Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

I wrote up my 4 main points and here they are

1) There is way too much philosophizing on the article talk page. If we could eliminate the interesting, but irrelevant discussion that would go a long way towards making progress workable.

2) Some editors have exhibited a strong bias against Rand and have acted and communicated an agenda to cut her down to size. This isn't conducive to collaborative editing. Creating a well balanced and tightly edited article (the Rand article is already fairly thorough) needs good faith collaboration. Most of the editors seem willing to include a variety of perspectives and expert opinions, but the opinions of the editors themselves are irrelevant and that sort of distraction is unhelpful. Editors are welcome to work on the articles of other philosophers if those articles are too short by comparison.

See Steve's comments for diffs.

3) All sides have to put forth good quality sources for their positions. When one group puts forth numerous sources supporting, for example, Rand's being considered a philosopher, those who object can't simply cherry pick places where she isn't mentioned and say that evidence of absence is evidence that she isn't a philosopher. There is also a clear distinction between academia and mainstream media coverage of her popular influence. I think both perspectives should be included.

Here's a diff including numerous sources about Ayn Rand being a philosopher (including her New York Times obituary) [1]. Here's another example of an editor providing a source [2]. The counter argument is that there are sources where she's not included. This is an example of the long arguments against calling her a philosopher despite her developing a philosophy that's widely discussed, debated critqued etc. [3] and another [4]. You'll notice it doesn't include or refer to a single citation or source. I also think long ideological comments tend not to be helpful, see point 1. People need to stick to sourced, verifiable information. And as there is no official list of who is and isn't a philosopher, we have to trust good sources. Her not being listed in some sources does not exclude her being a philosopher. Not a single source has been provided arguing that she isn't a philosopher. The other argument from Peter Damien was that our coverage of other philosophers is poor, so her article is too long, I think speaks for itself. When he quoted a British philosopher criticizing Rand, I pointed out how very short and poorly written this person's article was and that they didn't seem very notable. But no one has edited it. Instead of trying to exclude Rand and chop her down, why don't they build the others up?

4) There are efforts to say she's been ignored, but then these same editors want to include lots of criticism. If she's somehow not a philosopher and has been ignored, then it's not appropriate to include big sections of criticism of her philosophy. If, as several good sources indicate, she is a philosopher, then criticism is welcome in the appropriate context. Clearly Rand isn't popular in academia where her philosophy and politics have been criticized. This also wasn't her audience. And her books are long so they are not well suited to most classes. On the other hand she was and is very popular and influential in the mainstream (ie. outside academia) as the continued popularity of her novels attests. These distinctions need to be made, but one area of influence isn't the end all be all. We don't exclude mainstream sources that are outside academia.

The refusal to stick to sources without doing original research has been compounded by Peter Damien's promotion of off Wiki discussion first at Wikipedia review and now some other site. He also has posted numerous uncivil and pointy comments such as today's [5] with digs at editors such as "The last one is quite funny, because Harry Binswanger, who is the closest thing to a bona fide philosopher, turned up, and even he got irritated by the Rand camp-followers and their incoherent ranting ('Randing') and interminable non-sequiturs." Speaking of nonsequiturs, he often offer personal opinion that incited divisiveness and arguments on the talk page distracting from useful progress " Ayn Rand tries to address the fundamental questions certainly, and is a 'philosopher' in the broader bar-room, cocktail-party sense. She really doesn't have a clue about the other bit, though." This has extended to comments on Jimbo's page and elsewhere, and isn't conducive to collaboration or productive editing. I'm not much on Wikispeak, but I would describe this behavior as trolling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Overview

• Up until fairly recently, the 3 or 4 editors editing the article maintained good relations by making a minimal number of edits to the article (example of a minor dispute being resolved) [6]
• New editors started editing, and because there were more edits, we were forced to discuss controversial issues and things began to deteriorate (e.g. discussing how to describe Chomsky as background for his criticism of Rand) [7]
• Things as they are now (the second linked section is lengthy, but provides an overview of current attempts to resolve content disputes):[8][9]
• AN/I Noticeboard attempt by Ddstretch:[10] (the only other admin to comment was Slp1)

Kjaer's attempts to halt progress on the article

• At one point two significant changes were made to the article, which were supported by the consensus at the time
  • Removal of the Response to Criticism section - 4 editors agreed to the removal and no one disagreed [11]
  • An attempt to streamline the Influence section - most of the editors, including an Objectivist (Jomasecu) agreed and Kjaer and Steve were the only editors to disagree (their explanations were such that I still don't understand why they disagreed) [12]

• Kjaer's RfC - after the changes were made, Kjaer initiated an RfC[13]
  • The wording for how to vote was extremely confusing, as Kjaer was asking RfC editors to comment on "whether there was indeed consensus for" the recent changes (see above link to RfC)
  • Kjaer closed the RfC after it was up for only one day, at which point he determined that there was either a 7-5 or a 9-5 vote favoring a mass revert that would remove a week's worth of edits [14]
  • Kjaer determined that this vote constituted a consensus[15] and, therefore, began an edit war to restore the "consensus" version - [16] (see Kjaer's edits on January 12)

• Canvassing
  • Apparently, before he made his RfC, Kjaer actively canvassed for more Objectivist involvement with the article [17](see post #17)
  • Of the 9 editors who supported Kjaer's position in the RfC - only five were involved in the article before the RfC (Kjaer, SteveWolfer, Ethan A Dawe, Jomasecu, and ChildofMidnight)[18]
    • 3 of the new editors were brand new users of Wikipedia [19][20][21]and the other editor (Dagwyn) had not edited the article in months[22]

• Post-RfC behavior
  • A number of editors pointed out that there were problems with Kjaer's RfC (the canvassing issue is a recent discovery that was not included in this discussion) [23]
  • TallNapoleon offered to create a new RfC[24] - Kjaer declined the offer because TallNapoleon's "faction" "lost" the RfC. [25] (emphasis in the original)
  • Since then Kjaer has refused to participate in any type of consensus-building or dispute resolution until the "anti-Rand faction" acknowledges that it is in the minority,[26] abandons its "agenda,"[27] and agrees to his mass revert proposal [28]
  • Kjaer's "my way or the highway" position makes it impossible to edit the article or come to any type of a consensus. It does not appear that he is willing to abandon that position in the near future (see his statement in this ArbCom proceeding).

