Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arzel 2

To remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''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.''

Please read the rules before participating.

Statement of the dispute
Arzel has a lengthy history of problematic editing and user conduct on Wikipedia, inconsistent with the project's goal of being "an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." A previous RFC/U, and several noticeboard and talk page discussions have failed to adequately address the issues.

Desired outcome
I am seeking input from the community about the validity and remediation of these user conduct issues.

It is hoped that Arzel can contribute to the project in areas where his political views don't affect his objectivity or his ability to work in a collaborative online social environment. Specific goals include:
 * Arzel will reform the conduct outlined in this RfC
 * Arzel will demonstrate competence in interpreting policies and guidelines
 * Arzel will agree to only comment on content, not contributors
 * Arzel will refrain from edit warring
 * Arzel will refrain from making accusations of bias, activism and POV-pushing

Description
The vast majority of Arzel's edits could be characterized as whitewashing, removing what he regards as "bias", and removing what he regards as "POV pushing". He removes far more content from the encyclopedia than he contributes and frequently engages in personal attacks, even after being warned repeatedly. He demonstrates a poor grasp of important policies, especially Neutral point of view and seems to have a disregard for user conduct policies like Edit warring, Civility, No personal attacks, and Consensus.

It seems that Arzel's main purpose here is cleanse articles of content unfavorable to people, organizations, issues, and causes that could fairly be described as politically conservative (in US political terms). He does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia.

Evidence of disputed behavior
I have limited the evidence to the past 18 months, with emphasis on the past 6 months.

Edit Warring
There is a pattern of edit warring by Arzel across multiple articles. He usually stops at three reverts, suggesting that he may be trying to GAME the system.
 * Ludwig von Mises Institute: 123
 * Fox News Channel controversies: 1234
 * Fox News Channel controversies: 123
 * Political activities of the Koch brothers: 123
 * Political activities of the Koch brothers: 123
 * War on Women: 123
 * Ted Cruz: 123
 * Washington Redskins: 123
 * Steve King: 1234
 * True the Vote: 1234

Uncivil behavior, personal attacks, and failure to assume good faith
Arzel has a history of commenting on contributors rather than content. These comments range from snarkiness to personal attacks.
 * "It would be far easier to accept these edits as good faith if the same actors were so zelous about attacking their commrades on the left."
 * "The goal of this article is to continually attack Republicans. Just wait until 2016 when it is used to attack Republicans in favor of Clinton."
 * "IP, the goal of this article is to attack Republicans now for political purposes. Historical accuracy is of limited value."
 * "So there is a new attempt to try and attack the Koch Brothers.... I realize that there are ongoing attempts to try and make the Koch Brothers look like bogymen,..."
 * "Liberalism at its finest. Free speech for all unless it is the wrong kind of free speech. No place better than wp to turn a molehill into a mountain."
 * "It is really tiring to have activist with an axe to grind against a specific group come to WP to push their point of view."
 * "NPOV violations by activist editor"
 * "Go do your activism somewhere else."
 * "revert conspiracy theorist"
 * "This is just plain stupid"

The following examples occurred after I advised Arzel: "I recommend that you "learn to discuss content, not motivations, or I'm almost certain that you find yourself topic banned from a great many articles that you probably enjoy editing. Wikipedia is not a BATTLEGROUND."
 * "POV Pushing. You really need to stop your activism on WP."
 * "If you can't use non-biased sources like the incredibly biased Maddow you have problems"
 * "What works for me is for you not to push your clear POV. Also for you not to treat WP like a Newspaper."

Inability or unwillingness to grasp core policies

 * The most alarming policy comprehension issue is Arzel's insistence that we are not permitted to use biased sources.
 * "We are not a newspaper Rachel Maddow has an extrememly biased perspective, her opinion is WP:UNDUE not to mention the circular nature of this whole nontroversy."
 * "No we can't. And you should know better than to use 3 very biased sourced synthesised with one actual fact to push your POV. Maddow, Mother Jones...ect.. What you are including is a fact and then tying it to biased opinion to promote a POV. Not only is it a violation of WP:SYNTH but it is a violation of WP:NPOV."
 * "Your insistence on using biased sources only show just how biased you are. By your logic that article should be full of MMfA crap because all they do is criticize Fox News."
 * "Don't bring up the political angle to me, when you see me using highly biased sources to trash others you might have a point. The only political angle here is haters of FNC."
 * Several experienced editors including Dougweller, Binksternet, BullRangifer, and myself (MrX) have tried to explain to Arzel that there is no policy that prohibits using biased sources.


