Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Up until fairly recently, the 3 or 4 editors editing the article maintained good relations by making a minimal number of edits to the article (example of a minor dispute being resolved) [1]
New editors started editing, and because there were more edits, we were forced to discuss controversial issues and things began to deteriorate (e.g. discussing how to describe Chomsky as background for his criticism of Rand) [2]
Things as they are now (the second linked section is lengthy, but provides an overview of current attempts to resolve content disputes):[3][4]
AN/I Noticeboard attempt by Ddstretch:[5] (the only other admin to comment was Slp1)
Kjaer's attempts to halt progress on the article[edit]
At one point two significant changes were made to the article, which were supported by the consensus at the time
Removal of the Response to Criticism section - 4 editors agreed to the removal and no one disagreed [6]
An attempt to streamline the Influence section - most of the editors, including an Objectivist (Jomasecu) agreed and Kjaer and Steve were the only editors to disagree (their explanations were such that I still don't understand why they disagreed) [7]
Kjaer's RfC - after the changes were made, Kjaer initiated an RfC[8]
The wording for how to vote was extremely confusing, as Kjaer was asking RfC editors to comment on "whether there was indeed consensus for" the recent changes (see above link to RfC)
Kjaer closed the RfC after it was up for only one day, at which point he determined that there was either a 7-5 or a 9-5 vote favoring a mass revert that would remove a week's worth of edits [9]
Kjaer determined that this vote constituted a consensus[10] and, therefore, began an edit war to restore the "consensus" version - [11] (see Kjaer's edits on January 12)
Canvassing
Apparently, before he made his RfC, Kjaer actively canvassed for more Objectivist involvement with the article [12](see post #17)
Of the 9 editors who supported Kjaer's position in the RfC - only five were involved in the article before the RfC (Kjaer, SteveWolfer, Ethan A Dawe, Jomasecu, and ChildofMidnight)[13]
3 of the new editors were brand new users of Wikipedia [14][15][16]and the other editor (Dagwyn) had not edited the article in months[17]
Post-RfC behavior
A number of editors pointed out that there were problems with Kjaer's RfC (the canvassing issue is a recent discovery that was not included in this discussion) [18]
TallNapoleon offered to create a new RfC[19] - Kjaer declined the offer because TallNapoleon's "faction" "lost" the RfC. [20] (emphasis in the original)
Since then Kjaer has refused to participate in any type of consensus-building or dispute resolution until the "anti-Rand faction" acknowledges that it is in the minority,[21] abandons its "agenda,"[22] and agrees to his mass revert proposal [23]
Kjaer's "my way or the highway" position makes it impossible to edit the article or come to any type of a consensus. It does not appear that he is willing to abandon that position in the near future [24] (see also his statement in this proceeding).
Steve has a tendency of making ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the merits of a given proposal [25][26][27][28] Whenever Ayn Rand is concerned, he has been violating AGF since 2006.[29][30][31][32]
Steve also appears to have a personal vendetta against some of the editors on the "opposing side", as he followed TallNapoleon to oppose him in an unrelated ANI discussion about a copyright issue involving TallNapoleon's paper[33] (beginning about halfway down in the section)
Post-RfC behavior and manipulation of process
Steve appears to have adopted Kjaer's view that the RfC "vote" has resulted in a mandate to mass revert the article and going against this mandate is a violation of Wikipedia policy.[34](see section "Why I have not agreed to the mediation request") However, Steve has gone one step further than Kjaer. He has ignored repeated requests to seek a consensus through mediation[35][36], and even went so far as to berate another Objectivist for agreeing to mediation.[37] Steve has essentially forced this case into ArbCom where he now requests that this Committee ban editors that he identified as "pushing a POV" from editing the Ayn Rand article.[38] All of these editors conveniently happen to belong to what he and Kjaer determined to be the "anti-Rand faction".[39]
Steve also does not believe in seeking consensus with those who, in his view, have an opposing POV and are on an "ideological Jihad."[40] (see June 18, 2006 post) See also his comments on this thread.[41]
This user doesn't hold much stock in the civility rules[42][43] He was informed of those rules,[44] and this was his response.[45][46] Another user subsequently informed him that ArbCom looks at the behavior of the involved parties[47] and this was his response[48]
For some reason, Kjaer feels that when a secondary source criticizes Rand, an ad hominem attack must be made on that source.[49][50] At one point, he even added a separate section criticizing the criticism of Rand[51]
As the statements from various parties show, there are numerous complex content issues that need to be addressed in the article. However, regardless of the outcome of this ArbCom, it is likely that there will still be POV-pushing (or perceived POV pushing) in the article. The current problems are compounded by new editors who do not appear to believe in WP:Civil.[52][53][54][55] That is why there needs to be a neutral admin (or five) to oversee that the parties stay focused and play nice. Unfortunately, without some type of strong oversight (or at least mediation), I believe that this article will be back here in short order.
