Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Objectivist

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: 21:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• Objectivist (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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.

• 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)

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:SOAPBOX
2. Wikipedia:Civility

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)

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)
2. Efforts from User:Lionelt. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

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)

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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)

Outside view by

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.  

Template

1)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

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.