Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:: ah yes, your first edit was in July 2006. Exactly 3 years after I started editing the encyclopedia. I have contributed many, many of the core articles on philosophy and logic to this project. What are you doing for the project exactly? ] (]) 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
:: ah yes, your first edit was in July 2006. Exactly 3 years after I started editing the encyclopedia. I have contributed many, many of the core articles on philosophy and logic to this project. What are you doing for the project exactly? ] (]) 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
:: . You revert edits by vandals. You don't actually ''do'' anything. Or have I missed something? You clear up rubbish. ] (]) 17:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
:: . You revert edits by vandals. You don't actually ''do'' anything. Or have I missed something? You clear up rubbish. ] (]) 17:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
:: Likewise (Johnson). Hasn't been so much of a prick as you, but still, he doesn't actually ''do'' anything apart from aggravating a situation like this. ] (]) 17:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
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.
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.
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)
Though academic philosophers taking little interest in a philosophical topic is a notable statement of lack of worth in itself, name-calling isn't and tends (rightly) to tar the caller much more the the callee. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If you again say to people at WP that they are "deranged" I shall take it to arbcom if nobody else does. Please refactor your remark. 21:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I stand absolutely by this remark. It is an unfortunate fact. If a lunatic wandered into your workplace you would take steps - the very kindest of steps - to have them removed. Please let us take this to Arbcom. This would be an excellent test case. Peter Damian (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
He has a big interest in Lossky ]. Nothing wrong with that - I've written some obscure articles here - the problem is the urge to propagate it across a range of pages. The reason he pushed against a mention of positivism on the existentialist page is that Lossky was an enemy of positivism in Russia (hey, I am still learning things).KD Tries Again (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
If a lunatic wandered into my workplace--and indeed, several of them have, as is the case with most libraries--we get them quietly removed if they cause trouble. We do not call them lunatics to their face, or even on records. We even protect their anonymity. In fact, had I insulted them I would have been warned & if I continued after a warning,.... DGG (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
With all respect, DGG, if only Misplaced Pages would do so. Since last year, I have been trying to protect a philosophy article (Existentialism)from vandalism by an editor who doesn't even have a Misplaced Pages account. Occasionally I am able to persuade an Administrator to ask him/her to behave, but the editor is still there (and I am still trying to be polite).KD Tries Again (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I've never read Rand's comments on Kant before today. By any decent academic standards, they are staggeringly stupid. And inadvertently hilarious, as she seems to have no idea that Kant derived his categories from Aristotle.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
More for your sub-page. Neo-Objectivism, supported by four meagre citations, one of which is to a chat forum. Objectivist Party, a couple of paragraphs with a few web-based references, some of which no longer seem to work. The Objectivist - that's the magazine - with no references whatsoever. The Objectivist Forum - another mag - warrants only three sentences and no references. Libertarianism and Objectivism does have some references. Bibliography of work on Objectivism is a long piece, and except for some references to Nozick is apparently an original essay. Randian Hero is quite a decent piece of work compared to the rest. And there's an article (two references) devoted to listing her chums: The Collective (Ayn Rand). It seems that searching out articles on individual objectivists might be fruitful too: Nathaniel Branden Institute has not one decent reference. The article about Mr Rand - Frank O'Connor (actor) - could use some references too. The term "Augean" springs to mind.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
You wrote: "Note also that Googling Harry Potter + Philosophy gives very similar results!"