 * Arzel often misapplies WP:NOTNEWS as an excuse for removing content:
 * "Undue weight for this nontroversy.No evidence of long term notability. WP is NOT a newspaper. Just because the far left continues to go crazy over this does not make it worthy of her bio."
 * "Not a newspaper, plus has nothing to do with being in the Senate. Nice though."
 * "undue weight wp is not a newspaper. discuss on talk"
 * "WP Is not a newspaper. No historical context as of yet."
 * "Undue weight. WP is not a newspaper. No evidence that this has garnered any national long reaching attention."
 * "WP Is not a newspaper"


 * The extent to which Arzel uses this policy to remove content seems to conflict with what the policy actually instructs: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."


 * He also tends to misapply WP:OR:
 * "Original Research. Synthesis of Material."
 * "One fact synthesized with 3 very biased sources is not a good way to write."


 * ...and WP:BLP:
 * Repeating the same massive content removal for which Darkness Shines was sanctioned
 * Contesting a heading which was inappropriate, but certainly not a BLP violation
 * "This needs some strong concesus. Far to easy to take out of context. BLP violations"


 * Other examples here.

Using Wikipedia as WP:BATTLEGROUND
Arzel frequently describes other user's edits as biased, POV pushing, or activism. This tends to have demoralizing effect on editors, and is not conducive to collaborative editing.

Mass deletion of sourced content with inadequate justifications
Large amounts of content are deleted with vague references to policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.
 * "NPOV abound."
 * "Highly POV"
 * "BLP issues"
 * "Not reliably sourced"
 * "Now it is just vandlism"

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:AGF
 * WP:BATTLE
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:DISRUPT
 * WP:EDIT
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:TPG

Attempts by Kerfuffler

 * September 9, 2012 - AN

Attempts by KillerChihuahua

 * February 24, 2013 - ANI

Attempts by Casprings

 * May 12, 2013 - Previous RFC/U
 * June 25, 2013 - ANI

Attempts by MrX

 * December 6, 2013 - User Talk Page
 * December 22, 2013 - User Talk Page

Attempts by BullRangifer

 * January 7, 2014 - User Talk Page

Attempts by KonveyorBelt

 * January10, 2014 - ANI

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * 1) MrX 18:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Brangifer (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

 * MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; goethean 19:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO talk  21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Casprings (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jus da  fax   05:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Response
I don't think I will be participating in this RfC. I think I may just stop editing for a while. WP seems to be currently dominated by activists wishing to promote their POV. In fact this is apparently even encouraged by the support of very biased sources for content. I have far better things to currently do than to try and keep WP neutral. I will point to two edits which illustrate my point. The first is for Far Right Politics and the second is for Far Left Politics. What I find interesting about these two edits is the very first part and is endemic of WP in general.

Far Right changed to
 * Unbiased - (The Far Right) usually involve(s) support for fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility, elements of social conservatism, and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism.
 * Biased - (The Far Right) usually involve(s) support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism, and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism.

Far Left changed to
 * Biased - The far left seeks redistribution of income and wealth and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification
 * Unbiased - The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification

All four statements are technically correct, however depending upon your point of view they are clearly biased against one or the other. Doug Weller (an Admin reverting an IP in both instances) clearly shows a bias against the far right, while the IP clearly shows a bias against the far left. Neither lead was neutral in the first and neither is neutral in the second.

This is typical of WP, and frankly I don't know if I have the time or patience to try and keep WP free of ideological bias, if anything it is worse. I first started WP because some people were using WP to promote their Ponzi scheme as something legal and mathematically sound. Well those same types of people are everywhere on WP and my patience with this type of person is wearing thin. Thanks to those that have spoken on my behalf. Arzel (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is another observation. Ironically, this is from BullRangifer's talk page. And editor that supposedly tried, in good faith, to come to some resolution.

