User talk:SteveWolfer: Difference between revisions

Archive

Privacy

Sorry, didn't know it was an issue .. incidentally, you may be interested in WP:RENAME. Best, --EmbraceParadox (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a user is blocked from editing, as an anonymous user, then to unblock them an administrator must know their exact IP address; otherwise it is impossible to unblock the correct address. This can be gotten by the user in three easy ways that I can think of:

1. Visiting Special:Mytalk, which sends the user to their talk page. In the case of this person, while not logged-in it would send them to the talk page of their IP address.
2. Attempting to edit a page, which causes the block message to be displayed. It should tell the user what their IP address is.
3. Using an external IP-displaying site which reveals to one their IP address without them needing technical knowledge. I don't know any in particular, but I'm sure that Google would make finding one trivial.

Once we have the IP address, it would be easy to check for blocks or range blocks, and then either grant the user (as a registered user) IP block exemption or to unblock the address.
I hope this helps; let me know if you need any further help with this. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How seriously do we take this list? I've checked some of the entries of the philosophers I actually know by emailing them. This could be a long process. But what is the source for these names? Some of them just appear to be those who have spoken at the institute - almost certainly because they were invited, in my view, with expenses and so on. Where is the evidence that they endorse the view of Rand as a bona fide philosopher? Peter Damian (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that people who really don't like her or her work AND are doing editing on that page because of their dislike won't be open to any argument. Others, even those who don't like her or her ideas, but are fair, will see that she is a philosopher. The fact that she is listed as such in more than one encyclopedia would be enough. The fact that more than one professor emeritus of a major university has written papers on her philosphical ideas would be enough. The fact that there are books out discussing her philosophy would be enough. The fact that she is mentioned in some philosophy text books would be enough. Look at the Wikipedia article on Objectivism - the system she created. Look at Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to examine some of her work in that field. For a reasonable person, no more needs saying. --Steve (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the RFc on the Ayn Rand page, there is no consensus to support the edits and deletions made by one faction following the Dec 31 freeze. The vote as to whether there was a consensus for the changes was 9 to 3 against, 7 to 5 if one counts only experienced editors, and adds votes for two editors who commented but did not make an explicit vote. In either case, a minority, no matter how vocal (the talk page has never been so large, and so empty) cannot claim to have established a new consensus.

Hence, we shall revert to the actual consensus version of Dec 31, and I respectfully request that all editors accept and defend this long standing consensus version as the starting point for new edits. Reversions to the controversial shortened article should not be supported against the vote of the RFC. I request that those who wish to modify the article state the changes they want on the talk page, and request a vote for the changes they wish to make. I request that editors not simply assert that there is a new consensus for deletions as has been done, since the RFC clearly shows that this is not the case.

If you have suggestions for improving the article (I support trimming down all sections which have their own separate wikipedia article, such as Objectivist movement) please discuss them, conscisely now, but let us not revert to an edit war. Kjaer (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[1]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==Next step==

