Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arzel

Starting page
I have left a note on the page of everyone that left a message on the community support. I also started editing the page. I will need time and community input to finish this page. Casprings (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Endorsement and comment
Notified of this on my talkpage. I am not directly involved, but have been aware of Arzel's troubling issues, which the provided diffs give a reasonable sampling of. As I have stated previously, a political topic ban may not be enough, and I have suggested that an indef block for this editor should also be discussed. To be blunt, the provided diffs clearly show snide incivility, POV editing and long term violations of WP:TEND and WP:BATTLE. The | original comments and !votes at ANI should have been enough for a mandated political topic ban at the very least, but the issue became murky when it was taken to ArbCom, who delayed ruling on the larger case for over a month past the due date. Attempts to shut this Rfc/U down by those with, in my view, similar editing habits to Arzel should be rejected. Jus da  fax   17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose it running if it hadn't been ruined from the start by an editor trying to lead everyone to a conclusion rather than just let us decide on our own. You can paint pictures of collaboration or cabals all you want, but nothing will erase the taint this started out with. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense it is not "ruined from the start" Ivery strongly doubt very many people are so stupid that they will lead a slightly non-neutral wording change their reasoned stance. In fact I can only think of a couple of editors. In anycase people dont get out of trouble for disruptive editing because someone else makes a procedural mistake.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gee, I wonder why we even have that pesky guideline? If it's so pointless, I invite you to seek its removal. Until then, following it should be the norm and it was most clearly not followed. I love your drive to make sure that so-called disruptive editing is punished, but apparently could give a damn about the canvass guideline or any semblance of fairness. In the real world, murderers get off when the jury pool gets tainted, but there is no way disruptive editing can escape punishment (which appears to be your real concern) in Wikipedialand. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You have more strawmen? Canvassing is a separate offense that should get its separate consequences. Caspsringøs mistake doesnt suddenly clean Arzel of his. I am sure the canvassing will be taken care of at ANI. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Stating the vote in the opening text
Why is this problematic? To me, this is only telling the reader why the discussion is import. However, I am open to deleting it.
 * We can all count without your help and should be reading that RFC before opining here. So why do you have this continual need to try to lead people to a conclusion. Show us where we can find the info and get out of the way. Stop trying to insert conclusions or lead people. It's amazing to me that you can't learn from your blatant error. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats fine. I can accept that.  I will self revert.Casprings (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize. That was more harshly worded than it should have been. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I understand my original statement produced a bad taste in people's mouth.  I understand the reaction to more wording that appears non-neutral.  Casprings (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a debate
You're not supposed to debate the views on the project page. Here and here, you are responding to others views. The RFC instructions are very clear: All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Further down it repeats: Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section. Then in the outside views, it says "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" and "All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.". Seriously, stop trying so hard to "win". You should immediately remove your comments from the outside views. Not replace or reword...remove. They don't belong there at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page
The talk page section is there to show evidence that other editors attempted to deal with Arzel's behavior. Not to directly show WP:battleground behavior. That should be clear where it is placed on the page. Casprings (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the entries shouldn't be labeled as a leading recap of the edits (ie "ignoring edit warring warning" or "questioning good faith"). those labels look more like commentary on his actions, not evidence of other attempts. Additionally, you linked to his response or removal, not the actual warning, so it looks more like you're talking about his behavior than the attempts, regardless of the heading it is under. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed that while I was striking my support. Casprings (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing
I tried to work to make the RFC/U's opening statements as neutral as possible. Despite my admitted mistake of not watching the wording of my first statement, it still went to a controlled audience, the members who took part in the first discussion. Since those members already have some degree of knowledge of this, I disagree that the "bell cannot be unrung" and so forth. If there was damage done, it was relatively minor. I made a good faith error, which I am sorry about. However, I see no argument that my message, either first or second, will change the mind or taint the views of the audience it was sent to. I would argue that the RFC/U should be allowed to continue. There are issues there, at least in my view and the view of others, and those issues should be allowed to be explored. RFC/U is the best tool to explore the possible problems and shutting down the RFC/U only serves to ignore the concerns of 14 editors who saw a problem.
 * I wasn't one of those "controlled audience" members, yet I saw it. Claiming that it only tainted a few is clearly questionable since others saw it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You suggest your improper message won't likely affect the views of those to whom you sent the message. Perhaps, no one can really know. You presume your message only will affect those you sent it to. This is incorrect, people who follow the talk pages of editors they respect and have interacted with will have seen this. I did.


 * Here is the damage from my perspective. I don't disagree with the idea of an RFC/U for Arzel. There are things about his editing that annoy or disturb me. The fact that this began with a decidedly non-neutral canvas attempt makes me discount everything that this is supposed to be about. I feel that it is gaming the system. It smacks of vote-stacking and false consensus. Others may disagree, but thats how I feel about it and I am not alone in this. There is a reason that there is a policy against canvassing. The fact that someone can't see how it hurts the project and this RFC/U in particular, and believe that if there is damage it is only "minor", shows precisely why there is such a policy.


 * There is no deadline. If Arzel is as bad as you clearly believe, then he will face appropriate discussions and consequences with a proper process that is not "tainted" by breaking policy and then doggedly bulling ahead anyway. That's my opinion FWIW.  Capitalismojo (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * With so many users questioning my actions, I am no longer helpful or useful to this process. I am truly sorry for the mistake I made.  I will join the call for this to be closed and strike my support for the process.  Casprings (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Capitalsmojo and Niteshift are correct. If Arzel has behaviours that are questionable, he will eventually be brought to the appropriate noticeboard. Casprings, I agree closing it is the right thing to do. More importantly, it shows you are responsive to the community. Well done you. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Accusations / inconsistent terminology
So if a single editor #1 edits towards opinion "A" and Editor #2 and & #3  edits towards the opposite opinion  "B":
 * If you have opinion "B" then you say that editor #1 is "editing against consensus"
 * If you have opinion "A" then you say that editors #2/#3 are "tag teaming" As a few have said here (regarding Arzel)

If in a group feedback venue (such as this) if several people say/agree with: North8000 (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Something that you agree with, then say that it is "community support"
 * Something that you disagree with, then you accuse them of a "team effort" as Ubikwit has just done to several respondents at this RFC/U.