The Further Misadventures of AnonIP160


Robert Campbell

Recommended Posts

Okay, so let me see if I've got this straight. Richard Lawrence is taking preemptive action by warning potential (but highly unlikely) hordes of evil-doers against showing up and attacking wikipedia by violating its rules against outing anonymous editors, while Lawrence has himself been (inadvertently?) outing Pelagius2 (by addressing him/her as if he/she is one or more of the Valliants), and Lawrence is therefore aware that Pelagius2, unlike the imagined hordes of evil-doers, is currently in violation of wikipedia's rules?  And he's accusing Robert of venting "paranoid speculations"?!!!  Wow! This guy sounds like a total dope.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

Richard Lawrence is far from a total dope.

I just think he's been on the inside at Wikipedia for too long, trying to convince himself of the merits of enforcing byzantine, sometimes overtly contradictory, rules.

And convincing himself, as many Wikipedians eventually do, that Wikipedia is a blessed haven of superiority to those belly-crawling, degraded discussion forums that otherwise populate the internet.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And convincing himself, as many Wikipedians eventually do, that Wikipedia a haven of superiority to those belly-crawling, degraded discussion forums that otherwise populate the internet.

Robert,

This is a pretty good description of the attitude I have often seen when reading Wikipedia staff on the discussion pages of the most varied Wikipedia articles--not Objectivism-related. Like I said, I don't rely on Wikipedia for that.

Sometimes, after looking at an article, I will skim over the discussion page to see if there is a controversy. This is not because I'm interested in the controversy, but because I am usually starting to learn about the topic. Checking the discussion page (and sometimes the history) gives a small indication of the polarities within that topic. I find that useful for learning.

It's an odd way to use Wikipedia, but one I recommend.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fundamental problem here is that although he admits to having an imperfect understanding of Wikipedia's rules (they are "byzantine" and better left "to the insiders who may actually understand them"), that has not stopped Robert from making detailed interpretations of how they apply. Now, it is fully within his rights to make his best interpretation within the limits of his own understanding. However, I would have expected that, as a professor of psychology (and for that matter, as a cognitively mature adult), he would recognize that there are differences between his perspective and my perspective, and when he observes that I act differently from what his perspective would suggest, he might consider that these differences could be involved. In particular, since I am apparently designated as one of the "insiders", I might have a different perspective on the rules that he doesn't quite understand. But that has not been his approach. Instead, he appears to assume that I agree with his interpretations of Wikipedia rules and, moreover, that I would act aggressively to enforce those interpretations. Therefore, when I don't act in the expected way, I am a hypocrite with ulterior motives that must be explained through speculative analysis of my motives and thoughts!

I have made a lengthy and detailed response to his on-wiki accusations on my Wikipedia user talk page. To summarize briefly:

1) there is no prohibition on mentioning that the accounts he is talking about are associated with the Valliant household, because this has been admitted to on-wiki by one of the accounts;

2) the use of those accounts does not appear to involve sock puppetry (merely having multiple accounts is not in itself prohibited);

3) there have not been any conflict-of-interest violations from these accounts since 2009;

4) I never threatened to block anyone for discussing any of the above; and

5) I never threatened to block him personally for anything, nor did I intend to imply any such threat.

Anyone who wants the details can read my full statement here. (Linked to a specific revision of the page because eventually the entire discussion will be archived.)

Now, as to some more details that are not covered in my on-wiki comments:

I did not reply to IP160's comments about the use of PARC because I did not see any benefit in doing so. Unless/until there is an actual attempt to cite it in an article, it is a moot point, and I seriously doubt I would ever convince Holly Valliant (much less, arguendo, James Valliant) to adopt a less pro-PARC viewpoint. So there was no reason to have an extended wrangle about it on my user talk page.

I ignored his own question for similar reasons. Unless he had some particular accusation to make about the behavior of the accounts, there was no reason to get involved in a discussion about them. I could have deleted the question entirely, but that would have been rude and would have presumably trigged some sort of follow-up accusing me of gods-know-what. So I let it sit.

When I noticed the next day that he had linked to it here, I posted my warning about outside parties. I did not indent it because it was not a direct reply to his question and I did not want it to be taken as such, which is what indenting it below his question would normally imply. I have no idea when not indenting a paragraph became "ostentatious". This is just one small example of the sort of hyperbolic and speculative interpretation that Robert makes with disturbing frequency.

There was nothing "disingenuous" about me posting my warning about outing when I knew who the accounts were, because that basic information was already open on-wiki, so I wasn't even thinking about that when I referenced the outing policy. My mistake was not being more specific about what types of information I was concerned about (discussed in more detail in my on-wiki statement), which left my comments open to Robert's wild interpretations.

There was similarly nothing disingenuous about me not "chastising" Pelagius, etc., for bringing off-wiki disputes to my talk page, because they had not done so. To have a dispute with someone the other party has to be present; to my knowledge, Nathaniel Branden does not edit on Wikipedia. My concern was not someone having an opinion about off-wiki matters, it was that someone would show up and lay into Valliant about stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, or that some defender of Valliant would show up to fight with Robert, or both. That's not what my user talk page is for, and I wasn't going to have it.