SteveWolfer's ad hominem attacks

• Steve has a tendency of making ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the merits of a given proposal [29][30][31][32]
• Steve also appears to have a personal vendetta against some of the editors on the "opposing side", as he followed TallNapoleon to oppose him in an unrelated ANI discussion about a copyright issue involving TallNapoleon's paper[33] (beginning about halfway down in the section)
• Post-RfC behavior and manipulation of process
  • Steve appears to have adopted Kjaer's view that the RfC "vote" has resulted in a mandate to mass revert the article and going against this mandate is a violation of Wikipedia policy.[34](see section "Why I have not agreed to the mediation request") However, Steve has gone one step further than Kjaer. He has ignored repeated requests to seek a consensus through mediation[35][36], and even went so far as to berate another Objectivist for agreeing to mediation.[37] Steve has essentially forced this case into ArbCom where he now requests that this Committee ban editors that he identified as "pushing a POV" from editing the Ayn Rand article.[38] All of these editors conveniently happen to belong to what he and Kjaer determined to be the "anti-Rand faction".[39]

TheJazzFan's uncivil behavior

This user doesn't hold much stock in the civility rules[40][41] He was informed of those rules,[42] and this was his response.[43][44] Another user subsequently informed him that ArbCom looks at the behavior of the involved parties[45] and this was his response[46]

Adding "context" to the criticism section

For some reason, certain editors feel that when a secondary source criticizes Rand, an ad hominem attack must be made on that source. [47];[48][49] At one point, Kjaer even added a separate section criticizing the criticism of Rand[50]

Going Forward

As the statements from various parties show, there are numerous complex content issues that need to be addressed in the article. However, regardless of the outcome of this ArbCom, it is likely that there will still be POV-pushing (or perceived POV pushing) in the article. The current problems are compounded by new editors who do not appear to believe in WP:Civil.[51][52] That is why there needs to be a neutral admin (or five) to oversee that the parties stay focused and play nice. Unfortunately, without some type of strong oversight (or at least mediation), I believe that this article will be back here in short order.

Response to Steve

• Re: removal of a section [53]- if an editor did not agree with the section's removal, he should have stated so, he could have easily asked for that section to be brought back instead of asking for mass reverts
• Re: "onslaught" of edits - a very large chunk of the edits that were part of the "onslaught" were made by ChildofMidnight, who is an Objectivist[54]
  • Interestingly, note what happens to the number of Kjaer's edits if the search is expanded to include all edits from 12/30 (which is when Kjaer began canvassing) - [55]
• Re: RfC directions - I voted in the RfC because Kjaer made it abundantly clear, in his other posts, that he wanted a mass revert. Knowing that, I voted opposite of Kjaer. The directions on the actual RfC made no sense.
• Re: Steve's behavior - the diffs speak for themselves

I am not an involved party, but I was briefly involved in the AN/I discussion where I made a couple of points. I did a bit of research into the canvassing aspect of this case, and give the following evidence on that topic.

Kjaer canvassed

This evidence was originally discovered by Turnsmoney and is given in Snowded's statement.

• [56]: Kjaer disclosing his identity as forum member Ted Keer on rebirthofreason.com.
• [57]: objectivistliving.com forum member Ted Keer soliciting help in reverting Snowded on List of schools of philosophy (and, more vaguely, on Ayn Rand). The solicitation is dated Dec. 30, 2008, the day Kjaer added Objectivism to List of schools of philosophy and Snowded disputed the wording, thus beginning the edit war.

Kjaer's canvassing may have had some effect

In searching the histories of List of schools of philosophy, Talk:List of schools of philosophy, Ayn Rand, and Talk:Ayn Rand, I found that the canvassing may have had at least a small effect. Whether or not canvassing gives the canvasser any culpability for others' actions is probably a philosophical question, but I've added this evidence in case it does.

Specific edits likely to have resulted from the canvassing:

• [58], IP's first edit to List of schools of philosophy, matches time and intent of canvassing post.
• [59], IP's first edit to List of schools of philosophy, matches time and intent of canvassing post.

Editors who began editing these pages after the canvassing (obviously, may be coincidences):

• [60]: Editors to List of schools of philosophy arranged by newest first. Editors before 2008-12-29 can be discounted. I chose 2009-01-10 as the cutoff point because the first RfC on this topic was initiated on Jan. 11, which brought in new editors.
• [61]: Editors to Talk:List of schools of philosophy.
• [62]: Editors to Ayn Rand.
• [63]: Editors to Talk:Ayn Rand.

The sources used for citation are problematic

At the moment we have a very small number of sources being used for multiple purposes. For example a grant in 2001 to the University of Texas generates a Guardian article. The grant came from a Rand reserach institute (which means it cannot support a statement that the UofT established a fellowship in her honour). Its also in 2001 and there are no subsequent ones. The Guardian article reports this and suggests that this may lead to an increase in interest. Neither 2001 reference can really support a 2009 status. Two notable philosophers attend a seminar on a subject linked to objectivism, sponsored by a Rand institute. True, but it does not mean that the implication can be drawn that those philosophers endorse the position that Rand is a Philosopher. She may or may not be, but that type of citation does not support it. This mass list is typical of the issue. It includes books or articles written by people in the Ayn Rand movement (without qualification) and the list of Philosophers has no actual citations and is subject to the if you attended a seminar where Ayn Rand was mentioned then you must support the view that she is a philosopher argument. There is no willingness to attempt to assess citation for weight, authority or relevance.