Re: removal of a section [56]- if an editor did not agree with the section's removal, he should have stated so, he could have easily asked for that section to be brought back instead of asking for mass reverts
Re: "onslaught" of edits - a very large chunk of the edits that were part of the "onslaught" were made by ChildofMidnight, who is an Objectivist[57]
Interestingly, note what happens to the number of Kjaer's edits if the search is expanded to include all edits from 12/30 (which is when Kjaer began canvassing) - [58]
Re: RfC directions - I voted in the RfC because Kjaer made it abundantly clear, in his other posts, that he wanted a mass revert. Knowing that, I voted opposite of Kjaer. The directions on the actual RfC made no sense.
Re: Steve's behavior - the diffs speak for themselves
I am not an involved party, but I was briefly involved in the AN/I discussion where I made a couple of points. I did a bit of research into the canvassing aspect of this case, and give the following evidence on that topic.
In searching the histories of List of schools of philosophy, Talk:List of schools of philosophy, Ayn Rand, and Talk:Ayn Rand, I found that the canvassing may have had at least a small effect. Whether or not canvassing gives the canvasser any culpability for others' actions is probably a philosophical question, but I've added this evidence in case it does.
Specific edits likely to have resulted from the canvassing:
Editors who began editing these pages after the canvassing (obviously, may be coincidences):
[63]: Editors to List of schools of philosophy arranged by newest first. Editors before 2008-12-29 can be discounted. I chose 2009-01-10 as the cutoff point because the first RfC on this topic was initiated on Jan. 11, which brought in new editors.
The sources used for citation are problematic[edit]
At the moment we have a very small number of sources being used for multiple purposes. For example a grant in 2001 to the University of Texas generates a Guardian article. The grant came from a Rand reserach institute (which means it cannot support a statement that the UofT established a fellowship in her honour). Its also in 2001 and there are no subsequent ones. The Guardian article reports this and suggests that this may lead to an increase in interest. Neither 2001 reference can really support a 2009 status. Two notable philosophers attend a seminar on a subject linked to objectivism, sponsored by a Rand institute. True, but it does not mean that the implication can be drawn that those philosophers endorse the position that Rand is a Philosopher. She may or may not be, but that type of citation does not support it. This mass list is typical of the issue. It includes books or articles written by people in the Ayn Rand movement (without qualification) and the list of Philosophers has no actual citations and is subject to the if you attended a seminar where Ayn Rand was mentioned then you must support the view that she is a philosopher argument. There is no willingness to attempt to assess citation for weight, authority or relevance.
