The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I agree that she's not that bad.

Yet...

That passage in this context does get one's attention, though, doesn't it? That's because of the big honking kernel of truth embedded in it.

On the PARC issue (but not everywhere else), I believe the Grande Dame runs the risk of becoming that bad, just as Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo did. And I have my reasons.

Isn't it great how art can make a point that expository words, for as much as you repeat them, just don't convey?

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Objectivism does not sanction gossip and public slander, no matter what example certain Objectivists may have set.

Ted,

You know nothing of this affair and you certainly do not speak for some entity called "Objectivism" that goes around sanctioning this and that.

I reject that stuff as tribalism.

EDIT: When I see posts like yours, pompously telling others what they should of should not do in the name of what Objectvism sanctions, I sincerely believe you strongly hold to "turning the other cheek" as a tenet—so long as it is not your cheek.

Michael

Well, whatever it is that you personally have against Ellen is certainly your affair, and is unknown to me. I was under the impression that she is a private citizen innocent of any crime and hence worthy of the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you should make the reason for your personal hostility toward her explicit. That way rather than sounding exactly like a person who runs another forum whom you criticize rightly for his couching his own personal hatreds as if they were statements of disinterested objective fact, your reasons for your biases would be clear and could be judged accordingly.

So, please do explain whose cat Ellen has skinned, and how that justifies demonizing her and announcing that you all but hope she will do the wrong thing.

Until then, all I have to judge in this matter is vicious gossip.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

Call it vicious gossip and leave it at that.

EDIT: But for the record, I do not hate the Grande Dame.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

Call it vicious gossip and leave it at that.

EDIT: But for the record, I do not hate the Grande Dame.

Michael

Fair enough, and while I meant what I said on the new thread on judgment, it is not an attack on you, but an expression of a relevant principle which applies in a much wider context.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

You make a serious mistake if you presume I demand that you agree with my judgments.

I speak for myself and only myself unless specifically stated otherwise. I do not even think you should think as I do without getting corroboration from elsewhere.

If you are interested in the issue you are butting into, there is a ton-load of stuff already online. Get reading.

If not, parachuting in, demanding others fill you in on the gossip otherwise you will judge them negatively, and mixing this with principles is not what I call "Objectivism." Not even one that goes around sanctioning this and that.

But it's your life. Judge away if you wish...

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

You make a serious mistake if you presume I demand that you agree with my judgments.

I speak for myself and only myself unless specifically stated otherwise. I do not even think you should think as I do without getting corroboration from elsewhere.

If you are interested in the issue you are butting into, there is a ton-load of stuff already online. Get reading.

If not, parachuting in, demanding others fill you in on the gossip otherwise you will judge them negatively, and mixing this with principles is not what I call "Objectivism." Not even one that goes around sanctioning this and that.

But it's your life. Judge away if you wish...

Michael

I don't think you disagree with what I said on the other thread.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert just made a post on Solo Passion that pretty much sums up the situation in clear terms and stays away from all the water-muddying hair-splitting and distortions. He also showed clearly that no one (not even the Grande Dame of St. Referee) has a monopoly on understanding Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Lo and behold, Robert understands them himself.

He even thinks the Valliants understand Wikipedia's editing guidelines perfectly and acted in bad faith (as do I). Here is the post (it's on a different thread on SLOP than the one under discussion). The title in the post below is hyperlinked:

The Flaw in Ms. Stuttle's Defense

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Mon, 2009-06-22 19:32.

Ellen Stuttle has asked Neil Parille, on the other thread at

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6242#comment-72972

Of what, specifically, are you accusing the Valliants? Of adding references to PARC without stating their connection to the book? Was this a crime (or at least a sin)?

Speaking for myself—not, of course, for Mr. Parille—I accuse Jim and Holly Valliant of sleazy, underhanded activity. Adding references to a book written by yourself (or by your husband) without disclosing that fact is a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. It doesn't pass the smell test, even when no one has adopted a formal rule against it.