I'm not clear on what Robert's "parachuted from Mars" comment is supposed to imply. I knew who he was and wasn't trying to pretend otherwise, nor does anything in my comment address any of that. My message was aimed at other third parties, in particular those who unlike him did not have any prior experience with Wikipedia. In effect, by addressing those who "are not familiar with the standards of behavior on Wikipedia" (as I clarified in a follow-up comment), I was implicitly excluding him. Similarly, I knew he had posted the link, but I avoided mentioning it because there's no rule against posting about Wikipedia on other sites (well, there are some specific exceptions, but none that applied) and who made the link wasn't relevant to my warning for others. Of course this is contrary to his interpretation that my comment was meant as some sort of indirect threat to block him personally, but that goes back to the whole my perspective/his perspective thing again. I don't think I can be considered "disingenuous" for not realizing that he would interpret my comments to mean the opposite of what I intended.

I did not consider the possibility that Valliant's dog might be editing Wikipedia. Normally I would think that such comments were intended to be humor, but considering some of the other inventions that Robert appears to sincerely believe, I can't take anything for granted.

--

Richard Lawrence

Visit the Objectivism Reference Center

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I respond to Richard here, I will

(1) Post what I put on his user talk page at Wikipedia yesterday.

(2) Post his reply to me over there.

This is partly for my convenience: I'd like to gather all of the relevant material on this thread. I'm not editing over there any more, so my response to Richard will appear only over here.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, my post on Richard's user talk page.

Richard, I frankly don’t know what’s the matter with you.

But since I’ve decided to quit editing at Wikipedia, I’ll put my statement right here. I no longer care how you might react to it.

It’s obvious from your exchanges, up-thread, with 72.199.110.160 and Pelagius2, that you think they are the same people.

You presume that Pelagius2 will know why citations to James Valliant’s book The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics are “dicey.” If Pelagius2 were some unfamiliar newbie, your presumption would be completely nutty. A newbie would have no reason to know that Valliant’s book was ruled a non-reliable source, or that members of the Valliant household were prohibited from citing it in future edits. When IP160 (falsely) claimed that only “the use of PARC from this address” was ruled out, you didn’t act surprised that IP160 had taken up right where Pelagius2 had left off.

If any further evidence were required, note that when 72.199.110.160 was hit with multiple sanctions in May 2009, Pelagius1 sprang up to plead IP160’s case—and ended up admitting to being a member of James Valliant’s household. Pelagius2 opened for business on February 15 of this year, just as IP160 emerged from a 15-day topic ban. Look at Pelagius2’s excuse for a user page. The only difference: Pelagius 1 and IP160 were not active on the same days, whereas Pelagius2 and IP160 often are.

Let’s put it in words that everyone will understand.

IP160 and Pelagius2 both emanate from the household of James S. and Holly W. Valliant.

Both accounts are almost certainly used by more than one person.

Whether the actual user on a particular occasion is James Valliant, Holly Valliant, or Marcus Antonius Valliant, the employment of AnonIP160 and Pelagius2, including but not limited to their tag-teaming in the recent exchanges on this page, looks to be a violation of Wikipedia’s rule against sock puppetry.

So, what happened when I found out that AnonIP160 and Pelagius2 were defending questionable edits and referring to Valliant’s book in their defense? I came on this page and asked whether Pelagius2 had any connection with James S. Valliant.

For, if there is one, Pelagius2 has a conflict of interest and is acting deceptively in an effort to conceal it.

And how did you react?

First, you pretended I’d just parachuted in from Mars. I’ve been editing at Wikipedia since August 2009, and joined WP:OBJECTIVISM shortly thereafter. Subsequently, you and I had some differences, but we were able to work together productively. Apparently you’d forgotten all of that in the interim.

Next, you issued a loud, blustery warning at a horde of unnamed persons who, you professed to imagine, were about to invade Wikipedia, descend on your own talk page, and commit wholesale violations of Wikipedian norms. Sounds pretty paranoid, if you want to know the truth.

When I asked whether you were aiming this hot blast at me, you gave a loud, unconvincing denial. I was the one who linked to this page from the ObjectivistLiving site; I’m the only one from that site who has said a word over here; and you didn’t mind declaring that I was better advised to stay off your page, being paranoid and purely minded toward disruption.

So, cut to the chase:

Members of the James S. Valliant household are engaging in sock puppetry. You appear to know that they are and have done nothing about it. Instead, you threaten anyone else who might raise the issue with sanctions for violating the rules against outing and personal attacks.

Never mind that Jim and Holly Valliant were “outed” away from Wikipedia two years ago and that the information as to AnonIP160’s identity is widely available.

Never mind that Pelagius1 admitted here at Wikipedia to being a member of the Valliant household, while making misleading statements such as “I am new here.”

Never mind that Jim, Holly, and Marcus Antonius Valliant in their various incarnations have gotten into a slew of trouble at Wikipedia.

Never mind that during my time here I have avoided conflict with Jim, Holly, and Marcus Antonius Valliant in their editorial capacities. I haven’t been very active editing Rand-related articles since IP160 returned to activity in 2010, in part because I did not want to get into edit-wars with any of the Valliants.

Meanwhile, the Valliants do not reside in Pinsk, Pyongyang, or Benghazi. Nor, so far as I know, have they been in the habit of putting language critical of their employers in Wikipedia articles. So the standard rationale for the policy against outing scarcely applies to them.

I leave the interpretation of Wikipedia’s byzantine rules to those who claim to understand them. What Wikipedia gives with one hand, it often takes away with the other.