[2]Dictionary of literary Biography: "Ayn Rand, one of the few systematic philosophers who have used imaginative literature to develop their ideas, was a novelist and the founder of the Objectivist school of philosophy." quoted at http://www.bookrags.com/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness
This is particularly the case with User:Kjaer and User:SteveWolfer with the more recent addition of User:TheJazzFan. Virtually every comment is accompanied by a slur on the motives of any editor who disagrees with them. Kjaer and Steve have also acted in concert on reversions on Ayn Rand and Schools of Philosophy. Kjaer's canvassing has already been referenced and I would support all the comments made by Idag in particular his suggestion on "Going Forward". The one admin who introduced the first freeze was subsequently treated to a stream of abuse.
This question continues as others have pointed out. Anyone attempting to engage on the articles associated with Rand is subject to constant intimidation and abuse as to motives. The intent (and the effect) is to drive editors away as it takes considerable resilience and stubbornness to pursue debate. Assertions are made again and again with aggressive language with no engagement with arguments.
Issues on failing to attempt or abide by or seek consensus[edit]
There is a constant attempt to identify the word "objectivism" with Rand's school of thought. This started on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) page with an attempt to rename it Objectivism. There was no consensus for the move. Shortly after that an attempt was made to rename Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) as "Criticisms of Objectivism" that too failed. Now we have the attempt to define Objectivism as a school of philosophical thought at Schools of Philosophy. If that succeeds I am sure we will be back to the main articles again. The talk page on Schools of Philosophy is a short read and illustrates the problem. These multiple page moves by many editors who are declared supporters of Rand, coupled with the evidence of canvassing gives some idea of the problem.
This is one of the most incredible examples of distortion so far; conspiracy theory run riot and clear breech of WP:AGF. The nonsense of Kjaer's accusations is show bythis diff where I carefully used to talk page to propose a series of changes (making no deletions) and was subject to, well just read it.
Several editors harbor strong dislikes for Rand and edit accordingly. Often this hostile attitude is expressed against anyone who objects.
Jimbo Wales remarks upon the hostility towards editors who oppose anti-Rand edits when user Peter Damian refers to other editors as "smelly trolls."[67]
TallNapoleon calls Rand's philosophy evil and infantile[68]14th text line down from heading.
TallNapoleon calls Rand and her "followers" idlolators and relates this to the holocaust[69]
TallNapoleon referring to Rand's philosophy says, "Any philosophy that justifies the casual destruction of millions is insane."[70]
TallNapoleon says, "Now I cannot STAND Ayn Rand. I think Objectivism is dangerously radical, destructive, godless, chaotic, exploitative, unjust... you name it." [71] 15th line down from heading.
CABlankenship says editors on Ayn Rand page are fanatics.[72]
CABlankenship says, ""...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. I find her to be a fourth-rate philosopher... With this in mind, I don't think I can remain neutral."[73]
Snowded calls Rand a novelist with poorly thought out ideas who started a cult.[74]
Read the last few talk page entries by SmashTheState[75][76]and his user page (real eye-opener) and then take a look at Edward G Niles[77][78], who is supposed to be blocked - they are a little more honest in the degree of hostility they reveal for Rand. The problem of editors editing their POV is actually easier when they are vandal-like or foaming like those two, but it is the same problem at its root.
Idag claims to have a consensus for removal of a section.[79] But it was deleted within a few hours of the first talk page notice. [80]. This was part of an avalance of editing done without consensus on an article just unprotected after an edit war freeze.
Notice the number of edits between Jan 8 and Jan 12th. [81]. And notice that Kjaer and I only account for a total of 8 out that gigantic onslaught of edits - most of which were intended to push a hostile POV. [82] Some of us were abiding by the admin, DDStretch's, call for less edit warring, some weren't.
Idag claims the RfC was worded confusingly - but he understood it and cast his vote. [83].
Idag falsely claims I used ad hominem arguments - I pointing out that several editors were making racist remarks.[84] I asked Snowded to not call another editor a "borderline racist."
TallNapoleon said, "I cannot STAND Ayn Rand. I think Objectivism is dangerously radical, destructive, godless, chaotic, exploitative, unjust... you name it." I supplied that quote (with ref) and asked if, he/she really wanted to discuss the issue of neutrality.[85] Idag is wrong to call that an attack.
