Jump to content

User talk:Cbuhl79

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cbuhl79 (talk | contribs) at 20:22, 27 October 2006 (→‎Please, Please). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Weasel Words

As someone who is also peeved by the use of weasel words at WP, may I suggest adding a Template:Who or [who?] tag to weasel words instead of simply deleting the text. If the tag isn't removed by a cite quickly, then delete with explanation. Deleting info simply because it contains weasel words will more often than not lead to edit wars and will not be looked upon kindly by other users. Ramsquire 19:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

You only have one left. Here are the reverts you've made here, here, and here. Ramsquire 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: comments on my talk page

Sorry, but I will not be participating in that RfC. I have a very hard time assuming good faith with single purpose accounts, but that really is just one small part of the situation. Good luck in your RfC. AuburnPilotTalk 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please leave comments on user talk pages rather than user pages. AuburnPilotTalk 19:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for editing your User Page, that was entirely accidental as a result of following different links at different times. As far as single purpose accounts, you should be able to see that I created my account well before this incident, and that I've removed some WP:WEASEL terms and WP:PEACOCK terms elsewhere. A small number of edits does not mean an account must be WP:SPA. Cbuhl79 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, and that's why it is only one small part of the situation. Again, good luck in your RfC but I have no desire to participate as I believe the issue was resolved fully in that last one. AuburnPilotTalk 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fox News

The RfC is malformed because you have not followed the procedures to set up a proper RfC, like listing it on the RfC page. But that is ok. I think the comment I left sums up my position on both the wording and your RfC. If you want to move it to another section, you have my permission. Ramsquire 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOX News article

from a cursory look, i get the impression that you might be being too bold in your editing. wikipedia is a slow process. i'd try to get some input from the others. wait a bit longer for more views before making a change that may invoke controversy. then if no one speaks up after a reasonable time period, well, IMO, they have no right to cry foul. i'd focus on trying to get them to participate in working together on a better version, but perhaps not with so much urgency to produce it as you may be inclined. Kevin Baastalk 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'm not trying to force these edits through without consensus, but it's frustrating when the other editors involved seem to want to focus on nothing more than the fact that they believe that a consensus was already reached, and have constantly accused me of everything from "sour grapes" to being a "single-user account" to WP:POINT violations, and yet haven't responded to my WP:NPOV objections. Cbuhl79 20:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions, specifically making that change this morning, contradicts your assertion. And I have repeatedly responded to your NPOV objections and proposed a paragraph incorporating your suggestion. To say that I want to focus on nothing more than "my belief" that consensus was reached is just not true. Ramsquire 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I was referring more to the other editors than to yourself. Nonetheless, I can't find an edit where you proposed incorporating my suggestion (can you link it for me?). As far as the change this morning, I made the change only after discussion with other editors yesterday. (please note my continuing objections on the other talk page) Cbuhl79 21:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the edit summary here, and here where I suggest adding the note to specify some of the critics. Ramsquire 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As yes, thanks for finding that out. As is probably obvious, I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion to cite the critics, which is what I am trying to get done now. Until Blaxthos declared that consensus had been reached, I felt like the discussion was progressing, and was a little taken aback at how strongly everyone insisted that we were done. Cbuhl79 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Abuse

The preceeding was found left on Kevin's talk page by Cbuhl79. I think this is just a continued example of how Cbuhl abuses the good faith issued to him.

To Cbuhl79:

I would like you to demonstrate where any one of us has issued any sort of personal attack against you. Please give us examples of how we've "attacked and accused" you.

/Blaxthos 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's a good example "renegade editors who violate WP:POINT, ignore WP:CONSENSUS, make unilateral changes to articles based on his POV". I'm not sure what WP:POINT you think I've tried to make (except perhaps that WP:NPOV is an inviolate principle of Wikipedia), and I'm not sure how you can characterize me as a "renegade" editor who makes "unilateral" changes, despite the fact that I have only made changes after discussion has occured, and have not attempted to take part in any revert wars. Cbuhl79 21:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOR THE LAST TIME!!!!!!!

