The Further Misadventures of AnonIP160


Robert Campbell

Recommended Posts

It looks as though Jim Valliant is back to editing Wikipedia. And back to getting himself into trouble there:

http://en.wikipedia....60#January_2011

Of course, a person who no longer posts here may pretend that once again it's all been Holly Valliant, edit-warring behind Jim's back.

Whoever's been plying the keyboard in the Valliant household, he, she, it, or they has or have been, umm, industrious:

http://en.wikipedia..../72.199.110.160

Robert Campbell

Note added 3/24/11: In some of my posts on this thread, I've misidentified the sanction levied against AnonIP160 on January 31. It was a 15-day block (not a topic ban) for allegedly vandalizing an article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I looked and scrolled backwards to see how many changes under that IP have been made. It goes back to last September 6. Before that, activity was in May. There are way too many to count easily. (Pages and pages of scrolling by 50 at a time.)

I saw that some changes were made in the Chris Mathew Sciabarra entry under this IP.

Even poor Tibor Machan was not spared. :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

You can get Wikipedia to show you as many as 500 edits at a time. This makes it a lot easier to estimate overall activity.

IP160 has performed over 700 edits since returning to activity in September 2010.

The May and June entries that precede them are from May and June 2009, just before IP160 got himself/herself/itself/themselves topic-banned for 6 months.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the handle IP160, Jim or Holly or Marcus Antonius made innocuous revisions to Tibor Machan's page.

He, she, or it got a little more tendentious on Chris Sciabarra's page, but that can be repaired.

Interestingly, IP160 didn't try to edit the page for the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to go with experience on this one, and that means one thing, and one thing only; that the filthy stench has re-entered the biosphere.

rde

Nature Has A Way Of Correcting Itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the handle IP160, Jim or Holly or Marcus Antonius made innocuous revisions to Tibor Machan's page.

He, she, or it got a little more tendentious on Chris Sciabarra's page, but that can be repaired.

Interestingly, IP160 didn't try to edit the page for the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

Robert Campbell

Thanks for spotting the return of TheValliants. Below is the first time TheValliants have acknowledge actually reading the repeated warnings against abusing Wikipedia, in a comment on the latest ban, from the Talk page of IP160 (final paragraph, in italics). What is so sad about this is that many of the since-November improvements/edits would pass muster if only TheValliants had worked with the community and discussed the edits beforehand. TheValliants MO seems to be 'Do not play with others. Ignore every attempt at collegiality until banned, then pretend to be victims of unfair practices.' I just don't understand why anyone/two person would ignore all warnings and cautions.

I have cut and pasted some of the cautions, warnings and announcements that TheValliants ignored up until the latest ban. I think we might need the services of top forensic analyst Ellen Stuttle to tell which member of the Valliant household penned that final yawp.

-- Again, please discuss your edits on the talk page, writing in all caps in the edit summary does not remove this requirement.

-- Have you considered registering an account?

-- Please engage on the talk page of Ayn Rand and respond to comments there, including discussing edits that may be controversial before making them.

-- New material contested by other editors should be discussed first. Please revert that edit and take the matter to the talk page.

-- Do you intend to reply either here or on the talk page? You are doing a lot of good work, but some of the work is also controversial and you have a responsibility to participate in seeing consensus.

-- Another editor has removed some of your recent insertions and you should take your case to the talk page not reinsert them. You have consistently refused all and any invitations to engage in discussion with other editors.

-- Other editors have bent over backwards to try and get you to engage in discussion.

-- It is your prerogative not to participate in talkpage discussions such as those at Talk:Ayn Rand. What is not optional, however, is making edits contrary to the consensus reached in those discussions

-- Therefore I am issuing you with this final warning: if you continue to make edits in defiance of consensus and refuse to engage in discussions with other editors, you will be blocked from editing.

-- You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Libertarianism and Objectivism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

-- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

-- Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Ayn Rand, you will be blocked from editing.

-- Please do not attack other editors,

-- Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Disruptive editing.

-- You are SHOUTING more and MORE in all your edit summaries, you are not talking with anyone, its a miracle your block was not longer.

-- The article has been semiprotected. Protection will be lifted if you agree to discuss your changes on the Talk page and abide by consensus.

-- If you want to continue to participate on these articles, you should break your silence.

-- You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week

-- Persistent edit warring at Ayn Rand articles, failure to listen to consensus or to ever participate on Talk.