Except that JK Rowling is a considerably better writer. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
File:MaxBlack.jpg
I fielded the undeletion request on File:MaxBlack.jpg, but it seems the image was deleted back when image deletion erased the page, so I couldn't recover the image. However the description history has been recovered if you need it. MBisanz03:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered this piece of nonsense cited in the body of the Rand article as a defense of her views. The author is an accountant, and it's inadvertently hilarious. "(Hume) explained that causality, as well as entities, are only true by association and customary belief." "Kant attempted to demonstrate that the world that we experience is not the real world....Kant explains that the phenomenal world is the world of earthly physical reality..." And so on.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
This is all very diverting, and I have to admit Merrill is funnier than Younkins even: "The logical axioms apply to truth in all meaningful senses of the word, not just the correspondence meaning of truth. More specifically, they define the coherence meaning of truth." Yes, of course they do.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I've been looking a bit further into all of this, and particularly whether any of the associated articles should be in Misplaced Pages at all, given than no original research or assessment of primary sources is allowed, only reliable secondary sources. The latter are in short supply, particularly regarding Rand's logical and epistemological writing (which is my only area of limited expertise). This discussion of the Rand-Peikoff take on the analytic-synthetic distinction is interesting (Peikoff seems to have been St Paul to Rand's Jesus). Rand-Peikoff rejects the distinction on the grounds that a 'concept' subsumes all its 'existents' (which I think means 'extension'). " a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known". Thus any statement we regard as 'synthetic' is really analytic, because the concept includes all of the features of the things subsumed under it, even if we don't know about those things at the time. This seems a wholly indefensible view. But the point is to locate a reliable and independent secondary source which discusses and evaluates this view. Interestingly the Warburg Institute library, which I regularly use and which has some splendidly obscure works not found in any other libraries, has no work by Rand. Peter Damian (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It just struck me that even if "a concept refers to the actual existents which it integrates including all their characteristics currently known and those not yet known." and even if "concepts subsume all of the attributes of the existents to which they refer and not simply the ones included in the definition. " there would still be a basis for the analytic-synthetic distinction. For you could still distinguish a proposition whose truth is known because we have enough knowledge of the concepts joined by it, from a proposition whose truth is not known because we do not have enough knowledge of the concepts it joins. Such a distinction of course is relative to time and human knowledge. The proposition 'water is H2O' would not have been known to be true a thousand years ago. Now it is. Interesting. Peter Damian (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Reversion of changes in law of identity
Dear Peter, I have reverted in Law of identity your deletion of the entry about Kim Cameron Laws of Identity. You seem to have a philosophical orientation, and may want to have the page Law of identity only about this which I can understand. For me this can be ok, but only in the condition you create a disambiguation page, which actually can make the all articles better. Cameron's Laws of Identity is something very legitimate and well known from people working on the digital identity field, and therefore should not be deleted like this. Best regards. --Nabeth (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I have reinstated my edit on grounds neither Cameron nor the 'law' are sufficiently notable. Do you have any references, citations, &c? I did look in Google and Google scholar. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
And Google scholar did not provided you enough answer? This is weird, because Google scholar provide many answers for me, top of which are the Laws of Identity of Cameron. Anyway, I will create (when I have more time) a separate page with proper references, as well as a dismabiguation page. --Nabeth (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding the history of this concept in the article. I replaced the heading "Mandatory Misplaced Pages trivia section" with "Trivia" as the former was not appropriate for a serious reference work. Disrupting the encyclopaedia to make a point is not a constructive strategem for effecting change – discourse, not dramatics, bitte. Regards, Skomorokh17:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
See WP:3RR, and the recent Arbcomm decision. The bans that Arbcomm handed down were for doing exactly what you're doing now, so it's probably in your best interest to stop. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stop the threats. I have tidied up the introduction so it really introduces the reader to the subject in a stand-alone kind of way. What are you objecting to? Karbinski is being a little trying, but I forgive him. Peter Damian (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not threatening, I'm stating a fact: the admins are not likely to look kindly on revert warring. Remember, that's why Snowded, Idag and I got banned. That said I do believe that your changes are largely an improvement to the article, but they have to go through the correct process. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Peter should be unblocked if the article remains protected. Otherwise, the block becomes punitive; 3RR does not dictate blocks must be made. Protection is a valid way of solving a 3RR case. Sceptre00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Said regular user having a history of avoiding arguments on the talk page, and being a single purpose editor focused only on Ayn Rand articles. Block should be lifted. --Snowded (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you arguing for PD to have an exemption from 3RR? That wouldn't be a good idea - he won't get one. The std.rules apply: if you are editing against someone (you consider to be) manifestly unreasonable then you ask other editors, or admins, to help you. You don't revert them to death, because the unreasonable people are just as good at that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