But I can’t imagine how you could think you are safeguarding the Wikipedia environment by protecting editors who engage in deceptive practices, including sock puppetry.

Maybe it is because you regard discussion fora outside of Wikipedia with such disdain that you feel called on to line up with anyone who’s been criticized on ObjectivistLiving, and consider it obligatory to punish any intruder hailing from such a place.

Be all of that as it may, you’re looking at my very last edit at Wikipedia, so you can block and ban to your heart’s content and it will make absolutely no difference to me.

Meanwhile, IP160 and Pelagius2 are showing no signs of having made their last edits. I predict that protecting them will bring you many headaches in the future.-RLCampbell (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next, Richard's reply to me on his user talk page.

The reason I have not taken any action to address "deceptive practices, including sock puppetry" is that I am not aware of any attempt to deceive. As you note, IP160 and the Pelagius2 account freely follow up for one another, with no indication at all of an attempt to make these appear to be different editors, no votestacking, no use of one to circumvent sanctions against the other, etc. As far as I can see, this is simply an editor who sometimes logs in and sometimes doesn't. It would be more within Wikipedia norms for her to log in more consistently, but that warrants nothing more than a friendly note to let her know how their inconsistent login behavior might be perceived, not a sockpuppet investigation. Moreover, if there were a need for such an investigation, it should be conducted by a third party, not by me, because Pelagius2 and I are clearly involved in editorial disputes with one another.

Regarding outing, I see no issue with pointing out that IP160 and Pelagius2 appear to be the same editor. That is a reasonable conclusion from observation of on-wiki behavior, not a revelation of anyone's personal details. The relationship between IP160 and the Pelagius1 account was similarly obvious. Moreover, based on a simple application of the "duck test", I believe that Pelagius1 and Pelagius2 are the same editor. The Pelagius1 account made an open, on-wiki claim to be the wife of the author of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, so by transitive logic, my presumption is that this also is the identity of IP160 and Pelagius2. Barring some unpublicized breakup, the wife of the author is presumably the same person named as the author's wife on the book jacket. Although I would hesitate to announce someone's name on-wiki when they have not done so, the previous public distribution of that information means it is not against policy to do so. If you thought that mentioning any of this was against Wikipedia policy, then I attribute that to your own self-proclaimed deficiency in understanding of those policies.

What would be outing would be revelations of non-public information about this editor (or her spouse), such as employment, residence, hobbies, medical conditions, names of other family members, etc. This is the sort of thing that someone coming into a discussion from the outside might know and blurt out in a posting, which is why I mentioned outing in my "Since I see ..." notice. Perhaps mentioning the policy without detailed explanation of all the above was too oblique, but I generally try not to give specific negative suggestions when alerting people not to violate policy. Fortunately, my concern about outside parties seems to have been unwarranted (which you apparently take to mean it was pretended, as if it were implausible to have a concern about a problem that doesn't pan out), and no one thus far has done anything to violate policy. The complete lack of policy violations by anyone, explicitly including you, is why I've never sought (and am not seeking now) to "block or ban" you, although you apparently consider my statements about this to be "unconvincing" (and also "loud", although I have no idea how plain text has a volume; I didn't even use caps lock).

Regardless of any other details, given the presumptive status of IP160/Pelagius2 as the wife of James Valliant, author of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, it would indeed be against the conflict of interest guideline for her to promote PARC on Wikipedia. However, beyond the brief mention of it above, I'm not aware of any PARC-promoting edits by her since mid-2009, just after IP 160 was topic-banned from editing articles related to Ayn Rand for six months. Having a potential conflict that is not acted upon doesn't violate any guidelines, and occasionally mentioning a conflict-related item in user talk page discussion is not the sort of editing that the COI guideline was intended to discourage.

After all the above, only two items remaining from your comments potentially deserve further consideration: 1) that the Pelagius1 account may have acted deceptively by claiming to be "new here" (when IP160 had been editing for months before), and 2) that these accounts "are almost certainly used by more than one person." Regarding (1), the Pelagius1 account was only used in May and June 2009. It's not clear to me that there was any attempt at deception back then. The account did post to one editor's talk page that they were "new", but immediately qualified that as "newly logged in" and admitted to making IP edits in the past (see here). More problematic is that the account made a handful of minor edits that were in violation of the topic-ban mentioned above. However, these edits were made over a year ago, and even if the topic ban start time had been reset to when the edits were made (part of the typical first-order response to such violations), IP160/Pelagius subsequently took a break from editing that exceeded the length of the ban. If these old violations were taken to a third-party admin, they would almost certainly dismiss them as too stale for even a warning, much less a block (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals).

Regarding (2), this is a serious and presumably current allegation. However, it is offered with no support. If you think your claim is demonstrable, then you are welcome to ask for a sockpuppet investigation about it. But an investigator is going to want some clear evidence for multiple users, not just a hunch. (This is where you might need to be careful about the outing policy, if you have evidence that relies on private information about the individuals you suspect of sharing the account. You should submit your request via email if that is the case.) Given your announced intention to leave Wikipedia, it would be up to you to decide if you wanted to pursue that. I can't make the case for that because I don't have any evidence that it is true.

