Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter Damian (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 22 March 2009 (→Talk:Ayn Rand). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Too angry. Peter Damian (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to edit my user page. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

• TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.
• Stevewunder (talk · contribs) and Kjaer (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
• SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

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 (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), 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 or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, 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.

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 Misplaced Pages policies. They 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.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your question about the block of SA

I responded on Misplaced Pages Review, where you had also asked the question and there was extensive comment. In short, SA was banned because he demonstrated that he was utterly unwilling to cooperate with the community, but set himself as above it, calling upon WP:IAR but ignoring the responsibility to the community that this requires. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, and we have no way of verifying NPOV except through consensus, individual opinion is totally unreliable when it comes to determining NPOV. He wasn't banned for making spelling corrections, he was blocked for doing this -- and other things -- with the declared intention of disrupting arbitration enforcement, with direct and open defiance of ArbComm and its rights to make clear recommendations to the community.

Yes. ArbComm decisions are recommendations. They have no binding power beyond the power of trusted advice. If I were an admin (I'm not), I could not be forced to block anyone unless I agree with it, and "failure to block" is not a reason that could be used to desysop an admin. As an editor, I cannot be forced to edit an article in any particular way. However, if ArbComm makes a recommendation that I be blocked if I write on penguins, I should certainly not be surprised if I'm blocked if I write on penguins. But if what I write on penguins is obviously helpful? ArbComm can't do a thing if nobody will block me for it. ArbComm members have admin tools, so, presumably, one of them could do it, though it would be dicey.

SA wrote that he was engaging in civil disobedience; but many of his supporters have simply ignored that. If someone blocks traffic as an act of civil disobedience, nobody should be surprised if they are arrested, and the police shouldn't be blamed. Those who engage in civil disobedience are serving, they imagine or hope, a higher goal, and the consequences that fall upon them are expected, not unjust in themselves. But SA was actually serving himself. He could have been far more effective in cleaning up the project without the gratuitous incivility. His supporters enabled that, shame on them. I was begging for someone sympathetic to SA, someone he would trust, to persuade him to become cooperative. Several tried, but he refused to acknowledge what they were trying to tell him, and that effort was deflected by supporters who simply attacked those who were defending the rights of the community.

That's what happened. Any questions? --Abd (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Peter Damian (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Failed Verification

You might want to take a look at this --Snowded (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ayn Rand

Your comments and edit summaries at this article seem uncivil, e.g. "This is easily one of the stupidest things you have said. Which is something in itself.". Please retract them. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No that was clearly a stupid thing to say - see the thread on Misplaced Pages Review where there seems general agreement about the stupidity of it. I don't subscribe to this civility thing - if it is true, then I say it. Reasonable, no? Peter Damian (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)