Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Turnsmoney

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

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

He doth protest too much

I question whether these talk page comments are appropriate. It would seem like an attempt to circumvent the 1000 word limit. But until that ruling is made, (in which case, please do earse this remark) I would simply comment that I nowhere asserted in my evidence that Turnsmoney is Snowden's sock puppet.Kjaer (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Then who do you think he belongs to? It looks to me as though you are simply trying to discredit him. Also, I would support a checkuser on him, if we suspect that he is a sock. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I would also support a checkuser on Turnsmoney if there's reasonable suspicion that he's a sock. Idag (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous Kjaer --Snowded TALK 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Supporting evidence required

Some of the comments provided on the evidence page make strong claims, but lack diffs and archive links to back up the claims. Please provide supporting evidence for the arbitrators and other parties to review. General comments, replies, and "essay-like" contributions will be moved from the evidence page to this page page in a few days. Vassyana (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

General context

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

As far as I know, for myself, I raised the issue twice on WP:AN and WP:AN/I. I have provided one link, which points to a call for comment on my protection and blocks, and I see that Idag has provided the link to the other. The responses were meagre to say the least. Hence my comment in the initial statements that the adminsitrative body has let this article and its editors down by being inactive too long. Is there more that is needed?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Any content noticeboard threads that have not been noted and linked in the evidence should be added. If there are some additional article talk page archive links that are illustrative of the general editing climate, or of the atmosphere at its worst and best, those would also be helpful in better understanding the context and consequences of the dispute. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

My section is not evidence, but a response to accusations. I would of course understand if it were removed. CABlankenship (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If a section is removed from the evidence page, it should be relocated to this talk page. Arbitrators will consider comments here in the same fashion as other feedback on case talk pages. The evidence talk page is simply better suited for diff-/link-less responses, observations and comments. Vassyana (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing impact

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

Philosopher Debate

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

Argument for Rand being called a philosopher:

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

Argument against Rand being called a philosopher:

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

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

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

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

Limits to Acceptable Incivility

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

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

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

Someone, preferably someone in authority, needs to tell this person how far out of line and how very wrong-headed those accusations are. (I haven't answered for Kjaer, but I expect he will be as outraged at this libel as I am). I would like for the admins who will be working to resolve this to weigh in at this point and either tell me that this kind of thing needs to be tolerated and point me at the policy that allows for it, or to tell TallNapoleon that that kind of post is out of line. --Steve (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon's section on mendacity reverences my prior edit. That linked to a recent post of Kjaer and makes no mention of you at all Steve, check it out and you will see, I hope you will also see that the label is appropriate. I've answered your other points on the pages concerned and the above represents a considerable misrepresentation. You still haven't named your California Professor by the way. --Snowded TALK 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, TallNapoleon states, "...I believe is a consistent pattern of mendacity on the part of Kjaer and Steve." So, you are wrong - he does refer to me. That label is totally inappropriate. Nothing that I have mentioned in this section represents a "considerable misrepresentation." I have called for Admins to look at this. Please start your own section somewhere if you don't agree with this. Libel is a serious offense in most civilized nations. --Steve (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I mention that libel is a serious offence to state a fact... And NOT as a threat to take legal action. I notice that TallNapoleon is still claiming that I am a liar that the only admin to show up is someone named in this action - who perhaps should have behaved differently before, and should perhaps be advising TallNapoleon to withdraw his libelous changes (which I am NOT threatening to take legal action against). --Steve (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Libel" is also a criminal offence (certainly in the UK and I think also in the USA), requiring legal action in order to identify and label it as such. I do hope this is not an indication that legal action is being considered here, as wikipedia would certainly have its hand forced if this were so. I suggest you revise the statement immediately, SteveWolfer.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely true that I believe that both Steve and Kjaer are engaging in mendacious editing, and consistently distorting and misrepresenting the arguments of others and for that matter of many of the sources they claim to cite. Incidentally, I only mentioned the word "lying" in conjunction with Kjaer's post on Brushcherry's talk page. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its a criminal action in the U.S., but its certainly a civil action. Steve, you need to edit that statement immediately, as there are serious consequences to threatening legal action. See WP:NLT Idag (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake: in the UK criminal libel can be an offence, but it is usually a civil offence. In either case, it would constitute legal action, and SteveWolfer does need to withdraw that immediately it is meant to imply some sort of legal action: please withdraw it, Steve. This is an honest piece of advice offered in good faith.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

