Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Case Amended by by motion on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 11:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

[edit]

Requests for comment

[edit]

Statement by Idag

[edit]

Some editors of the Ayn Rand article have made it their mission that the article must glorify Rand. Any removal of phrasing that praises Rand is viewed with suspicion (regardless of its merits) and the editor who suggests the edit, (as well as any other editor who agrees with them) is vilified as being part of an "anti-Rand faction."[6] There is a general refusal to consider the merits of proposed changes and there is, instead a tendency to engage in ad hominem attacks.[7] One editor was warned, twice,[8][9] about the AGF policy, and both times he responded by accusing the warning editor of an ulterior motive.[10][11] This inability to communicate has led to numerous edit wars to the point that the article needed to be placed on full-protect three times in the past month.[12][13] Idag (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steve

  • Kjaer was blocked because he was involved in a prolonged edit war that resulted in heated comments on all sides. I did not edit Wikipedia at all for most of that weekend and was not involved in the edit war. That is why my block was cut short (even Kjaer acknowledged as much).
  • The RfC that Steve is referring to was invalid for the following reasons: (1) it was closed by one of the protagonists after being up for only one day; (2) the language about how to vote was extremely confusing; and (3) the final vote was actually 7 to 5 (or 9 to 5 if you count two anon editors for who this was their first edit on WP). The RfC was poorly handled and when TallNapoleon offered to create a new RfC, his efforts were rebuffed (see diffs in dispute resolution section). Idag (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ethan a Dawe

The problem with stating that Rand is a philosopher is that there is a split in the sources. Some sources call her a philosopher while other notable sources refuse to give her that designation and simply call her a novelist. Editors who question whether the article should call Rand a philosopher are not exercising bad faith, they are merely trying to come up with the best way to address the split in the sources. Idag (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Crotalus

I would object to banning all Objectivists from editing this article. Most Objectivists who edit it are reasonable people who do not exhibit the behavioral problems at issue in this dispute. For example, Ethan, who is an Objectivist, has been editing this article for a long time and while he and I often disagree about certain content, he has been very reasonable in his discussions, and he has always been willing to discuss edits that I know he personally disagrees with. This problem is limited to a few bad apples who have dug in their heels and consistently refuse to engage in any type of reasonable discussion until they get their way. Idag (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kjaer

Examples of edits glorifying Rand:

Statement by Steve

[edit]

First: This arbitration request is badly named. This is not about two editors, many, many more are involved. And like most disputes it has two sides. I request that it be renamed, "Editing Dispute (Ayn Rand Article)" - or put the other key editor's names in the title - which would be silly. [the article is now renamed]

The Ayn Rand article has always been highly contentious. It attracts many people who hate Rand and her philosophy: Politically this includes many conservatives, liberals, socialists, anarchists, Christians, as well as advocates of differing philosophical systems. It also attracts dedicated fans, advocates of her philosophy, and cult-like followers. Reading the talk page shows the range of attitudes and positions, some of which are biased for or against to a degree that gets in the way of making a good encyclopedia article.

There was a fairly stable article (something that never lasts for long) towards the end of December. At that point a group who have proven themselves to be strongly biased against Rand, to the degree that their edits have an agenda that is at odds with Wikipedias, began to make edits in the "Influence" section of the article. There is a fan-magazine quality to some of that section and it did need editing. But the editors in question were interested in removing any substantial or notable forms of cultural influence and strengthening any negative comments - even if they were out of context.

The resulting dispute was heated, but within control and had reached a consensus - eaach side to the dispute had agreed on a fairly significant set of changes. At this point, a Wikipedia admin acquaintance of Snowded - that is someone who he is familiar with from other articles they edited, froze the page, based, if I remember right, about comments being to heated in the talk page (which they really weren't - not like I've seen before). And he blocked two editors for 24 hours: Idag and Kjaer. He quickly unblocked Idag but not Kjaer. At the end of the seven day freeze on the article, an avalance of edits poured out making radical changes and without any effort to attain consensus.

Kjaer posted a RfC requesting that the article be restored to the form it was in before those hundreds of edits were applied - all by on faction, nearly all negative. For the most part, those opposed to the edits being applied restrained from reverting, edit warring, fighting on the talk page, and concentrated on the RfC - which provided a 9-3 count in favor of the reversion.

Members of the other faction chose not to honor the RfC, deeming it flawed in this way or that and in general disputing and continuing to make negative edits. The page was frozen again. A meditation was requested. The way in which it was requested, the language framing it, and the unbalanced selection of participants caused me to reject it and to make it know that I believed we needed ArbCom.

There are a group of editors who have a fierce dislike of Rand, and her philosophy and based upon, in some cases, very strange personal beliefs, are that they are editing out of that POV. I believe that an examination of the edits themselves in this period of time and the comments on the talk page will bear this out.

Response to Crotalus horridus by Steve

Crotalus horridus states, "I strongly urge acceptance of this case. Rand-related articles are yet another dark corner of Wikipedia where POV-pushing has flourished for far too long." I strongly agree with that portion of his statement. But he is only stating one side of this dark truth about all controversial Wikipedia articles. There are rabid fans, and rabid haters. These are defined quite simply as... ...

  • 1) those whose likes or dislikes encourage them to use Wikipedia as a propoganda source for or against the article's subject,
  • 2) those whose urges to create propoganda overide their acceptance of the ultimate goal in this context of an encyclopedia article,
  • 3) those who end up manipulating WP to achieve that goal.

It is that last item that is the problem, because it means that at least one side of this kind of an edit war has some editors that are calling for 'balance' or 'notability' or 'good faith,' for example - but are really abusing those concepts.