• Example of citation standard from Schools of Philosophy - Objectivism^[1][2] :
  • ^[1]The radical school of philosophy Ayn Rand developed in the middle of the last century, http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2008/10/objectivism-shr.html
  • ^[2]Dictionary of literary Biography: "Ayn Rand, one of the few systematic philosophers who have used imaginative literature to develop their ideas, was a novelist and the founder of the Objectivist school of philosophy." quoted at http://www.bookrags.com/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness

Issues on proving a negative

There is a near total silence outside the US in respect of Rand. She does not appear in Directories of Philosophy or even in OUP books on American Literature. The sheer number of philosophical sources who simply ignore her is overwealming, the majority of US sources come from her followers some of whom have academic associations. There needs to be some guidance on this.

Constant and intimidatory abuse

This is particularly the case with User:Kjaer and User:SteveWolfer with the more recent addition of User:TheJazzFan. Virtually every comment is accompanied by a slur on the motives of any editor who disagrees with them. Kjaer and Steve have also acted in concert on reversions on Ayn Rand and Schools of Philosophy. Kjaer's canvassing has already been referenced and I would support all the comments made by Idag in particular his suggestion on "Going Forward". The one admin who introduced the first freeze was subsequently treated to a stream of abuse.

This question continues as others have pointed out. Anyone attempting to engage on the articles associated with Rand is subject to constant intimidation and abuse as to motives. The intent (and the effect) is to drive editors away as it takes considerable resilience and stubbornness to pursue debate. Assertions are made again and again with aggressive language with no engagement with arguments.

Issues on failing to attempt or abide by or seek consensus

There is a constant attempt to identify the word "objectivism" with Rand's school of thought. This started on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) page with an attempt to rename it Objectivism. There was no consensus for the move. Shortly after that an attempt was made to rename Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) as "Criticisms of Objectivism" that too failed. Now we have the attempt to define Objectivism as a school of philosophical thought at Schools of Philosophy. If that succeeds I am sure we will be back to the main articles again. The talk page on Schools of Philosophy is a short read and illustrates the problem. These multiple page moves by many editors who are declared supporters of Rand, coupled with the evidence of canvassing gives some idea of the problem.

Context issues and POV pushing

Whenever something critical of Rand in any way is made then an explanatory text is added. Chomsky is an "activist", Buckley is a "Catholic" and resents Rand's criticism. This applies on all pages associated with Rand. Criticism sections then have Response to the Criticism sections added.

Novelist or Philosopher or what

This has been one of the more contentious issues in the debate. It is clear and undisputed that Rand is an author, and (in the US and to a lesser degree internationally) a popular author. I read Atlas when I was a teenage (despite not being American) and the notability is undisputed (I make no comment on the quality). There is a whole article devoted to Objectivism, the name she gave to per peculiar (I am using this in the sense of unique) view of the world. However in the article Ayn Rand her primary identity is novelist and screen writer. We need to decide what is the model here. A lot of novelists express philosophical ideas as least as profound as those of Rand. One thinks of Fowles, Dostoevsky and Joyce. My view has always been that her primary identity is novelist and then she created a philosophy that she called objectivism. I personally think its a bad name as some of her work is the exact opposite of what I understand (from the perspective of the philosophy of science) objectivism to be. But that is what it is named, so, so be it. Now there is a world of difference between having a philosophy and being a philosopher. Acknowledging that she created a philosophical movement is beyond question. calling her a philosopher is a different matter. The net recommendation here is that a page should be found for a novelist who had a philosophical bent (possible a Russian as she is ethically and to a degree ideologically in that tradition) that has featured article status, and use that as a template to create the main article.

The level of emotion being expended on the issue of her status as a philosopher may be disguising a more important issue. While the behaviour of editors is a part of this arbitration, the major issue for WIkipedia is that of weight. Is one authoritative citation enough to establish a fact (if so then she is a Philosopher), or the absence of citation where you would expect it to be evidence (in which case she is not). There is a linked question here of US centricity. This is a major issue for WIkipedia and its authority which goes way beyond what is when all is considered an minor article. --Snowded TALK 07:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith and conspiracy theory

This is one of the most incredible examples of distortion so far; conspiracy theory run riot and clear breech of WP:AGF. The nonsense of Kjaer's accusations is show bythis diff where I carefully used to talk page to propose a series of changes (making no deletions) and was subject to, well just read it.

Responses

I'm only going to respond here on serious issues. If I don't respond on a specific criticism then I am either confident in a fair review of the edit (and the associated talk) or I think the editor concerned is shooting him or her self in the foot or both.

• Steve's reference to "Borderline racist" wasmy response to this fairly extreme statement in what had become a somewhat off topic thread. --Snowded TALK 16:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Kjaer's reference to my blog of the 7th November 2008 (the date is significant). I blog everyday on average about what I am doing, and its easy to track down who I am as the blog is declared on my user page. The blog referenced is not about Kjaer. It is about another editor on another article who attempted to insert Rand's definition of philosophy (and edit warred against consensus) into the lede of Philosophy without acknowledging his source. His user page pointed to an article he had written in which he advocated that the US should nuke Iran (in its own self interest). I was appalled at the time and still am at that sort of attitude and will feel free to comment in any public forum. If you check back you will find I have blogged about frustrations with the Knowledge Management article on three occasions in three years. Oh, and in the recent interests of full disclosure I recently tweeted about what I consider Kjaer's (in his other persona) appalling lack of taste using the Twin Towers as his personal image on a discussion forum. I made no reference to the WIkipedia in that tweet. --Snowded TALK 20:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Several editors harbor strong dislikes for Rand and edit accordingly. Often this hostile attitude is expressed against anyone who objects.