No one has an exemption from 3RR per se. However we need some balance here. We have an IP who has been persistently editing aggressively and refusing to take part in any discussion. Aside from one brief ban where their comments got abusive no admin has been prepared to handle it. The behaviour is a clear breach of the ArbCom resolution, but raising it an enforcement is ignored. The non-IP edit will edit war up to the limit of 3RR and does so persistently here and on other articles in single minded pursuit of imposing his heroine's views. I think Peter's declared breech as an attempt to get someone from the admin community to take the issue seriously. Especially here where Peter had done detailed research supported by citation. The net result of this is that editors who are not carrying an ideological torch are driven away and/or worn down. I would argue that an IP editor who refuses discussion on the talk page (they have made NO contributions there ever) is in effect a vandal and Peter is therefore not in breech of 3RR. --Snowded (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The behaviour is a clear breach of the ArbCom resolution, but raising it an enforcement is ignored - diffs please. I would argue that an IP editor who refuses discussion on the talk page (they have made NO contributions there ever) is in effect a vandal - certainly not. An anon who just corrected spelling but refused to talk wouldn't be a vandal. But if people (anons or not) keep reverting but refuse to discuss, then I would probably block them. no admin has been prepared to handle it - I haven't seen this raised at AN3, where you can take reports of people editing up to but not quite to 3RR. Where have you/PD taken this? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OK here is the diff. You will also see the normal pattern here, you raise an issue and the other Randists pour in to create noise. In this case Karbinski who is the non-IP protagonist above. The noise is effective, it means that someone just looking at it dismisses the issue as a squabble and doesn't look into the matter. I agree with you that spelling correction is not vandalism, but here we have an aggressive pro-Rand editor who never discusses anything other than by shouting in the comment field. Just have a look at their contributions. I'll make a note of AN3 for future, but understand the diff above resulted in a bit of disillusionment. --Snowded (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes. The problem is that the arbcomm ruling you refer to in that diff, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Editors not named, is one of those regrettable arbcomm rulings that probably looked good at the time, but is essentially a nullity - it merely tells admins they can do what they have always done. You can't use it for anything. Dealing with anons is relatively easy. Dealing with strong disagreements between different groups of editors is harder (but again, reverting to death won't work). The standard rules apply: find people to help out; discuss your edits fully on the talk page; make sure you remain scrupulously within the rules; remain polite and discuss the edits, not the editors. Looking at all of this is how admins who don't know the subject matter determine who are the Good Guys and who are the bad, should that distinction be useful. One approach that may be useful here is to impose a 1RR restriction on the article; that can make it clearer and help outsiders William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
A 1RR would have been a good idea. However in the mean time the issue still stands. We have an IP editor who absolutely refuses to take the talk page, despite multiple warnings and requests over months. They are supported by another single purpose editor (although named) who contributes to the talk page but does not deal with arguments or engage in a meaningful way other than to assert an opinion. Peter reverting the IP (who will not talk) is I think dealing with vandalism in consequence. Even if you disagree then a "participate or experience a long block" warning from an admin to our IP is surely a reasonable request. --Snowded (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about 1RR. A reasonable solution would be exactly as Snowded suggests: a long block warning to the IP. A polite warning to the single purpose editor (Karbinksi) that he should engage in meaningful and reasonable way with arguments (and not merely assert opinions, or keep repeating himself, or failing to identify exactly what his objections are). TN's comment "Per the ArbComm ruling I would like to ask that we get some kind of administrator intervention to ensure order on the talk page. Just, please, if a couple could watch and help ensure a more civil environment that would be fantastic. " This page requires constant care and attention. (Peter) 81.151.180.208 (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
To Connolley's arguments above
"if you are editing against someone (you consider to be) manifestly unreasonable then you ask other editors, or admins, to help you."
Help has been asked many times on this article. No adequate help has been given. The anon IP refuses to discuss on the talk page. No admin will handle it.