My sarcastic statement [86] implies that CABlankenship might hate Rand and might not be supplying adequate sources - both very true and both very appropriate to the context.
Idag says I "berated" another editor. Not true. I just explained why I did not think the proposed mediation would be good for the article. [87]
Snowded mentions criticisms by Buckley and Chomsky. They show the pattern of editing for most of this dispute which is very different from his allegations:
- Without context, Buckley's statement that Ayn Rand's philosophy was "still born", was added.
- The mini-edit war erupts, NOT as much as over the criticism, but over any attempt to give the criticism context.[88]
- An editor adds that Buckley was Roman Catholic - Rand and Buckley had a documented feud that was over her atheism.[89]
- Valid sourced information and the references are deleted.[90]
- The same pattern can be seen with Chomsky's 'criticism' that Rand is "one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history." - no mention of Chomsky's political activism was allowed.[91][92][93][94][95][96]
Contrary to what Snowded says, the 'pro-Rand' faction has been trying keep criticism reasonable and with some sort of context while the anti-Rand faction forces in what amount to ad hominum comments from notable sources while stripping any context or explanation and making the criticism as damning as possible.
Snowded complains about the quality of the sources provided by the pro-Rand faction. Yet, here is a typical example of him rewording for the greatest negative effect, while insisting on an online blog entry by a columnist as a creditable source:[97]; but when the shoe is on the other foot, even a professor emeritus of philosophy at University of California (along with dozens of other sources) is not good enough - like this list offered to an editor who asked for sources:list In his statement above, Snowded appears upset that it wasn't organized into cites and dismisses it as list of attendees to a conference, which it clearly is not.
Snowded insists on cites (as he should), then attempts to dismiss them as not notable, or biased (because they support some position of Rands), or biased because of an affiliation with an Objectivist institution, or without adequate weight, and when all of that fails, to claim the existence of cites to the contrary that have more weight, and if that fails to claim that the consensus of editors holds sway.
Snowded claims Rand isn't know outside of America, but ignored this:[98].
Snowded claims Rand isn't a philosopher based upon his POV and his OR on what philosophy ought to be or how it ought to be named (see his statement above). He makes up his own rules for her title and he deletes valid references again and again and ignores these:[99][100]
CABlankenship failed to assume good faith and launched a personal attack accusing me of dishonesty.[101] I explained that it was an honest error, not dishonesty and apologized.[102] Despite my explanation, despite my apology for inaccurate information, despite my warnings about his personal attacks[103], he continues to make them.[104]
Potential further evidence of Steve's POV-pushing[edit]
[105] this discussion may be relevant, as it appears that this dispute is about Steve attempting to forcibly introduce an Objectivist POV in a place where, frankly, it does not belong. This appears to violate NPOV and UNDUE. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of Steve's failure to assume good faith[edit]
| This fits with a wider pattern of editing and failing to assume good faith on the part of other editors. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of Steve's wider failure to assume good faith and to behave civilly. He is not addressing anything that Snowded writes, and frankly appears to be making things up in an attempt to discredit Snowded. It's frankly appalling, especially considering that he did the same sort of thing to me last month, as shown in these twosections. I will be posting specific diffs later. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of Kjaer's failure to AGF= and follow WP:CIVIL[edit]
Pet page? Nemesis? There is a difference between asking for help from other experts and giving direct instructions on what to do, as Kjaer did. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This accusation of vandalism is totally out of place and seriously violates AGF. One does not accuse users of vandalism because one disagrees about whether certain information should be kept or removed.[reply]
Evidence of TheJazzFan's failure to follow WP:CIVIL (more to come)[edit]
This is typical of TheJazzFan's style and his demonstrated inability to follow WP:CIVIL. I will post more diffs later when I have time. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thesetwo diffs show a serious lack of respect for the Wikipedia community and for the rules of behavior it has established. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The incident I'm thinking of most is the one regarding Rand's quote about the Native Americans. Steve continually misrepresented the situation:
1: No one accused Rand of genocide. That would be absurd--so far as I know Rand never killed anyone in her life. I don't even think Rand's comments were necessarily racist. The point of that quote is that it appeared (and appears) as though Rand was JUSTIFYING a genocide--something which Steve categorically misrepresents.