• Jimbo Wales remarks upon the hostility towards editors who oppose anti-Rand edits when user Peter Damian refers to other editors as "smelly trolls."[64]
• TallNapoleon calls Rand's philosophy evil and infantile[65]14th text line down from heading.
• TallNapoleon calls Rand and her "followers" idlolators and relates this to the holocaust[66]
• TallNapoleon referring to Rand's philosophy says, "Any philosophy that justifies the casual destruction of millions is insane."[67]
• TallNapoleon says, "Now I cannot STAND Ayn Rand. I think Objectivism is dangerously radical, destructive, godless, chaotic, exploitative, unjust... you name it." [68] 15th line down from heading.
• CABlankenship says editors on Ayn Rand page are fanatics.[69]
• CABlankenship says, ""...I removed myself from this page [Ayn Rand] for a reason. I have nothing at all good to say about Rand. I despise her too much to be of any use to the neutrality of this article. I find her to be a fourth-rate philosopher... With this in mind, I don't think I can remain neutral."[70]
• Snowded calls Rand a novelist with poorly thought out ideas who started a cult.[71]
• Read the last few talk page entries by SmashTheState [72][73]and his user page (real eye-opener) and then take a look at Edward G Niles[74][75], who is supposed to be blocked - they are a little more honest in the degree of hostility they reveal for Rand. The problem of editors editing their POV is actually easier when they are vandal-like or foaming like those two, but it is the same problem at its root.

Reliable sources

Editors deleted validly sourced material, engaged in original research and POV to excuse dismissing whole sections with sources.

Response to Idag

• Idag claims to have a consensus for removal of a section.[76] But it was deleted within a few hours of the first talk page notice. [77]. This was part of an avalance of editing done without consensus on an article just unprotected after an edit war freeze.

Notice the number of edits between Jan 8 and Jan 12th. [78]. And notice that Kjaer and I only account for a total of 8 out that gigantic onslaught of edits - most of which were intended to push a hostile POV. [79] Some of us were abiding by the admin, DDStretch's, call for less edit warring, some weren't.

• Idag claims the RfC was worded confusingly - but he understood it and cast his vote. [80].
• Idag falsely claims I used ad hominem arguments - I pointing out that several editors were making racist remarks.[81] I asked Snowded to not call another editor a "borderline racist."
• TallNapoleon said, "I cannot STAND Ayn Rand. I think Objectivism is dangerously radical, destructive, godless, chaotic, exploitative, unjust... you name it." I supplied that quote (with ref) and asked if, he/she really wanted to discuss the issue of neutrality.[82] Idag is wrong to call that an attack.
• My sarcastic statement [83] implies that CABlankenship might hate Rand and might not be supplying adequate sources - both very true and both very appropriate to the context.
• Idag says I "berated" another editor. Not true. I just explained why I did not think the proposed mediation would be good for the article. [84]

Response to TallNapoleon

• TallNapoleon is wrong. I don't object to people with strong negative POV editing, unless, as in the case of many of the editors here, that negative POV influences their edits.

Response to Snowded

• Snowded mentions criticisms by Buckley and Chomsky. They show the pattern of editing for most of this dispute which is very different from his allegations:

- Without context, Buckley's statement that Ayn Rand's philosophy was "still born", was added.

- The mini-edit war erupts, NOT as much as over the criticism, but over any attempt to give the criticism context.[85]

- An editor adds that Buckley was Roman Catholic - Rand and Buckley had a documented feud that was over her atheism.[86]

- Valid sourced information and the references are deleted.[87]

- The same pattern can be seen with Chomsky's 'criticism' that Rand is "one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history." - no mention of Chomsky's political activism was allowed.[88][89][90][91][92][93]

Contrary to what Snowded says, the 'pro-Rand' faction has been trying keep criticism reasonable and with some sort of context while the anti-Rand faction forces in what amount to ad hominum comments from notable sources while stripping any context or explanation and making the criticism as damning as possible.

• Snowded complains about the quality of the sources provided by the pro-Rand faction. Yet, here is a typical example of him rewording for the greatest negative effect, while insisting on an online blog entry by a columnist as a creditable source:[94]; but when the shoe is on the other foot, even a professor emeritus of philosophy at University of California (along with dozens of other sources) is not good enough - like this list offered to an editor who asked for sources:list In his statement above, Snowded appears upset that it wasn't organized into cites and dismisses it as list of attendees to a conference, which it clearly is not.

Snowded insists on cites (as he should), then attempts to dismiss them as not notable, or biased (because they support some position of Rands), or biased because of an affiliation with an Objectivist institution, or without adequate weight, and when all of that fails, to claim the existence of cites to the contrary that have more weight, and if that fails to claim that the consensus of editors holds sway.