ArbCom must take into account that there are both fans and haters that meet these criteria. By the way, Crotalus horridus is misapplying the quotes of Rand in a way that rules out acceptable compromises. He doesn't note that she also was a life long advocate of voluntary agreements based upon compromises that don't involve making a moral compromise. A moral compromise would be telling a lie to achieve a propoganda type of goal, or to call for balance when they really want out-of-balance. And the fact is that there are those who will lie regardless of what moral or philosophical positions they think they hold. Are we to ban everyone who is a Christian from editing articles about Atheists like Rand? Or everyone who is a Socialist? No. We need to ban those who put their agenda ahead of the purpose of Wikipedia. That's harder to do, but its what's needed. He says, "it is obvious that Rand and her works have gotten far too sympathetic a treatment," but that is opinion, POV, that may or may not be true. What is needed is an approach to each part of any given article - looking for the truth and editing for good encyclopedia articles. And to ban the editors who meet the 3 conditions shown above from editing in that subject area. That kind of ban, if it became a normal response to rabid fans and rabid haters would do a lot to bring light to those dark corners of Wikipedia. Look for those who lie to cover their intent.

Response to CABlankenship by Steve
  • CABlankenship has an unrelentingly harsh attitude towards Rand, which by itself is not the problem. (But it is hard to understand why he wants to hang around on her talk page.) He is accurate when he states that he has done little editing on her article - recently. But he has been a prolific provocatuer on the talk page. As one editor said, just ignore him. He is only trying to make trouble. His comments on the talk page are short assertions, or innuendos accusing Rand of racism, ignorance of science, or accusing other editors of being cultists, or as uniformly irrational. They usually aren't comments on edits, or specific content unless it is something dramatically negative... In general just things to create conflict.
  • He says (below in his statement on this page) that Rand has a set of fanatic followers with cult-like web-sites. There is some truth in that, but it is the same truth that could be applied to nearly anyone that achieves a very high level of cultural popularity: Movie stars, rock stars, politicians, or athletes. What is critical to understand is that 1.) It is only part of the picture, because that only represent a small portion of the people who find something positive in her work; and 2) CABlankenship paints all editors that disagee with his views as cultists. It is the essence of his contribution to this article - smearing all who disagree with his views as Scientology-like weirdos, and Rand as another L. Ron Hubbard; and 3) The same dogmatic, cultish behavior can be attributed to a small but vocal group of Rand-haters, including having their own web sites.
  • CABlankenship said, "I will put aside my extreme distaste for comparing the 'sophomoric' work of Rand with the profound genius of Dostoyevsky in order to make a point. ...Dostoyevsky was an evil genius, who nevertheless wrote sublime works on morality, philosophy, psychology, and religion. Perhaps Rand was just evil." (my emphasis)
  • He also said, "...I removed myself from this page [Ayn Rand] for a reason. I have nothing at all good to say about Rand. I despise her too much to be of any use to the neutrality of this article." (emphasis mine) But just a day or so after telling an admin he was not going to edit, he did.
  • Here is more comment of the same unhelpful sort that expresses a depth of disdain for Rand and paints anyone who isn't of that same persuasion as mindless followers.
  • Here he accuses another editor of making things up, saying that no one called Rand "godless", but in fact, TallNapoleon said, "Now I cannot STAND Ayn Rand. I think Objectivism is dangerously radical, destructive, godless, chaotic, exploitative, unjust... you name it. That said, it is still a philosophy, which by definition makes Rand a philosopher." (empahsis mine)
  • Here is a pair of comments that show the bias, when he says, "Rand was a cultist, and that Objectivism is a dogmatic cult," and then in practically the same breath calls for a neutral editor to do a complete overhaul. What is clear is that he isn't neutral, that he has admitted to being too biased to edit this material, that he persists in doing his part in fueling conflict.

(more later)

Response to TallNapoleon by Steve

TallNapoleon states in his/her statement on this page, "The biggest issue I have with the current state of the article is its size and its structure. It is in my opinion entirely too long, and devotes overmuch time dealing with the minutiae of Rand's views." The size of the article is a subjective issue and I am stunned someone would see that as the biggest problem. It is true that there is some fan-type minutiae in the article - and a compromise had been reached in the section on Popular Influence to restructure and shrink that down.

TallNapoleon has called my rejection of the mediation inexplicable. Well, I've tried to explain as best I can, here on this statement, on the talk page of the Ayn Rand article, and on the talk page of the Mediation request. Basically we needed to get at the real heart of this issue - which is not the size, not the structure, not the fan additions to the popular influence section, but rather the editors who can not get past their harsh agendas to create an article that is, pardon the word, objective.

Kjaer's attempt at an RfC was an honest attempt to stop an avalance of negative editing that was done with barely even a thought to consensus. Look at the edits just after the article was unfrozen from its Dec. 31st version (a week later) and count the edits per day! Then look at the overall thrust. His RfC was an attempt to get to where we could work things out as we had with the Influences section. I was very disappointed that didn't happen.

As to TallNapoleon's complaint's about civility, wikilawyering, distractions, etc. They are all complaints that could be made against different editors on both sides of this issue.

TallNapoleon refers to a paper written as a word document and emailed to another editor, TheJazzMan. They had, on TheJazzMan's talk page been discussing TallNapoleon's opinion's on Rand and Objectivism. TallNapoleon has some fairly unique views about Rand being an Idolter. For example: "I didn't characterize it as a paper on the Holocaust. I characterized it as a paper concluding that Rand and her followers are idolaters. Certainly plenty of other people (see Ozick) have traced the Holocaust to idolatry" and some more, "I have in fact given a great deal of thought to the root causes of the Holocaust, and assure you that I feel no moral ambivalence whatsoever about it. My conclusion is that events like the Holocaust are caused by idolatry--the worship of human constructs or worse, human beings. Having read all of Rand's novels and much of her nonfiction, I also conclude that she and her followers are idolaters, and would be glad to forward you a paper I wrote a couple of years ago that argues just that." TallNapoleon deleted the page from another editors talk page (TheJazzMan) without permission and claimed IP. I'm strong proponent of IP, but I wasn't sure it was an appropriate action and that the copyright issue raised might not apply. I just pointed out possible objections - the issue is to be decided by admins in an incident already opened. Like I said, I just made observations. I wanted to see the rest of the paper that informed what I see as a strange view of Rand and Objectivism on the part of TallNapoleon who has referred to Objectivism as "...dangerously radical, destructive, godless, chaotic, exploitative..."

