Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:51, 13 May 2013

To remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC).

• Arzel (talk · contribs · logs)

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.

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

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Description

There was widespread community support for a topic ban. In general, the community found he had a long history of WP:Battleground and WP:POV pushing.

Evidence of disputed behavior

• 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 - which he explained on the talk page saying the NYT and MSNBC were not reliable sources for the TPM article stating sarcastically that all media should be included if the NYT was - which, btw, was supported by Malke 2010 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, BATTLE, misrepresentation, quoting bits out of context.

• battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, uncivil discourse:

• pettifog retribution:

• clear political agenda:

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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 certifier C1

• Attempt to ask for no more personnel attacks.
• Ignoring Consensus

Attempts by certifier Ubikwit

1. Failed to respond to this Talk page query related to the edit summary of this revert --Ubikwit_{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: In response to three corresponding tag-team reverts, two by Malke the above-diffed one by Arzel, which are currently at issue in the pending Arbcom case.

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.

Other attempts

Thread detailing behavior on administrator notice board.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

Views

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. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. 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 Niteshift36

This should be administratively closed since the OP has poisoned the well with his blatant canvassing as discussed in this ANI thread . With the number of people he canvassed, it doesn't seem like a neutral start at all, rather the reverse. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Agree with Niteshift36. This should be administratively closed due to apparent lack of neutral start. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
2. WP:CANVASS was violated to a tremendous degree, and can not be "cured" readily. ArbCom has in the past made statements about such acts which are cited at WP:False consensus and "putting genies back into bottles" is not a simple task after all the "notifications" made. Collect (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Agree with Niteshift. Due to the improper canvassing, this process was tainted before it even started. See the AN/I discussion for details. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.