• Snowded claims Rand isn't know outside of America, but ignored this:[95].
• Snowded claims Rand isn't a philosopher based upon his POV and his OR on what philosophy ought to be or how it ought to be named (see his statement above). He makes up his own rules for her title and he deletes valid references again and again and ignores these:[96][97]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Response to Steve

Last I checked it was not against Wikipedia policy to edit an article about a figure one disagrees with, or even one about a person one considers to be evil. Steve's statement is further evidence of a failure to assume good faith. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been presented that I have been attempting to push my POV on the article--only that I have one. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential further evidence of Steve's POV-pushing

[98] this discussion may be relevant, as it appears that this dispute is about Steve attempting to forcibly introduce an Objectivist POV in a place where, frankly, it does not belong. This appears to violate NPOV and UNDUE. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Steve's failure to assume good faith

| This fits with a wider pattern of editing and failing to assume good faith on the part of other editors. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also this. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of Steve's wider failure to assume good faith and to behave civilly. He is not addressing anything that Snowded writes, and frankly appears to be making things up in an attempt to discredit Snowded. It's frankly appalling, especially considering that he did the same sort of thing to me last month, as shown in these two sections. I will be posting specific diffs later. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Kjaer's failure to AGF= and follow WP:CIVIL

This is fairly representative. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [99][reply]

Pet page? Nemesis? There is a difference between asking for help from other experts and giving direct instructions on what to do, as Kjaer did. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of TheJazzFan's failure to follow WP:CIVIL (more to come)

This is typical of TheJazzFan's style and his demonstrated inability to follow WP:CIVIL. I will post more diffs later when I have time. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This too. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two diffs show a serious lack of respect for the Wikipedia community and for the rules of behavior it has established. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [100][reply]

Response to Kjaer

I accept TurnsMoney's explanation that he did not wish to provide Randites with his IP address--I certainly would not wish to either. Furthermore both myself and other editors, including I believe Snowded (correct me if I'm wrong) have stated that we would have no problem with a CheckUser being done on TurnsMoney. Furthermore, the 3RR rule states that more than three reverts is forbidden. I reverted thrice. Under normal circumstances I would not even have done this, but it was clear that you and Steve were attempting, after a sham RFC, to force your POV on the article and override the views of other editors, and frankly I did not wish to permit this.

And BTW, there's a difference between telling someone they might be interested in an article, or talking about one's experiences on Wikipedia, and giving direct instructions on how to participate. That is clearly and indisputably attempted meatpuppetry--regardless of the extent of its success. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And heaven forbid that an administrator should have a POV about Ayn Rand! Editors and administrators are allowed to edit articles on subjects about which they have a POV. You are yet again violating WP:AGF by attacking Stretch for having a POV about Rand and insinuating that his POV was his primary motivation. Would you have had such a concern if his POV were favorable to her? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nilges

Someone above has mentioned Mr. Nilges' efforts on the talk page. Nilges is a banned user, who keeps returning using anonymous IPs to harass editors at [{Ayn Rand]] and a few other pages. The fact is that myself and Idag, neither of whom hold a favorable opinion of Rand, both played a major role in stopping attempting to deal with Nilges and preventing him from using the article to push his POV (unfortunately he's back again... sigh). I opposed the inclusion of a criticism by Raymond Boisvert that Rand was "out of sync", as I felt that the criticism lacked substance and context (out of sync with what? how is being out of sync a bad thing?). I took a great deal of flaming from this individual, and along with Ethan A Dawe was the recipient of legal threats from him. I think the fact that I have continued editing despite this and strongly opposed Nilges' attempt to push a negative POV about Rand speaks well of my good faith and my own willingness to put my POV aside. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SteveWunder

I'm inclined to agree with you, but ArbCom doesn't settle content disputes. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:brushcherry

This is outside of the current dispute, as this user doesn't appear to belong to either "camp". However, this new user has kept a consistently disrespectful and flippant tone in most of his posts to the Talk page. It seems like he could probably use a mentor. Diffs coming later. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mendacity

Snowded's last post demonstrates what I believe is a consistent pattern of mendacity on the part of Kjaer and Steve. Simply put they have been making highly deceptive edits on talk pages that simply are not true. Whether this comes from premeditation or ignorance I do not know, but it has become utterly infuriating. No one is claiming that the 360 sources say Rand is not a philosopher; Snowded, Readings et. al. are simply stating that there exist a number of sources that do not refer to her as such, preferring author instead. Furthermore the edit Snowded linked shows Kjaer frankly lying about the series of events that took place. It's appalling. More diffs coming later. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve

The incident I'm thinking of most is the one regarding Rand's quote about the Native Americans. Steve continually misrepresented the situation:

1: No one accused Rand of genocide. That would be absurd--so far as I know Rand never killed anyone in her life. I don't even think Rand's comments were necessarily racist. The point of that quote is that it appeared (and appears) as though Rand was JUSTIFYING a genocide--something which Steve categorically misrepresents.

2: Yes, the source where I grabbed it (while rushing to get ready to run out the door) was NOT friendly to Rand. However this same version of that quote is reproduced all over the internet, and in at least one source on Google Books. There was no possibility that this guy hacked it up, and still less that I was deliberately choosing a hacked up version.

As always more will come later.

In addition there is the whole matter of the foofurah over the RFC, where Steve and Kjaer proceeded to act--despite all evidence to the contrary and the vocal protestations of a number of involved editors--that this constituted a consensus to revert to the Dec 31 version of the article. The continuous casting of aspersions on editors' intentions and the misrepresentation and distortion of their arguments also qualifies as mendacity. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kjaer

Kjaer's accusations and insinuations regarding TurnsMoney, as shown below, also fit this pattern. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kjaer issuing threats to users

Kjaer has now taken to posting officious sounding warnings on other users' pages and threatening blocks, despite the fact that he is A: not an Admin and B: in absolutely no position to do so. This is further evidence of the pattern of intimidation discussed by other users here. These attempts at bullying and intimidation need to stop.