2: Yes, the source where I grabbed it (while rushing to get ready to run out the door) was NOT friendly to Rand. However this same version of that quote is reproduced all over the internet, and in at least one source on Google Books. There was no possibility that this guy hacked it up, and still less that I was deliberately choosing a hacked up version.
As always more will come later.
In addition there is the whole matter of the foofurah over the RFC, where Steve and Kjaer proceeded to act--despite all evidence to the contrary and the vocal protestations of a number of involved editors--that this constituted a consensus to revert to the Dec 31 version of the article. 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)[reply]
Kjaer's accusations and insinuations regarding TurnsMoney, as shown below, also fit this pattern. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kjaer has now taken to posting officious sounding warnings on other users' pages and threatening blocks, despite the fact that he is A: not an Admin and B: in absolutely no position to do so. This is further evidence of the pattern of intimidation discussed by other users here. These attempts at bullying and intimidation need to stop.
This is particularly absurd, claiming that any further debate or comments on his warning could be construed as violating NPA. His attempts to issue these kinds of pronouncements are, in my opinion, totally out of line. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kjaer has now taken to demanding that I stop using the term Randism, and has threatened me with an edit block if I continue to use this mainstream and innocuous term. He has posted on my talk page threatening that "you will be blocked" if I continue using the phrase "Randism", and declaring that "This is not a matter for debate". This strikes me as a rather bizarre and inappropriate attempt at intimidation (and assumption of authority) over a very trivial matter which he is attempting to hype. Classic example of what Dostoyevsky called "Making a mountain out of a molehill". This complaint also extends to a demand that I stop mentioning the numerous respected academic sources that refer to Randism as a cult, includingMurray Rothbard and Michael Shermer, both of whom share most of her views on economics and politics (which makes them even more credible in their criticism). So the situation is that any statement about Randism that Kjaer finds offensive is considered by him to be a personal attack. This may be an interesting psychological fact about Kjaer, but I fail to see why his personal quirks should affect the article. I also fail to see how we can make any progress if Kjaer is able to interpret any comment or entry about Randism that he dislikes as a personal attack. Furthermore, I find his threats to be distasteful and irksome. CABlankenship (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kjaer has continued his bizarre and inconsistent threats on my talk page. He is now asserting that any discussion of Rand or her philosophy on the talk page constitutes article vandalism, and threatens that this will lead to a block. Note that he has not leveled similar threats at people whose discussions of Rand and her work is positive. For instance, he has not posted such warnings on the pages of TheJazzFan or Steve, both of whom have engaged in heavy discussion of their personal opinions. I believe that this shows his general hypocrisy, and could possibly show that his real aim is merely to get rid of editors he doesn't like (by leveling absurd charges against them such as baseless sockpuppet accusations, vandalism, and so forth), rather than the noble goal of improving wiki that he claims to be upholding. Furthermore, it is yet another example of him assuming a level of authority and attempting to intimidate other editors with threats of blocks and bans. CABlankenship (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After calling into question the credibility of other editors (without cause or explanation), Steve listed[[116]] a number of sources in support of his claim that Rand is mentioned and discussed in major philosophy encyclopedias, but further research proved that his assertion was dishonest. In particular, Steve claimed that Rand is discussed in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, but neither of these works mention Rand. The indexes for these works can be found here: [[117]], and here: [[118]]. Apart from these two links, other editors have also verified that she does not appear in these sources, contrary to Steve's claim. Steve fails to recognize the seriousness of inaccurately citing sources for his assertions, or how this undermines the willingness of others to show him good faith and respect. CABlankenship (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve has apologized for his inaccurate and misleading citation of sources which do not support his claim.