As to the Native American comment he made, 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." And CABlankenship replied, "That would be consistent with her Anglophilia." It got worse from there, because TallNapoleon found a very twisted misquote at a blog that specialized in anti-Rand commentary and published that on the talk page, leaping into a discussion of Rand being an advocate of genocide! I'm not making this up! I supplied a correction with this post (see note), but it didn't slow TallNapoleon down, perhaps because he/she is convinced beyond evidence of somekind of monsterous evil lives in Rand. Look at this comment: "Let me be perfectly clear. Her hero, John Galt, is directly responsible for the deaths of millions, and the entirety of Atlas Shrugged screams at the reader, "They had it coming." Any philosophy that justifies the casual destruction of millions is insane. John Galt is Moloch personified--and Ayn Rand worshipped him."

( Note: there is a weird discontinutity where History Diff Links for edits between 10:13 20 January and 07:54 20 January (UTC) are missing - maybe because of the overly long section name? But you can find the my post by going to the 6th paragraph down in that section. It is signed by me and starts with "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." )

How could I not suspect that for TallNapoleon this isn't about building an informative, neutral Wikipedia article, when it apppears to be a holy quest to stop genocide and expose evil - evil idolators.

(Additional Comment at talkpage)

Statement by Snowded

[edit]
  • I support Steve's suggest for renaming this request
  • There is a clear need here to determine questions of EVIDENCE and BALANCE as there no agreement between the editors even when citations are given and we have rampant OR
  • Conduct is a major issue and accusations of bias approach intimidation at times
  • The vast majority of sources used come from Rand web sites or books from members of her movement, there is little third party material. The same sources (for example a six year old newspaper article) are used to make assertions about the current period. Its a mess
  • For the record I don't think any of the facts support Steve's statement above, in particular there was no proper RFC, instead a straw poll was called and closed by one of the partisans
  • This article is just the flashpoint, there have been other disputes on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and Schools of Philosophy as well as vandalism (inserting Rand's definition without reference or honesty) on Philosophy, the discussion on that is here

It needs someone to manage the process. Ideally I would suggest an independent panel or person to make decisions about evidence in controversial areas and to monitor behaviour of individual editors. --Snowded TALK 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Active external canvassing is taking place, see here. Post 17 requests specific action on two articles. --Snowded TALK 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kjaer states here that he edits on external sites as Ted Keer. Here we see Ted Keer actively canvassing for people to edit WIkipedia in support of his views. Kjaer is one of the active protagonists on the various Ayn Rand disputes and has at least two blocks for edit wars. --Snowded TALK 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In respect of Kjaer's not so subtle suggestion that I may have created a sock puppet in Turnsmoney he is very welcome to request a check user. I have yet to see a case where someone created a sock puppet in order to identify a web site. Had I found that web site I would have published it in my own name. I note by the way, despite the advocacy of use of WP rules there is no apology or explanation by Kjaer/Keer for a blatant and sustained (over several months) of WP:MEAT not is there any promise or undertaking to cease --Snowded TALK 09:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TallNapoleon

[edit]

I agree with the proposal to rename this request. I will post more on this later, when I have time. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue I have with the current state of the article is its size and its structure. It is in my opinion entirely too long, and devotes overmuch time dealing with the minutiae of Rand's views. For instance her views on homosexuality, for instance, are at best a footnote to her philosophy. In addition it promotes an overly hagiographical image of Rand. The inclusion of a section responding to criticism was, in my opinion, an absolutely ridiculous example of this. Finally the legacy section was, essentially, akin to those appalling "In popular culture" sections. It merely listed people who were allegedly influenced by Rand, often of dubious notability (there was soap opera star there, for God's sake), and many of the references used came from Randite sources. To be honest it struck me and many other editors as an attempt to artificially inflate Rand's legacy at the expense of article quality. Attempts at compromise, including proposals to model the article after those for other authors or philosophers which had received FA status and an attempt at mediation were blocked by some pro-Rand editors (others, to their credit, signed on). The rejection of mediation, in my opinion, is simply inexplicable, especially given that it is totally non-binding.

Other issues include the continual assumptions of bad faith by numerous pro-Rand editors, the loss of civility, and the apparent attempts to use Wikilawyering and distractions to achieve goals. Kjaer's RFC was extremely poorly handled, for the reasons Idag explained above, and to use that as the basis to revert over a week's worth of editing, edits which had been discussed on the talk page and for which consensus had been developed at the time, was absolutely unjustifiable and flew completely within the face of policy. There is also | this. I had sent a paper I had written about Rand to User:TheJazzFan privately, which he then posted to his Talk page without my permission (and I do not believe TJF was acting in bad faith when he did so). I asked on ANI that it be removed from the revision history, which it was. After this, TJF made the bizarre insinuation that I was not in fact the paper's author, while User:SteveWolfer sought to have the edits restored on a very dubious basis and despite my expressed wishes as the author that it not be. Frankly it smelled to me of bad faith, harassment, and an attempt to see my IP released under the GFDL against my expressed wishes as the author. The bizarre discourse surrounding Rand's quote about the Native Americans, shown | here and | here is another example of the general breakdown of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF over the past few weaks. Something needs to be done if any progress on the article is to be made. Until such point, it appears that indefinite protection may well be warranted. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand as a philosopher

There is a legitimate debate to be had here. The big problem, I would say, is that Edward Nilges (blocked user User:spinoza1111) seriously poisoned the well on that entire debate. I rather like the proposed compromise "developed the philosophical system of Objectivism" as it sidesteps a frankly tedious debate with no easy answers. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rabid haters"

I should note that many of us "rabid haters"--and a good number of the "rabid fans"--signed on to mediation. Mediation--in my opinion the best chance we had for reaching a compromise--was rejected by Steve and Kjaer. That is why we are here. The failure to accept mediation, the refusal to accept a second and more properly handled RFC appear to speak to a strong unwillingness to compromise. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ethan A Dawe