This is supposedly a "good" editor, but I ask if such a clear activist stance is "good" for WP. Emphasis is mine.

"Censorship in the real world isn't just about images or pornography, but often about suppression of political POV (think China, North Korea, USA, and Iran), and that's the type we are seeing here. It's extremely unwikipedian and undemocratic. In this instance it is an extension of the Koch brothers' well known fetish for secrecy, in which they use shadow groups and dark money to carry out their political activities. Since Fox News is on their side, mainstream coverage is limited, because they are successful at hiding and manipulating any coverage of their activities. Therefore any reliable sources from the opposing side (usually activists) are fair game (per WP:PARITY) and should be used here. (Why PARITY? Because when mainstream sources fail to deal with a subject, we must use other sources. The same thing which applies to pseudoscience applies here.) If we don't do this, their abuses extend to Wikipedia, and their real world political activities, much of which they seek to hide, are not covered at all. Arzel and others continually harp about our need to cover their charitable activities, but we already mention that and their charity balls and support of the arts. It's minimal and mostly directed at things which benefit other wealthy. Big deal. Their political activities do exist and need coverage. They learned long ago that democracy (one vote per man) does not work in their favor, so they are all about using their money to subvert it, and some editors wittingly or unwittingly aid them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)"

Somehow I am an agenda driven editor because I have tried for several years to not let editors use WP to prove the WP:TRUTH or for their own personal WP:AGENDA. Note also that BullRangifer, by the date of this post, already had animus against me prior to this RfC. Pretty much makes this RfC invalid by definition. Arzel (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to TFD
First of all, please do not take my posts out of context. If you are going to quote me use the whole quote. Partial quotes with "..." to split the text is something that partisan opinion heads on TV do. If you read the whole statement you clearly see I was pointing out the irony of those trying to kill off the Conservatism Project thus validating the reason why those that created that project to begin with. Also, you completely missed the point of my statement about the Far-Right/Far-Left. The point is that one editor says one is good and one is bad, the admin says exactly the opposite. Additionally, it is well known and has been shown time and time again that journalist are overwhelminingly on the left. There is simply no debating this. Arzel (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add their views of the dispute. 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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by Robert McClenon
I haven't been involved with this editor until now. However, on reading over the diffs compiled by the certifier, it is clear that the editor has a long history of blanking content with which he disagrees, and of often using uncivil edit summaries when doing so. In some cases, what Arzel is doing is removing a characterization, such as "right-wing", and that, as such, is often desirable, since Wikipedia should not be making that editorial characterization without attribution. However, uncivil edit summaries are not desirable. More seriously, though, Arzel appears to have a campaign of removing analysis that is properly sourced when he considers the sources to be biased (that is, less conservative than Arzel). This campaign of removal of analysis and context shows at least a misunderstanding if not a disregard of neutral point of view. which does permit the use of reliable sources having a point of view if that point of view is noted. The systematic deletion of content is problematic. It isn't consistent with trying to achieve balanced encyclopedic coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The stated purpose of this RFC, like any user conduct RFC, is to try to persuade Arzel to change his editing style and be more collaborative. That would be desirable. However, I am not optimistic and do not think that is likely to happen, especially since Arzel is not a new editor and there have been previous efforts to deal with his editing via noticeboard threads and one previous user conduct RFC (that was poorly developed and then withdrawn). The real purpose of a user conduct RFC is to document the existence of problems for the record. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (as author of statement)
 *  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Brangifer (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - MrX 12:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel ( talk ) 17:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gobōnobō + c 20:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; goethean 20:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Casprings (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jus da  fax   04:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment to Collect
Collect states that this RFC is not well-formed, because a user conduct RFC should discuss a single dispute with a single user. On the contrary, a user conduct RFC is used to document and discuss whether a particular user has a pattern of conduct issues that may involve many articles over an extended period of time. As such, I strongly disagree with Collect's argument that this RFC is not well-formed. It is entirely about one user, Arzel. A user conduct RFC has never been limited to a single dispute with the user in question. (I partly agree and partly disagree with Collect's other statements about Arzel.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment to Howunusual
It appears that you disagree with the concept of a user conduct RFC, because it results in negative comments about a specific user. You are entitled to your opinion. I would like to ask whether you have a better idea for how to deal with problematic users. (I think that the user conduct RFC process has its limitations and weaknesses, and that changes might be worth considering. Do you have any specific suggestions?)  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Collect
The requirement for an RfC/U is that it be a single dispute with a single user and this one seems quite a melting pot indeed. A cursory look at some of the "bad behaviour" alas seems to indicate that it was Arzel who was doing the right ting -- the Fox & Friends bit
 * On May 30, 2012, Fox & Friends aired a four minute video created by Chris White, an associate producer at Fox News, assessing President Obama's term of office in a purely critical and very biased manner

