The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

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: 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC).

---

• Arzel (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

The point of this WP:RFC/U is twofold. First, to clearly define and show, with evidence, the problems that the community indicated User:Arzel demonstrates in his edits and discussions on Wikipedia. The second propose is for Arzel to acknowledge the problems of the community and indicate a willingness to change. For any problems that are not there, all other editors should also acknowledge that. The purpose of WP:RFC/U is not to provide any penalty for Arzel, as that is beyond the scope of WP:RFC/U. It is mearly to help define the problem, if there is a problem.

There was previously a proposal to sanction Arzel. In general, the community found he had a long history of WP:Battleground and WP:POV pushing. The case was taken by the Arbitration Committee. The Committee has defined the case as dealing with the Tea Party Movement 1, and is unlikely to deal with any behavior outside of those pages 2. As such, other behavior will not be dealt with by the arbitration case. The RFC/U is set up to determine the nature of the community's concerns and provide evidence to either support or refute those concerns.

Any Editor: Please provide any evidence here. Will work on formatting the evidence as it builds.

• Arzel was blocked in 2008 and 2010 for edit warring on other articles
• Questioning the good faith of other editors and insults, such as hereand here.
• WP:BATTLE in several cases. Some examples include here, here and here.
• Arzel is a single purpose account as with a political view to promote.
• misrepresentation, NPA; POV pushing - [1] [2] which he explained on the talk page saying the NYT and MSNBC were not reliable sources for the TPM article[3] stating sarcastically that all media should be included if the NYT was - which, btw, was supported by Malke 2010[4] who said "Agree with Azrel. What some dimwit from either MSNBC or the NYTs thinks of the TPM is not relevant." and that's from the last few days; also see here on this page, [5] BATTLE, misrepresentation, quoting bits out of context.

• battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, uncivil discourse: [6][7][8][9][10][11]

• pettifog retribution: [12][13]

• clear political agenda: [14][15][16][17][18]

• *Noticeboard discussion detailing disruptive editing and tendentious editing

• Edit Waring thread Final statement on thread was: "Stale - if I had reviewed this when it was live, I would have blocked; BLP is not an excuse to edit war over anything just because it's a biographical article."

• Noticeboard thread that found "I don't think Arzel should have removed that comment. The editor appears to have been asking about whether or not particular information should be included in the article. This to my mind seems an appropriate use of an article talkpage. Arzel's characterisation of the edit as WP:FORUM is therefore erroneous in this case and the comment should be restored. As for what should be done with Arzel, I'll defer to the wisdom of others."

• Noticeboard thread on edit warring on several articles

• Questioning the good faith of editors

• Attacking an editor

• Thread detailing behavior on administrator notice board.

{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:Battle
2. WP:Civil
3. WP:Tag team

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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.)

==== Attempts by Casprings ====

• Attempt to ask for no more personnel attacks.
• Ignoring Consensus

1. Failed to respond to this Talk page query [19] related to the edit summary of this revert [20] --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Malke has chimed in, I should provide further detail. The above revert by Arzel was a tag-team effort, with Malke being the counterpart. The following diffs represent the reverts by Malke between which the revert by Arzel was made, as well as relevant article Talk page queries that went unanswered by either of them. Three article Talk page queries, two to Malke the above-diffed one to Arzel:

[21] [22]

In response to three corresponding tag-team reverts, two by Malke and the above-diffed one by Arzel, which are currently at issue in the pending Arbcom case.

[23] [24]

So I don't agree with the teamwork effort to have the RFC/U filing negated because the initial notification was NPOV against Arzel. The An/I voting does not appear to have been inaccurately represented, even if the weight was against Arzel.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:#Casprings (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

1. FurrySings (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jusdafax 17:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if I am to understand this, the primary evidence against me is the removal of comments from my own talk page? Many of which are removed without any edit comment? It was my understanding that you could remove comments from your talk page whenever you wanted, except under specific circumstances. As I have stated several times, this RFC/U appears to be a direct result of my not thinking that Casprings proposal of a FA is worthy of FA status and general disagreements in general with regard to that article.

I do not endorse this RFC/U from the user Casprings and believe the initial submission of this RFC/U was extremely biased in presentation to the point of WP:CANVASS. I appreciate the other editors which have also come to this conclusion. Arzel (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

1. Collect (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Removal of material from one's own talk page is specifically permissable, (Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.) and is considered normal on Wikipedia. All of that entire sheaf of "evidence" is wertlos.[reply]
2. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorsed. This was tainted from the start. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Collect is correct, per WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING. There are only a few exceptions, such as "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction", certain deletions tags, etc. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Endorsed. People get a lot of latitude with their own User Talk pages. No reason to stray from that practice. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

This should be administratively closed since the OP has poisoned the well with his blatant canvassing as discussed in this ANI thread [25]. With the number of people he canvassed, it doesn't seem like a neutral start at all, rather the reverse. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Agree with Niteshift36. This should be administratively closed due to apparent lack of neutral start. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. WP:CANVASS was violated to a tremendous degree, and can not be "cured" readily. ArbCom has in the past made statements about such acts which are cited at WP:False consensus and "putting genies back into bottles" is not a simple task after all the "notifications" made. Collect (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with Niteshift. Due to the improper canvassing, this process was tainted before it even started. See the AN/I discussion for details. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. This should indeed be administratively closed. It is improper to continue after such a beginning. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Comment: Would agree, more for lack of substance, but am interested in whether Arzel would prefer to see this play out. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per talk page. Casprings (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on just one narrow item at this moment. The "widespread community support" item is incorrect twice over. WP:AN / WP:ANI's on vague behavioral claims are basically largely a measure of how many people want to go really far to pursue grudges or try to get rid of someone. And the creative summarizaiton in this RFC/U makes it doubly incorrect / overreachng. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC) (as proposer)[reply]
2. Collect (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the evidence presented to date, and in the context that it is the results of an effort to search for the "worst" stuff, indicated that Arzel is someone who's approach is average or slightly tamer than average of those who are active editors on political articles. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC) (as proposer)[reply]
2. Noting that a person was blocked in 2008 (five years ago) and in 2010 (three years ago) (woohoo!) shows that the evidence (?) is very thin, and the fact that a person removed a warning from their user talk page is not evidence of anything at all -- it is what most people actually do and is considered proper. And of course unsupported allegations of "tag teaming" do not belong in an RfC/U at all (Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil.) -- it is the sign of desperation to bring up that sort of unsupported allegation here. Collect (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Since removing a notification is perfectly allowable, I'm not sure why it's "evidence". Likewise, there is no requirement to respond to every allegation made. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsements, evidence, responses, and other signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Complaint withdrawn per discussion on talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2013 (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.