DDStretch, I have followed your advice and made it clear that I am NOT making any legal threats. Now, when do you do you duty as an admin and tell TallNapoleon that calling someone a liar violates WP in a most serious way? This entire issue is the result of TallNapoleon's unfounded character assasination! When does TallNapoleon remove his statement that I am lying? When do you offer him your honest advice about how a person can be banned from the community for personal attacks?[1] --Steve (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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

[2]. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

DDStretch Drops Neutral Pose

DDStretch, after many posts declaring himself to have been abused while doing nothing but trying to be a neutral admin and editor has decided to attack me, again and again in his 'evidence' section. He also attacks Kjaer, but to read his posts there are no others at fault, and he paints himself as blameless in the dispute, to the degree that he would do differently, even with hindsight. He has clearly decided to take a partisan position on the ArbCom page (He finds no fault with anyone but Kjaer and me, and he puts a significant effort into seeking out and posting what he believes to be evidence of our wrong-doing and nothing on anyone else), but I guess that is his right and his choice, even if it isn't logically defensible. His last 'evidence' post, for example, is a prime example. He said my post on the Ayn Rand talk page about SmashTheState was unsigned - if it had been unsigned what would that have had to do with anything... I have never been shy or secretive in my postings, - but I just checked, I did sign it. The more important point, is that my post was to include SmashTheState will Snowded, TallNapoleon, CABlankenship and any others that engage in name-calling - the quote I gave had SmashTheState using the terms Randroid and cult. These are terms that have been applied to editors by others and they have been warned repeatedly. Notice that DDStretch had nothing to say about TallNapoleon calling editors liars (above). I guess he wasn't wearing his admin hat when he decided to ignore that. His posturing as neutral is getting to look downright silly. --Steve (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been accusing me of not being neutral all along. Your and Kjaer reports point out numerous occasions when others have attacked you, whilst you both appear to state that you are the innocent victims in all this. I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies in your approaches, as is dictated by the section header, and since no one else mentioned your message, why should I not do so? You, Kjaer, and others have adequately mentioned the faults of the others, and so do Arbcom want a repetition of the reports? I say that they do not. On the matter of signing the post, on the diff I provided, you did not, as far as I can see, but if you later did, I apologise and withdraw that part of my report. Here is a diff to your message on my talk page where you react badly and make a number of other accusations which make assumptions which are not the only explanations of what you see as my non-neutral replies.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Last edit to Talk:Ayn Rand was this one on 13 January 2009. I had become involved before that time, and had made no use of the tools nor written any message that an editor could not have been justified in writing since before then. I had posted a message to AN/I about the need for uninvolved administrators to get involved. By this time, I am clearly not acting as an administrator, and I was merely pointing out the fallacy being used by SteveWolfer in the message I quoted. It fits in with the section heading I had already established on the evidence page. This objection is a little like the ones that accuse any administrator or editor of mounting a personal attack for merely pointing out, correctly, that their behaviour falls short of what is normally required on wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon's Lack of Evidence

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

TallNapoleon starts this whole thing, starting a new section on the Talk page called, "Rand and the Native Americans"[3] where he said, "I seem to recall reading, at some point, a quote from Rand where she basically said the Native Americans had it coming. I'll look it up when I can, but that might be relevant. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)"[4]

CABlankenship said, "That would be consistent with her Anglophilia. CABlankenship (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)"[5]

TheJazzFan states, "Nothing like unsubstantiated innuendo to move an intellectual discussion along, eh? Don't worry, just back it up when you get around to it...maybe. Of course, no doubt we'll see the same (lack of) accuracy I've come to expect regarding these so-called "quotes" you reference."TheJazzFan (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[6]

Snowded, replying to TheDarkOne, says, "Your last sentence ignores the context of history and is borderline racist." [7]

TallNapoleon, replying to TheDarkOneLives, says, "Millions of Native Americans were killed by whites up through the end of the nineteenth century, and millions more perished due to European diseases. See Population history of American indigenous peoples#Genocide debate."[8]

CABlankenship said, "The vast majority of people around the world consider the genocide of the Native Americans to be horrifying. Fringe ethics and apologetics are meaningless on wiki. CABlankenship (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)"[9]

Brushcherry makes the following observation, "Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."[10]