I would like to see you and Kjaer sign on to the mediation. A lot of editors have signed on and many of them seem like reasonable and good faith people like Slim Virgin and Ethan. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but I think the interest expressed is generally a good thing and people who didn't know anything about Ayn Rand are learning a bit about her background and significance. Rome wasn't built in a day... If you're not going to participate in the mediation the matter will move up the chain to Arb com. This doesn't seem any more attractive as an option. What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people on that list claim that Rand is not a philosopher despite massive amounts of citable evidence to the contrary. A great many people on that list have stated a dislike, even hatred for Rand. How do you expect to get any worthwhile results with people that won't respect the outcome of the RfC? It appears that everyone else has forgotten that prior to the previous freeze, we had reached a consensus on the Influence section. This would not be a fair mediation - a fair mediation can only come after recognizing that we need to start with the last stable version, apply the changes that had been agreed upon for the Influence section, and then take up, in the talk pages the next suggestion - get a consensus, then apply. Not the mad avalance of negative edits that occurred after the previous freeze and remains unacknowledged. What you are asking is for us to play in a game with a stacked deck and a pretense of fairness. Just curious, why didn't you say anything about these issues as raised on your talk page? --Steve (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to intrude on a private question here, but one of the real questions is citation and weight. So the list of philosophers you gave Steve is just a list, its not citation. Two that I checked just attended a seminar sponsored by a Rand institute. That doesn't provide support that those people think she is a philosopher. If you look on the talk page I have suggested that one function of mediation would be to provide an assessment of what is or is not evidence. The limited number of sources and their origins make this process difficult. I think it may end up in AFD and I would have thought you would be better starting mediation as more can be negotiated there. Starting off, not with the content but (i) an agreement on the issues and (ii) a process for determining evidence in respect of source and weight might be a way to calm down some of the passions on both sides. --Snowded TALK 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, you have already written about your personal opinion of Rand, you chose to ignore valid citations - in fact you went along with their being deleted. You seek out two items, from a list of hundreds, to make a vague question of, you ignore encyclopedia entries declaring Rand a philosopher, you ignore professional papers written about her philosophical writings, you ignore books written about her, as a philosopher, by credentialed philosophers... so why should anyone treat your question as having any merit? You bring up discussing the issues. If you will remember, I was working with you and everyone else on attaining agreement on the subject at hand - the Influence section - and we had come to an agreement. I, along with everyone else, participated in the RfC. You chose to ignore that outcome and go along with those who unleashed a flood of negative edits with out consensus. I can not see a way to mediate with those who do not recogize agreements or desire a middle ground. I see no way to make a good article if it is based exclusively on the edits of people who have expressed an intense hatred and dislike for her and her work. --Steve (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or editors who have express love and intense "like". Look Steve you need to deal with the issues on citation and weight. The RFC was not agreed, and even if it was the result was not a consensus. Either way its your call. If you don;t want to work with a mediator then it won't work --Snowded TALK 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, ultimately this dispute will go to either mediation or ArbCom. Personally, I'd prefer mediation because in mediation a neutral editor will help us arrive at a compromise version. The mediation is not binding, so we could opt out of the process if we see that it is not working. ArbCom, on the other hand, will result in a binding ruling being given by factfinders who can pretty much do whatever they want. I think the consensus that comes from mediation beats the heavy administrative oversight that will result from an ArbCom decision and I'd encourage you to sign on to mediation. Idag (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idaq, I believe that ArbCom is unlikely to produce a result as bad as we have now. I do not believe that the mediation, as it is being put forth, would result in a decent article. There are many people who have expressed extreme dislike for Rand and refuse to even acknowledge that she is a philosopher. I was, and still would be, ready to negotiate and work on getting the best, and the most honest article we could if there were some recognition of starting with the version that was frozen Dec. 31st. Then we should finish applying the changes to the Influence section that we had worked out and had a consensus on. Then people could make suggestions for the next area to be worked on, and after a battle on the talk page, and achieving a consensus, applying those changes. There is no other way to handle an article as controversial as this one. All other attempts will fail and some people just don't realize that, or they don't care because they just want to do damage to how Rand is percieved. --Steve (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, if you're serious about making changes to the article, then it doesn't matter what version we start out with. The old version is still there in the edit history and we can look at it to get ideas for any changes that we may want to make. Once we agree on what each section should look like, we can craft the language accordingly, it doesn't really matter where we start from. I'm asking you to give mediation a try, if you don't like it, you can opt out at any time. But you may also be pleasantly surprised by the results. Essentially, there's nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain if we can avoid ArbCom. Idag (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. Mediation for example could provide an independent assessment of what is or is not evidence and take a lot of heat out of this debate. Arbcom, if they engage can impose sanctions on edits, editors, time etc. etc. --Snowded TALK 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Snowden and Idag "if you're serious about making changes to the article, then it doesn't matter what version we start out with." If you mean what you say, then let's revert to the last consensus version per the RfC and work from there. Kjaer (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kjaer, RFC's are closed by admins and are not set up and closed within a short period by protagonists. Neither are they settled on narrow majority votes. None of this is going to progress until there is a process in place to determine contentious issues. The question of what counts as evidence is at the heart of many of the disagreements and getting something in place for that makes a lot of sense. Mediation might create that, if not Arbcom may well end imposing it. --Snowded TALK 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, I've asked you not to treat my talk page as a place where you carry on with univited arguments. Please respect that. --Steve (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since your request at 1651 on the 16th (21 minutes after the above comment) I had not contributed anything to you talk page Steve. Check your facts (oh and that is generic advice) --Snowded TALK 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that this will go to either mediation or ArbCom. Would you rather the admins help create a compromise between us (mediation) or force a solution that everyone may hate (ArbCom)? Idag (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, Please don't make your arguments on my talk page. I'll leave this here for a day or so and then I'm deleting it. You chose to participate in that avalance of edits on a page newly unfrozen following an edit war, and you ignored the outcome of the RfC and now you, who suggested that the particular version doesn't matter, choose to ignore our request to use the last stable one, the last one with a solid consensus. You have chosen to not just ignore valid evidence, but to delete it, which makes your little lectures to me or to Kjaer seem less than convincing. If you are truely honest in your request, then agree to move back to the Dec. 31st version and begin with making those changes we can come to common agreement on. That is an honest and reasonable request that needs neither mediation or arbitration or endless squabbling. --Steve (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idag, I believe that ArbCom would make a better job of this than the proposed mediation. I say this because I have no faith in those who refuse to consider starting with that last unfrozen version, where we had reached a consensus on the Influence section. And because there is no recognition of the RfC outcome. And because of the unwillingness of some of the "anti-Rand" faction to admit that she was a philosopher despite a multitude of references. And because of the extremes of anti-Rand sentiment amoung those who are calling for this mediation and have been doing the negative editing that is behind the edit warring. --Steve (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why we need mediation. You don't think some of the editors are working in good faith, so why not work with a neutral mediator? Idag (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. I was hoping you'd be willing to sign on for mediation. Let's give it a try and see what happens. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The choice is between participating and seeing what happens. And not participating, and having the matter move to Arb Comm. I think it's worth trying mediation. I don't see the harm in it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your position more fully. I found your comments to be lucid and reasonable. I also find your position a bit idealistic, as article development here is more chaotic than the procedure you are recommending. I think mediation is a reasonably good forum for hasing out what changes should be made, even if it doesn't start from the point you recognize as valid. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a note for you here, Steve. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of consensus and to avoid edit warring I have have placed a request for assistance here and have named you in that request. --Snowded TALK 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. I saw your note at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand - can you just confirm what your plans are? You have three options really;

1. You can proceed with the mediation.
2. You can withdraw from the mediation, but state you are happy for other participants to continue without you.
3. You can decline to participate, but this would lead to the whole mediation being rejected.

The choice if entirely your own, but I'd just like you to confirm to me what your thoughts are. Best regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]