"PD won't get an exemption from 3RR"
I'm not particularly asking for an exemption, in my view 3RR and subsequent blocking is a good way of forcing discussion of an issue that would otherwise be ignored. Which has happened. If there were another way of dealing with this, I would have tried it.
"An anon who just corrected spelling but refused to talk wouldn't be a vandal."
Snowded's wording was 'refuse to discuss' not 'refuse to talk'. We have a case here of an anon IP who refuses to discuss changes which are highly controversial. That IP has not been blocked. I have.
"The standard rules apply: find people to help out; discuss your edits fully on the talk page; make sure you remain scrupulously within the rules; remain polite and discuss the edits, not the editors. "
I have made some very careful arguments on the Objectivism talk page. These were ignored by both the IP and by the other tendentious editor (Karbinkski). Karbinski admittedly does say things on the talk page but this is not discussion, rather a rambling and repititious sequence of non sequiturs. I have no problem with editors who want actually to discuss the subject, i.e. explain unambiguously which edit is the problem, explain exactly what is the problem is. But neither Karbinski nor the IP are discussing in any sense of the word.
"One approach that may be useful here is to impose a 1RR restriction on the article; that can make it clearer and help outsiders "
William, you have asserted that Misplaced Pages "gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about" (from your Misplaced Pages entry). In defending those who persistently vandalise the Rand article with absurd and unsourced and uninformed statements about philosophy that betray a complete ignorance of any formal education in the subject, and in blocking someone with a formal training in the subject, teaching experience and publications, you seem to be contradicting your own sentiments. Explain please. 81.151.180.208 (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Beware the existing content of Rand articles
You may have noticed that the articles are not necessarily very well put together. Your sterling efforts to demonstrate that the three supposed Aristotelian axioms are not all Aristotelian at all is sadly undermined by the fact that even Rand doesn't claim they are - at least, not in the passage to which the article refers.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Lukasiewicz: "There are still two theses that have to be taken into account, although neither of them is explicitly stated by Aristotle, viz. the laws of identity 'A belongs to all A' and 'A belongs to some A'. The first of these laws is independent of all other theses of the syllogistic. If we want to have this law in the system, we must accept it axiomatically. The second law of identity can be derived from the first". Aristotle's syllogistic, 1951, p.48. 81.151.180.208 (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
And also p.149 "Aristotle does not state the law of identity Aaa as a principle of his assertoric syllogistic; there is only one passage found by Ivo Thomas, where in passing he uses this law in a demonstration". . 81.151.180.208 (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I couldn't really be bothered. On your comment above, I think it is unfair to say I am 'edit warring' against Karbinski. If he gave a coherent explanation of his issue, or tried to engage in a meaningful way, I would take any objection very seriously. But he seems incapable of doing this. I could give you endless examples. Regards, Peter. 81.151.180.208 (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, Peter, it doesn't matter how justified you are or how wrong the other guy is: unless it's clear cut vandalism that you're reverting, it's an edit war. Again, I found this out the hard way... TallNapoleon (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Simply for complaining about the block. How much madder and more idiotic can this thing get? In the early days of Misplaced Pages there was this idea that an admin wouldn't cause escalation of a bad situation into an impossible situation, particularly if the original complaint was reasonable (or if the original block seemed as though it might have been unreasonable). Johnson, would you just like to talk about this, instead of using the vile weapons of your trade? How is this helping to build an encyclopedia. Peter Damian (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It might do you well to familiarize yourself with policy, particularly the part of the blocking policy that clearly states block evasion can lead to an extension of the current block. Your IP was blocked, but the block on your account has not yet been reset. --auburnpilottalk16:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't engage with my point, sorry. The understanding in the old days was that an admin tries to be reasonable and understanding particularly in the case of dubious or unreasonable blocks. Let me just check when you joined. Peter Damian (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
ah yes, your first edit was in July 2006. Exactly 3 years after I started editing the encyclopedia. I have contributed many, many of the core articles on philosophy and logic to this project. What are you doing for the project exactly? Peter Damian (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Likewise this guy (Johnson). Hasn't been so much of a prick as you, but still, he doesn't actually do anything apart from aggravating a situation like this. Peter Damian (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