It's an interesting point. Here's the difference, as I see it. Rand's views on homosexuality frankly reflect prevalent sentiments of the time. I'd say they're probably worth a one-line mention--NOT a whole subsection. Rand's view of Native Americans, however, are interesting in that they appear to contradict her stated beliefs in individual rights, and are frankly a lot more disturbing. I would argue that they appear to reflect her own philosophy and core ideas, whereas her comments about homosexuality appear to reflect a relatively common prejudice at the time. It's one thing to say one finds homosexuality "disgusting" while maintaining, as she did, that a proper state would have no business interfering. It's quite another to justify ethnic cleansing, which is what the 1974 West Point quote did. And incidentally, I do disagree with Rand's view of homosexuality quite strongly. That said I could still be convinced not to include the West Point quote. It may simply be impossible to work it into the article well. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responce to Snowded on Canvassing

This absolutely calls into question the way the original RFC was handled. At this point I believe there can be no doubt whatsoever as to its total invalidity. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steve

I did not like the ellipsis in that quote either, Steve, which is why I repeatedly asked that other editors with access to the original source post the unedited quote. Believe it or not I was actually busy with RL stuff at the time, and because I do not own the source, I couldn't do so myself. I finally was able to track down what appears to be a copy transcribed out of Ayn Rand Answers and posted it on the talk page. That has, apparently, been ignored. I consider Rand to be the originator of an evil and destructive philosophy, and I have freely expressed this opinion. That I believe this, however, does not disqualify me from editing the Ayn Rand page. The context of my quote on the talk page accusing her of godlessness, among other things, was attempting to explain to Nilges why I, as someone who strongly disagreed with Rand, still believed that she should be called a philosopher. Now, I want to see that article reach FA status. As far as my POV goes, I too would be entirely happy with an "objective" article. I will note that the section on homosexuality was not exactly flattering to Rand, and yet I was in favor of its removal. Unfortunately, it right now leans towards hagiography and fan-pagedom, and the obstructionist efforts of the Objectivist editors on the page made any attempt to improve and yes, shorten the article nigh impossible. Frankly, though, I'm at my wits end. The pro-Rand faction has engaged in serious personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith consistently for the past month, and it's beginning to appear as though their goal is to simply run off any editors who disagree with them. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC) And my statement about Rand's godlessness was buried in an archive. CAB was wrong, but it's an honest mistake. Hell, I had forgotten I had written it until I was reminded. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Turnsmoney

I don't see how it's terribly relevant (I do believe his story about not wanting to reveal his IP), but would this be a good case for a Checkuser? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ethan Dawe

[edit]

Arbitrators should, before ruling on this huge mess, read the long long long debate. Sad to say, but the truth will only be seen by doing that. Steve's description is correct above though. I myself have stoppped editing the Ayn Rand article, with the exception of reverting changes this past fall by spinoza1111 who is blocked. I've stopped spending any serious effort on wiki thanks to the action of some of those involved in this arbcomm. Some of these editors have acted in extreme bad faith and have been supported by admin action. "Anti"-rand posters engaging in attacks on "pro"-rand editors have been mostly ignored my admins while any such behavior by a "pro"- rand editor is immedietly warned. This beahvior is a mockery of what wiki is supposed to be about. Ethan a dawe (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I especially think the C. Blankenships's posts should be examined. Almost all are full of uncivil remarks made without good faith and designed to provoke others. He has repeatedly attempted to bait other editors and is generally disruptive to the process by destroying the good will that may otherwise exist. He is not alone in this, but is the worst offender in my opinion. Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary concern I've had with the article was the attempt to change the designation of Rand from novellist and philospher to just novelist, or something else. This debate was had previously and many sources were provided. One I provided was from an introduction to philosophy textbook that identified rand as a novelist and philosopher. This was how I first heard about rand. I still have the textbook and provided it. It was written by a philospher who also has a wikipedia entry. Seems straight-forward enough. This was mostly ignored as a consensus among those who don't like rand thought that they could essentially ignore it. I don't know why. After this attempts were made on other pages to remove rand and objectivism from the list of philosohers and philosophies. What's up with that? With a larger pool of "anti-rand" editors in place this group then moved to replace everything in her artcile with negative comments. I beleive the article must include criticism and must show her as the controvercial figure she is and was. However, the "rand-haters" (and they have been open about this hate in their comments) have been on a huge campaign. I know Steve and Kjaer are willing to see criticism in the article but they have been backed into a corner with this assault. Look at the comments on the talk pages. Look at the insults and the tactics used by the "anti-rand" editors to put these two in a position of edit warring. Insulting them, reverting htem, with admins warning them and ignoring some really nasty remarks by anti-rand editors. If wikipedia is to have balanced contributions and mean something then this needs to stop. We need a NPOV article that isn't merely written by editors who don't like rand. I'm an objectivist myself, but have no problems with well-sourced criticsms that provoke thought and further reading. I don't feel that the majority of "anti-rnad" editors feel this way and they have been trying hard to push their POV. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TallNapolean

Her comment on homosexuality was minor, but her comments on American Indian's having there land seized are important? This wouldn't be becasue you agree with the one and disagree with the other would it? I disagree with both and think despite being an objectivist! Ethan a dawe (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to CAB by Ethan Dawe

The arbcomm will read your comments and decide for themselves. I'm just pointing out my opinion. You said what you said and it's there for all to read. Let them decide :-) Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Crotalus by Ethan Dawe

I'm an objectivist, and I can compromise, just not on my morals. This is an encyclopedia article based on facts and the opinions of others about those facts. If you are going to make blanket statements about objectivists please do some research first. Of course she was controversial and there are going to be things that she said that people disagreed with. They can and should be included....IN CONTEXT. As long as the context of criticism is included and doesn't mis-state her positions or those on objectivism I am fine with it. Removal of context and spinning are the number one casuses of NPOV violations. I'm sure I can find something you've written somwhere and quote it out of context to make you sound anyone I like, but your above statment is just proving the point that many "anti-rand" editors are painting her and objectivists with a broad and flase brush. Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Idag by Ethan