violates NPOV on its face, and is not in the current article. Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson have filed suit to the Supreme court in response to the injunction issued to the ICR by the 9th Circuit court ... is not in the current article, and Arzel's position appears to be the consensus at this point. Many of the "examples" are normal for article talk pages, and to try making a mélange of poor evidence into a full-blown soufflé here alas fails. with "revert conspiracy theorist" does not appear to label an editor as such but
 * Because of his Canadian origin, the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement, could make him ineligible to be President.

inserted without sourcing in a BLP is properly removed per WP:BLP. Speculation about a person being ineligible to run for President is, indeed, the stuff od conspiracy theories. Arzel can be a strong advocate, but he is neither edit warrior nor villain as far as I can tell. I have on occasion crossed swords with him on issues, but never found him to be a "bad editor" on Wikipedia.

This RfC/U is, unfortunately, not well-formed per Wikipedia policy, nor is the "evidence" of such weight as to attract disinterested observers to separate the wheat from the chaff, of which there appears to be several bushels.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * Collect (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Joefromrandb (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * VictorD7 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --71.178.50.222 (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * CFredkin (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not knowledgeable or weighing in on the first half of the post; this is on the second half.  North8000  (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Mostly outside view by User:Iselilja

 * I see evidence of battleground behaviour as Arzel almost solely involves himself in contentious articles and disputes; I also see evidence of tendentious editing in that it’s mostly conservative related articles where Arzel worries about negative material. Likewise, there are negative comments directed to other contributors and general negative comments about people with other political views that himself (the last thing is unfortunately prevalent on Wikipedia).
 * I don’t however, quite agree that Arzel constantly misinterpretes or misuses Wikipedia policies. I evalutated some of the diffs where Arzel is accused of having violated core policies; and in many cases I didn’t find any clear violence of policy and in some cases Arzel appears to be right.


 * NotNews. Here there are 6 diffs and I’ll discuss them in order.
 * 1) Arzel removes Megyn Kelly’s black santa remark and controversy out of article. Here I believe Arzel was wrong. Paragraph is currently in article.
 * 2) Arzel removed a paragraph about Cory Booker having tweeted that he was snow shovelling for residents. This was reinserted and is currently included in article. I think it is debable, particular that this tweet is currently the only information about Cory’s Senate tenure. Looks tabloid/promotional. (Might have looked better in a section about public image or similar).
 * 3 and 5). Arzel removes two paragraphs with criticism of Fox and friends. One paragraph is currently in the article; the other is not. Arzel cited undue weight concerns, which I think have some merits, as the article currently is about 50% criticims and without Arzel’s removal criticism would have made up 60-70% of article. Just like Arzel should do some evaluation about his own edit patttern; so should editors who only write about Fox to insert negative material.
 * 4) Arzel removes a paragraph in the Paul Watson article about a law matter in the US. Paragraph cites «Environmental lawyer Robert F Kennedy Jr, the son and namesake of the slain political icon», wording here indicates to me that more than one side may have a problem with neutrality. Paragraph currently not in article, I can not evaluate whether it ought to be.
 * 6) Arzel removes material about a brief hospital stay that Harry Reid had, the paragraph included «An evaluation and testing concluded that everything was normal; doctors asked that he remain in the hospital for observation that day and he will not work except for telephone discussions regarding legislation». This is exactly the kind of material that should be removed by NotNews. While Arzel may not be a great fan of Harry Reid; I believe he did Reid a benefit here as I very much doubt that Reid or any other politicians have any interest in getting their biographies cluttered up with minor medical issues. The paragraph is not currently in the article.