-- Your block may be lifted early if you will agree to join in Talk page discussions and abide by consensus.

-- you are banned from editing articles related to Ayn Rand for six months. The ban expires 22:26 (UTC) 12 November, 2009. You can still participate in Talk page discussions on these articles.

-- It's probably not wise to pick back up into editing against the agreement of multiple editors on Rand articles. Doing so is disruptive, and if it continues without changes in agreement on the talk page, I will have to seek community scrutiny. Let's work together productively!

-- Another edit warring warning. I hope that you will take this opportunity to utilize the article talk page instead of forcing your material into the article, even despite two editors requesting better sourcing.

-- This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Ayn Rand, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

-- You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions.

The items being added are the Vandalism, not my reversions. The block is unfair. The person trying to add material about Rand getting Social Security and Medicare benefits has argued that this is evidence of hypocrisy on Rand's part. His intense motive for inclusion is clear. In any case, Rand published her view that it is perfectly proper to accept government benefits well before she applied for them herself. The claim that it is "do as I say but not as I do" is dishonest. Rand did not criticize recipients of welfare -- this is a standard falsehood about her work, in any case. No Objectivist would regard this a contradiction of Objectivism. As Rand says, we are ~ all ~ victims of coercive government theft, individually and collectively much, much poorer as a result -- and getting some benefits back, even prospectively, is perfectly moral. So, she advised her followers that it was morally O.K. for them, too. The Vandalizing editor knows very little of Rand's work or ideas. Objectivists have also long been aware that Rand took such benefits, and differed with her friend Isabel Paterson over the matter (as Pat's biographer, Cox had previously noted, among others). It's not "news" needing FOIA to find out, or one that was recently ":revealed." Indeed, this editor himself falsely wrote that Rand did so under an assumed name, which she did not and none of the cited sources indicated. This information was from a person who was interviewed by ARI, who did not understand Rand's ideas, either, but that person did not make up the junk that has been posted at Wikipedia about it.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

AnonIP160 has returned to activity at Wikipedia.

Nearly 150 edits since the topic ban ended on February 15.

None so far on the Ayn Rand, Objectivism, or closely related articles.

Robert Campbell

Note added 3/24/11: It was a block that ended on February 15, not a topic ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AnonIP160 has returned to activity at Wikipedia.

Nearly 150 edits since the topic ban ended on February 15.

None so far on the Ayn Rand, Objectivism, or closely related articles.

Robert Campbell

I do not understand why that household does not make an account at Wikipedia, or make two. But am encouraged that the household is coloring within the lines for now. At least we know he or they or she is reading the notes from angry villagers on IP160¨s talk page -- avoiding Wikipedia`s version of Go To Your Room And No Supper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And people on the old Atlantis / WTL mailing lists decried me for strongly suggesting to Jimbo Wales — yes, that Jimbo, who was then a member of the lists — that this inter-subjectivity he was proposing for Wikipedia, along with no clear lines of property rights as to editing, was ultimately unworkable. Not merely in theory, but in practice.

Because vandals would not just be allowed, but would thrive under such a system, which had no standards other than evolving ones as to procedure. And which was only an ersatz "spontaneous order," because it was shaped by and controlled by Jimbo's predilections.

I have to wonder if Michael Hardy or others who thus slammed my comments are now having second thoughts. Agreeing with Rand's ideas creates no shield against someone turning into a marauder, or even a cyber-graffiti practitioner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the changes Valliant wanted to make, but there is a subtle but very real "left-leaning" bias regarding controversial people or ideas at Wikpedia.

Frequently when an individual is 'on the right', criticisms which have been made about that person appear on the article about him. But a highly respected figure on the left does not have similar "criticisms" in his article.

Or the 'consensus' of editors have removed them...

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the changes Valliant wanted to make, but there is a subtle but very real "left-leaning" bias regarding controversial people or ideas at Wikpedia.

Frequently when an individual is 'on the right', criticisms which have been made about that person appear on the article about him. But a highly respected figure on the left does not have similar "criticisms" in his article.

Or the 'consensus' of editors have removed them...

Your general observations may bear out, once IP160 gets back to editing or improving articles on Ayn Rand, Objectivism or subjects closely related.