Were that not followed on by the immediate attempt to edit out any possible influence she may have had and add in anything unflattering no matter how remote or old I would tend to agree with you. There is a pattern of editing here. The philosopher argument is just one part of it, and the constant twisting and restating of the criteria has grown tiresome. First it was looking for a source that was then provided. Then it was stated that the source must be from academia and from non-objectivists. Etc etc etc. Several sources were provided showing academic philosphers who were not objectivists refered to her as a philospher. Then it was the need for the majority of sources, including newspaper articles and whatever must call her philospher. It just got stupid. No source will appease those who don't want her to have the title of philospher, so I have given up trying. My purpose here is to see that this foolishness stops. Ethan a dawe (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Peter Damien by Ethan Dawe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Paul_Wolff is a philosopher who disagrees with you Peter. He called her a novelist and philosopher in his philosophy textbook: "About Philosophy" I'll happily provide page numbers for you (again!) Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by C. Blankenship

[edit]

Although I have barely touched this article, and have refrained from much personal editing, I have an interest that the mainstream academic view of Rand be presented. Disingenuous claims on her influence abound in this article: harsh critics of Rand such as Murray Rothbard (who wrote an essay calling Objectivism a dogmatic cult, and compared her to communist personality cult leaders) are presented as if they were admirers. Misinformation is common, and attempts to remove it are heavily resisted. It's difficult to resist concluding that there are some editors more interested in propaganda and slant than in facts. Rand is an individual with a fanatical and devoted following on the internet in the form of several cult-like websites that are quite similar to Scientology, creationism, and other fringe groups. They have no qualms with round-the-clock edit warring in an attempt to maintain a fan-page level view of Rand. CABlankenship (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ethan A Dawe by C.Blankenship

I have been accused of "uncivil remarks made without good faith and designed to provoke others", "destroying the good will", and that I have been part of a group that is attempting to "push their POV." To the first comment, I will simply say that facts are not civil or uncivil. So when I point out that many respectable scholars, academics, and former high level members of her collective consider Objectivism a "cult", you may consider this "uncivil", but that doesn't mean that I should not bring these facts to light. As for "destroying the good will", I would say that it's difficult to maintain "good will" when the relevant facts I'm presenting are bound to offend her followers, who are (in my opinion) being less than rational in their approach to this article, and who have an emotional bond with Rand and Objectivism which makes reasonable discussion difficult. On the accusation of being part of a group attempting to push a pov, I will point out that I have stated my point of view quite openly, but that this is quite different from pushing my point of view, as I have left most of the actual editing of the article to others, content with simply bringing facts to light, giving sources, and allowing other editors to decide what to do with these sources. I have given my opinions on the article, but I have not "pushed" my opinions. Just as unpleasant facts about L.Ron Hubbard are bound to offend followers of scientology, the same is true of objectivism and Rand. Whenever a personal lifestyle guru is called into question, those who have a personal attachment to that life-style philosophy will normally regard it as an attack on their person and way of life. That they take offense is not surprising, but it is also not helpful to the construction of an article. This would be less disturbing if they did not fanatically oppose the removal of outright misinformation (such as in the case of Rothbard), and if they did not engage in edit warring with other well-meaning editors. Suggestions from myself to base the article on FA's was categorically rejected by the "opposition". CABlankenship (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Modernist

[edit]

I have made only very minor contributions to this controversy; and I'm somewhat neutral on the issue as a whole; although I do have my opinion concerning Ayn Rand, and over the past two years I've made some inconsequential contributions to the article. I've read four of Rands books. I think she was an interesting writer; and not a philosopher. That said - the edit warring and obstructionism on this article and it's talk page must stop. The arguments seems endless, pointless and incredibly defensive on the part of Rands embattled defenders; her critics while just as adamant seem a bit more ready to achieve some sort of compromise. At this point it's beyond a stubborn stalemate; it's become a disgraceful spectacle...Modernist (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from DDStretch

[edit]

Since my actions as an administrator have been alluded to by User:SteveWolfer and User:Ethan a dawe as if they were somehow improper, I feel I have no alternative but to add my name to this matter, even though I have no desire to. This is a placeholder for a more complete statement that will come later.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on what I see as happening regarding my actions. Links, etc will come with the full evidence if the case is accepted.

  • I saw excessive edit-warring on Ayn Rand which made me protect the article.
  • The misuse of the talk page (WP:TALK) led to me issuing a severe warning to all sides about continuing violation of WP:TALK, failure of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
  • Violation of WP:TALK continued by two editors, so User:Kjaer and User:Idag blocked for 24 hours. One from each rival "camp" it appears.
  • Anger was directed at myself from editors who seem to be Ayn Rand enthusiasts, some of whom were new to the current discussion at that point, and there was a suspicion that they had been canvassed.
  • I asked for a review of my actions on WP:AN: one admin privately agreed with my actions in protecting the article, and issuing the severe warning about conduct on WP:TALK. They mostly agreed with the blocks, but on discussion suggested that User:Idag was a minor player in the ongoing violations, due to provocation, which meant that the block was curtailed for Idag but not for Kjaer.
  • Disappointing response from rest of admin body: there have been no obvious response to repeated requests for assistance in dealing with the problems on my and others' behalf.
  • In the above circumstances, to try to prevent further escalatory disruption, I felt I had to act alone, and I think this article has been let down by the larger admin body.
  • I only commented on behaviour on Talk:Ayn Rand occasionally (not preferentially as alleged) This may have resulted in a perception that I was targetting one side because of the relatively high frequency with which that side was adding messages to the talk page. I could not continually watch the page 24 hours per day.
  • User:Kjaer stated that his/her involvement in mediation could only happen if I and another editor were not involved. This violates the spirit of mediation and fails right from the start in WP:AGF.
  • I then withdrew from any involvement, for a variety of reasons, including the hope that by withdrawing, that would help Kjaer accept the offer of mediation, since the prime need is to resolve the problems through negotiation and consensus.
  • Reluctantly decided to re-involve myself with this arbitration after allegations were made to discredit my actions by User:SteveWolfer and User:Ethan a dawe.

 DDStretch  (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Damian

[edit]

This is an important case for the committee. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, but reliable sources do not generally mention writers like Rand who have been marginalised by the academic profession. We need guidance on how to use the sources we have (professional philosophers speaking extempore, a handful of references in reliable sources, not much else).