In conclusion: I'm not "protecting" anyone, because I don't know of anything from which to protect them. I'm not threatening to block you (or to ask anyone to block you), because although IMO you are acting foolishly, that is not in itself a violation of any WP rules. Your ability to spin out speculations about my motives and thought processes is impressive in its creativity, but utterly wrong in almost every particular. If you wish to cease editing, that is your call. I have done nothing to intentionally encourage such a departure. The one thing I did discourage, which was you coming to my user talk page stirring up trouble, is the one thing you apparently decided you should do before leaving. That's unfortunate. I wish you good premises. --RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard,

Here's one lesson that I believe everyone will be able to draw from your latest responses to me, both on this thread and on your user talk page:

Casuistry isn't dead. It's found a new home at Wikipedia.

It wouldn't surprise me if someone in the Wikipedia administration hasn't compiled a set of special flow charts, with an abundance of diamonds and arrows, to indicate which rules abrogate which other rules, in the same manner that most Islamic scholars believe some verses of the Qur'an abrogate others.

So it's OK after all to declare on a user talk page at Wikipedia that

(1) Pelagius1 and IP160 were accounts both employed by the same user.

(2) Pelagius2 and IP160 are accounts both employed by the same user.

(3) Holly W. Valliant uses both accounts.

(4) Holly W. Valliant has a conflict of interest vis-à-vis citations or references to a book written by her husband.

(5) James S. Valliant, if per impossible he ever edited at Wikipedia, would have a conflict vis-à-vis citations or references to a book written by himself.

However, once we consult the fine print, it is distinctly not OK to declare on a user talk page at Wikipedia that

(6) James S. Valliant has occasionally used Pelagius1, occasionally uses IP160, and occasionally uses Pelagius2.

For if no evidence were adduced, it would be construed as a "personal attack" or "disruptive behavior."

And if evidence were adduced, it would be construed as a violation of the rule against "outing."

But I'm supposed to be assured that you were not directing your hot blasts about unspecified acts of outing or personal attacks at me.

Funny thing is, the evidence that initially tied IP160 to the Valliant household was an email from James Valliant to William Scott Scherk, in which James Valliant declared that he had just finished doing some editing on Wikipedia.

A little later, Pelagius1 claimed to be Holly Valliant, and James Valliant proclaimed at SOLOPassion that all references to his book had been "inserted" by Holly. Holly Valliant did not appear on SOLOPassion to explain how she had been editing behind James' back.

My stylistic analysis suggests that both James and Holly Valliant were using IP160 and Pelagius1 back in 2009. I haven't made a close analysis of recent statements on-wiki by IP160 and Pelagius2, but there's no particular reason to suppose that Mr. and Mrs. Valliant's practices have changed in the interim.

I presume you've known about the email from Jim Valliant to WSS for a good long while.

Wasn't that prima facie evidence of multiple users of the same account, and of sock-puppetry?

How come you didn't take any action regarding it, back in 2009? (I wasn't editing at Wikipedia when the Valliants got themselves into so much hot water, so I couldn't have taken any.)

More recently, how come you didn't say to IP160, when he or she claimed that the conflict of interest pertained only to IP160 (my bold print):

Nor is the use of PARC "dicey" per the last discussions of it. As I recall, it is only the use of PARC from this IP address that was any problem.

something along the lines of

"Pelagius2, you know this applies to you, too. Right?"?

And why, if I was not in fact violating any rules about "outing," blah blah blah, did you not respond to

How is Pelagius2 related to James S. Valliant, the author of the book whose employment is deemed "dicey" in this context?

with

"Well, Pelagius2 is Holly Valliant, and so is IP160, as I already know, and I figured you already knew. Now how is that relevant here?"

Now I'm reasonably sure you weren't worried about anyone appearing on your user talk page and threatening to out me. Were you any more apprehensive about someone coming on and revealing which Starbucks you like to hang out at, or the name of TallNapoleon's older brother, or the marital status of Skomorokh?

Or were you just seeking an immediate halt to any and all discussion of the Valliant household, and the accounts pertaining thereto?

You know, it may sound less impressive than invoking a bunch of rules and sanctions that you don't really believe are relevant but whose mention you hope will scare the pants off someone. Sometimes "Go away and don't bother me" is best said in as many words. It works even better when accompanied by, "If you've got a real complaint, I'm not the right person to handle it; you should take it to this administrator."

By the way, the posted rules at Wikipedia are quite clear on the subject of the same user having multiple accounts. The practice is strongly discouraged. If a user does keep multiple accounts, cross-referencing from one user talk page to another is strongly recommended. Apparently over the last 2 years, you've had lots of advice for lots of other editors but never conveyed any of this to the members of the Valliant household.

Now maybe the strictures about multiple accounts are taken no more seriously by administrators at Wikipedia than some 17th century law about blaspheming is taken by district attorneys in Maryland.

But if that's the case, the least the Wikipedia insiders could do is edit out the provisions that they have no intent of enforcing.

I ain't coming back to Wikipedia. Hypocrisy, casuistry, and fence-sitting don't appeal to me.

But I do very much appreciate your willingness to say something here.

Good premises,

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would need a tracking device to follow all this stuff. Inside baseball?

Phil, I have tried to understand this thread but realize it is for scholars and chess-players and beyond me. But I get a strong feeling that you should respect your magic sock and not make a puppet of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't surprise me if someone in the Wikipedia administration hasn't compiled a set of special flow charts, with an abundance of diamonds and arrows, to indicate which rules abrogate which other rules, in the same manner that most Islamic scholars believe some verses of the Qur'an abrogate others.

