Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Objectivist

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Objectivist (talk | contribs) at 05:45, 21 November 2011 (→‎Future behavior). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC).

Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.

Cause of concern

Objectivist, who signs his messages V, is unusual in his editing. He has been editing regularly since November 2009, but in nearly two years, he has made only 26 edits to mainspace and 944 (66%) to talk pages. His antagonistic soapbox talk page edits on abortion/political articles is problematic. Here are just a few recent examples.

These are just a few examples. All this user wants to do is talk. And he seems to want to antagonize. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

  1. WP:SOAPBOX
  2. Wikipedia:Civility
  3. WP:FORUM

Desired outcome

This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.

My goal is that Objectivist/V will stop his antagonistic talkpage edits. Editing almost exclusively on talkpages is not problematic in and of itself, but talkpages are for discussing improvements to Wikipedia. This user hasn't shown much interest in that. I hope he will cease endless soapboxing and contribute to the encyclopedia constructively. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Efforts from User:Will Beback. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Efforts from User:Lionelt. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

  1. He posted soapbox comments to the WikiProject Conservatism talk page. I reverted. Then he started soapboxing at the Conservatism MfD. I asked him to stop. Now he's trolling my user talk page. – Lionel (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have warned him here, perhaps not in the best fashion but a warning nonetheless. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

  1. Extensive trolling and soapboxing as noted by others e.g. [1] in the MfD. Needs to stop. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.


Q.

A.

Response

The first handy dictionary (a paperback) that I picked up has this definition of "rant": to rave in extravagant or violent language; declaim vehemently.

I'm confident that extremely few of my postings among the various Wikipedia pages actually qualify as a "rant". Any exaggeration here, towards such a description, is obviously intended to distort the issue here.

Regarding "soapboxing", that same dictionary defines a relevant "soapbox" as: any public forum for expressing one's ideas.

So, I happen to have the idea that people should mostly post facts and not opinions to encyclopedia articles, and I don't mind saying so in multitudinous ways. I have no real objection to a relevant opinion being included in an article if it is described as being an opinion. So, if I happen to encounter someone who blatantly states something that is obviously not proved to be a fact (and therefore is an opinion), then I think of it as being a duty, for the benefit of Wikipedia, to let that person know that that unproved statement is indeed an unproved statement --and it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia unless it is properly characterized.

Regarding antagonism, there are two aspects to consider. I will admit fault with respect to the aspect of "getting carried away". But I will not admit fault with respect to the aspect that someone should be allowed to post non-factual stuff as if it was factual, and reap no consequences. Perhaps NYyankees51 would prefer to be banned by someone in Authority, than to suffer a little antagonism in the form of accurate statements? There's a well-known saying, slightly modified here, which seems relevant: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me --except the Truth." If NYyankees51 claims to have been psychologically upset (a.k.a. "antagonized") by Truth, whose fault is that, really? V (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Applicable policies and guidelines

WP:SOAPBOX almost specifically mentions how opinions can be included in articles only if they are described as being opinions.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.


Q.

A.

Additional views

This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.

Outside view by Born2cycle (talk · contribs)

I saw a notice of this RfC on Will's talk page. I looked over the evidence and have the following comments.

  1. This seems premature. The first effort to try to resolve this is from only a week ago, the second is from yesterday. And that's it. Maybe evidence of more effort to resolve is yet to come, but so far there isn't much at all. And both efforts are pretty soft, more like suggestions than specific requests. To jump to this formal process from that seems like too much of a leap.
  2. Maybe I missed it, but what I haven't seen is anyone take a few minutes to explain to Objectivist that sharing his personal views, or debating topics, is not appropriate on article talk pages.
  3. Besides that, which isn't major, I don't see any evidence of any really serious transgressions.
  4. I suggest ignoring could be quite helpful in these situations.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Born2cycle (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view Have mörser, will travel

Additionally, a number of User:Objectivist's contributions to talk:cold fusion appear to verge on advocacy: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (This is a limited sample of his posts on that talk page, selected from his edits between mid Feb 2011 and today.)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. More than verge - are. Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view Have mörser, will travel (2)

[Separate entry because this is unrelated]. User:Objectivist signs his posts as "V (talk)", and that in itself can be confusing because there is another registered User:V, albeit inactive. Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Lionel (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Toa Nidhiki05 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by causa sui

(1) There is no requirement that contributions to Wikipedia take place mostly in article name space, or in any particular name space. All editors contribute in their own ways, and we do not demand a particular ratio or balance of namespace edits from anyone.

(2) Wikipedia Talk pages exist, either directly or indirectly, to facilitate coordination between Wikipedia editors in building the encyclopedia. They are not to be used for any purpose inconsistent with the mission, as other uses crowd out the legitimate productive discussion and distract productive editors from building the encyclopedia.

(3) The diffs provided suggest that Objectivist views Wikipedia talk pages as a forum for debating political and philosophical issues. He apparently enjoys the adversarial and competitive nature of debate and posts provocative comments baiting others into debates with him. Per #2, Wikipedia talk pages are not such platforms.