I said, " It appears that Snowded, TallNapoleon, and CABlankenship were using inuendo to paint Rand as a racist. Which is consistent with their remarks being uniformly negative about Rand. Then, and I'm referring to the Native American section above, Snowded goes so far as to call another editor a "borderline racist." When one reads the exchange they can see that there is no justification for that kind of character assasination. Again, I hope that ArbCom can look into this kind of editing. --Steve (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)"[11]

TallNapoleon says, "It's not the racism that bothers me about it, and I actually believe Rand when she says she is not a racist. What bothers me is the attempt to justify democide and ethnic cleansing."[12]

Referring to when Snowded asked, "What's wrong with a direct quote," I said, "TallNapoleon did NOT provide a direct quote. He provided a hacked up, inaccurate, out of context paraphase of an answer she gave during the question period at a lecture in 1974 and managed to butcher the heart of what she said. Her statement, which is too long for me to type, gives a different picture. She was asked, "When you consider the cultural genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the relocation of Japanese Americans during WW2, how can you have such a positive view of America?" She said, in part, "America is the country of individual rights. Should America have tolerated slavery? Certainly not." And she went on to describe the early compromises that failed to implement individual rights eventually led to the civil war, and she stated that as long as Americans held the concept of individual rights it was going to lead to the overthrow of slavery. Everything she was saying was addressing individual rights. She said that she believed that most portrayals of the savage treatment of settlers by indians was not just Hollywood but fact. She stated that one should not believe that some people are entitled to something just because of their race. Most of her statement flowed from describing a country that believed in individual rights, whose settlers were being attacked by aggressors, who belonged to tribes that did not respect individual rights - and that rights are lost by aggression. She made a distinction that all individuals have rights, but a nation does not have rights, particularly if it does not respect any of its member's rights. I've condensed and paraphrased this to about 1/20th of its size. She was opposed to the relocation of the Japanese Americans and pointed out that this was FDR's call who she opposed as an enemy of free enterprise. All of this was from a speech given at West Point in 1974. The heart of what she was saying is that those who do not respect individual rights can not expect to have theirs respected. And out of that hacked up misquote, he painted her as a racist and an advocate of violating peoples rights, and the anti-Rand crew leaped aboard! --Steve (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)"[13]

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

---

TallNapoleon says, "The continuous casting of aspersions on editors' intentions and the misrepresentation and distortion of their arguments also qualifies as mendacity. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)" On the ArbCom project page. What, I wonder, does he think calling someone a liar is? All I can say is that his evidence doesn't fit his nasty accusations. --Steve (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Steve and Kjaer have been seriously dishonest in the way that they have presented the sequence of events and described the arguments and positions of others, despite repeated clarifications on their part. I have no intention of issuing any such retraction. Furthermore, it is not libelous at all for me to state that I believe they are dishonest, because it is entirely TRUE that I do. Oh, and in another example of the distortions, I never accused Steve of lying. I accused him of dishonesty and distortion--a distinction which may admittedly be fine--but the only accusation of outright lying I have leveled is against Kjaer, and specifically for his post to Brushcherry's page, which in my opinion goes beyond distortion and in my opinion is so dishonest as to be a lie. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon, you said, "...I believe is a consistent pattern of mendacity on the part of Kjaer and Steve," and in my dictionary, and everywhere I've looked, "mendacity" means a lie and you continues to say you believe me to be dishonest, which means "disposed to lie, cheat... deceive"[14] and that too is an attack on my character that is presented without evidence. If someone called you vile horrible names and didn't give the kind of evidence that justified that, how would you feel?

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

To all parties

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

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

Request for clarification?

I'm not sufficiently familiar with how ArbCom works to know, so I'd deeply appreciate it if some vaguely-official uninvolved party could answer:

1. Is it the intent or desire of ArbCom that no edits whatsoever be made to Ayn Rand until there's a ruling?
2. If not, then is there any specific standard for what is permissible in terms of consensus, type of edit, and/or location of edit?
   

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

Separately, the talk page is now up to 570k - would it get in the way of your work to reduce MiszaBot's threshold from 30 days to 14? arimareiji (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Ayn Rand

This page is now over 600k, but people are reluctant to archive due to the pending Arbcom case. Could a member of Arbcom clarify whether we should or should not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs)

Please feel free to archive the article talk page. Archiving does not destroy any information. On the contrary, it makes it easier to locate information and posts than by digging through a huge page history or tryings to scan an overbloated page. Barring some injunction or specific reason to believe otherwise, presume that acting within the bounds of normal good practice is not only permissable, but encouraged while a related ArbCom case is ongoing. Vassyana (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)