Wikipedia's governance structure is relatively anarchic and organic. The rules aren't always clear or consistent, much less consistently enforced. So I don't blame you for having a different interpretation of the rules than I do. A third party might disagree with both of us, and a fourth party with the third party. This isn't a science. What does concern me is your apparent inability to conceive that I might have a different opinion or different information than you, which leads you to suggest I'm behaving sinisterly when I don't follow your interpretation.

However, once we consult the fine print, it is distinctly not OK to declare on a user talk page at Wikipedia that

(6) James S. Valliant has occasionally used Pelagius1, occasionally uses IP160, and occasionally uses Pelagius2.

For if no evidence were adduced, it would be construed as a "personal attack" or "disruptive behavior."

And if evidence were adduced, it would be construed as a violation of the rule against "outing."

As a general rule, if you go around making accusations of rule-breaking with no evidence, then yes, that is disruptive. The purpose of Wikipedia (however imperfectly it may sometimes be implemented) is to create an encyclopedia, not to score points against ones enemies by throwing mud at them and hoping some sticks. If you do have evidence that is public in nature, then you are welcome to state it publicly. If it involves non-public information, then it should be communicated in a non-public fashion. If you aren't sure, assume it is non-public. This is known by some as "respecting other people's privacy", a concept that I assume you've heard of even if you don't agree with it.

I presume you've known about the email from Jim Valliant to WSS for a good long while.

Wasn't that prima facie evidence of multiple users of the same account, and of sock-puppetry?

Actually I long ago forgot about any information regarding email from Valliant. (I'm assuming I must have read about it back in May 2009, because it appears on a page where I commented.) In any case, this is stale info that at best leads to the shocking conclusion that a husband and wife might have edited from the same fixed IP address, probably associated with their residence. It doesn't actually tell us who is editing as IP160/Pelagius2 today, or even that the Pelagius1 account was shared back in 2009. The possibility of opening a sockpuppet investigation was discussed by administrators back then, but their focus at the time was more on the editor(s) being willing to follow more substantial rules, such as discussing controversies on talk pages instead of ignoring them as IP160 had done initially. Good for them.

How come you didn't take any action regarding it, back in 2009? (I wasn't editing at Wikipedia when the Valliants got themselves into so much hot water, so I couldn't have taken any.)

Because I did not become imperial grand dragon of the WWW until December 2009. Although I had a Wikipedia account as far back as 2005, I did relatively little editing until May 2009, and did not return to the Objectivism articles until May 20, 2009, after IP160 was already topic-banned. But more importantly, I do not share your interest in causing trouble for James Valliant. My concern is improving the quality of information on one of the world's most widely visited websites. The biggest problem IP160/Pelagius1/2 had in that regard was not some unproven sharing of accounts by a husband and wife. The big problem was (and to a lesser extent still is) tendentious editing. If you have information that will affect that, it would be much more interesting than "stylistic analysis" suggesting husband/wife account sharing.

Now maybe the strictures about multiple accounts are taken no more seriously by administrators at Wikipedia than some 17th century law about blaspheming is taken by district attorneys in Maryland.

But if that's the case, the least the Wikipedia insiders could do is edit out the provisions that they have no intent of enforcing.

Attitudes towards rules and their enforcement vary among different Wikipedia editors and administrators. I'm sure somewhere among the thousands you could find someone who would be up in arms about a husband and wife sharing a fixed IP address at their residence, but probably most wouldn't care unless there was some disruption coming from those editors. Sharing registered accounts is more explicitly against the rules, but even there, the bigger underlying concern is situations where organizations share a accounts among staffers in order to control articles, or where accountholders with special privileges give access to users who don't. Husband/wife sharing of a single non-privileged account, if clearly proven or admitted, would probably result in nothing more than them being required to register separate accounts that explicitly state the relationship. I have better things to do with my time than pursue bureaucratic wrangling over insubstantial matters, and even less time to pursue unproven accusations leading to said wrangling. If you want to pursue it, I've pointed you to the venue where you can do so. I'm not standing in your way.

--

Richard Lawrence

Visit the Objectivism Reference Center

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard,

Your last set of comments has been most helpful.

Wikipedia's governance structure is relatively anarchic and organic. The rules aren't always clear or consistent, much less consistently enforced. So I don't blame you for having a different interpretation of the rules than I do. A third party might disagree with both of us, and a fourth party with the third party. This isn't a science.

I realize that I've been barking up the wrong tree.

The interpretation of rules at Wikipedia isn't so much like casuistry, or like Qur'anic interpretation with its network of abrogrations. There aren't any built-in catches, or provisos to shoot the messenger.

Instead, you and the other administrators are largely making it up as you go along.

As a general rule, if you go around making accusations of rule-breaking with no evidence, then yes, that is disruptive. The purpose of Wikipedia (however imperfectly it may sometimes be implemented) is to create an encyclopedia, not to score points against ones enemies by throwing mud at them and hoping some sticks.

This is most interesting.

I'd never been involved in an edit war or in any other on-wiki contention with Jim and Holly Valliant while I'd been active at Wikipedia.

Until March 18, 2011, when I put a single question on your user talk page, I'd never done anything at Wikipedia that you called disruptive.

Now, all of a sudden, it is isn't my single act that's disruptive, I'm going around doing disruptive things.

Is all this disruptiveness a recent development?

Or have you been inclined, maybe for an extended period of time, to view me as disruptive by nature?

