Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Objectivist Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Objectivist

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.

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.

• Antagonistic ranting at WikiProject Conservatism.
• Another antagonistic edit at WP Conservatism.
• Soapboxing at MfD for WP Conservatism.
• Antagonistic edit to my talk page. I had accepted his request for a debate but told him I would not participate anymore. He continued trying after I told him to stop.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Statement by Objectivist General rant about abortion on the abortion arbitration case.
• General rant at abortion debate.
• More general ranting at abortion debate, there are more 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]

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

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

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]

(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 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]

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

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

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]

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

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

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

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.

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]

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]
4. Agree with Hipocrite. Toa Nidhiki05 18:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[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]

(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. œ^™ 10:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.  

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]

Support. per my discussion with Objectivist below. --Blackmane (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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]

Apologies there, that's what I get for writing late at night. I got my definitions backwards. Read my comment in the opposite direction. i.e Soapboxing is spouting opinion about the content. --Blackmane (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but even so, you haven't altered the basic fact that soapboxing involves spouting opinions. So, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism&diff=453871273&oldid=453632428 --look at this link that was provided near the start of this overall complaint page, and tell me which statements I made are mere opinion (non-factual). V (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That diff shows you violating WP:NOTFORUM as opposed to soap boxing. You're asking a question about the members' beliefs, which could also be seen as a form of baiting. These are the sort of talk pages posts that others are trying to get you to stop. They don't do anything to improve an article or a project. --Blackmane (talk)

The question was asked politely. The response was not polite. Who, therefore, is more to blame? Are you implying that such questions should never be asked? Are you saying that people who believe things that are logically inconsistent are better qualified to edit Wikipedia than people who put facts and logic first? Part of the reason I asked that question was genuinely to learn how certain seemingly-obvious inconsistencies were resolved by Conservatives. And part of the reason I asked it was, if the result was as irrational as actually happened, to expose the Conservatism Project as being just a mouthpiece for opinionated soapboxers, something officially frowned-upon by Wikipedia. Relevant quote: "It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it." I've not done something for which an apology is necessary, therefore. And yes, Wikipedia might need similar questions asked in other times and places, by someone appropriately armed with facts and reason. Another relevant quote, paraphrased: "The tree of knowledge must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" --where the tyrants in this case are the book-burners, the zealously opinionated, and the patriots are all who have contrary-but-genuine facts. V (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question, as politely asked as it is, is entirely irrelevant to the project. I am not implying that such questions should not be asked, I am saying that such questions should be asked here. If you want to know about the "inconsistencies" then you go to a forum relating to Conservative policies and beliefs. The Wikiproject is devoted to the coverage of articles relating to Conservatism not to Conservatism. You assume that anyone who is a member of that project are also Conservative or Conservative leaning. That assumption is flawed. In fact, there are disclaimers on both the project and talk page. I quote from the Project page

"WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism."

and from the talk page I quote

"This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian."