In this instance, though, I think you would need to do a quick review of the IP160 history to find right/left bias. From the beginning, IP160 made insertions, deletions and references without discussion with other contributing editors. That was the underlying problem. Additional problems came when it was revealed that IP160 orginated in the Valliant household -- then the insertions of references and quoatations from Valliant's book appeared self-serving. The topic bans resulted from a mix of these elements.

As for the political bias of the editors or contributors who took issue with IP160, when you read up on the details you will realize that the majority of the editors were 'right'-leaning or attached to Randian/Objectivist thought where political biases could be detected. You may find evidence of a leftist bias among these Rand-influenced folks, or Rand-fans . . . but you would have to look and fork up the evidence to support your generalization with respect to the IP160 schmozzle.

From my POV, based on a thorough review of IP160's posting history and subsequent bannings, the entire schmozzle could have been avoided if IP160 had tried to be collegial and to respond to requests, warnings, cautions, questions and other material on the discussion/talk pages. IP160 ignored everything -- all requests, questions, warnings, cautions, and found his/her/their 'edit-warring' stuff reverted and banned from posting on the subject for six months (until a fourth topic-ban, which has now lapsed).

Now, as Robert reports, he/she/they are back posting, but so far avoiding the touchy subjects and activities that got him/her/them banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks as though Jim Valliant is back to editing Wikipedia. And back to getting himself into trouble there:

http://en.wikipedia....60#January_2011

Of course, a person who no longer posts here may pretend that once again it's all been Holly Valliant, edit-warring behind Jim's back.

Whoever's been plying the keyboard in the Valliant household, he, she, it, or they has or have been, umm, industrious:

http://en.wikipedia..../72.199.110.160

Robert Campbell

Now you know why I use Wikipedia only for it scientific and mathematical content.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done enough Wikipedia editing to get some idea where the limitations lie.

Wikipedia has been highly successful in some areas, just fair-to-middlin' in others.

Certain figures and topics, including Ayn Rand, bring out the factionalism and the political zealotry. It's not just a matter of Left-wing and Right-wing; it's much more complicated than that. There are editors who hate Nathaniel Branden, even editors who learn ARI-ward, who have taken strong exception to IP160's conduct at one time or another.

Besides the Rand-related stuff, I've edited a fair number of music history pages. I've had little trouble with virtually any of them; in fact, I got a Barn Star for part of my work (which didn't require nearly the expenditure of effort or the attendant hassles of editing anything Randian).

The one exception involved a jazz musician who likes to threaten lawsuits against anyone who dares to mention what his name was before he converted to Islam. I don't get the impression that mid-level Wikipedia administrators know how to handle that kind of thing.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

AnonIP160 has now returned to editing Rand-related articles. Most edits, so far as I could tell from a quick skim, were innocuous. But not the attempt he/she/it/they has/have now made to cut something out of the entry on "Objectivist Periodicals," citing The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics in his/her/its/their support.

http://en.wikipedia....ist_Periodicals

Some people never learn.

They don't even brew up better pseudonyms ("Pelagius2"?).

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez, it may as well be written in another language. Then all of a sudden everyone starts talking about Daleks, what gives?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmqWQl0wd8k

"An SPI may prove otherwise, but I'm inclined to doubt that Daleks is really a sock of CoM..." :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

RL0919 deals with various disputes on Wikipedia, not just the Rand-related.

The code words require a Wikidictionary. "Sock" I believe is short for sock puppet. On the rest, your guess is as good as mine.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks as though Jim Valliant is back to editing Wikipedia. And back to getting himself into trouble there:

http://en.wikipedia....60#January_2011

Of course, a person who no longer posts here may pretend that once again it's all been Holly Valliant, edit-warring behind Jim's back.

Whoever's been plying the keyboard in the Valliant household, he, she, it, or they has or have been, umm, industrious:

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

Robert Campbell

Robert, Vallant insists here that Rand never threatened to withhold Nathaniel's copyrights to his articles published in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist. She did indeed. I have a proposed contract which Hank Holzer, Rand's lawyer, sent to Nathaniel's and my lawyer. The proposed contract was to be between The Objectivist and Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, to be signed by Ayn Rand as President of The Objectivist and by Nathaniel and Barbara. (Our lawyer, who was appalled by this contract, also has a copy of it in his files.) It specifies that in return for the assignment to Nathaniel of the copyrights to his articles, we promise not to sue Rand or her associates, and that:

“Neither [NB or BB] will in writing, by sound reproduction, or publicly, make or cause to be made any statement or comment concerning the article ‘To Whom It May Concern’ by Ayn Rand and the statement entitled ‘For The Record’ by Allan Blumenthal, Alan Greenspan, Leonard Peikoff and Mary Ann (Rukavina) Sures, both of which appeared in the May 1968 issue of The Objectivist.”