THERE IS NO NPOV VIOLATION BECAUSE NO ONE IS ASSERTING ANY FACT OR OPINION. The intro is not saying Fox is or is not conservative. The consensus version only summarizes that some (too numerous and diverse to name specifically in the intro) view Fox as conservative, it is letting the reader know of a perception, not of any fact. Your new NPOV argument was discussed previously for almost a week. Just because you didn't or won't read the archives, and seek to re-introduce an argument already made, doesn't mean no one discussed it. Please read the archives. Ramsquire 22:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NPOV

Cbuhl79 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from WP:CONSENSUS

Sorry Ramsquire, I should clarify why I included that last quote, on re-reading it, I realized it sounds like an attack on your motivation. I do NOT believe that you personally have been actively seeking to promote your POV, or that you are anything but simply frustrated that I am refusing to accept the consensus. Your comments have consistently shown that you genuinely believe the intro is NPOV as it is, and that I am simply being difficult. However, since I still feel that there is a NPOV violation, I feel that the quote above justifies continuing to argue the point. Cbuhl79 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


For reference

Note that I made 7 total reverts and 3 content related edits pertaining to this issue over a 16 day period. Also note that I during this time I made over 40 edits to this specific talk page discussing this issue.

Diffs I made before I was seriously involved in the discussion (I didn't bother or forgot to log in).
[1] - (Oct 8) The first diff I made. I saw a WP:WEASEL violation and deleted it.
[2] - (Oct 8) 1st revert
[3] - (Oct 9) 2nd revert
[4] - (Oct 10) 3rd revert
Diffs I made after logging in. Note that these are 5 days later, when I realized that there was a signficant debate going on
[5] - (Oct 15) 4th revert. After making this revert, I realized that the debate was larger than I had previously realized.
[6] - (Oct 17) Edits to the sentence. Note that several other editors made comments suggesting that edits be made to see if there were objections.<reference these edits>
[7] - (Oct 17) 5th revert. (deleting the sentence because of conflicting opinions on how it should be edited. Note that Ramsquire nominally agreed to this, pending a straw poll (which never occured). He also exclicitly agreed that at that time consensus had not been reached on any version [8].
There were no more comments on the matter until two days (Oct 19) later[9] after which Blaxthos declared that consensus had been reached[10] and re-added the sentence. I strongly objected, nonetheless, I continued to attempt to discuss the matter on the talk pages. Note that I did not edit the page for 3 more days, as I was attempting to discuss the issue.
[11] - (Oct 23) Edits to the sentence made ONLY after other editors (not originally involved) had agreed the day before.
[12] - (Oct 23) 6th revert. Asked for clarification of my WP:NPOV objections.
[13] - (Oct 23) 7th revert. My final revert. Again asked for clarification, but made it clear that I would not revert again.
After this final revert, I continued to try to engage in discussion about the topic for the next 3 days, before filing my WP:RFARB


Indirectly related edits
[14] - Indirectly related - Moving a section out of the introduction and into the history, as per ongoing discussions. Note that this edit remains intact, and that I did not attempt to remove the initial sentence.
[15] - Related to the above edit

Please do not edit this section. I have added it for my own reference. Feel free to add comments in new sections.Cbuhl79 02:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments

Please do NOT misstate my position. My post was only to clear up that I was NOT ASSERTING (at that time) that consensus had been reached. In other words, I would not speak for other editors. After my edit, the other editors from both sides agreed that consensus had been reached, I agreed. I was leaning in that direction when I wrote that but didn't want to speak out of turn. Real good way to respond to good faith, by taking my edits out of context, nice. Ramsquire 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am putting this together for my own reference, and that I was not finished adding comments or editing it. I have modified the comment in my notes to indicate that you stated that consensus had not yet been reached. I don't think I've misstated your opinion on the WP:RFARB page:

Cbuhl79 02:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your work, please

Please read WP:SIG and sign your posts to talk pages. /Blaxthos 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As you can see [16][17][18] I sometimes forget to sign my comments, but not intentionally. Cbuhl79 02:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request on Fox News Channel

No worries, Cbuhl, I don't consider myself an involved party. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Please

Cbuhl, in a last ditch effort to restore some good faith, I respectfully request that you withdraw your request for arbitration under WP:SNOW. There is almost no chance this will be heard. Please accept consensus is not with you at this time, and move on from this issue. Don't let your reputation here at Wiki die on one article. Please do the right thing. Ramsquire 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page--I think the first part of what you need to do is accept that consensus has been reached in regards to the intro. I understand you disagree with what the consensus did because you see it as violating NPOV. But considering editors who were on opposite sides of the discussion agree that it is over, and others (from both sides) refuse to even re-visit the issue after being made aware of the continuing discussion points to the fact that consensus has been reached. If those editors felt otherwise, they would have made their opinions known. It need not be 100%. Once Gamaliel and Blaxthos endorsed the current version, that is the point where consensus had been reached.

