Connelly blocks Damian, How far can this madness go? Options

[Peter Damian]

William Connelly has blocked me

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...%3APeter_Damian

for trying to revert the efforts of an insane IP on the Ayn Rand article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../72.199.110.160

To compound the madness, EdJohson has now locked down the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

in the insane state.

Since it's been pointed out that 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs) continues to revert war on this article without ever participating in the discussion on the Talk page, I have semiprotected Objectivism (Ayn Rand) for one month. (The IP has edited that article 26 times today, but made no appearance on Talk). Other admins can modify this as they think best. Protection will be lifted if the IP agrees to discuss and to abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, so why have I been blocked but this crazy IP is not? Why has the article been locked down for a month so the insanity can be protected? Exactly how insane can it get?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

It looks to me like you're either POV-pushing (deliberately misrepresenting Rand) or simply uninformed. I would personally recommend that you stop doing that. However, if you continue, I would at least like to ask you to stop calling people names who are simply asking you to stop engaging in original research. (To everyone else: Peter appears to be asking me for a personal response or recommendation, and I am offering my personal opinion. I have no interest in getting further involved than this, and I'm unlikely to respond to further inquiries about this.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the work I have done on that article has been very carefully sourced. Perhaps you should read the talk page.

Peter has provided precise, page-numbered sources for the summary. I don't have the book, and the full text isn't available online. He can hard;y be expected to copy type the pages here for everyone's review. Karbinski, if you have a copy to hand, could you just take one of Peter's sentences and show that Rand says something different? I think the burden is on you to show that the cites don't support what the article says.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

[Herschelkrustofsky]

an insane IP on the Ayn Rand article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../72.199.110.160

This entity is nothing if not hyperactive. Admin material, if you ask me.

[written by he who wrote it]

Exactly how insane can it get?

Is this a rhetorical question? Rand's quote philosophy end quote was the subject; how much sanity did you expect?

[Somey]

Yikes, this is both horrible and utterly laughable at the same time!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=288750804

Thank goodness no sane person would ever take this, or any other controversial subject covered by WP, seriously.

[Sceptre]

Exactly how insane can it get?

Is this a rhetorical question? Rand's quote philosophy end quote was the subject; how much sanity did you expect?

This much is true.

Anyway, Peter, I've thrown myself into the ring to try and get you unblocked, if solely because I think protection should be applied over blocks in 3RR cases, unless it's going across several articles/pages. I'm not making any opinion of the content because Rand bores me from even the thought of it; as someone wisely once said, "The question soon stops being 'Who is John Galt?' and becomes 'When will John Galt shut the hell up?'".

This post has been edited by Sceptre:

[EricBarbour]

Yikes, this is both horrible and utterly laughable at the same time!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=288750804

Only a rabid Objectivist would write like that......

In ''[[The Virtue of Selfishness]]'' she gave an original validation of her moral code, claiming to have bridged the infamous gap between [[Is-ought problem|"Is" and "Ought"]]—or between facts and values. Beginning by asking "What are values?" and "Why does man need them?", she argues that the concept of "value" implies an answer to the questions, "Of value ''to whom'' and ''for what''?" Thus, the existence of values depends upon the existence of an alternative in the face of which a being must act. "Where no alternatives exist, no goals and no values are possible."

Utter rot. Peter, did you really think you could expect better treatment from
Jimbo's droids? For all we know, that IP editor was Jimbo himself....

'When will John Galt shut the hell up?'

If you ever run into Jimbo, ask him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Peter Damian]

In ''[[The Virtue of Selfishness]]'' she gave an original validation of her moral code, claiming to have bridged the infamous gap between [[Is-ought problem|"Is" and "Ought"]]—or between facts and values. Beginning by asking "What are values?" and "Why does man need them?", she argues that the concept of "value" implies an answer to the questions, "Of value ''to whom'' and ''for what''?" Thus, the existence of values depends upon the existence of an alternative in the face of which a being must act. "Where no alternatives exist, no goals and no values are possible."

Absolutely. Trying to derive an 'ought' from an 'is' is a logical fallacy.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Is-Ought

Any encyclopedia covering the claim to have 'bridged the gap' between the premisses and conclusion of a fallacious argument should treat the claim for exactly what it is. Rather like someone who had claimed to have squared the circle, or disproved Cantor's theorem, or any other flaky claim.

I am taking Jimbo to RFC after the block is over. Following this and earlier conversations, it is clear he is behind all this nonsense.

[The Joy]

I am taking Jimbo to RFC after the block is over. Following this and earlier conversations, it is clear he is behind all this nonsense.

I support your endeavors, Peter, but you realize that Jimbo, Connelly, and associates will likely move for your ban/indefinite block with no possibility of you ever being unblocked? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

From the way things have been, it seems more than a few Wikipedians have been waiting for an opportunity to have you blocked forever. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Peter Damian]

From the way things have been, it seems more than a few Wikipedians have been waiting for an opportunity to have you blocked forever. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

That's fine. Durova is now joining in, and the more of this cabal are seen to support the efforts of a neutrally-minded academic philosopher who is trying to battle the single-minded efforts of cranks, the better. More stuff for my dossier for the Sloane Foundation, and other supporters of Wikipedia among the Great and the Good. Haste the day.

[Peter Damian]

I am concerned that only one party to an edit war is blocked, especially as the unblocked party has previously been blocked for their editing of the same article and is apparently a pov warrior, and specifically it is WMC who actioned the sanction. WMC is now responsible for 3 of the 5 blocks on the Peter Damian account. I note that WMC took no other action, leaving it for another to sprotect the article nor - as noted - sanctioning the other edit warrior. I feel that this gives the impression that WMC acted disproportionately in sanctioning an editor with whom they have a history regarding blocking. I shall ask WMC if they wish to comment here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good for you, sir.