If that doesn't make it black and white that what you posted to the talk page was inappropriate, then unfortunately, I'm afraid your editing career here will be very short. --Blackmane (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have left out a word near the start of your post. Do note that I had posted to the "Discussion" (Talk) page of the Conservatism Project. Next, is it not obvious that if my question had been answered properly (as in "discussion"!), I could possibly have posted it to an appropriate part of Wikipedia? Certainly an excellent reason to ask was that the answer wasn't already to be found! Note that if the question doesn't have an answer --that is, if the apparently obvious hypocrisies are real-- then that alternative-to-an-answer would be a fact that belonged in the Conservatism article, at least. Next, I do know full well that as an encyclopedia, it can include all sorts of opinions, so long as all such are labeled as opinions. What I object to is the insertion of unlabeled opinions. As a very minor and casual example, when that post was removed, this metadata was saved: "10:29, 4 October 2011‎ Lionelt (talk | contribs)‎ (29,690 bytes) (Undid revision 453871273 by Objectivist (talk) believe it or not this is the "conserva-tism" project, not the "conserva-tive" project: removed per WP:SOAP) (undo)" --since we are agreed that I had not violated WP:SOAP, Lionelt must have been expressing a (faulty!) opinion. How many other places --especially in articles-- has such opining been done? And, how often has such been used to delete actually-relevant questions or other data? V (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still fail to understand that the talk pages are not for use to discussing the topic itself and as an encyclopedia, it cannot include opinions. I suggest you have a thorough read of WP:NOT, which is a policy and repeated violations of any of the tenets therein is blockable, and WP:TALK, which is a community guideline but is so generally followed by the community that it verges on policy. Also, I highly recommend you read WP:IDHT, again this a guideline but the community often refers to this guideline as near policy and editors have been blocked indefinitely for repeated violations of it. --Blackmane (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making sense. How can an article be improved via discussion without discussing the article's content? That is, if you want to add some particular aspect of a topic to an article, you would be involving the community by mentioning it in the discussion page --and risk reversion if you boldly added it directly. Now certainly other things also need to be discussed, such as supporting sources, but it is literally impossible to entirely avoid discussing aspects of an article on the talk page. And you must be partly wrong about "as an encyclopedia, it cannot include opinions" --practically the entire Conservatism article consists of opinions (a.k.a. "beliefs") held by political conservatives. But they are described as being opinions/beliefs, and that's why they can be allowed in the encyclopedia. As I stated above, it is the unlabeled opinions that cannot be allowed --we completely agree, there. Finally, regarding "getting the point" in WP:IDHT, may I respectfully ask what unsupportable allegations I've repeatedly made? My second edit on the Conservatism Project discussion page (see link near top of this page) was about a different question than the first. V (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the nuance of the use of the word "discussion" in a wiki-context is being lost. Discussion of aspects of the topic of the article on the discussion page is exactly what is needed, but it's a very fine line between discussing the material being added in the construction of the article versus the discussion of the material itself. Understanding and recognising what one writes with regards to this is something we must all be wary of. This is the point of this RFC. The examples that are linked to generally find you musing about the content itself not how it will fit into an article, or in the case of your example, how it will benefit the project. My statement as to opinions not being included into articles refers to how one edits so that it does not mirror "our" opinions. When you say the opinions in articles are "described as being opinions/beliefs" you have hit the nail exactly on the head by saying "described". We, as editors, can only describe these opinions, because they are reported in sources that are deemed reliable. We are not writing about the opinion but writing about the fact that they have been written. This is the rub. --Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now, as I indicated earlier, a reason for posing my questions was to find out if those who know a lot about Conservatism (presumably to be found associated with that Project) had rational answers. And whether they did or did not, the results could be used in terms of adding more descriptions of Conservatism-related stuff to various articles (for example, "Nn response to claims that such-and-such opinions conflict hypocritically, Conservatives respond, ..."). The evidence, associated with the lack of answers and abrupt question-deletion, suggests they so desperately don't want any such stuff added to those articles that they have invoked this RFC to prevent it. After all, if I am banned, then descriptions of hypocrisies and anachronisms of Conservatism can't be added by me, right? Of course I still need some appropriate sources, but what good would obtaining them do, so long as opinionated article-tyrants (a.k.a. "bullies") can revert the results? That's why I like this RFC --they have exposed themselves! V (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources that you can use to back up what you propose to add to the article, and also provided the relevancy is appropriate, there is nothing stopping you from putting it in. Sure, articles with a political or religious bent tend to be contentious and often have controversial material added to it, but opening a discussion on the content that you wish to add with appropriate sourcing is the way to go, but ensuring that you don't run off on a tangent and actually begin analysing the material in depth. Like I said before, the rub is not to begin posing discussions about the content you want to add but about how it will fit into the article. Editors associated with the project neither need to know a lot about the topic nor do they need to believe in the topic. The reason your questions have been repeatedly removed is that they violate WP:FORUM, which I have already stated. An RFC/U is not a forum with which an editor is banned or sanctioned. This process is meant to bring together disparate views from, preferably neutral and uninvolved such as myself (as I restrict myself to copy editing), editors to comment and suggest ways forward for the editor in question to work better with the project. What we want you to understand is that we want you to contribute, but in such a way that is governed by the policies and guidelines of Wiki. --Blackmane (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is in the pudding. We shall see what happens after I find some sources; I've seen (in the Cold Fusion article just how finicky and close-minded, regarding Wikipedia policy details, can be those who emotionally embrace a certain point of view, before all the facts are in. V (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I advise being wary of controversial articles such as these. Articles dealing with Fringe theories are some of the most contentious battlegrounds and regulars in such topic areas are very careful to make sure that single purpose accounts do not skew the article with non neutral points of view. Hopefully, our discussion has bore fruit and that you will take to heart what many editors have brought to light in this RFC/U. Again I stress that this process is not to dig out all the dirt (although this does sometimes happen) but to bring a wider community view on what an editor is doing wrong and how to engage the community in a way that is in line with policy and guidelines. --Blackmane (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Support per Toa NYyankees51 (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

That already happened after ANI discussion [10].

Comment by others:

Just sayin'. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Objectivist (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked for failure to understand the issues raised in this RFC and disruptive editing with repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. causa sui (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.