Arbcom decision just out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ration/Ayn_RandWell at least they made a decision. Some of the Rand nutcases got topic-banned. But (presumably so as to appear even-handed) two of the neutrally-minded editors got banned too (Snowded and Idaq).
Would any of the arbitrators like to defend this absurd decision? As far as I could see, Snowded had been very careful not to edit war and always discussed edits on the talk page. He is a capable editor and applies thought and logic always - unlike some of the fanatics who frequent that page.
This is typical of the 'Sir Fozzie' approach to arbitration. Treat every dispute as though it were like Northern Ireland or Palestine.
Imagine applying the same approach, to say Cantor's Theorem. Or, indeed to Ayn Rand.
[edit] Interesting that I wasn't topic-banned at all, despite having a 24-hour block from Connelly for edit-warring (and calling one of the objectivist editors a 'wakner'). Could there possibly be a political bias here? Arbcom knowing well that I have given the Rand issue a high profile as I could within the profession.
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: