User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2021/June

Community Sanctions Alert
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC bias?
Hello again! You recently said that the RfC prompt I wrote was biased. I don't understand what you mean, but I'd certainly be willing to think about it if you were willing to identify more specifically what you thought was biased. Anyhow, cheerio! Benevolent human (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * A concise, neutral RfC would read: "Should Omar's alleged stereotyping of American Jews be mentioned in the lead?"
 * You begin by saying that while the previous RfC failed because of lack of continuing news coverage, that had now been met. You then provide evidence to support your position. You even state as a fact in the second sentence that Omar stereotyped Jews. An editor who wanted to exclude this information would not have phrased the RfC this way.
 * TFD (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you're right. Some of the other RfC prompts are also pretty long, like this one which I was comparing it with in my head, but they don't have evidence for or against in the position in the RfC prompt itself, they put that below. Benevolent human (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for saying that. What I do is after writing a brief, neutral question is make sure I am the first to answer it. You could have done that by using the wording I suggested and putting the rest of it into your vote. Also, it's helpful to set up a separate discussion section. A lot of discussion in the survey/vote section discourages editors from voting.
 * It looks like the the anti-Semitism accusations against AOC, Omar and Tlaib never really went anywhere. That surprised me because they had been used extensively in the UK against Jeremy Corbyn. You'll avoid a lot of conflict if you accept that it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what is important but merely to summarize what is considered important in the body of reliable sources. If the only interest is in Israeli and U.S. Jewish publications, then it lacks weight for inclusion until major U.S. media decide to pick up on it.
 * Bear in mind that all of us have our own opinions about what is important and that partly explains why different people rely on different news sources. If we were to decide what was important based on our own opinions, there would never be consensus. Americans today are polarized and mainstream media including Fox News represent a small minority of public opinion with most people being either to the left or right of their views. You have to decide whether or not you are willing to work within that.
 * TFD (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Invalid RfC closure?
I reverted your RfC closure because I thought the rule was it needed to be closed by an uninvolved editor? Feel free to {ping} me if you want to discuss. Anyhow, I left a message on the talk page of an arbcom member to ask advice for what we should do: User_talk:CaptainEek. Benevolent human (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , since I haven't contributed to the RfC, I believe I am am uninvolved. There is nothing however to stop you from closing the RfC and moving your request to Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. That is the only place where ARBCOM issues can we decided. TFD (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you do file a clarification request, I would appreciate being notified or named as a party. If you don't intend to, I would similarly appreciate knowing so. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD, just FYI: in your ARCA statement, you linked a few times to Ilhan Omar where you almost certainly meant to link Talk:Ilhan Omar, and it means the section links aren't working. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now corrected. TFD (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)