And:

“Neither will in writing, by sound reproduction, or publicly, make or cause to be made any derogatory statement concerning either’s personal, professional or business relationship prior to the date hereof with Ayn Rand O’Connor, Frank O’Connor, Henry Mark Holzer, Phyllis (Erika) Holzer, Charles Sures, Mary Ann (Rukavina) Sures, Allan Blumenthal. Joan Blumenthal, Elayne Kalberman, Harry Kalberman, Leonard Peikoff, Alan Greenspan, and The Objectivist, Inc.”

In other words, in order for Nathaniel to receive his own property, we were to allow ourselves to be attacked and defamed, and in perpetuity were not to say a word in our defense.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

And since when was anyone required to agree to a gag order, in return for not having his copyrights confiscated?

Jim Valliant, I'm reasonably sure, has never seen the draft contract in question.

But he remains obstinately unwilling to accept the testimony of anyone who has seen it.

At least the Wikipedia insiders aren't accepting what his book says as authoritative on the subject.

Meanwhile, anyone who asks whether Pelagius2 might be Jim Valliant, Holly Valliant, or another member of the Valliant household, had better not do it on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia....ist_Periodicals

I've gotten fairly used to officious remarks in response to some of my actions at Wikipedia.

My new concern is that comments made here at OL, or in some other location external to Wikipedia, are now being officially monitored for compliance with policies internal to Wikipedia.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I do not edit Wikipedia stuff, nor do I intend to. I once tried to include that Nathaniel Branden was married to Leigh soon after they married, since I received an announcement and this was discussed at several places, including well-wishes, but the moderator (who was not RL0919) was extremely abrasive, saying if there was no published reference, essentially the information that NB was married could not be posted at Wikipedia. At the time, I believe that his divorce from Devers was not even mentioned, and it stayed that way for the longest time, but I would have to check to be sure. A couple of month ago I saw a Google link to the Wikipedia article on NB for a search I was doing, so I went there to see if NB was not married to Leigh. Happily he was.

This dude also sabotaged the link to OL on Barbara Branden's entry when he lost the debate from other Wikipedia editors about including it. He placed three slashes in the link, thus it showed up as a link on the Wiki page, but when you clicked on it, you did not go anywhere. (That's how it worked back then.) In other words, there was a text, and the embedded URL was the following:

http:///www.objectivistliving.com

I managed to get this changed back to working order, but that was playing dirty pool too much for me to stomach, so I decided to let it be. Nowadays, I don't know if the link is correct or incorrect and, frankly, I don't care. I no longer go to Wikipedia for Objectivism stuff. (Well... I do find the antics of the Valliants comical. Sanctimonious self-proclaimed paragons of reason acting in a hypocritical irrational manner behind the scenes always amuse me when they get caught, and Wikipedia is open to entertaining these folks, so I don't mind reporting on this stuff here on OL.)

I do use Wikipedia once in a while, though, and I link to it, both here on OL and at other places. That's as far as I, personally, will be engaged with Wikipedia. People will write about me and my stuff there. I will no longer write about others for them.

Thus, I have no problem linking to any talk page or otherwise on Wikipedia here on OL. I have nothing to lose from them.

btw - If I am not mistaken, RL0919 is Richard Lawrence, the owner of the Objectivism Reference Center. That's one hell of a good site. I like Richard better on his own turf--where he is brilliant--than as a moderator for someone else (if this Wikipedia dude be the same dude).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

The Wikipedia dude, RL0919, is indeed Richard Lawrence.

Although I think Richard has compiled a decent track record handling conflicts over the Ayn Rand and Objectivism pages (and, let's face it, at Wikipedia those pages are one of the hardship assighments), his attitude toward outside discussions of matters Wikipedian has been consistently sniffish and supercilious.

He has become a self-appointed enforcer of rules that, to put it pardonably, are highly opaque to nearly everyone but himself.