But more importantly, I do not share your interest in causing trouble for James Valliant. My concern is improving the quality of information on one of the world's most widely visited websites. The biggest problem IP160/Pelagius1/2 had in that regard was not some unproven sharing of accounts by a husband and wife. The big problem was (and to a lesser extent still is) tendentious editing.

Little or nothing in WP:DRAMA (which you linked to as "causing trouble") has any relevance to what we've been talking about.

But I think these underlined phrases have a clear enough meaning.

When AnonIP160 was recently hit with a 15-day topic ban, did you support the imposition of that ban?

If you did, would you take kindly to being told that you supported the ban because you have an interest in causing trouble for Jim and Holly Valliant?

The ban did, after all, cause them some trouble.

And, yes, I can see why you and others might consider Jim and Holly Valliant's editing to be tendentious. For once, a point of agreement...

But how do you expect the author of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics and his wife (who may also have been his literary agent) not to edit Rand-related articles tendentiously?

Aren't you effectively trying to change Jim Valliant into the kind of person who wouldn't write The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, if he had it all to do over again? And wouldn't publicize his book in the manner that he and Holly publicized it, if they had that to do all over again?

How much of your time and effort are worth putting into such a project?

It seems like there might be quicker and more cost-effective ways to improve the quality of information at Wikipedia.

For instance, you could encourage knowledgeable people who, for the most part, already avoid tendentiousness in their editing to become and remain active on the site.

What's your retention rate for those kinds of editors?

I'm responsible for the bold print in the next quotation:

Attitudes towards rules and their enforcement vary among different Wikipedia editors and administrators. I'm sure somewhere among the thousands you could find someone who would be up in arms about a husband and wife sharing a fixed IP address at their residence, but probably most wouldn't care unless there was some disruption coming from those editors.

When all is said and done, it turns out that I could provide whatever evidence I have concerning Jim Valliant's use of IP160 and related accounts, and it wouldn't really constitute some dreadful invasion of privacy—despite all of your bluster on the subject, and the dire warning you posted on your page not so very long ago.

And account sharing, in the context of a married couple using the same account, is far from the soul-shattering charge you just recently implied it to be. Nope, it just wouldn't amount to a hill of beans—from your point of view, or from the point of view of most of the administrators you know.

Unless there was some disruption.

I'll bet that nearly any rule violation turns out to matter to Wikipedia administrators only when there's been some disruption.

And what, when we get right down to it, is disruption?

In the end, isn't disruption that which annoys Wikipedia administrators, to such an extent that they really want to make it go away?

You know, like asking questions on a talk page that you'd much prefer hadn't been asked.

Or criticizing the behavior of a Wikipedia editor or administrator off-site.

And, sure, tendentious editing at Wikipedia will sometimes rise above the annoyance threshold.

If the users of AnonIP160/Pelagius1/Pelagius2 annoy you sufficiently, I'm sure you'll find all kinds of grounds (including some you're presently inclined to write off as insignificant) for slapping them with sanctions.

And it they annoy you long enough and intensely enough, you may even find a way to run them off altogether.

So far as AnonIP160/Pelagius1/Pelagius 2 are concerned, I will not pursue any official inquiries or complaints. You have convinced me that none of these would be worth my time.

What really matters is whether AnonIP160 et al. find ways to annoy you sufficiently. Which, given time, they very well may.

And I will depart with a valuable lesson that you've imparted to me: that what annoys Wikipedia administrators and what they are say are bad or impermissible practices are very different things.

Unless there was some disruption...

Unless there was some disruption...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have hit two nails on the head, Robert.

The first is that Wikipedia is ruled not according to principles per se, but according to editors who make it up as they go along.

The second and much more perceptive criticism you level is that infractions will be ignored "unless there is some disruption."

The true meaning of the latter point is that an administrator can and will ignore clear infractions by an editor whose point of view he happens to agree with. And not only is their, by definition, none of the impartiality that would result from a strict application of rules such as the no more than three reversals per article per editor per day policy, there is even a page entitled Too long, didn't read, which editors use to justify their not reading comprehensive evidence of a pattern of misconduct when not to do so is somehow convenient to them.

The administration of wikipedia is a uniquely hypocritical self-perpetuating oligarchy, rife with favoritism and 'governed' by non-objective rules which allow an administrator to justify both A and not A in the same way, and at the same time.

Unless there is some disruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have hit two nails on the head, Robert.

The first is that Wikipedia is ruled not according to principles per se, but according to editors who make it up as they go along.

The second and much more perceptive criticism you level is that infractions will be ignored "unless there is some disruption."

The true meaning of the latter point is that an administrator can and will ignore clear infractions by an editor whose point of view he happens to agree with. And not only is their, by definition, none of the impartiality that would result from a strict application of rules such as the no more than three reversals per article per editor per day policy, there is even a page entitled Too long, didn't read, which editors use to justify their not reading comprehensive evidence of a pattern of misconduct when not to do so is somehow convenient to them.

The administration of wikipedia is a uniquely hypocritical self-perpetuating oligarchy, rife with favoritism and 'governed' by non-objective rules which allow an administrator to justify both A and not A in the same way, and at the same time.

Unless there is some disruption.

Sounds like a bunch of anarchists to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is just one of our local whackjob PowerCouples<c> living in O-world. There's a lot of other stuff going on over there that makes this look like midget wrestling.