Sleaziness is not a crime, and Objectivists don't believe in sin. Let's just say that such behavior falls short of exemplifying the virtue of honesty.

And you have no evidence that James was adding the references; on the other hand, you have both his and Holly's denial that he was.

Mr. Valliant's denial and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee. The exchange rate for Mrs. Valliant's denial is about the same.

Does Ms. Stuttle really need reminding that Mr. Valliant has a long history of sleazy behavior where his book is concerned, or that on his last visit here he refused to answer some questions and contradicted himself in response to others?

Plus there's one stretch of the proceedings -- after Holly had joined the Talk pages -- in which there's evidence that he was asleep, ill, while she was posting. Not hard to imagine that there were other similar times.

The "evidence" is Pelagius1's declaration that Jim Valliant was asleep, ill, or otherwise not in a position to know about the posting.

No more likely to defray the cost of your next cup of Joe.

'Cause what, exactly, was Pelagius1?

Pelagius1 was a fictitious identity specifically created to carry on the work of the banned AnonIP160.

In other words, either Jim Valliant's sock puppet, Holly Valliant's sock puppet, or their jointly operated sock puppet. Hiding your identity, in order to escape or circumvent sanctions for previous underhanded, sleazy activity, is also sleazy and underhanded.

Why are any statements from a sock puppet to be deemed credible? Sock puppets are created in order to misrepresent.

Ms. Stuttle refers to none of the obvious untruths enunciated by Pelagius1, such as

- Jim Valliant must have made a significant impact with PARC, because Chris Sciabarra is maintaining an open invitation to Mr. Valliant to publish in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies

- The review of PARC at the Autonomist, a fringe site in Rand-land that Mr. Valliant later publicly condemned in the strongest possible terms ("What vile phreaks"), is proof of the book's impact

- A large number of "scholars" at The Atlas Society were persuaded by Mr. Valliant's book to convert to ARIanism (who, besides Bill Perry?)

Pelagius1 told these documentable lies. Why credit any other statement from such a source?

Until Mr. and Mrs. Valliant come clean about their activities at Wikipedia, the wisest course of action is to consider anything that emanated from Pelagius1 to be a deliberate falsehood for which the two of them are jointly liable. The burden will be on them to show otherwise.

Robert Campbell

PS. Isn't Ms. Stuttle more than a little uncomfortable about being complimented for her advocacy by Lindsay Perigo? After all, Mr. Perigo deems backbiting and negative gossip to be crimes, at least when he believes himself to have been the target. Mr. Perigo is on record, at this site, accusing Chris Sciabarra of "initiating force" against him. No one has accused Mr. or Mrs. Valliant of initiating force against anyone.

I find it really curious for the Grande Dame to go around lecturing people on what Wikipedia's editing policy really is, then taking a sockpuppet's declaration as credible "evidence" to prove her support of Valliant (the "pickpocket" instead of "murderer" according to her). Here is a direct quote from Wikipedia: Sock puppetry.

A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies.

Or, to repeat Robert's statement, "Why are any statements from a sock puppet to be deemed credible? Sock puppets are created in order to misrepresent."

Maybe a review of Wikipedia's editing policy by the Grande Dame before her next lesson to the world on Wikipedia's editing policy would be a thought...

(EDIT: btw - The only reason sockpuppet Pelagius1 was able to post in the comments, since its IP was identical to sockpuppet IP 160, was that the IP at the time was banned for making edits to Wikipedia articles, but not from making comments to editors. In other words, for all due effect except deception, nothing impeded IP 160 from making the same comments as Pelagius1.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't think you disagree with what I said on the other thread.

Ted,

I don't disagree. Er...

I basically agree.

(Whew! I don't never like no double negatives...)

The article is not my style since it's a bit preachy. There is too heavy a should-to-is imbalance for my taste. It feels like finger wagging when I read it. But the basic idea is good.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I'll repeat something Joan Kennedy Taylor said about her attitude post-The Split, when Nathaniel Branden was being condemned by many Objectivists as though he were the Devil. (I'm quoting from memory; the quote is in Walker; I haven't time to look it up, have to get to bed.):

"If a pickpocket is being condemned for murder, I'll defend the pickpocket."