For instance, Wikipedia warns against a wide range of conduct that might pose a conflict of interest, and sharply admonishes those who might be tempted to slant stories to their or their organization's advantage that they will be mercilessly exposed in the media:

http://en.wikipedia....ipedia:Conflict

Yet it is deemed the height of impropriety for ordinary Wikipedians to make a public complaint that another Wikipedian is, in fact, in a conflict-of-interest situation. For example, if the person with the conflict of interest is editing anonymously or pseudonymously, any such charge automatically constitutes a violation of another policy:

http://en.wikipedia....nal_information

Hence, no one but a high-ranking Wiki-insider will be permitted to say that Pelagius2 appears to be the same person (or persons) as AnonIP160, or to draw the conclusion that if AnonIP160 is not allowed to cite The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics on Wikipedia, then neither is Pelagius2.

None of this detracts from my appreciation of Richard's own site, which I recommend highly. On multiple occasions, it's been a major help to my research.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Jim or Holly or Marcus Antonius Valliant, editing anonymously as

http://en.wikipedia..../72.199.110.160

got into trouble at Wikipedia in May 2009, all of a sudden

http://en.wikipedia....tions/Pelagius1

sprang up to plead his/her/its case.

Pelagius1, clearly, was what Wikipedians call a "sock puppet":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock

In other words, Pelagius1 was Jim or Holly or Marcus Antonius Valliant pretending to be someone or something other than AnonIP160.

AnonIP160 did not return to activity at Wikipedia for over a year. And when AnonIP160 reappeared, Pelagius1 did not follow.

But when AnonIP160 got into a spot of trouble (a 15-day topic ban, handed down on January 31 of this year), who should appear, just as the ban ended, but

http://en.wikipedia....tions/Pelagius2

Pelagius1 never put anything on his/her/its user page.

Pelagius2 put something on it:

http://en.wikipedia..../User:Pelagius2

And Pelagius2, unlike his/her/its predecessor, is now remaining active while AnonIP160 remains active. One often edits on the same day as the other (but not, so far as I can determine, at the same time of day).

On one recent occasion, on March 2 and 3, 2011, IP160 and Pelagius2 chimed in in each other's support.

http://en.wikipedia....ist_Periodicals

First:

Branden does not say that Rand ever "threatened" to refuse him any copyrights, and cannot quote Rand about this, nor was he in direct communication with Rand at all when the negotiations with Holzer were taking place. Please see James Valliant's 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics', pp.121-127, for this highly charged set of allegations an claims. Branden had himself previously offered to sign over his interest in the magazine, without compensation, even before Rand learned of his numerous deceptions.Pelagius2 (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Branden's various deceptions of Rand and his readers cannot be properly covered in the article on Objectivist periodicals, but the previously material required extensive explanation if it was to be fair. Mr. Branden's various claims have been directly challenged by multiple sources which must be included if his disputed charges are to be.Pelagius2 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the list of contributors to the periodicals, the factually important material, should be included as to both incarnations.Pelagius2 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

After RL0919 replied (more about his answer later), AnonIP160 joined the fray:

First, I note that the word "threatened" is gone. Your sources do not support the use of that word, as I indicated, and you ignored. Second, the list of contributors added was missing when I changed it back, for whatever reason. No matter. The main point is that Nathaniel Branden, before Rand had learned of his deceptions, had offered to simply ~ give ~ Rand his entire interest in the magazine, an offer she took as offensive (at that point). She then ~accepted ~ his later offer to do the same. It was not a matter of Rand "insisting." This is from Rand's own notes in Valliant's 'Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics', and it is not contradicted by Burns who had access to the same material -- and does not contradict Valliant. Also, Branden does not ever say that Rand told him that she refused to sign over his copyrights. He could not have since he was not speaking with Rand at that point. When he did hear anything official it was from her attorney Holzer who, he writes, says Rand had not refused. Where he got the idea that Rand had ever done so is not clear. All of this is discussed in Valliant's PARC. Just leave out this highly controversial and highly biased material, please, unless the entire context, including Branden's previous offer to simply give it to Rand, is included.72.199.110.160 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, NB's signing ownership over to Rand came on the heels of his public apology to the rest of the NBI staff. To exclude this aspect is to make a highly one-sided tale, in any case. 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. Professor Burns herself not only cites PARC but engaged with Valliant in a Symposium on her biography, and was highly complimentary toward Valliant in the process.Indeed, it is no more or less "dicey" than Burns or Heller from what I can see.72.199.110.160 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not really difficult to figure out what was going on here.

