User:Casprings/sandbox/RFC

Statement of the dispute

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.

Desired outcome

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.

Description

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.

Evidence of disputed behavior

• 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.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(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.
• Attempt to ask him not to ignore consensus. Ignoring Consensus

Attempts by certifier Ubikwit

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)

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)

Other attempts

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15