsight is 20/20.  As far as the diversity of views, that's why I proposed moving this debate to the NPOV noticeboard to get more editors involved. Idag (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Looking back, I think I may have misunderstood Skoromokh's comment.  To the extent that he is asking for a more definitive interpretation of the involved substantive policies (WP:Undue and WP:OR) I completely agree with him. Idag (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I get some sort of last meal before I am banished forever? A cigarette, maybe? Forever is a long time. You don't think one year is more reasonable? Stevewunder (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I could use a mentor. They offered Brushcherry a mentor. Why not me? Stevewunder (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A further defense:


 * Despite my edit warring, which many others engaged in as well:


 * I did in fact actively seek consensus, proposing comprises, and agreeing with compromises of others. My attitude was never "my way or the highway", unlike many on both sides of the Rand debate.


 * I did not engage in ad hom attacks, except in the case of Snowded, whose constant ad hom attacks and "my way or the highway" attitude finally broke me.


 * I did not "grease the squeaky wheel", except in my one attack on Snowded, as stated above.


 * My edit warring has been labeled "vandalism" or "soapboxing", but it was really just edit warring like most everyone else was doing. The major difference being that my edits were usually satirical, because as long as an edit war isn't going to be won -- what difference does it really matter what is said in the edit? Is there somehow "good edit warrring" and "bad edit warring"? Stevewunder (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have threatened to purposefully act in a disruptive manner and have made edits that seem to follow through on that threat, as indicated in the proposed findings of fact. You have not acknowledged the impact of your edits, including inappropriate conduct before the threat and followup. Brushcherry openly acknowledged the flippant nature of his comments and appears open to mentorship and improvement. Sanctions are essentially used to prevent likely disruption. Given your statements and edits, the likelihood of continued disruption is very high and the proposed sanctions reflect that. Regarding your concluding statements, it appears to be a rationale to "pointedly disrupt" the project. Most of your talk page contributions were constructive and focused on-topic, but previous constructive behavior does not counterweight the threat of continued disruption. Being very forthright, sudden remorse in the face of probable sanctions is usually viewed (understandably) with a healthy measure of skepticism. However, the possibility remains that arbitrators may be convinced that a lesser measure would serve the preventative purpose. Vassyana (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My threats to act in a disruptive manner -- I assume you refer to what I wrote on my talk page -- were made in the midst of an edit war. Others were engaging in the same edit war; I acknowledged the premeditation, which in a court of law makes things worse, but I suspect everyone else in the edit war planned to react as they did as well. I don't see how it makes things worse that I predicted how I would react. The catalyst of the edit war, from my point of view, was the "my way or the highway attitude" of those who simply refused to accept under any form of compromise that Rand MIGHT be more notable as a philosopher than as a screenwriter or playwright. There reached a point in the discussion where no one was discussing, merely repeating there same arguments over and over. I kept coming up with new arguments, new points of view, new attempts at compromise. Because the "my way or the highway" folks ignored all of it I got frustrated and engaged in edit wars. My edits were mainly satirical, because everything seemed worth satirizing at that point. But go ahead and ban me. You're right: I have no remorse. The uptight prudes here are clearly meant to inherit Wiki-space. I'm with Brushcherry: he had the right attitude. So fuck off. No remorse here. Stevewunder (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with Steve here. When he participated on the Talk page, he was pretty constructive (far more so than Brushcherry).  He did vandalize articles and pull some fairly stupid stunts, but I assume that he's already been blocked and served out his time for those.  I think that there is a chance for rehabilitation here. Idag (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the only way Steve should not be banned is if he retracts his threats to disrupt the project further, promises not to engage in vandalism in the future, promises to remain civil, seeks mentorship, gets a lengthy topic-bann from Ayn Rand and related talk pages, and is placed on some kind of probation. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "My way or the highway", please and what ad hom attacks?  I am on a wikibreak at the moment for family reasons and just checking things from time to time.  However those statements are a total nonsense and typical of what happens on these pages.  --Snowded (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded, unless you want to recant, you were against Ayn Rand being called a philosopher, unwilling to compromise on that point entirely. That is the "my way or the highway" attitude. I was in favor of Rand being labeled a philosopher, but willing to compromise. As for ad homs, you engaged in them all the time. You often attacked other editors by name, dismissing them not on the grounds of their points but on the grounds their behavior was not to your liking. Of course, you could have ignored much of this behavior, but instead you used it as a point of attack (gave oil to the squeaky wheels) to dismiss the opinions of those who were against your opinion, and more importantly greatly disrupted the flow of discussion about content. Other than making the same point over and over, you did not engage in discussion. You did not seek consensus. You wanted your way or the highway. Your strategy has been character assassination. Instead of debating those who wanted honest, good faith debate, you put your focus on this arbitration in order to ban those who disagreed with you. You spent more time talking about editors than talking about edits. Certainly, you never were willing to debate any of my points, but instead wrote me off as someone who didn't belong in the discussion in the first place. Maybe you are right. Maybe that is how Wiki is supposed to work. Stevewunder (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read the talk page Steve you will find I consistently said it was a matter of policy, there was cited evidence to say she was, and multiple cases of where she wasn't.  How we handle negative evidence is for me a wikipedia issue which has not been properly addressed on this article and on others.  I also said (at least half a dozen times) that if a limited number or reliable sources was enough (by policy) that I would accept the label.  I also supported several compromises such as "she created a philosophical movement" or similar.  Yes I frequently asked other editors (including you) to stop impugning motives to other editors, and when no agreement could be reached I first supported mediation (rejected by your namesake and others) and then arbitration.  --Snowded (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded, the Arbcom started before I ever joined the Rand discussion. I have never understood what Arbcom was, what it was supposed to do, and still don't now. I am/was a newbie to Wiki, tho I am about to be an oldie. I have never impugned the motives of other editors. The only editors i have addressed directly are you and Idag, and with Idag I was trying to make progress on a compromise. I think we were making some progress, but it got sidetracked/ignored by those of you who liked to post the same arguments over and over. Your position of "number of reliable sources" is disingenuous because you know from the get-go that you don't accept the Rand-philosopher sources as reliable.