Amazing to watch them work, isn't it?

rde

Actually, I like midget wrestling more than this. A LOT more.

bridget_sitting_send.jpg

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it is just tangentially related to the facts of the recent case, the Wikipedia handout that Richard cited on drama (aka "causing trouble") may shed some light on the expectations that he brought to it.

Here's a paragraph from that page. Note the, er, dramatic expression. Bold print is mine, as usual:

Some banned editors, stymied POV warriors, malcontents, and those with personal grudges have a distressing habit of turning minor issues into Greek Tragedies. Dramas can be instigated and carried out by a single individual unable to move forward from a minor setback such as a warning and feeling a need to get the last word in, on up to an entire complex community at third-party websites opposed to Wikipedia. Members of such sites engage in drama to play to their audience and to gauge the Wikipedia community's strengths and vulnerability to further destabilization. They have produced incidents of mass sock puppetry, targeting individuals, especially members of Wikipedia's administration, for elaborate long term harassment spanning multiple sites.

Maybe this is what Richard imagines we are all up to, here at ObjectivistLiving.

Or what we all would be up to, unless headed off at the pass.

If so, it would explain his blustery warning to everyone who might read this thread and follow one link to his user talk page.

We've learned now that the warning he posted was a bluff.

Richard had no realistic basis for predicting that some (very loosely defined) Wikipedia policies would be violated. Further, it was unlikely that he could actually impose, or persuade others to impose, the sanctions that he was threatening.

More time spent here, and less spent there, would have served as a corrective.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a general rule, if you go around making accusations of rule-breaking with no evidence, then yes, that is disruptive. The purpose of Wikipedia (however imperfectly it may sometimes be implemented) is to create an encyclopedia, not to score points against ones enemies by throwing mud at them and hoping some sticks.

This is most interesting.

I'd never been involved in an edit war or in any other on-wiki contention with Jim and Holly Valliant while I'd been active at Wikipedia.

Until March 18, 2011, when I put a single question on your user talk page, I'd never done anything at Wikipedia that you called disruptive.

Now, all of a sudden, it is isn't my single act that's disruptive, I'm going around doing disruptive things.

Is all this disruptiveness a recent development?

Or have you been inclined, maybe for an extended period of time, to view me as disruptive by nature?

Your ability to read every comment as a personal attack, complete with speculations about the sinister thinking behind it, is amazing. (Robert Campbell gets a journal submission that includes a hypothetical: "Imagine you are on a train…" He writes back to the author: "How dare you accuse me of being a bad driver.") Obviously the use of the colloquial generic 'you' and the too-easy-to-miss 'if' was a huge mistake on my part. Please consider my earlier remarks to be a draft, to be rewritten as follows: As a hypothetical generalization, in the event that a party were to make accusations of rule-breaking with no evidence, then this hypothetical act by that party would be (hypothetically) disruptive.

Since I don't write to build a rococo version of every sentence, in the future if I don't make a very clear and direct reference to you personally, such as saying "you, Robert Campbell," then please assume I'm not talking about you, Robert Campbell, personally.

Little or nothing in WP:DRAMA (which you linked to as "causing trouble") has any relevance to what we've been talking about.

The relevance is quite simple: You, Robert Campbell, have motives unrelated to Wikipedia to cause problems for James Valliant. Therefore, you, Robert Campbell, showed up on my user talk page trying to stir up drama about rules that you, Robert Campbell, admittedly don't understand on a project that you, Robert Campbell, don't particularly care to participate in any longer. For reasons unfathomable to you, Robert Campbell, I don't approve of this.

When AnonIP160 was recently hit with a 15-day topic ban, did you support the imposition of that ban?

If you did, would you take kindly to being told that you supported the ban because you have an interest in causing trouble for Jim and Holly Valliant?

The ban did, after all, cause them some trouble.

The description of what happened is inaccurate. The IP was blocked for "vandalism" (not topic-banned, which is something different) after repeatedly removing material from the Ayn Rand article. This block was in fact unfair, because the edits in question were not vandalism at all, but rather part of a dispute over what content belonged in the article. However, Wikipedia edits made from IP addresses get a lot of scrutiny from people who monitor the "recent changes" log looking for vandalism, and one common type of vandalism from IP addresses is deleting large blocks of material. Some of these people mistook IP160's behavior in the content dispute for that type of vandalism, hence the block.

My attitude at the time was that this was a matter for that editor to fix for herself. The easiest thing would be for her to log into the account she already had registered (Pelagius1) and use that. Then the IP-change-watchers wouldn't even notice her edits and such misunderstandings would not occur. If she really wanted to use the IP instead, there is a simple process for appealing bad blocks that is explained in the standard block message that was placed on the IP's talk page. There wasn't anything I needed to do; therefore I didn't do anything.

Aren't you effectively trying to change Jim Valliant into the kind of person who wouldn't write The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, if he had it all to do over again? And wouldn't publicize his book in the manner that he and Holly publicized it, if they had that to do all over again?

How much of your time and effort are worth putting into such a project?

Very little, which is exactly how much time I have put into it.

When all is said and done, it turns out that I could provide whatever evidence I have concerning Jim Valliant's use of IP160 and related accounts, and it wouldn't really constitute some dreadful invasion of privacy—despite all of your bluster on the subject, and the dire warning you posted on your page not so very long ago.

And account sharing, in the context of a married couple using the same account, is far from the soul-shattering charge you just recently implied it to be. Nope, it just wouldn't amount to a hill of beans—from your point of view, or from the point of view of most of the administrators you know.