Diffs: [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]

This is particularly absurd, claiming that any further debate or comments on his warning could be construed as violating NPA. His attempts to issue these kinds of pronouncements are, in my opinion, totally out of line. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[107]

Threats from Kjaer

Kjaer has now taken to demanding that I stop using the term Randism, and has threatened me with an edit block if I continue to use this mainstream and innocuous term. He has posted on my talk page threatening that "you will be blocked" if I continue using the phrase "Randism", and declaring that "This is not a matter for debate". This strikes me as a rather bizarre and inappropriate attempt at intimidation (and assumption of authority) over a very trivial matter which he is attempting to hype. Classic example of what Dostoyevsky called "Making a mountain out of a molehill". This complaint also extends to a demand that I stop mentioning the numerous respected academic sources that refer to Randism as a cult, including Murray Rothbard and Michael Shermer, both of whom share most of her views on economics and politics (which makes them even more credible in their criticism). So the situation is that any statement about Randism that Kjaer finds offensive is considered by him to be a personal attack. This may be an interesting psychological fact about Kjaer, but I fail to see why his personal quirks should affect the article. I also fail to see how we can make any progress if Kjaer is able to interpret any comment or entry about Randism that he dislikes as a personal attack. Furthermore, I find his threats to be distasteful and irksome. CABlankenship (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More threats and hypocrisy from Kjaer

Kjaer has continued his bizarre and inconsistent threats on my talk page. He is now asserting that any discussion of Rand or her philosophy on the talk page constitutes article vandalism, and threatens that this will lead to a block. Note that he has not leveled similar threats at people whose discussions of Rand and her work is positive. For instance, he has not posted such warnings on the pages of TheJazzFan or Steve, both of whom have engaged in heavy discussion of their personal opinions. I believe that this shows his general hypocrisy, and could possibly show that his real aim is merely to get rid of editors he doesn't like (by leveling absurd charges against them such as baseless sockpuppet accusations, vandalism, and so forth), rather than the noble goal of improving wiki that he claims to be upholding. Furthermore, it is yet another example of him assuming a level of authority and attempting to intimidate other editors with threats of blocks and bans. CABlankenship (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current Violations of WP:NPA

There has been a history of editors explicitly referring to Objectivists and admirers of Ayn Rand as cultists, Randites, Randists and other words which are found offensive. This is an explicit violation of WP:NPA whether it is directed against editors or the adherents of Rand's philosophy elsewhere. I have explicitly warned certain editors of their violations of WP:NPA on their talk pages, 1 2 3 and have placed a warning on the article talk page itself. TallNapoleon and Snowded saw fit to summarily remove my warning. The practice is unacceptible both as a personal attack and as an off topic debate that does not belong on the talk page, and debate over whether such words are offensive is just as offensive and just as much a violation of policy. I invite editors to realize the serious of the issue and invite administration to remind editors of it.Kjaer (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate use of the word cult/cultist, etc. on the current talk page

Note that these comments express editor's personal opinions, not attempts at research, of which there are examples. Also, I have not included all examples. They are all explicit violations of NPA.

SmashtheState: "Objectivism IS in fact a religious cult for psychopaths."

Peter Damian 1 says editors here are "Randing" provides false description of undocumented quote

Snowded:12 3 4

CABlankenship:1 2 3 4 5 6

TallNapoleon:1

I commend Idag for 1

prior evidence

The subject of this arbitration, I assume, is the Ayn Rand article, and not, primarily, myself. So, I would ask that the arbitrators focus on the inclusivity and completeness of that article.

But first, i would mention two side issues, accusations of meat puppetry against myself, and the behavior of my primary accuser.

Accusations of Canvassing

I plead guilty to the charge of canvassing. But as to meat puppetry, I plead innocent. Indeed, if I am the puppeteer, who is the puppet?

I have indeed (as I myself noted on the talk page, and Dave Snowden has quoted) posted on Objectivist related sites, and have made other editors aware of what is going on the Ayn Rand page. But if I am guilty of communicating with others, I am not, like others, guilty of sock puppetry, [Turnsmoney, CABlankenship] editing in bad faith, or in any way pushing a personal POV on the article. My edits have been most fair, and I challenge anyone to show a POV innovation of mine to the article.

Snowded POV Canvassing, Being a Meat Puppet POV Edit Warring, Ad Hominem

Dave Snowden has been involved in a long term campaign to push his personal anti-Rand POV on this and related articles. I quote, from his website: "I refuse to call it a philosophy" ^[1]

We have proof here of his own purposefully stated campaign to push his personal POV, his own admission of meat puppetry, and his own admission of his desire to recruit meat puppets.

Bad Faith:

A reference that was used to show Rand's influence ^ A survey jointly conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club early in the 1990s asked readers to name the book that had most influenced their lives: Atlas Shrugged was second only to the Bible - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ibid.

Was modified to add this OR text:

^[2]

and became support for the Snowden's OR claim in the lead that Rand's influence is limited to the US. But The US Library of congress did not survey outside America, and hence it cannot be used as evidence of what has happened outside America. This is typical of his bad faith, POV pushing and OR.

And of course, endless ad hominem accusations of cultism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&diff=267904129&oldid=267902677

CABlankenship Admitted POV, sockpuppetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_16#Propaganda_page Yeah, I removed myself from this page for a reason. I have nothing at all good to say about Rand. I despise her too much to be of any use to the neutrality of this article. … CABlankenship (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:CABlankenship

DDSTretch Admitted POV

Seventeen minutes after CABlankenship admitted his POV and castigated Rand, DDStretch posted his agreement with BABlankenship's POV on the latter's talk page. This is a supposedly neutral Admin, one who blocked me not for improper edits, nor for incivility, but for stating on the talk page that the continued deletions are POV motivated http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CABlankenship&diff=prev&oldid=261602077 + Having read some of her stuff, and also studied philosophy during the course of my degrees, I agree with your assessment of her material. … [[User:ddstretch| 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turnsmoney Sock Puppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Turnsmoney How is it that a newly registered user who has not edited one single article can appear out of the blue to do the dirty work of one faction using sophisticated WP terminology?