That was pretty much my viewpoint too.

Apparently that's no longer Ellen's viewpoint, or, if it is, it's applied very selectively. It appears that she has stopped noticing, or stopped caring, that people on SOLOP are still condemning Nathaniel Branden, as well as Barbara Branden, as if they were the Devil. Not only that, but they condemn countless others for everything from minor disagreements over politics to artistic tastes in much harsher terms than any of the judgments that anyone has made about TheValliants®. Yet Ellen doesn't seem to be too concerned about defending people against such condemnations, which continue to happen on the same threads on which she is posting. Such condemnations -- of innocents let alone of "pickpockets" -- appear to slip right past her.

I'm reminded of the old Dennis Moore sketch from Monty Python, getting lost in the minutiae of the ideal of perfectly distributed justice: Ellen is counting lupins and making sure everyone has exactly the same, down to the petal, while overlooking who possesses gold, jewels, food, etc. due to being politically connected, and who does not.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Furthermore, MSK also failed to understand the Wikipedia meaning of "reliable." When he posted the segment of Wikipedia Talk which Barbara then copied and sent to several recipients as an email (forgetting to say where she'd gotten it), he posted that segment in glee, as if it meant something it didn't mean.

I didn't fail to understand anything of the kind. I dare Stuttle to produce a quote showing I misunderstood this in the manner she is claiming. [....]

And if there is something I do not feel about this whole affair, it is glee.

Very well, Michael, here you are:

[....]

I followed the links and it's not pretty. It felt good to see Valliant correctly identified by nonpartisan editors using rational criteria. [....]

Except that isn't what happened, not in any sense in which you'd think of correctly identifying Valliant. If you did understand what the ruling meant, you didn't evidence understanding it.

In addition to your expression of pleasure, you've hardly sounded sad about it in your subsequent posts.

-

You left out the middle part of my post on SOLO, a part which doesn't fit your interpretation of preparing a premise.

Here's the whole post:

#73010

To the cheering squad at OL

Submitted by Ellen Stuttle on Mon, 2009-06-22 07:15.

I'll repeat something Joan Kennedy Taylor said about her attitude post-The Split, when Nathaniel Branden was being condemned by many Objectivists as though he were the Devil. (I'm quoting from memory; the quote is in Walker; I haven't time to look it up, have to get to bed.):

"If a pickpocket is being condemned for murder, I'll defend the pickpocket."

That was pretty much my viewpoint too.

The current situation is similar. Whatever people's past grievances against James Valliant, the only thing either of the Valliants is guilty of in the Wikipedia incident is mismanagement.

Furthermore, MSK also failed to understand the Wikipedia meaning of "reliable." When he posted the segment of Wikipedia Talk which Barbara then copied and sent to several recipients as an email (forgetting to say where she'd gotten it), he posted that segment in glee, as if it meant something it didn't mean.

Ellen

ADD: I've meanwhile looked up and posted a correction to the quote by Joan.

Here's the wording as given by Walker (pg. 43):

"f I knew a pickpocket was being framed for murder I would come to his defense, and that was my view of what was going on."

She expressed the same sentiment on the only occasion when I had the pleasure of meeting her (and her husband Dave Dawson - ? - I think that was his last name). This was at a party where the 3 of us sat in a quiet corner and talked for hours of many things, including comparing experiences of the post-Split New York O'ist scene.

I won't be making a practice of answering you here -- or there either. The main reason I answered this one is to include the paragraph you left out -- the paragraph which was the point of the post.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

Oh, no, they aren't still doing what was being done then. It's like comparing a teaspoonful of something with a bitter taste to a tumblerful of hydrochloric acid. What gets said on SOLO isn't in the league of what went on then.

And, frankly, I think there's just as much unfairness dished out on this list as there is on SOLO. Six of one, half a dozen of the other in that regard.