 * Original research. Arzel removes Richard Murdoch from list of people who have criticised Wayne LePierre. Arzel is right. Murdoch called for stricter gun laws, but did not according to provided sources say anything about LePierre. This is a BLP issue, as we must not attribute living people statements they have not said.
 * BLP. Arzel removed the names of all scientists in List of scientists who oppose mainstream views on climate change per BLP concerns and argued they should stay out until AfD had finished. When someone inserted the names again, Arbcom member Courcelles intervened to remove the names yet again and locked the article, saying in the edit summary «Back to BK's 'BLP content out' version for AFD»
 * Some edits do seem to leave out information that clearly should be in the article; for instance Pamela Geller being banned from the UK.
 * In conclusion, I would encourage Arzel to start adding more new and uncontroversial material to Wikipedia; instead of mainly being involved in BRD cycles. He should stop treating Wikipedia as a political battleground. If he does not show any indication of changing his edit pattern, he might find that the community will at a point find that he is a net negative even if most of his edits are within core policies.
 * (I have been lightly involved in some of these articles)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * Iselilja (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - MrX 22:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (Partial endorsement. I concur with the first paragraph.)
 * , including that some of the removed information should have been removed and some of it should not have been removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Contribution by User:NE Ent
The implication put forth in the Description section seems to be that editors who primarily remove text are somehow unworthy Wikipedians. That's like saying Michelangelo wasn't very much of an artist because all he did was remove some rock from David. The internet has an estimated 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of data ; readers value Wikipedia because they have come to expect concise, balanced coverage of a topic. Please see fancruft and be concise. NE Ent 12:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Users who agree:
 * Noting my own editing of Joseph Widney down from 194K to 34K and GA status  (yep removing over 80% of an article improved it substantially).  The goal is encyclopedia articles, not mountains of text which do not benefit the reader. Collect (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Joefromrandb (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (don't delete deletionists)
 * I agree there is nothing wrong with deleting bad content. As TS Eliot said "Where is the knowledge we have lost in information"? Howunusual (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --71.178.50.222 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 *  North8000  (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * CFredkin (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mojoworker (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by User:The Devil's Advocate
What we see above is an RfC against a right-leaning editor supported by numerous left-leaning editors due to their objections to the right-leaning editor disagreeing with edits they make that largely favor their left-leaning views of right-leaning subjects. They accuse this right-leaning editor of "white-washing" and trivialize his concerns about POV-pushing by placing it in scare quotes. From an objective standpoint what we really have is a group of partisan editors objecting to another editor impeding their efforts to make Wikipedia articles more partisan. Such a case should be soundly rejected as political game-playing and BATTLEGROUND behavior.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * -- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 02:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not use "right" and "left" but the dichotomy in editorial opinions is clear - and the "group" which appears to seek addition of information which did not gain consensus overall then complaining here that this one person is the sole cause of such lack of consensus is disingenuous. WP:CONSENSUS is clear, and if one does not gain consensus for an edit, it is wrong to then arrack a person who did gain consensus.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * --71.178.50.222 (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the statements refer to "generally" and not a claim of being categorical about all persons involved, this roughly looks like what is happening here.  North8000  (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * CFredkin (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "What we really have is a group of partisan editors objecting to another editor impeding their efforts to make Wikipedia articles more partisan." That sentence sums up this joke-of-an-RfC perfectly. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

View by User:Howunusual. Discourage antagonism (including bashfests)
I'm not sure I understand this process...is an RFC/U an invitation to bash someone? If it is a request for comments on someone's editing, it should be a request on the good and the bad (and the ugly and the lovely), not just the bad. Are there examples of constructive editing to go along with the examples of alleged misconduct?

I mostly agree that the samples shown--which cover a year and a half--show too much antagonism. But, 18 months is a long time. Some of those links are from 2012. Arzel seems to mostly edit political articles, and those subjects tend to create rudeness from everyone.

I'm surprised at this: "there is no policy that prohibits using biased sources." Surely, that means it is OK to give the opinions of biased sources. Not that they can be used indiscriminately for factual statements, or even for opinions out of of proportion to other views that exist. As I understand it, Arzel's main objection is using biased sources to promote that bias in the articles.