 * But your first sentence above explains all of my hostility. You said consistently it was a matter of "policy". It has never been clear that you are the one with a monopoly on the interpretation of policy here. Yet you speak as if you have it. The "policy" that is always quoted is Undue Weight, but as I have pointed out, yet you have ignored, by Undue Weight in citations Rand wouldn't be known as either screenwriter or playwright either. Why have you ignored that point? You have ignored it by dismissing the editor making the point. Against that point, we have gotten nothing but filibustering. You have filibustered the point until Arbcom gets rid of people like me making reasonable points.


 * There is a slight irony in all of this as I am not a Rand fan in the least--and those on my side in the argument are those i have generally disagreed with most. but on the philosopher issue, my point -- again ignored by you -- is that if there is to be all the criticism of her philosophy in the article, it only belongs if she is considered a philosopher in the fist place. Yes, i can be very stubborn myself. and i am not saying, Snowded, that your points are not valid also. but i don't quite get that banning me from wiki -- other than topic-wise -- is proportional to my transgressions here. Stevewunder (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Permanently banned
So, has ArbCom decided to abandon its long-standing practice of limiting bans to only one year? Not that I'm complaining; there are a few cases I've seen where I thought it should have been used already. Really, though, my biggest question is why "permanently" and not the more usual term "indefinitely". The former seems to pretty much lock out any possibility of appeal, whereas the latter suggests that the ban lasts until otherwise stated by the community committee, which seems a bit more far-sighted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had noticed this point and will comment on the wording when I vote on the proposals in the next day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Xiexie. (Also, note a correction to my prior post.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