Ellen

___

Edited June 22, 2009 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Except that isn't what happened, not in any sense in which you'd think of correctly identifying Valliant. If you did understand what the ruling meant, you didn't evidence understanding it.

Ellen,

There's a saying that when you are in a hole, stop digging. Of course that its up to you.

So you presume to know what I "think of correctly identifying Valliant" in the context of Wikipedia editors better than I do or better than I expressed?

Heh.

Contrary to what you say, I expressed myself perfectly. You are grafting your own message onto my words, and then saying that I did not negate your meaning in advance as if that made some kind of sense.

Double heh.

I speak English, Ellen. I don't use a crystal ball.

Granted, I t have a very low opinion of Valliant, but that goes way beyond his piss-poor scholarship and boneheadedness. Character-wise, he and his clique invade free Internet spaces like Amazon, forums, blogs, etc., and try to misrepresent things through a barrage of posts. You know it and I know it and it is all over the Internet.

You, more than anyone, have heard me complain about this. Often. This habit of distorting public image (for a variety of reasons) is exactly what I meant by "see Valliant correctly identified by nonpartisan editors using rational criteria." Sockpuppet names it perfectly, although I did not know that particular word at the time I wrote that. I was talking about his petty character, or better, lack of character.

So get a grip. You are better than that. You know that, too.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The current situation is similar. Whatever people's past grievances against James Valliant, the only thing either of the Valliants is guilty of in the Wikipedia incident is mismanagement.

. . .

I won't be making a practice of answering you here -- or there either. The main reason I answered this one is to include the paragraph you left out -- the paragraph which was the point of the post.

Grande Dame,

There is a presumption here that is incorrect. The paragraph left out might be the point you are trying to use to get closer and closer to Valliant, but it did not have anything to do with my critique of you doing that.

I didn't leave it out to hide anything or crap like that (seeing that I linked to it and all). It just didn't have anything to do with MY message.

Why not stop the long drawn-out charade and embrace PARC openly? Get it over with.

It's more honest that way.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I was talking about his petty character, or better, lack of character.

So then I didn't misread you. That's what I thought you were talking about. That isn't what the reliability ruling was a ruling on.

When I read your announcement when it first appeared, I thought, as obviously several others did too, that you were reporting on the book's having been declared untrustworthy. But the ruling wasn't a ruling on the book's contents. Many of the editors involved haven't so much as seen a copy of the book, let alone read it.

Nor did the ruling pertain to sockpuppetry. It was made before Pelagius1 appeared. Nor to the misdemeanors for which the IP 160 account was put on topic ban.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I wasn't talking about the book at all in my quote. I was talking about Valliant's behavior as exhibited by sockpuppetry (which is on record over there).

Of course the book was not considered as a reliable source for several Wikipedia standards (which was why Durban House's credentials as a publisher, citations in mainstream and academic press, etc., were discussed), and of course I understand those reasons. I understood them before without a lesson from you. (Oddly enough, at the time I did not understand the term sockpuppetry, and later, the very odd more generic term meatpuppetry, but I certainly understood the concepts behind those terms and that this kind of behavior infringed Wikipedia's guidelines.)

But plugging your own book is called "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia's guidelines. Did you read them? It's very clear. I think it even has a subheading.

This was amply discussed by the editors in relation to PARC and plugs being inserted under Valliant's pseudonym and IP. You are pretending like this was not discussed by them. I can supply several quotes if you like. Hell, I think you have even quoted this stuff.

You keep saying "reliability ruling" as if there were no ban for Valliant's misbehavior (including his wife) or even red flags because of 1300 Rand-related biased edits, many plugging PARC, contentious behavior, repeated deletions of entries of others without discussion, and reversion wars going to the 3 limit, and God knows what else. But there was. I quoted one editor back then talking about all this. Constantly pissing on other editors like Valliant did does not produce merely a "reliability ruling."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Take a look at this page on Wikipedia: User talk:72.199.110.160

That's Valliant's IP page BEFORE the Pelagius1 crap.

Now scroll down to the last two entries (they are also given below, but I did not preserve the original formatting):

ANI

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3RR_- to block or not. The article has been semiprotected. Protection will be lifted if you agree to discuss your changes on the Talk page and abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Arbcom decision seems to provide for long-term topic bans of editors who are disruptive on Rand-related articles. The possibility of banning you from the Rand articles is being discussed now at User talk:EdJohnston#Lock down of Objectivism article. Various people have noticed that you never discuss your edits on Talk pages. You are welcome to add your own views to that discussion. If you want to continue to participate on these articles, you should break your silence. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Persistent edit warring at Ayn Rand articles, failure to listen to consensus or to ever participate on Talk. The block is imposed after discussions at ANI, at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and at LHvU's talk page. Your block may be lifted early if you will agree to join in Talk page discussions and abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Topic ban

As logged in the Arbcom case, 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. Any administrator may issue blocks to enforce this ban, if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not a "reliability ruling." It sounds to me like "disruptive editing" and so forth. And note the date of the ban: May 12, 2009.

I have no idea why Ellen thinks that "reliability ruling" was the only thing people were discussing about Valliant. I certainly haven't been discussing only that. I wasn't even discussing that when I made my first post of May 16, 2009, the one Ellen referred to, but she seems to think I was. She quoted it as proof that I did not understand Wikipedia's source reliability guidelines.

I used to think Ellen was good at tracking discussions. Well, she was one time, anyway. I guess things change...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

I wasn't talking about the book at all in my quote. I was talking about Valliant's behavior as exhibited by sockpuppetry (which is on record over there).

Here is your full post:

All references to Valliant's book, PARC, are now being cut from Wikipedia for PARC not being a "reliable source." See the following in "Cross-Talk for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Articles" on the Wikipedia site:

Proposed removal of references to James Valliant and The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

Following several discussions calling into question the work of James Valliant as a reliable source (e.g. 1, 2..., 3), I propose that all references to it be removed from Wikipedia until such time as it is shown to satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. If there is consensus to do so, I will begin in one week's time. Skomorokh 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favor of removing them. J Readings (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

By fire be purged. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I followed the links and it's not pretty. It felt good to see Valliant correctly identified by nonpartisan editors using rational criteria. The charge of PARC not being a reliable source is even open to correction by them (by explicit statement) if the criteria can be met. But for now, according to Wikipedia, PARC is not a reliable source. I expect that to endure. I certainly wouldn't advise anyone holding their breath waiting for Valliant (or his supporters) to satisfy the reliability standards.

Also, apparently the busy busy busy efforts of one "IP 160" to pollute Wikipedia with references to PARC in all kinds of places was finally caught. I wonder who that was?

Michael

The ruling pertains to the book. Your post as a whole gives the impression that what had been assessed was the book's trustworthiness. What did Barbara think the post meant? She excerpted just the top part down through the quote from Wikipedia and sent that round as an email to a private list. Someone on that private list thought the ruling meant untrustworthy. The details of the subsequent routing aren't clear, except that both Leonard Peikoff and James Valliant were sent copies, and Valliant sent a copy to Linz. All three of those persons interpreted the ruling as meaning untrustworthy (or not reputable, the synonym Leonard used in his letter).

I submit that had you explained what the ruling was about -- you say you understood it; ok, possibly you did, but you sure didn't explain it -- had you explained, the sequence wouldn't have unfolded as it then did.

As to "sockpuppetry," I repeat, the Pelagius1 account wasn't opened until May 19th; notice the dates of the editor comments you quote, and the date of your post.

Ellen

PS: Michael, I don't think "reliability ruling" is the only thing people were discussing about IP 160's behavior. I have read all the material. It IS, however, what was talked about in the comments you quoted which started this whole sequence of attention to the saga. Those comments are talking specifically about James Valliant's book. It wasn't even known for sure then what connection if any James Valliant had with the poster who was known only as IP 160.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I forgot I mentioned PARC. But so what?

To me the important part, the one that stayed in my memory, was my statement: "Also, apparently the busy busy busy efforts of one "IP 160" to pollute Wikipedia with references to PARC in all kinds of places was finally caught. I wonder who that was?"

That's the crap I most hate about the Valliants and those around them. It's flat-out dishonest manipulative behavior performed only in the dark, out of sight, like rats and other vermin do.

But even mentioning PARC, I don't see where I said anything about the Wikipedia editors disagreeing with the content of PARC. I was very careful to make reference to "reliability standards." My text bears me out. Since I was discussing Wikipedia, whose reliability standards did you think I was talking about? ARI's? Barbara's? Yours? Valliant's? Whose?

In my mind and in my words, I was discussing Wikipedia's reliability standards. Wikipedia has rules. You have to obey them. That's simple enough to understand even if you don't know all the rules. The Valliants didn't give a damn, infringed on purpose and flaunted their behavior to Wikipedia's monitors.

I certainly knew enough of the rules to know that proper sourcing did not mean taking sides in a controversy. I presumed everyone knew that since Wikipedia always presents opposing and controversial views on major topics, usually with a subheading indicating this.

I cannot jump into your head and force you to actually read what I wrote. You are responsible for your own misunderstanding.

Someone on that private list thought the ruling meant untrustworthy. The details of the subsequent routing aren't clear, except that both Leonard Peikoff and James Valliant were sent copies, and Valliant sent a copy to Linz. All three of those persons interpreted the ruling as meaning untrustworthy (or not reputable, the synonym Leonard used in his letter).

I submit that had you explained what the ruling was about -- you say you understood it; ok, possibly you did, but you sure didn't explain it -- had you explained, the sequence wouldn't have unfolded as it then did.

Good Lord! Are you seriously suggesting that I should have made sure my text (which was very clear) was in enough baby-steps that not only you could not misunderstand it, but that also "someone," and Peikoff, and the boneheaded Valliant and Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo would also read it correctly?

You want me to think for you, Peikoff, Valliant and Perigo to make sure you think correctly for yourselves??!!

I have had many weird requests in my life, but that one takes it.

And you keep saying the ruling pertains to the book as if that were all. It does not. It also pertains to people at Valliant's IP, and the sockpuppets IP160/Pelagious1 being banned from making edits on Wikipedia (1) forever on mentions of PARC, and (2) for 6 months on Rand-related articles.

That's more than clear.

The ruling pertains to the book.

I see. Is that what a "Topic Ban" is in your understanding?

Heh...

EDIT: Here is the actual ruling: Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand (scroll all the way down to the end at "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions," then look at the last paragraph, which is given below):

22:26, 12 May 2009 EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) topic ban of 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs) from Ayn Rand articles for six months (Remedy 12 above) based on consensus of a discussion at ANI. He may continue to edit the article Talk pages.

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't even see PARC mentioned in this ruling.

The permanent ban on using PARC as a source is certainly not here (I even think I misspoke above and said Rand-related articles for this—I will correct it), but this is only an arbitration ruling. I remember conflict of interest being mentioned elsewhere that makes Valliant's IP and his sockpuppets banned permanently from mentioning PARC on Wikipedia. I'm too tired to look it up.

So as I understand it PARC-wise, Valliant and sockpuppets can't ever mention PARC on Wikipedia because of conflict of interest. Also, the mentions of PARC already made by him (or Holly, whatever) were removed for PARC not meeting Wikipedia's reliability criteria (as given by the editors I mentioned in my first post), but this decision was reinforced by conflict of interest. And if anyone else wishes to insert a reference to PARC in a Wikipedia article, that reference must meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria, which, as I understand it, is possible in certain contexts.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

All should note the endless and unnecessary complexity of this issue caused simply by certain parties that don't want to see or acknowledge the Valliants' egregious behavior on Wikipedia. Chief amongst them is Lindsay Perigo, who tried to smear Barbara Branden for a diversion and a little gravy on his rotten potatoes.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

And you keep saying the ruling pertains to the book as if that were all. It does not.

Michael,

On May 16th you posted THIS proposed ruling:

Proposed removal of references to James Valliant and The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

Following several discussions calling into question the work of James Valliant as a reliable source (e.g. 1, 2..., 3), I propose that all references to it be removed from Wikipedia until such time as it is shown to satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. If there is consensus to do so, I will begin in one week's time. Skomorokh 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favor of removing them. J Readings (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

By fire be purged. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not pertain to the behavior of IP 160 or to any other consideration besides removing references in articles.

It was that post of yours -- by virtue of Barbara's forwarding the part I've quoted and her forward falling into the email boxes of persons who misinterpreted it -- which started the whole long dispute between OL and SOLO on the Wikipedia activities of James Valliant and then Holly Valliant -- neither of whom was known by the Wikipedians at that time to be posting on the IP 160 account. The topic ban was of the account and happened on a different day -- or rather on a series of days, since there were escalating bans.

Two different issues: Deleting references to James Valliant (as not being "notable," though that aspect isn't specifically mentioned in the editor comments you quote) and to PARC (as not being "reliable") on the one hand and the problems pertaining to a specific poster account on the other.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Three issues. Not two on one side and one on another.

I had forgotten about removing the article on Valliant because he was not notable. With a little good will, you might have realized that I understand Wikipedia's guidelines when I posted (somewhere around here) that the article on that horrid Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo should stay up because I understood that Perigo fit the Wikipedia requirements of notability.

I, and I believe others, did not consider the decision by the Wikipedia editors to be a "ruling" the way you were making it sound. I understood "ruling" to mean that the parties involved in the bickering and edit wars take the issue to someone else (or committee or whatever) who rules on it.

I saw what the Wikipedia editors did (the ones who were actively involved in the bickering and edit wars) was something to the effect of, "let's exercise our power right now because this doesn't look good and then let the matter be discussed." I even stated in the post of mine you quoted above:

The charge of PARC not being a reliable source is even open to correction by them (by explicit statement) if the criteria can be met. But for now...

(Notice that I stated that on May 16.) None of that sounds ruling-ish.

This sounds ruling-ish:

22:26, 12 May 2009 EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) topic ban of 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs) from Ayn Rand articles for six months (Remedy 12 above) based on consensus of a discussion at ANI. He may continue to edit the article Talk pages.

This is turning out to be a semantics issue.

EDIT: Still, I have perceived you time after time brushing aside the actual ruling from the higher echelon of Wikipedia (the topic ban on Valliant's IP on May 12) and treating it as something without weight, and inflating a preliminary decision of the editors directly involved in the edit wars (the decision to remove the PARC references from Wikipedia articles for reliability issues and discussion, but not banning future inclusions) as if this were the be-all-and-end-all of the public discussion that erupted. I see no reason for such a distortion.

Interestingly enough, you declared above that you consider OL just as unfair as SLOP.

I declare that you misunderstood something, joined in the "public festivities" (and God knows what backstage festivities) surrounding it, found egg all over your face, then tried to umpire it on SLOP in support of Valliant, and are now trying to blame your own misunderstanding on other people. Pure vanity. The text of my initial email, the one you quoted here, bears your misunderstanding out, too.

(I also believe you are drifting towards embracing PARC because of the general pattern I have been observing, but that is another issue.)

Now we can talk about fairness.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen,

You keep trying to cover for Jim Valliant.

Why?

She [barbara Branden] excerpted just the top part [of MSK's post] down through the quote from Wikipedia and sent that round as an email to a private list. Someone on that private list thought the ruling meant untrustworthy. The details of the subsequent routing aren't clear, except that both Leonard Peikoff and James Valliant were sent copies, and Valliant sent a copy to Linz. All three of those persons interpreted the ruling as meaning untrustworthy (or not reputable, the synonym Leonard used in his letter).

Whatever route Barbara Branden's email took, it passed through the hands of Jim Valliant, on its way to Lindsay Perigo. And how do you suppose it reached Leonard Peikoff?

Leonard Peikoff didn't (and apparently still doesn't) know diddly about Wikipedia.

Lindsay Perigo could have learned by now, but has preferred to keep himself ignorant.

Jim Valliant did know something about Wikipedia, having been involved in tag-team clandestine editing since December 2008.

Mr. (or Mrs.) Valliant could easily have explained to Dr. Peikoff and Mr. Perigo what the reliability ruling meant. He (or she) could also have explained what else was going on (you know, topic-banning and all that awkward stuff).

Doesn't the most parsimonious explanation go like this?

1) A third party passes Barbara Branden's email to Jim Valliant.

2) Jim Valliant annotates it and passes it to Lindsay Perigo.

3) Jim Valliant attaches a lengthier plea and passes the same email to Leonard Peikoff.

4) Mr. Valliant, er, neglects to mention the topic ban and other awkward details to either Mr. Perigo or Dr. Peikoff.

Even if this explanation turns out to be incorrect in some detail (such as mentioning the topic ban to Mr. Perigo, in the confident expectation that he would play dumb about it), Mr. Valliant was in the loop when Barbara Branden's email reached Mr. Perigo and Dr. Peikoff.

Did Mr. Valliant really want either of them to understand Wikipedia rules and policies?

Did he want either of them to know how he and Mrs. Valliant had been conducting themselves there?

What's the point of pretending that little Pollyvalliantanna Hansel and little Pollyvalliantanna Gretel were wandering around cutely and clueslessly among the Wickedpedians?

I've noticed that, both on SOLOP and here at OL, you've consistently passed over the obviously false and misleading statements made by Pelagius1 in the course of her/his special pleading for PARC.

Isn't it because a little Pollyvalliantanna wouldn't have been retailing those kinds of whoppers?

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mr. Scherk has advanced an interesting theory on the SLOP thread in question here.

He basically says that Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo and I are trying to make the Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle out to be some kind of ping-pong ball we bounce back and forth between us. But that she is too pure, heroic and independent a soul to fall prey to the evil irrational us.

Strangely enough, I have never thought of Stuttle as inferior to Perigo in game-playing. I think she is a bit more than fairly competent at playing games in her own right. I've seen enough of them to judge.

I have criticized her based on a series of factors, some evident, some not so evident, but my criticisms have all been aimed at her behavior in relation to her, not within the context of me playing games with Perigo or defending any tribe.

I don't care if she posts here or not. I don't care if she wants to post on SLOP or not. That's her business.

I think her attempts to legitimize Perigo and Valliant with intellectual standing they do not deserve, and let me emphasize this—within the context of her own history, not within the context of any contest or tribal crap like that, are disgusting and beneath contempt.

And I say so openly. I refuse to respect that kind of character.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

Oh, no, they aren't still doing what was being done then. It's like comparing a teaspoonful of something with a bitter taste to a tumblerful of hydrochloric acid. What gets said on SOLO isn't in the league of what went on then.

The comparison -- the sense of proportion -- that I had in mind had more to do with what TheValliants® are being accused of, or suspected of, and based on what evidence, versus what TheBrandens™, as well as countless others, who are called "scum," "filth," "pedophiles" etc., are being accused of, and based on what evidence. I can't say that I have a problem with your sense of fairness regarding the details of the Wikipedia case. What's conspicuous to me, however, is your silence regarding much harsher and much more frequent condemnations of significantly greater numbers of people based on less convincing evidence, or no evidence at all.

J

[Jonathan]

Trying to catch up on the circus, I just spotted this post:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6242#comment-72937

Given the lying your pin-up did about me when you were both campaigning to have me dumped as a TAS speaker and the vicious fantasies spun by your O-Lying cohorts like Jonathan, I assume it's the latter.

Does anyone have a clue what Pigero's talking about here? What "vicious fantasies" does he imagine I've spun?

J