But RL0919 has decided that no one is allowed to charge Jim/Holly/Marcus Antonius with employing a sock puppet.

It is the user who brings the matter up who will be blocked or banned from Wikipedia—not Jim, Holly, or Marcus Antonius.

And—guess what—this utterly perverse policy is consistent with at least one reading of Wikipedia's rules.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take a look now at Richard Lawrence's response to AnonIP160/Pelagius2:

First, I didn't change anything about the list of contributors, so I'm not sure why you mention that. (My guess would be that you assumed I simply reverted your changes, which isn't the case.) Second, multiple biographies support the article's descriptions of events regarding the handover of Branden's half of The Objectivst and the status of his article copyrights. I have added more source citations in my latest edit restoring this material. If there are other reliable sources that directly challenge the facts claimed in this version of events, then bring them forth. (As you are well aware, the use of PARC as a source is going to be dicey.) As for Branden's "numerous deceptions", these largely related to other matters besides The Objectivist, so I find it hard to see how it would be justified to discuss them at any length in this particular article. Some brief reference to the reasons for Rand's break with him might be worked in -- with special care as to wording and sources, since he is still a living person. --RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence's editorial response, and his arguments for it, strike me as straightforward (with one exception) and eminently fair.

And, of course, I agree with him as to how that particular historical matter should be handled.

Now comes the exception.

Lawrence refers, overtly, to Valliant's book not being considered a "reliable source." That was one of the rulings that went against Jim, Holly, and Marcus Antonius, back in 2009. And it does apply to everyone. I caught considerable flak when I tried to cite PARC as a source later in 2009.

But then he refers to the employment of PARC as a source being "dicey."

If it's just about "reliability," why does he preface that remark with "as you are well aware"?

If Pelagius2 was any old newbie who just joined Wikipedia on February 15, 2011, why would an experienced editor expect him/her/it to know that PARC was declared non-reliable in May 2009?

Even less would an experienced editor expect a newbie to know that members of the Valliant household were warned never to cite PARC on Wikipedia, on account of a conflict of interest.

So Lawrence is talking to Pelagius2 as though he knows exactly who Pelagius2 is.

Yet, if anyone else should dare to do so, Lawrence is ready and willing to run them off Wikipedia.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the exchanges of March 2 and 3, there was a seamless transition from Pelagius2 to AnonIP160: two posts by Pelagius2 before Lawrence replied, two by AnonIP160 afterward. No pretense even being maintained that IP160 and Pelagius2 were different people.

But IP160 made one remark that ought to have caught Lawrence's attention (my bolding):

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.

Uh, no, that wasn't the only problem.

As Richard Lawrence well knew.

But he said nothing in response.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After discovering that Jim or Holly or Marcus Antonius had reappeared as Pelagius2 and conducted this exchange with Richard Lawrence, I posted as follows:

How is Pelagius2 related to James S. Valliant, the author of the book whose employment is deemed "dicey" in this context?-RLCampbell (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is how Lawrence chose to respond, ostentatiously not indenting:

Since I see that this discussion has been linked from an external site, let me caution that my user talk page is not the place to promulgate off-wiki disputes, and accounts or IP addresses that violate Wikipedia policies against personal attacks or outing of anonymous editors may be blocked. While no one has done anything disruptive yet, please consider this advance warning. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This was both disingenuous and ridiculous.

It was disingenuous because Lawrence already knew who AnonIP160 and Pelagius2 were, and had written as though he knew who they were.

It was disingenuous because Lawrence did not propose to chastise Jim, Hollly, or Marcus Antonius Valliant for their "off-wiki disputes" with anyone, including but not limited to Jim Valliant's frequently expressed "wild animus" against Nathaniel Branden, to which IP160 and Pelagius2 freely gave vent in their posts on his page.

It was disingenuous because I had not just parachuted in from Mars, but had been editing on Wikipedia since August 2009, had joined WikiProject:Objectivism shortly thereafter, and had worked productively with Lawrence on a number of occasions in the past.

It was disingenuous because Lawrence knew, from his monitoring of this site, that I had posted the link to his user talk page.

It was disingenuous because I was not encouraging anybody here at OL to join up at Wikipedia, descend upon Lawrence's user talk page, and engage in wholesale violations of Wikipedian norms. In fact, no one who participates here has posted recently on Lawrence's user talk page—except me.

And it was ridiculous on account of being multiply disingenuous.

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