I don't understand the comments about 'anti Rand' by the way. My politics are on the conservative side. Speaking as a philosopher, however, I find her work incoherent and amateurish. It would be deceiving the reader of Wikipedia if she were represented as a mainstream philosopher among mainstream philosophers. She isn't mainstream, and she isn't really a philosopher at all. Peter Damian (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kjaer

[edit]

Why was the arbitration named after myself and Steve Wolfer? That alone is a personal attack, not an attempt at consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=265336744

First, let me address the minor issue of the use of pro-rand and anti-rand in the talk page, since the first and last editor above have commented on it. It is simply a convenient label for the two factions that exist here. It seems fairly accurate. I and others have been labeled as Rand glorifiers and as cultists. Should I howl in outrage? I consider myself an admirer, and edit this page since I have some twenty two years expertise. How I count as a glorifier, when I have resisted deletions of mention of such things as her embarrassing stance on homosexuality or of her infamous extramarital affair with Nathaniel Branden, is beyond me. My concern since the removal of the DEC 31 block has been the retention of verifiable information that is being deleted upon one sole criterion - some editors find Rand to be worthy of contempt, and unworthy of a comprehensive detailed article based on verifiable sources.

I find that this entire dispute can simply be handled by adherence to wikipedia policy. There is no justification for arbitration, nor for a block on the article. Cited material, such as Rand's notable position on homosexuality (again, not flattering) or her recognition as a philosopher by everyone including the hostile NYTimes should not be removed from the article. People's personal POV should not matter, and should certainly not be a rationale for future edits. (Yet, see "Yeah, I removed myself from this page for a reason. I have nothing at all good to say about Rand. I despise her too much to be of any use to the neutrality of this article. I find her to be a fourth-rate philosopher consisting of banal assertions: "The world is real", "we can use our senses to examine reality", dressed up in pseudo-philosophical language, and without anything resembling rigorous logical argument. With this in mind, I don't think I can remain neutral." at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_16#Propaganda_pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand#I_win_my_bet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand#Personality_and_Objectivist_Collective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand#Science) And the incessant POV oriented OR being done on the Talkpage by a certain faction should cease immediately. It is a disruption to those editors interested in expanding the article, and providing sources for contested material.

I am attacked by a certain faction as having been blocked from editing this page. The block was by an editor who expressed his own disdain for the subject of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CABlankenship&diff=prev&oldid=261602077 It was not due to my editing of the article, but due to the fact that I responded to the repeated POV comments of Idag (who was also blocked) and other editors. At some point, Agf becomes moot. You do not find me using abusive language, just saying that I indeed do question, and still do question the motives of certain editors, just as they question mine, see the repeated accusations of cultism and cultist editors, 15 uses on the current talk page.

And of course I note that while CABlankenship, who has repeatedly expressed his inability to edit the page objectively, and DDStretch, who has expressed his agreement with CABlankenship continue to participate in this dialog, editors Jmaurone and DAgwyn are excluded from this arbitration.

As to the charges of meat puppeteering, I ask, then, who are the meatpuppets? I do see one obvious sock puppet - the newcomer editor Turnsmoney whose first action at wikipedia is not to edit a page, but to raise an accusation during an arbitration. Perhaps Snowded, who was so kind as to read all of my edits since my origin here, and who was so intrepid as to "discover" what I have made clear myself, that I post to an Objectivist forum, can tell us who Turnsmoney is.

What matters is that this article does not need to be rewritten with the express purpose of conforming to the hostile personal opinion of any editor. The charge has been raised that certain editors wish to glorify Rand. Okay, please show one "glorifying" edit. Just one. Steve has documented the bias of a certain faction here above. But there has not been any documentation of even one single pro-Rand innovation on this page.

This entire process, the freezes to the page, the absurd use of the talk page as a pltaform for hostile original research, the personal accusations, the objection to the use of the merely convenient term anti-Rand faction by people who do not refrain from explicitly calling editors who do not share their POV cultists, the whole exercise is a farce. End this arbitration. Remove the freeze. Let us simply edit the page based upon the last consensus version of DEC 31. Let us not verifiable material. A pesonal disdain for a subject whose influence and notabilty one questions is not a justification from removing information that shows that person's influence and notability. If we are to shorten the article, let us do it based upon the extant WP policy of creating sub-articles, not upon the utterly unjustifiable deletion of material that those who are hostile to Rand think should be of no interest to anyone who reads this article. The hour I have spent on this statement, and the time spent on this arbtration is a waste. Let us end this. Let us edit.Kjaer (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheJazzFan

[edit]

The problem is this misguided notion of it being imperative to include "all viewpoints" regarding Ayn Rand and Objectivism in the name of so-called "balance" which is just another way of saying disagreement with her ideas. This is the cause of all this deadlock and could easily be bypassed by not making the assumption that the article should include criticisms or praise of Ayn Rand's thoughts, assertions about her influence or lack thereof, etc. Yes, I'm aware of this Wikipedia thing of "significant points of view", I'm in disagreement with it, at least as it seems to be applied to this subject. There is no "point of view" when it comes to reporting events of someone's life or what someone said - it happened or it didn't, they said it or they didn't. Eliminate all this vying to frame it in what whatever a particular faction believes to be the proper philosophical/political/academic/literary/social context, you'll never get agreement.

An article on Ayn Rand should factually summarize her life and works, an article on Objectivism should be a neutral, factual summation of the points of Objectivism as they're stated - the tenets of Objectivism, an institution devoted to her ideas exists, certain key historical figures within Objectivism like Peikoff, Branden, Yaron Brook, etc. (I see there's an article on the Objectivist movement) all of which is factual and verifiable. Even a controversy like the Kelley/ARI split is a verifiable event. Fine, include it in the appropriate article with a brief explanation.

Eliminate all value judgment from the article as far as other opinions about her or Objectivism - how she is or isn't viewed by academia, in what countries she's popular etc. because of the impossibility of doing so in a balanced way and the utter enormity of the topic. Eliminate this element and you eliminate all this sturm und drang of factionalism, all this time wasted on "arbitration". What the anti-Rander's don't seem to get is that doing this does not imply endorsement or validity.