As for your reputation, you've harmed it more by your repeated insistence on posting the same thing over and over again, than if you had simply said "I disagree with the consensus", and moved on. That being said, consensus can change, so keep on editing and maybe at some point, consensus will change. But for now, just keep looking for weasel words as you see them, place {{Who}} tags on them and listen to other editors responses. Ramsquire (talk)17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me jump in right here and clarify a few points.
  1. The work towards a commonly acceptable intro was ongoing for almost two weeks before you jumped in. Many editors had already brought up the points you attempted to assert. The reasoning was clearly discussed and explanations for each choice the group made is clear in the previous pages of discussion (what content went in intro, proper wording, etc.).
  2. Every other editor showed a willingness to give as well as take, and incorporoated others' ideas into their suggestions. Instead of doing the same, you kept repeating the same phrase over and over, asserting why you are right (when, in fact, I can find no other forum (in 2 RFC's, 1 RfARB, policy talk pages, article talk pages, and personal talk pages) where anyone but you agrees with your reasoning). Which leads me to...
  3. Unwillingness to listen to anyone else. I think this is the fundamental root cause of your current woes. Every time someone has tried to explain where your reasoning is flawed (for example, ignoring the word "often" or "usually" in the policy you repeat over and over) you simply ignore them and escallate the issue or attempt to find someone ELSE to bolster your position (and the cycle is repeated).
  4. Wikilawyering and gaming the system -- both of these are clearly discussed (WP:POINT in particular). It is absolutely unethical and insulting to other editors to try and find new ways to effect the same change. Call it what you want, but you've tried for three weeks to get the same result; every time several people would show how you're misinterpreting/misusing policy, you'd find another policy to try and use.
  5. Falsified claims and accusations -- no one that I have seen has issued any personal attack against you.
  6. Bad faith -- re-issuing RfC's (even if using wikilawyered policies) on issues just decided is completely insulting to the wikipedia process as well as your fellow editors. Calling for Arbitration on something like this is mindboggling, as noted by every other editor as well as the ArbCom.
  7. Discussion -- We weren't trying to "stifle" further discussion, however it is accepted wisdom (by everyone BUT you) that your logic is flawed. When we tried to explain why, you simply ignore us and assume we're wrong. There is no point in continued discussion because (1) the same issues/reasons have been discussed previously; and (2) there is no possible way your position will overcome the consensus (because you're the only one!). It should be noted that there is a complete consensus (excluding you) about there being a consensus on the issue as well.
Some policies you should read (emphasis added):

However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.

— WP:CONSENSUS

In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken.

— WP:CONSENSUS

It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

— WP:NPOV

Some specific exceptions that may need calling out: When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify.

— WP:WEASEL

Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption...

— WP:POINT

If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. The clause is designed to prevent editors from using wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster.

— WP:SNOW

The snowball test: If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.

— WP:SNOW
All these policies are directly applicable to your reasoning or your behavior. Hopefully this will help you understand why you've encountered as much resistance as you have. In either case, the only thing you've accomplished is to garner a reputation that I would characterize as undesireable.  :-( /Blaxthos 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blaxthos, unlike Ramsquire, you have consistently acted in arrogance and explicitly in bad faith, which is one of the main reasons that I have continued this for so long. Your first excuse for acting in bad faith was that I was attempting to keep the item out of the intro by any means necessary, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Ever since then, you have been rude and arrogant in constantly pointing out what you believe I have done wrong. Your behavior was the primary reason I submitted an RfARB, it may not have been the appopriate place to seek remedy, but your comment here leaves me less inclined to consider Ramsquire's request, and leaves me more inclined to continue to seek remedies. Cbuhl79 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't let personal animus destroy your credibility on this project. As you are aware, your RfArb has little chance of being heard. Keeping it up to prove a point to Blaxthos, comes close to bad faith, and is more evidence of a willingness by you to violate WP:POINT. If you don't believe the ArbCom will hear your request, remove it. Don't waste their time. Ramsquire 20:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said "it may not have been the appopriate place to seek remedy". I sought remedy at WP:RFARB because I thought it was the appropriate place. Based on comments the Arbitrators have made, I may not have been correct, and I will certainly remove my WP:RFARB once I am sure that it is not the appropriate place. I don't think that makes me guilty of WP:POINT. I was considering dropping the matter entirely, but Blaxthos' continuing rudeness makes me more inclined to seek remedy WP:Harassment WP:PA.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cbuhl79&oldid=84111660"