[[119]] Steve suggests that I am rude to call him dishonest, and claims that he made a simple error. However, Steve did not retract these sources in support of his positions until evidence was presented on this page, which casts doubt on his assertion that he made a simple copying mistake; Steve had made no effort to admit to this mistake before now, even though several editors had mentioned his inaccuracy. CABlankenship (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a history of editors explicitly referring to Objectivists and admirers of Ayn Rand as cultists, Randites, Randists and other words which are found offensive. This is an explicit violation of WP:NPA whether it is directed against editors or the adherents of Rand's philosophy elsewhere. I have explicitly warned certain editors of their violations of WP:NPA on their talk pages, 123 and have placed a warning on the article talk page itself. TallNapoleon and Snowded saw fit to summarily remove my warning. The practice is unacceptible both as a personal attack and as an off topic debate that does not belong on the talk page, and debate over whether such words are offensive is just as offensive and just as much a violation of policy. I invite editors to realize the serious of the issue and invite administration to remind editors of it.Kjaer (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
inappropriate use of the word cult/cultist, etc. on the current talk page[edit]
Note that these comments express editor's personal opinions, not attempts at research, of which there are examples. Also, I have not included all examples. They are all explicit violations of NPA.
Snowded POV Canvassing, Being a Meat Puppet POV Edit Warring, Ad Hominem[edit]
Dave Snowden has been involved in a long term campaign to push his personal anti-Rand POV on this and related articles. I quote, from his website: "I refuse to call it a philosophy" [1]
We have proof here of his own purposefully stated campaign to push his personal POV, his own admission of meat puppetry, and his own admission of his desire to recruit meat puppets.
Bad Faith:
A reference that was used to show Rand's influence
^ A survey jointly conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club early in the 1990s asked readers to name the book that had most influenced their lives: Atlas Shrugged was second only to the Bible - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ibid.
and became support for the Snowden's OR claim in the lead that Rand's influence is limited to the US. But The US Library of congress did not survey outside America, and hence it cannot be used as evidence of what has happened outside America. This is typical of his bad faith, POV pushing and OR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_16#Propaganda_pageYeah, 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. … CABlankenship (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seventeen minutes after CABlankenship admitted his POV and castigated Rand, DDStretch posted his agreement with BABlankenship's POV on the latter's talk page. This is a supposedly neutral Admin, one who blocked me not for improper edits, nor for incivility, but for stating on the talk page that the continued deletions are POV motivated
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CABlankenship&diff=prev&oldid=261602077
+
Having read some of her stuff, and also studied philosophy during the course of my degrees, I agree with your assessment of her material. … [[User:ddstretch| 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonably complete list of my edits concerning this dispute are provided here (they omit very minor copy-edits and archiving edits.)
Sequence of main events I took as administrator leading to 2 blocks was reasonable[edit]
Two tools used 4 times: 2 full protections of Ayn Rand, and 2 blocks of editors for misuse of the talk page (see WP:TALK) which initially lasting 24 hours each.
Only one response: User:Slp1 via email, which commended me for my tough talk and action, but suggested that Idag's block was too severe (Idag only acting defensively to the offensive (attacking) post by Kjaer, who was thought to be in need of "an enforced break".) ArbCom can see this email if User:Slp1 agrees. However, confirmation given in the later messages on WP:AN:
dds12 public from Slp1 with a plea for more administrators to keep watch over the articles.
The action was supported by an independent administrator, and I contend it was reasonable.
Kjaer takes exception to me having a view about Ayn Rand[edit]
Kjaer suggests the block was unreasonable
He quotes a message from me to argue that I had a negative POV towards Ayn Rand that precluded me automatically from being able to act neutrally as an administrator:
Having a POV does not preclude one from being able to administer admin tools impartially.