Violation of Consensus

After the block by DDStretch was removed, there were an immediate series of over 100 edits by TallNapoleon, Idag, SlimVirgin, Snowded and Peter Damien instituting a wholesale revision of the article according to one POV. These edits were repeatedly challenged on the talk page with requests for a wikipedia policy to motivate them. None was given, rather a "new consensus" was adduced as justification:

It is clear that a new consensus is developing. …TallNapoleon (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a new consensus developing. Idag (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet, no such consensus exists, as per the RfC.

Philosopher

• I agree with TheJazzFan that Rand was unquestionably a philosopher. She created a new philosophy and wrote extensively about same. It was sophisticated, had epistemology, ethics, etc. It was a complete package even if some don't agree with (it is the height of snobbery to deny it is even a philosophy). Accordingly, I disagree with TallNapoleon and do not understand why anyone would even argue with the idea that Rand was a philosopher. Who decides whether she is a philosopher anyway? Is there an Academie Philosophique somewhere I don't know about? For what it's worth, the definition at dictionary.com is helpful. It defines philosopher as [[108]]:
• "1. a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.
• 2. a person who is deeply versed in philosophy.
• 3. a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc.
• 4. a person who regulates his or her life, actions, judgments, utterances, etc., by the light of philosophy or reason.
• 5. a person who is rationally or sensibly calm, esp. under trying circumstances." [Obsolete #6 omitted here]
• Re 1, she offered views and theories on profound questions etc. Re 2, she was deeply versed in philosophy. Re 3, she established the central ideas of a movement (and according to critics, a cult). Re 4, she claimed to live her life by the light of philosophy and reason. Re 5, maybe not so much. So she qualifies as a philosopher using at least four definitions of the term. Love her, hate her, but don't deny what she was. Syntacticus (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonably complete list of my edits concerning this dispute are provided here (they omit very minor copy-edits and archiving edits.)

Sequence of main events I took as administrator leading to 2 blocks was reasonable

Two tools were used on 4 occasions: 2 full protections of Ayn Rand following edit-warring on it by established editors, and two blocks issued to editors for misuse of the talk page (see WP:TALK) which initially was to last for 24 hours each.

• dds1: edits up to and including 1st full protection
• dds2: Associated full protection notice
• dds3: Messages on Talk:Ayn Rand up to the point at which a warning about conduct was issued by myself.
• dds4: Disputes about the full protection of Ayn Rand on Talk:Ddstretch
• dds5: Associated message on Talk:Kjaer, not involving me, which led to protection and informed Kjaer of the protection from myself
• dds6: Similar messages on Talk:Snowded covering the same issues as in dds5

Note that there was edit-warring that could have justified blocking under 3rr, but I attempted to calm matters by warning the main "combatants" at that time as a courtesy rather than must blocking, and protecting.

Note also at the end of dds5 that Kjaer expressed his agreement with the protection. However, later he has demonstrably argued (see his evdence on this page, as well as that of others) that I was irredeemably biased and unable to function as an administrator throughout my actions on Ayn Rand and Talk:Ayn Rand because of this.

dds3 ended with a warning about conduct, because too much of the contributions were violating WP:TALK with assumptions about other editors' motivations and so on. It was thus also justified.

• dds7 from Kjaer.
• dds8 from Idag.
• dds9 from Kjaer.

The above three edits continued the personalised comments directed at other editors which WP:TALK tells us we must not indulge in, and, given the explicit warning I gave, I felt I had no option other than to block them both for 24 hours, which I did. I then posted a message to WP:AN asking for administrator review of this action, since I felt that the matter could do with at least one more pair of eyes, and preferably more:

• dds10, Call for assistance on WP:AN (in which the diffs to the block notices are supplied)

I got only one response from an administrator: User:Slp1 via email, which I obviously cannot disclose, but it commended me for my tough talk and action, though suggested that Idag's block was too severe, as Idag was only acting defensively to the offensive (attacking) post by Kjaer, who was thought to be in need of "an enforced break". I will reveal the email to ArbCom members if they wish to see it and User:Slp1 agrees that they can. However, confirmation of what was written is given in the later messages on WP:AN:

• dds11 (in which the decision to unblock Idag early is given.)
• dds12 public agreement from Slp1 with a plea for more administrators to keep watch over it.

So, in contradiction to later claims by Kjaer and others that the action was questionable or somehow wrong, it was supported by an independent administrator, and I contend the use of the tools was reasonable under the circumstances.

Kjaer takes exception to me having a view about Ayn Rand

Kjaer did not accept that the block was reasonable, and quoted a message from me to argue that I had a negative POV towards Ayn Rand that precluded me automatically from being able to act neutrally as an administrator:

• dds13: Kjaer responses to the block

Kjaer was referring to this message where I expressed my POV. However, having a POV does not preclude one from being able to administer admin tools impartially, and I contend that I did. Note, however, that Kjaer makes a misinterpretation of the phrase "the least said the better" (as did the editor): in British English and the context in which it was written, it meant that with respect to my comments about the the Ayn Rand page, I'd rather not say anything, rather than that the content of the page should contain as little as possible. He then makes the assumption that since I have a negative POV about Ayn Rand, I am bound to be biased, and to want to impose my biases on the article and editors whilst attempting to somehow disguise this fact: Oh, and the block against Idag was hardly fair. I perhaps should have understood that any response by me, whether or not I avoided using whatever specific language it was you wanted avoided, DDStrectch, would seem objectionable to you. But Idag did not call anyone any names, and it is hardly necessary to block him while blocking me to appear fair. I suggest you unblock him. This is a gross failure to assume good faith, and it persisted so that every action I subsequently took was at great risk of being perceived as being improper, and it also coloured the views of other editors' who share Kjaer's view of Ayn Rand (see contributions to these procedings, and the editing history of Talk:Ayn Rand in which hyperbole, and other overgeneralisations are made, which space here precludes me from commenting on. I have commented on what I think is the major problem which initiated the criticisms of myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent failure to assume good faith on the part of Kjaer, etc