(4) His response to this RFC also suggests that he believes the lack of willingness from his "opponents" to engage in talk page debates with him that are unrelated to the mission is an expression of their cowardice, which fits the bill of "trolling" for debate or adversarial discussion.

(5) Objectivist should acknowledge that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for debate and discussion and cease trolling talk pages or initiating talk page discussions unrelated to building the encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. causa sui (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I still think more effort should have been made to explain this before taking it to this level, but this is exactly what needs to be said. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, this must be said. Objectivist should concentrate on actionable talk page interactions aimed toward article improvement. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agreed. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Lionel (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Horologium (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ϫ 10:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

WP:NOTFORUM

1) Objectivist should acknowledge that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for debate and discussion.

Comment by parties:
Support, this is required. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a bare minimum or in conjecture with much tougher sanctions. Toa Nidhiki05 00:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Future behavior

2) Objectivist should agree that in the future he will not to begin or participate in talk page discussions unrelated to building the encyclopedia.

Comment by parties:
Who defines "unrelated to building the encyclopedia"? I might claim that the entire Conservatism Project is unrelated to building the encyclopedia, but that doesn't make it true. Likewise, just because someone else might make such a claim about something that I write, that doesn't make it true, either. V (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not, your fellow editors do. This is not something that is up for discussion, either. causa sui (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens I am one of the "fellow editors" around here. What you are saying is that any bullying group can have its way, just by as-a-group denouncing the posts of anyone they don't like. And, of course, by deleting posts to which they can't provide a rational response. (Like you did, instead of moving what I wrote to a more appropriate location --your deleting of someone's defense is by far more-indefensible than my posting it to the most logical place, especially when nothing on this page states where a defense against badly-flawed secondary accusations should be posted.)
We're focusing on you, not the project. And a more appropriate place to move your rant would be another website, not Wikipedia. That's the problem - you refuse to understand. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand bullying very thoroughly. Are you admitting to bullying? Because you are most certainly lying with respect to applying the word "rant" to my posts. Again, just because a like-minded group holds certain opinions in common, that does not give them any right whatsoever to attempt to suppress contrary facts --or attempt to suppress sources of contrary facts. Indeed, any such attempt, in a fair social system, should backfire upon them. (But of course the only way to find out if a system is fair is to prod it....) V (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by others:
This is too broad and needs to be restricted down. Everyone wanders off on a tangent a little at one point or other and those comments can all be seen as not conducive to building an encyclopaedia. Objectivist should take on board comments by other editors when they're told that their posts are soapboxing or engaging in forum-like discussion. Although I wouldn't put their posts under the rant category, but they do trespass into WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. --Blackmane (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Topics tend to wander because almost everything has connections to other things. In my posts I often explore some of the connections, and simply/only because it leads to longer posts, I suspect that is what makes my posts look more like "soapboxing" than they actually are. Yet it is important to explore connections because that is how genuine facts are proved to be factual. When mere opinions are faulty, they tend to be proved faulty when they don't connect properly to other things (just like lies). Wikipedia may not have an especial focus on Truth, but to the degree it hopes to be actually useful as an encyclopedic repository of knowledge, that is the degree to which it cannot allow mere opnions to trump facts. No matter how-well-referenced are those opinions. V (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies part of the problem. "Exploring the connections to prove the facts" is original research and synthesis. It is not our place to connect the dots. If one reliable source says one thing and another says something different then it is not up to us to segregate what is the truth but that we must present both in as neutral a way as possible. -- Blackmane (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've run into the "original research" problem on a number of occasions. But it was never called "soapboxing" before running into a certain group of opinionated people who don't seem to be interested in facts that defy their opinions. And, to the best of my knowledge, "soapboxing" technically is about spouting one's own opinions, regardless of the actual relevant facts. Which I've actually tried to avoid doing (and which is why the entire Conservatism Project --and any similar Project-- could be truly guilty of soapboxing!). V (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A recent Web cartoon is explicitly pointing out the fundamental flaw in Wikipedia's (paraphrasing) "verifiability is more important here than Truth" policy: http://www.xkcd.com/978/ V (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with Wikipedia policy, take it somewhere else. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was linking to some else having a problem with Wikipedia policy. If I'm having a problem here, it is only about bullying. What's the WP policy on that? V (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soap boxing is spouting one's own opinion in relation to the presentation of the content not the content itself. This is what you are not understanding. --Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I'm not understanding that definition. Because I stated that I try to not include my opinions in my posts. Therefore I cannot be soapboxing if I am only presenting facts "in relation to the presentation of the content". V (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BATTLEGROUND

3) Objectivist should acknowledge Wikipedia is not a battleground. He should acknowledge that, per WP:BATTLE, he is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. He should agree to not insult, harass, or intimidate those who hold views different than his.

Comment by parties:
Support in conjuction with tougher sanctions. Toa Nidhiki05 22:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Objectivist&oldid=461721916"