Eliminate phrases (taken from both the Ayn Rand and Objectivism articles) like:

Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature

After decades of dismissal or outright hostility from the profession, Rand's ideas have found some recognition within academic philosophy.

the sex in Rand’s novels is extraordinarily violent and fetishistic.

Ayn Rand's ideas are often supported with great passion or derided with great disgust

Objectivism has been called "fiercely anti-academic"

In recent years Rand's works are more likely to be encountered in the classroom than in decades past.

Rand is not found in the comprehensive academic reference texts The Oxford Companion to Philosophy or The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

All statements that don't focus on informing factually about Ayn Rand or Objectivism. They do potentially provide fodder for antagonism between editors.

An encyclopedia entry isn't the place to promote an agenda in any direction. Stating certain facts about Ayn Rand's life and the facts of the content and history of Objectivism is relatively straightforward, demonstrating whose disagreement or agreement is worthy of including isn't. If someone doesn't know anything about Objectivism to begin with, how are they supposed to make heads or tails of any of it? If someone IS versed in Objectivism, they're likely going to be aware it has its detractors. Debate with dissenters is just part of the milieu of Objectivism. You can buy Objectivism debates in audio & video form. There are forums for people to engage in debate. An article like this isn't the place to form opposing protest lines.

"Canvassing"

This is an ill-conceived "guideline" to begin with that smacks of Big-Brotherism and as has been stated in the Ayn Rand discussion, is essentially unenforceable. That anyone would actually devote large chunks of their life to attempting to monitor communication between others seems ludicrous and pathetic. Not to mention invasive. Imagine the outcry - not to mention the lawsuits - if that same kind of thinking were applied to voters of whatever ethnicity who were urged to vote in an election.

If what I've suggested is followed, it makes any issue like canvassing and the resultant hypertension over it a moot point. It doesn't matter how many fellow bloggers pro or con gang-up. Make it so the only "debate" is whether the material is about specifically, biographically and/or academically describing Rand's life and works in summary form, is accurate and meets citation standards. They either have something to add that fits those criteria or they don't.

It's said that "consensus" should be reached, even if some of those included in the process are FOS. Whatever handful of like-minded editors and an aligned administrator or three who happen to have the time to devote to their cause makes "consensus".

Having some familiarity with her works, it's my assertion that some of the statements (both by editors here and critics at large) I've seen regarding her thoughts are absolutely crackpot. They simply do not reflect an understanding of what she said and in many cases an utter refusal to try based on an entrenched framework of already held personal convictions. Ayn Rand was an atheist? Ah - that's it, she's evil - fingers in ears lalalalalala not gonna hear any more. How does including the viewpoint of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about a/or is promoting some agenda out of some notion of "fairness" improve an article? If professionals who've devoted a large part of their lives to studying and supporting Ayn Rand and Objectivism can't reach a uniform consensus, I find it incredulous to suppose some motley assemblage of random users with wildly differing levels of knowledge, comprehension perhaps even sanity are going to do better. You think you're going to settle the issues here on Wikipedia, that it's going to be regarded as definitive? Hardly.

To factually state "Ayn Rand said so-and-so" isn't taking a position on its validity. She did in fact say so-and-so. But including criticisms or praise of what she said or other subjective statements is by default introducing the element of point of view and is a catalyst for bickering. The argument might be made that certain disagreement that's integral to the history of Objectivism has to be included - again such as the reasons for the Kelley/ARI split. It would be ridiculous to say there was a schism but not give some summary of why. But there are verifiable statements by both sides that explain why it happened.

If you keep it within a narrow focus there's nothing TO "balance". There's nothing unbalanced about factually stating her thoughts. Her life was what it was, her stated ideas are what they are and are amply documented.

There will forever be acrimony between parties both qualified and unqualified to even comment on the subject, even among those supposedly on one particular "side". As mentioned, even among well-informed Objectivists there are intense disagreements. How do you propose to wade through all the factionalism when the warring parties are the ones making the edits? You might as well task PLO members and Israelis to come to a consensus on an article regarding the claim to the territory of Israel.

Long excerpts of text

In the Ayn Rand article discussion there's some back and forth regarding some statement she made regarding property rights and Native Americans at a lecture in the 70's. The nature of how it was introduced was first by vague recollection that insinuated Rand was a racist who supported genocide. When challenged they found a fragment of a quote from some blogger with a clear anti-Rand bias. Then others posted a larger portion of the quote.

Something like this simply doesn't belong in the article. Why this? Might as well include the entire text of Galt's Speech while you're at it. What would you do with it? It's lengthy and any kind of meaningful interpretation would require a detailed examination of what else she said regarding property rights and related topics, history of the settlement of America, etc. Under the Objectivism article maybe include a summary regarding property rights. She wrote many books encompassing thousands of pages, gave lectures, radio addresses, wrote essays, made tv appearances. There are some defining quotes by her that likely should be included - such as the quote seen at the American Adventure Rotunda at Epcot that's there now. But the encyclopedia article shouldn't try to be a one-stop condensation of her entire body of work and interpretation thereof so people can make their decisions within the Wikipedia realm. If you want to make the case she was a racist, or a genius or any other value judgment, do it elsewhere. I guarantee anyone who has an interest in exploring further will inevitably, unavoidably discover both damnation & praise.

Philosopher

On the point of whether she's a philosopher that many are getting knotted up over - no one seems to be taking the obvious step of looking at the definition of a philosopher and whether it applies to her. I'd say the obvious answer is yes. You may not agree with her but the body of her work fits any definition of philosopher/philosophy I've seen, which doesn't include a requirement to be employed in the philosophy department of an academic institution.

