Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arzel 2

Page certification
I'm looking at the page history and it does appear that this RfC/U had the two required endorsements within 48 hours. Shouldn't it now be moved from a candidate page to a certified page? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Write a Summary and close the discussion?
This thing has been open for a while. Perhaps someone would like to suggest a summary and make a motion to close?

Statement by BullRangifer (Brangifer)
I would like Arzel to clearly state/explain several things with full answers, not just yes or no. I want to know their understanding of these issues:


 * 1) That they will stop their whitewashing of right wing articles of criticism, especially the GOP, Tea Party, and Koch brother related articles, as well as other articles favorable to right wing POV. This has gone on for far too long and violates the spirit of Wikipedia, as well as the NPOV policy which requires the inclusion of opposing POV. Articles are not supposed to be sales brochures for the subject. They are supposed to include criticism from opposers. If Arzel can't do this, they should be topic banned.
 * 2) That they AGREE that Wikipedia's sourcing policies do not forbid the use of biased sources.
 * 3) That such sources are often deemed RS for the expressed POV and opinions.
 * 4) That they should allow and defend the use of sources which are diametrically opposed to their personal POV and which they might find abhorrent.
 * 5) I want them to explain WHY we use biased sources all the time. If they don't understand why, then any agreement is worth nothing.

Brangifer (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Arzel should immediately give a date certain when he will stop beating his wife, and voluntarily accept 1RR if he fails to meet that deadline, in addition to a permanent self-imposed topic ban from all articles related to wife-beating, broadly construed.
 * Seriously, I don't think Arzel is opposed to using sources that have a POV, as long as they have been presented in context with opposing POVs in proportion to real world occurrence and weighting per reliable NPOV sources. When that has not been done, deletion is often much more efficient than correction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You must not have checked out his history of deletionism. His opposition to sources which are negative toward right wing POV is quite obvious. He has often deleted them because they were "biased", even when they came from RS. He needs to understand that "bias" is not a legitimate reason for deletion. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the problems I see here is that you have failed to identify the single best example of the conduct you allege. Please do so, in order that we might focus upon it.  Right now, the focus is diffuse and the evidence unconvincing.  I have tried to check Arzel's history, and find Arzel's opposition to anti-right-wing sources entirely appropriate when those sources are used without any attempt to provide NPOV balancing with opposing sources.  You, User:BullRangifer, have not even acknowledged that lack of such balancing justifies deletion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a new RfC, so see the RfC, started by someone else, for evidence, then check Arzel's contribution history. As far as "NPOV balancing", that's what this is about. The articles are about right wing subjects, ergo already for them, and the sources being deleted are what is creating the "NPOV balance". Without them, the articles tend to be sales brochures for the subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't accept your notion that an article about a right-wing subject inherently favors the subject so all of the actual content can be negative. I also don't understand your refusal to say which article is your best example.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not my notion at all. Content should be both positive, neutral, and negative, but Arzel keeps removing the negative, making the right wing articles into sales brochures for the subject. That violates NPOV. Because many RS do contain criticism, the articles should contain some content of that nature, but Arzel deletes it because it's from "biased" sources. That's a gross misunderstanding of our sourcing and content policies, as well as an obvious failure to understand NPOV itself. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm honestly trying to understand your position so that we can summarize and close this. The only examples I have seen are where Arzel deleted negative because it was grossly disproportionate to positive.  Please help by pointing me to your best example.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to BullRangifer (edit conflict). "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)" The last highlighted sentence of yours is a perfect example of why I am not going to participate any further in your demands. Arzel (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't believe that BullRangifer in good faith was in a position to certify this RfC in the first place, as I stated in my statements.
 * 2) This is my response to your demands.  Some of your own statements show that you no intention of following some of the demands that you leveled against me and if anything, I think your belief in sources should be questioned, not mine. You seem to believe that WP should be used for the WP:TRUTH (emphasis mine).
 * You have obviously learned nothing from this RfC, so I see no other choice than to request that you be topic banned. Actually a total ban, based on your failure to understand basic sourcing requirements, would be even better, but I doubt that will happen, so I'll settle for a topic ban so we get less deletionism and disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * May I provide a summary of your argument against me? "The Koch's are bad people and everyone must know how bad they are.  Arzel won't let me use my biased sources to show just how bad they are, plus he insists on including the good things that Koch's do, even though we all know they are really bad.  Because of this I think Arzel should be banned from these topics."  I would say that summarizes your demands and your personal statement on your own talk page.  Arzel (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Straw man. This is not a new RfC, and I'm not going to engage in a tit for tat discussion with you. You exhibit a total lack of understanding for why someone started this RfC, and for why people see your deletions as problematic. That's a very negative learning curve, and editors with a negative learning curve are a detriment to this project.
 * I was asked to make a statement here, and I've done that. If your response had showed some sort of attempt to learn from this, we might make progress, but your response reveals this is a waste of time, so I ask that we just cut to the chase and topic ban you. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Pause and rewind Gentlemen, this space is not meant to rehash the arguments meant for the main RFC/U page. Here, you should review the various comments and the endorsements that they got and base your proposals off of that.  What I gather from a cursory view is that 60% of the editors are supportive and 40% non-supportive of the central argument of this RFC/U (numbers based on initial impression only).  If I were ya'all, I would do your own detailed analysis of the arguments and the supports.  Many of the comments were about the certifiers.  Ya'all's purpose here is to develop a summary of the RFC/U that accurately describes all of the viewpoints with the appropriate weight and then get each other to agree that it's a neutral summary.  That has zero to do with making your argument, again, and everything to do with reviewing what others said.--v/r - TP 18:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine. I do not accept the argument that biased sources are or should be used in the manner which BullRangifer believes that they should be used.  I will not accept those demands.  If BullRangifer wishes to take this further than he should do so now.  Arzel (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for once again making it clear that you do not understand our sourcing policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Casprings
Why not just summarize the two sides and be done with it? For example:

There is significant disagreement regarding the behavior of Arzel. Some editors believe that Arzel believes Wikipedia reflects the "liberal bias". He thinks that mainstream media and academic writing reflect this bias 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." Many editors believe that he has shown WP:Battleground behavior in correcting these preceived biases.

On the other hand, some editors feel that the RFC itself is an example of battleground behavior. They believe the RFC is 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 argue that there is a group of partisan editors objecting to another editor impeding their efforts to make Wikipedia articles more partisan. Casprings (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It can be done by an administrator, but it's considered controversial. Guidelines recommend the certifiers and subject try to summarize it themselves.--v/r - TP 19:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying why don't they just agree to a summary and be done with it. That suggested summary was directed to them, not you. Casprings (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad, carry on ;)--v/r - TP 20:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by North8000
Nobody's behavior is perfect, or so good that it couldn't benefit from some feedback. But after a review of this, IMHO Arzel's behavior in the alleged areas is far better that many of those who are piling on alleging misbehavior. IMHO the aspect here of trying to use the system as a way to deprecate someone the some folks perceive to be an "opponent" (or others trying to mitigate such an effort) has overwhelmed this RFC. Further, the amount of creativity (cherry picking, spinning up, creating a lens to view each through, etc.) needed to present a negative-appearing picture here is IMHO evidence that there is not really any problem that rises to the level of a typical RFC/U situation. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)