it is worth noting that this is an expansion of the Committee's authority (in practice if not in principle). And, IMO, an unnecessay one. A year is a long time on Wikipedia and I have not seen any evidence that the community is having any trouble dealing with indefinate bans. Not that there is any particular issue in this case or indeed most cases in identifying editors who are simply not here for the constructive purpose of building an encyclopedia; I just don't think it is desireable to concentrate more power than necessry in the ArbCom. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, does the ArbCom have the power to indefinitely ban or not? I was always under the impression this was merely convention that the committee does not ban indefinitely, but Sam Blacketer writes as though the committee does not have this power at all. Cite, please? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking a break and several issues of policy/concern
I originally intended to post this earlier in the week but family circumstances limited my time, and even now i can't put the time in that I would like. However: So that is my position. I protest the edit warring accusation but offer my voluntary withdrawal as a remedy if it will help things move forward. I don't think the context of the debate on this article, my attempts to engage on the talk page or the evidence presented justifies the finding of fact or the proposed remedy both of which I find demotivating.
 * 1) There comes a time in any conflict when it is necessary for some parties to withdraw to create a space for new blood.  I am happy (very happy) to take an extended break from Ayn Rand given that the number of single issue editors will be reduced for a period.  I'll look in from time to time but I have several hundred articles that I watch which need attention.  A good 50% of my edits are to rv. vandalism and I have rollback privileges as a result of that activity which I have never abused.
 * 2) I remember towards the start of this conflict placing an extensive series of proposals for change on the talk page here.  Its a longish post but I would ask Arncom members to read it as it illustrates the efforts several of us made to have a sensible discussion that proved impossible.  Three of those proposals I left for several days before implementing them and they were not reversed.  My fourth proposal to reduce the sheer number of people "influenced" made a provisional grouping to allow decisions to be made.  A quick glance at the discussion that follows shows Wolfer and Kjaer immediately attacking my motivations and everything else followed.
 * 3) Having got no where on that issue and several others (everything deemed negative about Rand had to be "explained" or dismissed) I and others supported mediation but it was rejected.  Attempts to avoid conflict were tried and that is no mentioned in the findings of fact.
 * 4) I originally came to this article (in which I have no particular interest) as a result of an attempt by one pro-Rand editor to sabotage consensus on the lede of Philosophy (my degree by the way) and subsequently was one a group of editors who objected to "objectivism" as a philosophy being defined by Rand's thoughts.  My own academic work involves a natural sciences approach to creating an objectivist approach to ethics and other areas which has nothing whatsoever to do with Rand or her followers.  The article having once been a good one had lost its status thanks to a small group of single subject editors promoting a particular ideology this was a major factor in what followed and I think needs more reference in facts and remedies.
 * 5) Now I have been involved in other controversial articles (I am one of the editors in the Irish naming dispute which is under Arbcom at the moment) and while those have got heated they have never seen the level of abuse that I have seen on this page.   If you want to take an opinion which is contrary to those who are advocates you have to have a robust attitude and a very thick skin.  I freely admit that I was at times robust in my language but never personally abusive.  If I look back over the last three months there are things I might have been better not to say but to be honest in a couple of years of editing I have never seen anything like the level of invective that was thrown here.
 * 6) I do object to the ruling that I edit warred.  As far as I can see there is not a 3RR there, but a couple of 2RRs (one made when all editors had agreed to keep the article stable pending arbcom) and a 1RR.  With a little research I could find far worse including some from senior administrators.  In the context of several months of painful exchanges it would take a saint to be perfect and I make no claim to sainthood.
 * 7) In my day job I do a lot of conflict resolution work and part of that involves asking people to withdraw from some areas for a period.  I accept that I have become a lightning rod for some editors here (see the stevewunder accusations) and my withdrawal would make sense and I freely offer that.  I do however find an arbcom ruling of edit warring and a topic ban hard to swallow and demotivating.  The wording could also be implied to prevent me engaging in articles such as Philosophy if anyone with a Rand perspective engages and that would be a complete nonsense.