Kjaer makes a misinterpretation of the phrase "the least said the better" (as did the editor): in British English, it meant that with respect to my comments about the the Ayn Rand page, I'd rather not say anything, rather than that the content of the page should contain as little as possible.
Kjaer assumes that since I have a negative POV about Ayn Rand, I am:
bound to be biased
want to impose my biases on the article and editors whilst attempting to somehow disguise this fact.
This represents a gross failure to assume good faith
this view has persisted so that
all of my actions were likely seen to be improper
it also coloured the views of other editors' who share Kjaer's view of Ayn Rand
Diffs to support the above, see the reactions on this page, and further illustrations here with responses here and here. Further here with responses here. Yet more here (see sectioon on inconsistency). DDStretch (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recent failure to assume good faith on the part of Kjaer, etc[edit]
See this edit. The Kjaer war mentions involved his deletions of sourced material and additions of negative comments. The article, was frozen to stop warring and encourage development of a consensus.
No evidence is provided.
None exists.
None could exist: Snowded did not canvass me, I arrived at Ayn Rand independent of any of his edits or actions.
Inthese edits, Kjaer expresses his agreement and thanks
Similarly, SteveWolfer there and here attempts to get me to admit to things that had no bearing on my decisions, by attempting to infer motives and hidden agenda. that were not there.
Admins frequently encounter editors they have had interactions with on article and project talk pages when they take adminiitrative actions.
They can be and are still neutral.
I posted identical edit-war warnings to Snowded and Kjaer.
The assumption that there must have been bias, or that there was even collusion between myself and Snowded on the basis of no evidence of that is a clear failure of good faith. DDStretch (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further recent unfounded accusations: here. The point is missed that I had already withdrawn from editing or being involved in any administrative role on Ayn Rand. Last edit was here. DDStretch (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some evidence, further available on request by an Arbitrator
Disputes about handling Rand were a significant energy drain with regard to List of major philosophers in 2006. Details can be found in the deleted talk page and talk page archive. Visible evidence can be seen at AFD #1 in June 2006 shows the problem, and I summarized it again at AFD #2.
The article Ayn Rand has been protected at least 12 times (9 for edit warring) since 2006.[120]
There are 22 talk page archives for Talk:Ayn Rand. Compare to 2 for Socrates, 2 for Thomas Aquinas, 4 for Plato, 1 for Al-Farabi, 7 (1 per year) for Aristotle, none for Averroes (known outside European culture as Ibn Rushd).
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
^"Secondly a increasing pathetic set of encounters with a Randanista editor on the Wikipedia whose extreme right wing views are typified by this scary article. Said editor is now vandalising the Knowledge Management article in an attempt to get me to stop preventing his attempt to define objectivism by the ideology (I refuse to call it a philosophy) of Ayn Rand. Now I engaged with the Knowledge Management article about two years ago at the request of others [was a canvassed meatpuppet – Kjaer] and got it into some sort of order and have protected it since. However I am not sure I have the energy for dealing with this as very few other people seem interested in the article. So if no one else gets involved I am going to abandon it to the vandals."
^She is not so well-known outside the U.S.: the Oxford Companion to English Literature (2000 edition), which mentions twentieth-century American writers such as William Burroughs, Dorothy Parker, H.L. Mencken, Jack Kerouac and others, does not mention Rand. Nor does the Chambers Biographical Dictionary^ A survey jointly conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club early in the 1990s asked readers to name the book that had most influenced their lives: Atlas Shrugged was second only to the Bible - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ibid. She is not so well-known outside the U.S.: the Oxford Companion to English Literature (2000 edition), which mentions twentieth-century American writers such as William Burroughs, Dorothy Parker, H.L. Mencken, Jack Kerouac and others, does not mention Rand. Nor does the Chambers Biographical Dictionary