[Moulton]

Values and Disvalues are Desires and Dreads in fancy clothing.

Desires and Dreads are clearly emotional choices spelling out the preferences of one character (the Protagonist) against another (the Antagonist).

There is a lamentable tendency to cast Values and Disvalues into something more mandatory, such as Good and Evil or Right and Wrong (and then seek the Machiavellian political power to impose those choices on the population at large).

Perhaps if Ayn Rand had access to modern neuroscience, she would appreciate that the Amygdala — the brain's emotion processor — is an idiosyncratic sorter of personal desires and dreads. In the west, we often put survival at the top of the list of desires ("I put before you life and death; therefore choose life"). But there are also Klingons among us (Live Free or Die) who would choose death before dishonor. On the Internet, where identity is fungible and self-resurrection trivial, the Phoenix Option is not such a profoundly religious innovation.

When Protagonist and Antagonist line up with complementary Values and Disvalues (complementary Desires and Dreads), the outcome is a recognizable and familiar drama.

One hardly needs a libretto or liner notes anymore.

[tarantino]

Since it's been pointed out that 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs) continues to revert war on this article without ever participating in the discussion on the Talk page, I have semiprotected Objectivism (Ayn Rand) for one month. (The IP has edited that article 26 times today, but made no appearance on Talk). Other admins can modify this as they think best. Protection will be lifted if the IP agrees to discuss and to abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, so why have I been blocked but this crazy IP is not? Why has the article been locked down for a month so the insanity can be protected? Exactly how insane can it get?

The IP from San Diego appears to be this lawyer who's the author of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.

Here he is on March 1 editing his bio, the college where he received his degree and adding his name to the alumni section of the high school he attended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=72.199.110.160

[thekohser]

I find it utterly amusing that these high-level discussion of the "Is-Ought" problem and other nuances of philosophy are being hashed out on a website that BY DESIGN encourages these sorts of politically-motivated and tool-enhanced disputes.

I mean, if this debate were being held on WannaSpell.com, wouldn't we all laugh at the participants for choosing such a fluid, messy chalkboard upon which to defend their positions? Why are we not similarly laughing now that it's being held on a very advanced, but ontologically similar platform like Wikipedia?

[Peter Damian]

Blocked now for 48hrs more, simply for complaining about the block via an IP. I'm just beginning to wonder whether the Wikipedia cult is something far more insane and irrational than anything Ayn Rand came up with.

[GlassBeadGame]

Blocked now for 48hrs more, simply for complaining about the block via an IP. I'm just beginning to wonder whether the Wikipedia cult is something far more insane and irrational than anything Ayn Rand came up with.

Any point to be made by your mistreatment on Wikipedia has been made long ago.

[Peter Damian]

Blocked now for 48hrs more, simply for complaining about the block via an IP. I'm just beginning to wonder whether the Wikipedia cult is something far more insane and irrational than anything Ayn Rand came up with.

Any point to be made by your mistreatment on Wikipedia has been made long ago.

You think I should not be posting this?

[edit] You see the picture on the left. That's Sisyphus. Sisyphus rolls a gigantic heavy boulder to the top of an incredibly high mountain. It can take days or months or even years to get the boulder to the top. Then the gods topple the boulder back to the bottom. Sisyphus starts again. It's the human condition.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

Blocked now for 48hrs more, simply for complaining about the block via an IP. I'm just beginning to wonder whether the Wikipedia cult is something far more insane and irrational than anything Ayn Rand came up with.

Any point to be made by your mistreatment on Wikipedia has been made long ago.

You think I should not be posting this?

[edit] You see the picture on the left. That's Sisyphus. Sisyphus rolls a gigantic heavy boulder to the top of an incredibly high mountain. It can take days or months or even years to get the boulder to the top. Then the gods topple the boulder back to the bottom. Sisyphus starts again. It's the human condition.

Not so much that you shouldn't complain here when it happens. More that you should give them the opportunity there to keep doing it to you. I'm amazed you haven't disengaged more. You often seem to know what issues matter and even why this might be so.

[Somey]

The IP from San Diego appears to be this lawyer who's the author of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.

I believe you're correct - most likely that's James S. Valliant himself... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

I suppose he wouldn't qualify under WP's definition of the term "conflict of interest," but at the risk of stating the obvious, there's just no way a person like that could possibly be the slightest bit "neutral" in an article about Randroidism.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Blocked now for 48hrs more, simply for complaining about the block via an IP. I'm just beginning to wonder whether the Wikipedia cult is something far more insane and irrational than anything Ayn Rand came up with.

That is, as you well know, block evasion. You flaunted your 3RR violations to WMC - who was indeed foolish enough to block you for 3RR without attempting to resolve the edit war - and then use ip's and create an account to continue arguing your case and acknowledge that you are a currently blocked editor... Why are you surprised at the reaction? As it happens, the admin who sprotected the article and I are considering what sanction the ip should receive in light of their pov pushing - the discussion is on my talkpage - it is a shame that you cannot contribute to it there.

You are aware why that individual was so punished to be condemned never to manage to push boulder to the top?

The IP from San Diego appears to be this lawyer who's the author of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.

I believe you're correct - most likely that's James S. Valliant himself... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

I suppose he wouldn't qualify under WP's definition of the term "conflict of interest," but at the risk of stating the obvious, there's just no way a person like that could possibly be the slightest bit "neutral" in an article about Randroidism.

I would be surprised if any substantial edit to that article could be described as "neutral".