I also think this whole debate raises serious issues for wikipedia. They are in part addressed in the rulings but not completely. These are: One final point. I came to Wikipedia some years ago with a view to do field research into a complex adaptive system at work. I was one of four keynotes at a government conference in Singapore along with Jimbo and conversations there interested me. I intended to edit for a year, gather data and then write a paper on constraints and coherence (which are now to be book chapters). I have ended up staying and must spend a couple of hours a day when I am not travelling monitoring sites. I think in terms of critical mass/age etc Wikipedia is at a turning point in terms of academic acceptance (although those of us who defend it do not always have a good time) but the issue of advocacy groups is growing. I had hoped that with a new Arbcom engaging with this article some of the more substantive issues (other than editor behaviour) would be addressed. I still hope that this will be the case. --Snowded (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Issues of WP:Weight remain unresolved in particular the question of negative evidence.  Articles that have strong advocacy groups (like this one, Intelligent Design and others) present particular issues or problems in respect of negative evidence and I am disappointed that this has not been addressed.
 * 2) During the process one admin briefly got involved and sensibly froze the page for a period.  I know he appealed to other admins to help out/get involved and received a stony silence in response which is dissapointing.  There needs to be a better mechanism here.  We recently had a  editor (now banned) sabotaging one theology, one philosophy and one political article.  Clearing out the vandalism and getting an admin involved proved very difficult (I can link if you want) but there are many other examples.   If you are prepared to take on this type of vandalism you are constantly in danger of accusations of edit warring.  There was one last night on Socialism with one editor and an IP inserting political opinion about the US where I went to 3RR to clear out what seemed vandalism.  Editors prepared to take on single subject editors and borderline vandalism (I do a lot of this) need support and its not often forthcoming (see my sign off on de-motivation above)
 * 3) No one has addressed the issues at Schools of Philosophy where we have a similar problem to those reported on lists of great philosophers etc.  The question of the use of wikipedia being used by advocacy groups remains substantive and has not been addressed here.
 * 4) The fact the mediation can be rejected by one person means that there are no intermediary stages before we get to Arbcom intervention.  One of the things we asked for hereis the injection of a small committee of experienced editors to make judgements on evidence in particular weight.  Having a process for that would provide something between mediation (too easy rejected) and Armcom (a sledge hammer to crack a nut).
 * I just wanted to make you aware this was noted. I will take a bit to digest this and think it over before actually replying. Thank you for raising your concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with my topic ban on editing the article, however I'm not sure why it's six months as opposed to three like for Snowded, Idag, et. al. I'd note that at least one of the reverts cited there was a revert of a major deletion by CABlankenship that was clearly against consensus, and another was a good faith attempt to maintain the compromise about the philosopher issue. I would also like to state for the record that I do not believe 3RR counts as an entitlement (I'm sorry if I gave that impression). Finally, I'd like to second some of the concerns raised by Snowded. The issue of negative evidence is very serious, and so is the issue of insufficient administrative oversight, and the treatment that DDStretch received when he attempted to bring some order to the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, i do believe that all of my opposition here: Snowded, TallNapolean. et all, have all acted in good faith. But i think Snowded deludes himself in believing the Rand article is not a single topic issue for him. He makes a point to mention his background is philosophy, and with that seems to take a view that his interpretation of evidence is higher and more insightful than others. His insight may, in fact, be more insightful than others. But this very fact has made him all the more recalcitrant on the single issue of "philosopher". I have no problem debating the issue with him -- and he in fact may win the debate -- but instead of debating he prefers reporting editors HE finds troublesome, so that they may disappear completely. I don't think I would come off looking so bad here if others merely engaged in debate with me. As they haven't, i flipped my lid and yes, vandalized, the much edit-warred over page. i think it is completely reasonable that i and others are topic banned here, but i don't think it reasonable that i be completely Wiki banned. After all, this is a difficult article, and not necessarily representative of how any one editor might act on other articles that are less heated. Stevewunder (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve I reported you once here for this, to quote "you are a pretentious fuck". Other than that I have reported no one at any stage.  My contribution history shows that I am not a single topic editor.  --Snowded (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Response for Snowded: I am deeply sorry that you find it to be demotivational, but I do feel it is a fair outcome in context. You do very good work here and I do not want you to be discouraged because of the limited measures of this case. I also hope that you will stick around the Ayn Rand topic area and help the remaining editors reach a consensus. ArbCom largely (and almost exclusively) deals with behavioral issues. Concerns that would require significant modification (or creation) of policy need to be handled through the normal process of policy change. Your observations and worries are significant, but this is just not the venue for such issues. Vassyana (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This decision does not call into question your general editing, nor your use of the tools.
 * 2) The level of frustration engendered in the topic area has certainly been noted. I would also point out that the proposed decision sanctions the two users you mention clearly and firmly. (The sanctions and supporting findings of fact are also considerably stronger than those naming you.)
 * 3) "3) Dispute resolution" actually addresses this point. The attempts to make use of dispute resolution options were few and far between. There was one disputed RfC with a second proposed but never implemented (largely due to deteriorating interactions). Formal mediation was not sought until a late stage of the dispute (and no other attempts at mediation were made). The general lack of attempts to seek outside assistance (in a legitimate fashion) is noteworthy. (Ddstretch's attempts to raise the subject area for broader attention noted, but he was involved as an administrator, not a disputing party.)
 * 4) The article was delisted in June 2006. That's quite a while in net time and no evidence was submitted about the relevance of that delisting (and the surrounding circumstances) to the current dispute, though it was noted that the disputes over the topic stretch back into 2006 and before.
 * 5) I believe the findings of fact reflect the hostile and unwelcome environment, explicitly and implicitly.
 * 6) The finding has been revised to note that it was specifically "on Ayn Rand". I accept that everyone is human. I also accept that most people with some time in the project have edit-warred or engaged in equivalent action. However, this is a long-running dispute that reached high levels of inappropriateness, both in the mainspace and on the talk page. Good intentions or not, you helped to contribute to that environment. I'd also note that there is no negative finding about your overall talk page contributions.
 * 7) The topic ban is of relatively short duration and explicitly permits continued talk page participation. This is in line with the finding of edit-warring on the topic, but is a light sanction that acknowledges you are welcome to continue participating in the building of consensus. I'd hope that the topic ban would not be construed to apply to ridiculously broad articles that have not had considerable Rand-related trauma because someone decides to raise Ayn Rand there. (Or rather, I hope enforcing administrators will exercise a little common sense.)
 * 1) This is just not a question for ArbCom to address. This is something best raised at WT:NPOV, WT:FRINGE, the policy village pump, policy requests for comment, and so on. It is a point that needs to be resolved as a policy question, not as an ArbCom finding, as it is not clearly addressed by policy and would require substantive changes to WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR at minimum.
 * 2) As above, this is largely a community matter. Regarding this case, I would note that there is a wide variety in the severity of the remedies proposed, with more disruptive parties receiving stronger sanctions. Back on track, your point is certainly a valid observation. The English Wikipedia has the lowest ratios of administrators to editors and administrators to pages among the WMF's projects. According the main page, at this moment there are 2,787,152 articles. Assuming 5,000 active non-disruptive editors (which is extremely generous, given most accounts), that's roughly one editor per five-hundred sixty articles. Given the current admin stats, there is roughly one active administrator per three thousand articles. The chance that an editor is willing to constructively contribute (or participate at all) in controversial areas is lower than the average. The number of administrators who will intervene in disputes is a fraction of the active accounts with the bit. These are very important points, but they are not for ArbCom to resolve.
 * 3) I agree that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The canvassing that was evidenced is addressed in the proposed decision. However, as a broader issue, it is another point that needs to be handled normally in the community. If there is a systemic issue and our policies are deficient, the normal routes of policy modification and raising the matter for community attention are the appropriate means to reach a solution.
 * 4) This is yet another systemic issue that needs to be addressed at the community level. This would involve the creation of an entirely new policy and process, which is beyond the remit of the Committee in my opinion.


 * Thank you for the effort put into this response and I really have no energy to fight over this issue, the whole article space has been toxic enough. Your clarification on range of the "rand effect" is appreciated.  I will make three final points and I don't really expect a response, this is just for the record.  (i) if a couple of 2RRs and a 1RR after three months of contentious dispute and rejected attempts at mediation constitutes edit warring and justifies a topic ban then a lot of other articles would loose over half their editors.  I'm happy to back out of this one for three months and can see the sense of that but I don't accept it was edit warring.  I do think you should have considered asking for a voluntary withdrawal from several editors who did their best to stay calm in a difficult environment.   (ii) WIkipedia needs editors prepared to take on difficult pages like this and the issue of articles which attract single subject editors and advocates is a serious one for wikipedia.  I think Arbcom has to address this sooner or later and I am disappointed that this has not been done.  (iii) the question of evidence, proving a negative etc. is a similar issue.  The debate on this ranges on other articles.
 * This may not be the place to resolve these issues, but this article (and others) should surely trigger some task force or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to politely raise your concerns. Your suggestion of asking for voluntary withdrawl is a very good one and I will take it to heart. Regarding a project or task force, I would be glad to work with you as an individual editor to try and get something off the ground. I can also point you towards a few editors who have some good ideas about how to tackle difficult areas and/or have a solid understanding of controversial topic areas. Regarding the rest, if you would like to continue the conversation informally or privately, please don't hesitate to drop me an email. Vassyana (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vassyana, I've been making some notes in interim and other remedies based on my experience here. I think we are dealing with a specific class of articles here.  I will work something up rough in a sandput over the next few weeks and then get in touch.  (and I remembered to sign this one)  --Snowded (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal with regard to Stevewunder
I have agreed to mentor Stevewunder (assuming that he's not permanently banned), and would like to propose the following remedy concerning him in place of the one currently being proposed:

1. A topic ban on the Ayn Rand article for 1 year

2. Stevewunder may not edit any article that is being actively edited by Snowded - lots of antagonism between these guys

3. Probation for 6 months

I know that these seem somewhat light, but I would emphasize that this is a new editor whose first exposure to Wikipedia has been through the Ayn Rand quagmire. I would also propose an enforcement provision that if Stevewunder vandalizes any more pages, then he will become indefinitely banned. This will address concerns about possible future disruption while at the same time giving Steve an opportunity to rehabilitate himself and learn more about the project and its policies. As his mentor, I will try to work with him so that he understands how he could contribute constructively to the project. Idag (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I much appreciate your proposal, Idag. Stevewunder (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No antagonism on my part Idag although I confess to some irritation! Either way, given Stevewunder's deletion of his latest comments I think we have evidence of a willingness to reform.  So if he accepts your mentorship I would support your proposal although I don't feel the need for point 2.  He is a new editor and entered on the Ayn Rand pages which is not a good starting point.  Some latitude should be given.  --Snowded (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Point 2 has been removed. Idag (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As you may note, an alternative remedy has been proposed along these lines. Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana re 'meatpuppets'
It's possible that whoever first used the term "meatpuppet" didn't intend it to be taken as derogatory and insulting. Possible, but not very likely, and if true then that person badly needed to work on their communication skills.

Try this scenario on a non-wikipedian friend or relative:

Someone mentions to you that there's a discussion going on on Wikipedia in an area they're interested in. You follow the provided link and add your informed opinion. Someone responds by calling you a 'meatpuppet'. Is your first reaction 'Oh, what a nice polite person, I bet that's a constructive attempt to converse with me and in no way meant as an insult'?

Is there really any need for arbcom to encourage the use of such epithets? 87.254.80.49 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Or put it another way, suppose some group of editors started to refer to admins involved in arbitration enforcement as 'arbpuppets'. Do you think the intention behind such a term would be more likely to be constructive or inflammatory? Of course the admins are more likely to feel secure and overlook it than an outsider would, but what do you think of the merits of a phrase like that? Do you think that the added implication of reducing someone to a piece of meat in 'meatpuppet' improves upon that? Does it have a ring of "camaraderie and mutual respect"? 87.254.80.49 (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it can come across very badly and as a derogatory term. For the record, though, the "meat" bit refers to the meatpuppet being another, real, person, not a virtual entity (like a sockpuppet). See meatspace for an explanation of what "meat" means in this context (and apologies if you already knew this). Of course, Sockpuppet (Internet) doesn't confirm what I say, so possibly I made that folk etymology up... Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Again with the non-votes.
I think its just a game now. Arbitor votes that are conspicuous by their absense. Risker has chosen to vote on just about every one of the Ayn Rand proposals... yet saw fit to not vote on Principle 6: Conduct and Decorum.

