That applies to article content, not stuff like this RFC.

Maybe an example would be clearer:

OK: The community doesn't like cryptocurrency, so decides not to accept it for donations.

NOT OK: The community doesn't like cryptocurrency, so turns the Bitcoin article into a hit-piece that only covers criticisms.

what about the second statement from wikipedia's principles: it is not a soapbox. It would be interesting to put banks to a vote with the same kind of arguments as well

> what about the second statement from wikipedia's principles: it is not a soapbox. It would be interesting to put banks to a vote with the same kind of arguments as well

Let me just put this this way: you are interpreting the text wrong, and repeatedly circling back to your wrong interpretation won't make it right. Pithy texts usually don't impart a full, correct understanding when read in isolation.

It's