Arzel needs to be less confrontational. That shouldn't mean he/she should be more "liberal." I'd like to see some examples of constructive edits, so this isn't just a one-sided bashfest. Howunusual (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * According to comments left on my Talk page, the answer is Yes, this process is an invitation to bash someone. On that note, my view:
 * 1) Arzel needs to be less antagonistic. Maybe edit some non-political interests for a while. 2) It improves an encyclopedia to remove bias. 3) A process that only looks at an editor's negatives, and not the whole editor, is itself antagonistic.

Users who agree:
 * 1) Mojoworker (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) More-or-less procedural, but yes.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Two kinds of pork
I have no involvement with Arzel or anyone else here for that matter. In fact I'm only aware of this because a few days ago I saw on the admin board this section go "blue" and that the stocks and pillory that are all too common there were put back in their boxes. After reading this page, and particularly the comments from Robert McClenon I read the page on a RFC/U, and I think the relevant portion from the page (which frankly should be at the top of every one of these things) reads:


 * Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct.
 * Allow an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their conduct.
 * Allow users to share information which might be relevant for later steps in the dispute resolution process, should that become necessary.
 * An RfC is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information.
 * An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration.

If Robert's suspicion Arzel is true, then yes indeed this process is about obtaining an official record. So after reading the assembled statements I started looking at some of the "evidence". At first I started to think this was a no brainer then skipped down further to the section called "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", and after reading a few I asked my self "What kind of fuckery is this?" $RIP Amy Winehouse$

First of all, most of those evidentiary items are linked to entire pages of discussions not even related to Arzel. This is reminiscent of a document dump. I would suggest if you are going to document a problem (and an attempt to solve a problem) you be a bit more specific. But that isn't what really irritated me. It was this entry by BullRangifer who is providing certification of this dispute that got my goat. To wit:


 * You seem to focus only conservative negatives. It gets harder and harder to assume good faith when you present only the negative against them. Arzel (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How ironic, coming from you. Look in the mirror and you'll see what WE see when you edit. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

also from the same link (Brangifer is adressing a new section where Arzel had yet to even respond)


 * Arzel, your objection has no basis in policy. We use biased sources all the time, and without them we would have little content. BTW, aren't you topic banned from these subjects yet? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone cares to tell me that the above example successfully masquerades as dispute resolution, then I'll request that they don't spit on my cupcake and tell me that it's frosting. Arzel may at fault here, but it takes two (or more!) to tango and if this is the best example of Brangifer trying to find a happy medium, then I suggest he may also be part of the problem. And he probably isn't the only one.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- VViking Talk Edits 07:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --Capitalismojo (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) NE Ent 12:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Anythingyouwant
Another "outside view" (i.e. the one by User:Robert McClenon that currently has fourteen endorsers) stated as follows: Arzel appears to have a campaign of removing analysis that is properly sourced when he considers the sources to be biased (that is, less conservative than Arzel). This campaign of removal of analysis and context shows at least a misunderstanding if not a disregard of neutral point of view. which does permit the use of reliable sources having a point of view if that point of view is noted. It is unclear to me whether the parenthetical is intended as humor, or intended to be serious. If humor, it is out of place. If serious, it is absurd, given that there is no evidence Arzel goes around deleting conservative analysis merely because it is not conservative enough.

A further problem with that blockquote is that it misunderstands the NPOV policy. Removal of properly sourced analysis and content is appropriate if that content is completely one-sided; i.e. when the people who inserted that content made no effort to balance it with further content reflecting the opposing POV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (as author)
 * 2) NE Ent 12:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) It is clear to me that it's intended to be serious, and it is indeed absurd. Ideally, we should all check our politics at the door before editing. While Arzel may not be 100% in compliance with that, the plaintiffs here are most certainly not either. It takes unmitigated gall for a group of editors with an openly pro-left agenda to complain that one of their counterparts is obstructing them. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)  North8000  (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

View by The Four Deuces
Arzel believes that Wikipedia reflects the "liberal bias" in mainstream media and academic writing and tries to correct that, by balancing "liberal" views with "conservative" ones. However, that is contrary to the policy of neutrality, which requires views to be presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Whether or not the mainstream actually has a liberal bias is beside the point - we are not here to correct it.

