Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Peter Damian

William Connelly has blocked me

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APeter_Damian

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

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

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

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

in the insane state.

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?

Posted by: Peter Damian

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

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

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

Posted by: written by he who wrote it

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

Posted by: Somey

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)&diff=prev&oldid=288750804

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

Posted by: Sceptre

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?'".

Posted by: EricBarbour

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


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....


If you ever run into Jimbo, ask him.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.

Posted by: The Joy

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?

From the way things have been, it seems more than a few Wikipedians have been waiting for an opportunity to have you blocked forever.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Good for you, sir.

Posted by: 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 http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/caprice/3iyoslgwsp412/23# 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 http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#The_Bardic_Arts.

One hardly needs a http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/DueteronomicDescant.html anymore.

Posted by: tarantino

The IP from San Diego appears to be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_S._Valliant&diff=284317543&oldid=255231210 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=Special:Contributions&offset=20090301213300&limit=5&target=72.199.110.160

Posted by: 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 http://www.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?

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

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.

Posted by: Somey

I believe you're correct - most likely that's James S. Valliant himself...

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.

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

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?




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

Posted by: Malleus

Who the fuck gives a toss about this Ayn Rand lunatic? If Jimbo hadn't been known to be an acolyte would any of these kids on wikipedia care about her? Aren't they just doing what they think is their master's bidding?

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

Quite. Give the article of the person that the boss says is his main influence a polish... or throw shit at it for the same reason.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I am well aware. I am more suprised by the new block by Protonk, given the previous history I have with him. He is clearly trying to settle a score.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Heh heh.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Probably more than just that. Rand has significant influence in neither academia nor popular culture. She does have a small but fanatic following on both right wing talk radio and the internet. The combination of selfishness, self-entitlement and adolescent reasoning seasoned with a sense that of being superior to others is a nice fit with Wikipedia's demographics. Randoids are a subspecies of internet libertarianism with or without Wales. Kurt, for instance is a Randoid and seems to have no use for Mr. Wales.

Posted by: Malleus

... and as a result it's just become a hopeless battleground.

Posted by: Cla68

I'm working off a fairly intense hang over this morning (it's Sunday morning here in Japan) and I can't think of a more helpful activity than going and working on the Ayn Rand article, not!

The other day while I was at a Tapas restaurant in Shibuya (Tokyo), a Japanese woman, one of my wife's friends, looked at me over her paella and asked me, totally out of the blue, What do you know about Ayn Rand? After picking my jaw off the floor, I answered sensibly, Nothing.

Peter, are you truly interested in improving the Rand article? If so, then it may be worth getting blocked over. Otherwise, for what it's worth, perhaps another activity or working on another article would be more productive.

Posted by: Malleus

There are some articles you just have to let rot in the field, and Ayn Rand's is one of them.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Petie D has got Sysophus confused with Thelma & Louise.

Ja Ja

Posted by: tarantino

The book is mentioned in a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22Passion+of+Ayn+Rands+Critics%22&go=Go. I checked five of those, and he's the one that added the reference to all five.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Passion_of_Ayn_Rand&diff=280728126&oldid=280432437
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&diff=288302845&oldid=288297810
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathaniel_Branden&diff=258162122&oldid=256243716
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Branden&diff=258841494&oldid=257813987
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_O%27Connor_(actor)&diff=282835801&oldid=282828303

Amazon currently ranks it as http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/917098/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_5_last://. I wonder how much of an effect his product placements on Wikipedia had on his Amazon sales?

Posted by: Peter Damian

I am a credentialled philosopher. The article is not about Ayn Rand herself but her philosophy. It contains some startling philosophical errors (such as the claim that the principle of Identity originated with Aristotle). As a philosopher and a teacher, I feel bound to correct these errors.



(Andy jokingly suggested that Connolley block him too, and Connolley did).

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

And WMC unblocked him two hours later when Andy pointed out he was just kidding. Funny, the block summary stated "per user request" -- I thought self-requested blocks were a no-no.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Just out of curiosity, why the hell eat tapas and paella in Tokyo, unless you're a homesick Spanish ex-pat? It sounds like going out for sushi in Madrid. I'm sure it's possible, but what's the point?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Not sure but I think that means she likes you.


This seems unnecessary and inappropriate based on my interpretation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection.

He http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:72.199.110.160, and that's usually enough. However he blocked it "anon. only", which means this person can still edit from their account if they have one.

If they do have an account, there's a very good chance it is immune to s-protection as the level requirements are so low.

If their IP is blocked and they don't have an account the logical step is to change their IP. If they keep editing the same article with a whole slew of them, then yeah it should be s-protected, but since that's been done already it's harder to measure this person's resources and resolve (though the latter seems potentially high—two dozen edits in one day?)