So much distortion, so little time. My earlier statement was that an accusation of account sharing was "serious" not "soul-shattering". When discussing the presentation of evidence about this, I discussed both public and non-public information, because I didn't know what "evidence" you, Robert Campbell, had in mind. So I've never been able to render any judgment on whether it would be "some dreadful invasion of privacy"; I just allowed for the possibility. I said the end result of such an accusation would probably just be a mandate for the editors in question to register a second account. Yes, that it is certainly a less draconian result than, say, a lifetime ban, but that is because the infraction itself is relatively minor. Astonishingly, some people on Wikipedia actually have a sense of proportion when it comes to dealing with problems.

I'll bet that nearly any rule violation turns out to matter to Wikipedia administrators only when there's been some disruption.

Well, as I said earlier there are a lot of people on the project, so any universal statements about attitudes will have exceptions. But generally, yes, rule violations are treated much more seriously when there is disruption involved rather than just a technical infraction. In the real world, a cop who sees you going slightly over the speed limit might not stop you, or might just give you a warning. But if he sees you drag racing in a school zone while weaving across lanes and waving a gun out the window, he will probably arrest you. If he then finds a dead body in your trunk, all the worse. Not all rule violations are equal.

Here's something to blow your mind: There is an official policy on Wikipedia called "Ignore all rules".

In the end, isn't disruption that which annoys Wikipedia administrators, to such an extent that they really want to make it go away?

You know, like asking questions on a talk page that you'd much prefer hadn't been asked.

Or criticizing the behavior of a Wikipedia editor or administrator off-site.

Yep, that's why you, Robert Campbell, are now indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Oh, wait, that's not true.

And I will depart with a valuable lesson that you've imparted to me: that what annoys Wikipedia administrators and what they are say are bad or impermissible practices are very different things.

Of course they are. "Being annoying" is in fact permitted. You, Robert Campbell, are living proof of that, whether you, Robert Campbell, realize it or not.

--

Richard Lawrence

Visit the Objectivism Reference Center

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it is just tangentially related to the facts of the recent case, the Wikipedia handout that Richard cited on drama (aka "causing trouble") may shed some light on the expectations that he brought to it.

Here's a paragraph from that page. Note the, er, dramatic expression. Bold print is mine, as usual:

Some banned editors, stymied POV warriors, malcontents, and those with personal grudges have a distressing habit of turning minor issues into Greek Tragedies. Dramas can be instigated and carried out by a single individual unable to move forward from a minor setback such as a warning and feeling a need to get the last word in, on up to an entire complex community at third-party websites opposed to Wikipedia. Members of such sites engage in drama to play to their audience and to gauge the Wikipedia community's strengths and vulnerability to further destabilization. They have produced incidents of mass sock puppetry, targeting individuals, especially members of Wikipedia's administration, for elaborate long term harassment spanning multiple sites.

Maybe this is what Richard imagines we are all up to, here at ObjectivistLiving.

Let's try a slightly different bolding:

Some banned editors, stymied POV warriors, malcontents, and those with personal grudges have a distressing habit of turning minor issues into Greek Tragedies.

That's just for you, Robert Campbell, not the entire population that participates at ObjectivistLiving. (Trying to incite dislike for an opponent by telling the audience that he is against them -- that's a rhetorical classic.)

--

Richard Lawrence

Visit the Objectivism Reference Center

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you, Richard Lawrence, actually opposed the 15-day block that was laid on IP160. (My error, calling it a topic ban. I was paying too much attention to the particular article about which the complaint had been made.)

But you, Richard Lawrence, didn't suggest that IP160 appeal the block.

You, Richard Lawrence, wouldn't have felt that you, Richard Lawrence, subsequently owed Jim and Holly Valliant—ahem, excuse me—Holly Valliant something, would you, Richard Lawrence?

You, Richard Lawrence, may in any event now be seeing how eye-glazingly tedious your, Richard Lawrence's, recently adopted mode of expression rapidly becomes.

Look, Richard Lawrence, this has been a learning experience, even if it has proved annoying for you, Richard Lawrence. Even though the annoyance level hasn't risen so high that you, Richard Lawrence, would take serious or effortful steps to make it go away.

Especially since I'm not editing at Wikipedia any more and am therefore prone to further annoy you, Richard Lawrence, only if you, Richard Lawrence, continue to participate in this thread.

All right, enough of that.

We don't see eye to eye about Wikipedia business. You made a mountain out of a molehill, over yonder, and then for good measure I piled Pelion on Ossa. You've made it clear that you don't care for my attitude and I've made it clear that I don't care for yours. I won't be going any further, even if you stay on this thread.

It would be like tangling with a mid-level administrator at a university where I don't work. Such people are, for the most part, easily tied in knots, but, for that very reason, the exercise is pointless.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Nearly two years have elapsed since Richard Lawrence provided us with a valuable lesson about the sheer subjectivity of administration at Wikipedia.

Since then, I haven't been editing at Wikipedia.

I will keep not editing at Wikipedia.

That way I can be sure of avoiding one form of subjective administration. (Other forms, most of us are unfortunately stuck with.)

I don't know whether anyone else who frequents this site has been editing over yonder for the last two years.

Whether during that span of time Richard Lawrence has enjoyed a disruption-free administrative career, I also know not.

And I care less.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now