If he believes that Wikipedia should have a different criterion for neutrality, then he should argue to change that policy. But by adopting his own version of neutrality and attempting to insert it across a range of articles, he provokes needless arguments, which distracts from productive editing.

Below are comments made by Arzel that show his views.
 * "The underlying belief, by many, is that WP has a certain liberal bias..... WP is a reflection of the main stream liberal bias."
 * "The mainstream bias is dominated by Democrats in the US. Studies of media bias have shown that the news in general is slanted to the left in both commission and omission. WP is simply a reflection of this, there is no point in ignoring the obvious."
 * "Academic sources are also biased, but at least most of the hard sciences are less so. The biggest problem, today, is groupthink in academic circles. A bias which feeds itself because of the manner in which research funding is granted. Just try to get some funding if you have a dissenting opinion, and if your funding then comes from industry it is disregarding as being bought (as if government funding is somehow free of influence!)."

TFD (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) - A good summary of Wikipedia policy as to neutral point of view, defined with reference to reliable sources.  Otherwise I mostly concur with the statement above.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Very perceptive.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Mojoworker (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) I would like to have supported more sections in this RFC but as written this is the only one I can agree with without reservation.   N o f o rmation  Talk  02:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Arzel
I agree that both the far left and far right articles are poor. But your comments are misplaced. No reliable sources say that the defining attributes of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi party are "support for fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility" or that the defining attributes of the Weather Underground and the Red Brigades was "equality of outcome." TFD (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Involved (although not in this dispute) view by User:Arthur Rubin

 * 1) Arzel seems to have stated that biased sources should not be used in Wikipedia articles. This is wrong, per WP:BIASED.
 * 2) If all the sources used in an article are biased in a particular directions, that leads to an WP:NPOV violation.
 * 3) If all the available reliable sources are biased, then WP:NPOV appears to require that the article be biased in that direction. This may also be a problem.  WP:FRINGE applies if few reliable sources discuss the problem at all, but there may be a need for a modification to cover the question of what to do if only far right or only far left "reliable" sources discuss the subject.  I don't have a solution, here.  Arzel seems to want to "adjust" the article if only far left sources can be found.

(I'm not commenting directly on Arzel's conduct, only on the content he wants in Wikipedia articles, and the content which should be in Wikipedia articles. If I want to make a comment on his conduct, and my view differs from other views here, I'll add another view.)

Users who agree:

Summary
As was to be expected the mud is flung from both sides (since we're dealing, ostensibly, with US politics, there's only two sides), interspersed with valid arguments. It is disappointing to see accusations of partisanship when there are clearly some facts (edits) to be dealt with, something that could be done in an objective manner.

First of all, the RfC, as is suggested by some comments, overshoots the mark a bit. As NE Ent and Iselilja correctly point out, judicious removal is also good editing. A guy shoveling snow, that's not of encyclopedic value, and "rm per We're Not The News" strikes me as perfectly valid--and fortunately I'm not the only one. In fact, NOTNEWS is a perfectly valid rationale, as long as it is explained if challenged, but the diffs here did not go that far in depth. Second, if I may, not breaking 3R can be called "gaming the system"; as an admin I prefer to call it "something not doing something stupid that makes me have to block them". In general, then, I cannot find in this RfC sufficient proof that the editor's editing in general and per se is disruptive or in violation of policy. If this had been the case, seeking a topic ban would have been a logical suggestion as a next step. But wholesale "whitewashing" is not established.

What is clear from this RfC--directly and indirectly--is that the rather poisoned atmosphere of some areas of Wikipedia is making collaboration difficult and Arzel's edit summaries and some other comments (in linked ANI threads, even if they're old) are contributing strongly to this atmosphere. There will always be some editors who claim that it's all politically motivated (and I recognize some on both sides in this RfC who have a tendency to think that), but Arzel makes no secret of their opinion that editors often act solely or preponderantly on such a basis--and that, in itself, is a violation of WP:AGF and strongly suggests a BATTLEFIELD mentality. In fact, "you made that edit cuz you're a liberal/pinko/Ted Nugent fan/rich white dude" is a personal attack and should be blockable. It seems clear from this RfC that Arzel tends to cross the line, and that should be a word to the wise. If Arzel continues to play the man, not the ball, they should not be surprised if an NPA block comes their way.

And let that be it. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)