It strikes me that there might actually be too much information regarding the specifics of Objectivism in the Ayn Rand article when there's an article devoted to the technical structure of Objectivism. But that seems like a different debate. The point here is to keep the article(s) focused on summarized, factual presentation of her life and thoughts, period. Go elsewhere for analysis and debate. If this is not done, I believe it's a safe assumption the same issues will keep recurring.TheJazzFan (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/0/1/1)

[edit]

Temporary injunction (none)

[edit]

Final decision

[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

[edit]

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editorial process

[edit]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with certain narrow exceptions.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

[edit]

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

[edit]

5) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Conduct and decorum

[edit]

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 13 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption

[edit]

7) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

[edit]

8.2) Contacting a broad range of editors, such as through RfC, is an important step in dispute resolution. However, biased canvassing, on- or off-wiki, distorts the consensus process and is disruptive. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus. Single-purpose accounts created for this purpose may be treated as "meatpuppets".

Passed 13 to 0 with 1 abstention at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of dispute

[edit]

1) The dispute is focused on Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles. This topic has been the subject of long-standing and unresolved conflict.[19]

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing environment

[edit]

2) The editing environment surrounding the Ayn Rand topic area is hostile. Newcomers are treated rudely. Bad faith assumptions, personal attacks, edit wars, soapboxing, and other disruptions are common occurrences. Notably, edit warring continued to occur even during this arbitration case ([20][21][22][23][24]).

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

[edit]

3) Dispute resolution has been underutilized in the Ayn Rand topic area. Venues for addressing content disputes, such as the reliable sources and no original research noticeboards, are rarely used. Avenues to resolve conduct concerns, such as requests for comment and the incidents noticeboard, have also rarely been sought out.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevewunder

[edit]

4) Stevewunder (talk · contribs) has been uncivil ([25][26]) and disruptive ([27][28][29]). He has been blocked twice; once for disruption and the other time for vandalism (disruption to make a point)([30]). After the first block, he stated he would continue being disruptive, until banned ([31]). He followed through with vandalism, receiving a one week block ([32][33][34])

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Brushcherry

[edit]

5.1) Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is an account primarily focused on Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([35]). He admits to commenting flippantly ([36]) (examples: [37][38][39][40]), occasionally crossing the line into disruption.

Passed 13 to 0 with 1 abstention at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer

[edit]

6) Kjaer (talk · contribs) has canvassed ([41][42]). It is very likely that the canvassing was effective and drew meatpuppets to the topic area (examples: [43][44]). Kjaer has also been disruptive, such as pointedly templating regulars ([45][46][47][48][49]), edit-warring on Ayn Rand ([50][51][52][53][54]), and making bad faith accusations ([55][56]). He has been blocked for edit-warring ([57]).

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

SteveWolfer

[edit]

7) SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) has engaged in incivility and bad faith accusations ([58][59][60][61][62]), as well as edit-warring on Ayn Rand ([63][64][65][66][67][68]).

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon

[edit]

8.1) TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit-warring on Ayn Rand ([69][70][71][72][73]).

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

TheJazzFan

[edit]

9) TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) has engaged in incivility ([74][75][76]). He has expressed a flippant attitude towards any sanctions that might be imposed against him, including stating that he would create sockpuppets to avoid restrictions ([77][78]).

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded

[edit]

10) Snowded (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit-warring on Ayn Rand ([79][80][81][82][83][84]).

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Idag

[edit]

11) Idag (talk · contribs) has edit-warred on Ayn Rand ([85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]).

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Remedies

[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Editors cautioned

[edit]

1.1) Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments, and complying at all times with the policy on biographies of living persons in reference to the various living people whose names come up from time to time in these articles.

Passed 12 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors encouraged

[edit]

2) The editors at the Ayn Rand article are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

Passed 11 to 0 with 3 abstentions at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevewunder topic banned and warned

[edit]

4.3) Stevewunder (talk · contribs) is banned from Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year. He is warned to avoid disrupting the project to make a point, incivility, and other inappropriate conduct. Stevewunder is encouraged to work with a mentor, better learn Wikipedia's practices, and utilitze dispute resolution.

Passed 10 to 3 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Brushcherry reminded and encouraged

[edit]

5) Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions. Brushcherry is further encouraged to continue working with a mentor and learning Wikipedia's practices. He is also cautioned to avoid disrupting discussion and taking actions likely to be poorly received.

Passed 13 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer topic-banned and warned

[edit]

6) Kjaer (talk · contribs) is banned from Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year. Kjaer is strongly warned to avoid further canvassing, disruption, and other inappropriate conduct.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

SteveWolfer topic-banned and warned

[edit]

7) SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. SteveWolfer is warned to avoid further incivility, disruption, and other inappropriate conduct.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon topic-banned and warned

[edit]

8) TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed) for six months. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. TallNapoleon is warned to avoid further edit-warring and other inappropriate conduct.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

TheJazzFan banned

[edit]

9.1) TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 12 to 2 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded topic banned and warned

[edit]

10) Snowded (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed) for three months. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. Snowded is warned to avoid further edit-warring and other inappropriate conduct.

Passed 13 to 0 with 1 abstention at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Idag topic-banned and warned

[edit]

11) Idag (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), for three months. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. Idag is warned to avoid further edit warring and other inappropriate conduct.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors not named

[edit]

12) Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment.

Passed 14 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional sanctions

[edit]

13) In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page, the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator. Alternatively, the administrator may impose any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision. As to any user named in this decision, the first sentence of this remedy shall be in effect for one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later.

Passed 13 to 0 with 1 abstention at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Superseded by an alternate sanction, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement by topic ban

[edit]

1) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to respond to further disruption with escalating (in scope and duration) topic bans.

Passed 10 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement by block

[edit]

2) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and prevent disruption.

Passed 12 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Block and ban logging

[edit]

3) Topic bans and blocks should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Log of blocks and bans, to provide a central record for administrators and the community.

Passed 12 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Community review

[edit]

4.1) Topic bans and other measures imposed by administrators pursuant to the enforcement provisions of this case are open to community review. The community is free to modify sanctions, such as extending a topic ban or replacing a topic ban with mentoring and editing restrictions.

Passed 12 to 0 at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Amendments by motion

[edit]

Standard discretionary sanctions

[edit]

14) Ayn Rand and related pages are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions rescinded (November 2014)

[edit]

Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,

  1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
  2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
  3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
  4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
  5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
  6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
  7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
  8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
  9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.
Passed 11 to 0 by motion, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand&oldid=1142571829"