This edit: here. In particular, in the section "So, on DEC 31 he canvassed another Brit with whom he has collaborated before, and had the article frozen because of "edit warring." the war consisted of his deletions of sourced material and additions of negative comments. The article, was frozen, and we were supposed to come to an actual consensus on changes before anything was done once the article was unfrozen JAN 6." Kjaer provides no evidence that Snowded canvassed me, nor can he do so, since none exists. I should also like to point out that in this sequence of edits where I announced the end of the edit-war that Kjaer and Snowded were engaged in, Kjaer expressed his agreement and thanks for the protection that he seems now to decry. This allegation parallels what seems to be determined attempts on the part of SteveWolfer on my talk page] here and here to get me to admit to things that had no bearing on my decisions, by attempting to infer motives and hidden agenda that were not there and which exist only in his (and Kjaer's) imagination. Of course admins. encounter editors they have had interactions with on article and project talk pages when they take adminsitrative actions: it happens all the time. That doesn't mean they cannot be neutral, and it should be noted that I posted identical warnings about edit-warning to both Snowded's and Kjaer's talk pages here (with embedded relevant other messages and here (also with other relevant messages. The assumption that there must have been bias, or that there was even collusion between myself and Snowded on the basis of no evidence of that is a clear failure of good faith. This and this with my response here also show that unsupported allegations have been made at other times, and, in the case of SteveWolfer, were disproved by the response I got from the adminsitrator, Slp1, when I asked for comments about Kjaer's and Idag's blocks on WP:AN (diffs already provided in first section) A scan through the annotated list of almost all my edits on Talk:Ayn Rand (link provided earlier) will also throw up other matters.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment SteveWolfer about my inaction, and other inconsistencies

Links have been provided that show that Kjaer considers I should not have taken any action as an administrator (another example, and that SteveWolfer considers my administrative actions as questionable (see previous links, above). Indeed, after I withdrew from editing, as the constant accusations, together with my other comments that were meant to assist the debate sensisbly, meant I was too involved. Now in this edit on this page's talk page, I am condemned for not taking action! This seems to be a case of "damned if I don't, damned if I do" made all the more disappointing because I was trying to help SteveWolfer avoid being thought of as making legal threats on wikipedia (see here.)

Elsewhere, Kjaer has been shown to take exception to my involvement (diffs already provided, above), and yet he asked me for advice, in another example of inconsistency in approach to my involvement (here and my detailed response, for example). This and this are the messages I placed on the talk pages of the editors Kjaer talked about. This and this responded to this and a later message by Peter Damian. It appeared that I had already been condemned for taking administrative action, and yet I was still and am still being sought out to take administrative action and to be condemned if I do not, despite having expressed a desire to withdraw from the whole matter here, here, and here  DDStretch  (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this recent message from Kjaer contains attempts to contain sentiments that were included in various warnings I made on Talk:Ayn Rand on various occasions about editing style which Kjaer took exception to (on the grounds that I did not have a neutral POV - see previous diffs) and yet, despite most certainly having a POV, though not in direct correspondence to mine, we see that Kjaer is posting similar ones. However, their exact content, style, and interpretation and application of wikipedia policy and guidelines may be less similar, as is less similar its use on individual editors' talk pages. The most relevant similar message of mine is this one, whose breach led to Kjaer getting blocked for 24 hours, and which he took great exception to (diffs given previously). See also here, here, and here. I think there are either (a) serious inconsistencies in behaviour here that has the effect of trying to argue that a message like this directed at him is unfair, but at others, perceived to be "on the other side" are acceptable, or (b) Kjaer has changed his mind about the appropriate nature of the messages I posted, but has not seen fit to withdraw his complaints about my use of such messages, or (c) some other explanation that may need clarification.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section obviously negative

I'm new to this party so I will only make one point. The lead of the article sets an obviously negative tone on the subject. 4th paragraph states: "Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature, a lack of rigor, and a limited understanding of the issues she wrote about."

This sentence is well cited and I have good faith it's true. But it must belong in the Criticism section, not the Lead. Stevewunder (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad absurdum

(My apologies if this isn't serious enough for this august body; I thought perhaps a humorous tack would be a welcome change of pace.)
As I understand it, the core argument of those who are arguing that Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher is: No one bothers to contradict the false claims of her supporters, and therefore we must interpret dictionaries and search engines which don't explicitly call her one as meaning she's not one. It's too hard to prove a negative, and therefore we must extrapolate.[109]
My question would be this: Aren't the terabytes of arguments on Talk pages ample evidence that if someone gets pissed off at a false claim, they'll spend uncounted hours trying to disprove it? Hence, is it believable that no one has contradicted this false claim of hers because no one cared enough to write an RS? arimareiji (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==Evidence presented by Brushcherry

I admit to being flippant. But, seriously folks, it great to back here in Burbank. It is my understanding that arbcom doesn't decide "content" issues. that is, is or is not Ayn Rand a philosopher? Both "pro" and "con" on the issue, have numerous citations. Yet, if someone doesn't do something, the ayn rand talk page will soon dwarf the whole of wikipedia. (sorry being flippant)