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Protonk is among the very worst admins on Wikipedia. My sympathies to you for having to share air with that waste of space.

Posted by: Viridae

Does that apply to those two cities in general, or cities that are not generally recognised to be multicultural. I ask because I live in Melbourne which appears to have at least one restaurant specialising in every culture on this here earth. Its a multicultural foodie melting pot - paticuarly good if you want good (and generally cheap) Chinese or Vietnamese, but stretching to such countries as Tibet, Mongolia, Ethiopia and Colombia (to name a few random places off the top of my head - there is at least a half dozen Ethiopian restaurants for instance. Damn nice food.)

Posted by: Peter Damian

Just appeared: a bizarre rant on ANI against my work on the Ayn Rand article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=289373897&oldid=289368848

Interesting that this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29&diff=287902236&oldid=287888631

is characterised as "POV pushing, despite it being directly sourced from one of the most respectable philosophical reference works in the English language, and from the work of Robert Nozick and others.

But who cares. The Randians have reclaimed the article anyway, and no sane editor would want to go near it.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

One rarely hears "sanity" and "Ayn Rand" in the same sentence.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Oh, I'm sure anybody anywhere gets tired of the local food (whatever it is) and wants to try tacos in Tokyo or something. Fine. I just had the odd idea that some out-of-towners were being taken out for that kind of thing, but perhaps read more into it than there was.

Just had Ethiopian food the other night-- in LA. Found out some friends of mine, of whom one is gluten-sensitive, were suffering from food deprivation. They didn't know that that teff used to make injera bread has little gluten. There's a little-Ethiopia near where they live, but they'd never been there.

So forget my comments. I'm just a fan of trying to eat the local foods first when traveling, on the theory that the locals are more likely to know what they're doing. That's a pretty good first-pass rule for travel, when it comes to all activities.

Posted by: Viridae

Yeah I'll agree with that. Read an amusing review of an Italian restaurant in Vietnam the other day.

Posted by: Cla68

Sorry, Milton, I just noticed your comment this morning. There's a good reason why the Michelin guide has named Tokyo as the world's best restaurant city since they started publishing a Tokyo guide two years ago.

The Japanese are really serious about their food, and not just about their own food. Japan is the only place I've ever been to where it's common to find the cooks working in a mid-priced Italian restaurant, as opposed to just high-end restaurants, who have all attended culinary school in Italy. The same holds true for the other national cuisines which Japanese enjoy- French, Spanish, Chinese, even American. The cooks here try, and are usually successful, at making it all as good as you could get in the countries of origin. Of course, they often concentrate on dishes from those countries which cater to the local tastes, such as seafood since the Japanese, in general, love fish and shellfish. Also, they often add an Asian blend to the dishes, but their creativity is usually superlative.

Whenever I'm in the US, the only way I can find restaurant food that even approaches the quality of most low-to-mid-priced Tokyo restaurants is to go to a high-end restaurant, and not just for Japanese food, but Italian, French, or Spanish also. Others who have lived here have told me the same thing.

Posted by: RMHED

Yes the Japanese are indeed perfectionists, they take a real pride in their work and endeavour to do their best in whatever labours they perform.
I wonder if that ethic also translates to the Japanese Wikipedia?

Posted by: Cla68

Not from what I've seen. I look at the Japanese Wikipedia often to try to find Japanese sources for the Pacific War articles that I work on. Unfortunately, many of the editors over there don't source the content that they add. Also, many of the articles are incomplete, although that's also true of the English Wikipedia, of course.

Posted by: The Joy

Could a mod split the subject of Japanese restaurants from this thread? Thanks.

Posted by: RMHED

I wonder why this should be, I can't help but come to the conclusion that the internet brings out the worst in people. Its allowance of anonymity and avoidance of responsibility seems to inevitably lead to a "what the fuck" attitude.

Posted by: Milton Roe

And here's a question only Cla68 can answer: I have a friend who suspects that Pearl Harbor was driven as much by art as necessity. IOW, it was such an absolutely brilliant military stroke that once proposed, they were drawn to it as much for the perfection of the idea as anything else. And as such, damn the consequences.

Of course, they missed the aircraft carriers, or it WOULD have been perfect. Too bad. It cost them at Midway, where with a brilliant decrypt plus the usual American ability to put together a credible effort on the fly, as it were, the Americans managed their own near-perfect attack in return. Hah!

Posted by: Cla68

The causes of the war between Japan and the US are very complex and convoluted, as well as why Yamamoto thought that his Pearl Harbor strike was the best way to start things. To discuss it in full I suggest we start a thread in the Politics, Religion, and Such forum. I don't think I have any new insight into it, however, than what has already been published by other authors, such as Edwin Reichauer, who love both cultures and are saddened by how big a tragedy it was that these two societies engaged in such a vicious and destructive fight with one another.