Does he not believe in the principle?

Has he changed his mind on the principle since he last voted for it?

Is he doing it on purpose just to see if anyone notices?

Does it have anything to do with Reverse Vampires?

Only he knows!198.161.174.194 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * She. Risker (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. 198.161.174.194 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Move for speedy close
I move that this entire Arb com proceeding be suspended and instead a panel of mature adults be organized to resolve the issue of whether Ayn Rand can be referred to as a philosopher based on the sources. That's all that's needed. Not this lengthy hearing. Perhaps other disputes would arise after, but they could be resolved through the usual practices. As this hearing refuses or isn't allowed to address the content in question it seems utterly useless and disruptive. All of the editors involved, even those I consider fanatics, have generally shown good faith and only become exasperated by the never ending argument over this simple issue. Where discussion has strayed from article sourcing, content issues, and improving the encyclopedia it should be reigned in. Apart from that I am utterly befuddled by the massive time taken to engage in this lengthy process. We should stay focused on improving the encyclopedia and I'm sending out an S.O.S. for reasonable editors (Skomorkh (sp?)) seems to be doing a good job) to step forward and help resolve this issue before any more time is wasted on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC) (Trimmed original slightly)

I want to thank the arbitration committee for their good faith and consideration of the issues involved in this arbitration. I understand that the committee is doing it's job per the community's consensus determination of Arb com's role. I'm just frustrated that there isn't a way resolve content disputes with a process of due diligence and community review, the way we decide other issues like article deletions and behavioral sanctions. The prolonged dispute resolution by attrition process is exasperating. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted my reply to Snowded, some form of enforceable mediation would be a new policy and process that has to come from the ground up. I'd also invite to join Snowded and I (and whoever else might jump in) hash out a task force project. Some pages that may be helpful for stirring up some ideas or are just generally good to be aware of: Community enforceable mediation, Truce, Mentorship, Negotiation, Reviewing mediation, List of controversial issues, WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, Mediation Cabal/suggestions, Catalyst, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. --Vassyana (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As a piece of advice, in this sort of content dispute, it would be helpful if everyone could stop thinking purely in binary terms. If there really are two points of view in the world on this matter, there's no reason why Wikipedia cannot present them both (indeed, that's actually what we're supposed to do). --bainer (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephen Bain -- this issue is far more complicated than a simple NPOV dispute regarding "equal time". In fact, it has a great deal to do with the currently ambiguous wording found in WP:UNDUE about the preponderance of reliable sources, coupled with equally problematic interpretations of WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE and WP:LEAD. Sadly, I was hoping for a definitive ruling on this matter of interpretation -- not too dissimilar to situations involving the U.S. Supreme Court in which interpretations of the Constitution of the United States are effectively binding -- thereby avoiding lengthy legislative battles and bypassing an even longer community discussion that conceivably would drag out for several months to perhaps years.  I now understand from Vassyana that such a ruling will not be forthcoming. So be it. Now for an even longer clarification process at the respective policy venues. Sigh. J Readings (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with your position Stephen. Given the reliable sources that refer to her as a philosopher, the lack of sources suggesting she was not one, and the substantial criticism, I have supported noting she was a philosopher and including note of those who dismiss or otherwise rebutt her philosophical ideas.  In this case I don't think there is any ambiguity in policy. But sometimes you have a group of editors that still disagrees. In which case a panel to interpret policy and render a decision based on the evidence (reliable sources, Wikipedia policies, etc.) seems more useful to me than a panel that dishes out editing restriction but leaves the dispute itself unresolved and unclarified. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)