User talk:Cbuhl79

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

Weasel Words[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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!!!!!!![edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]

we all do on occasion. at the bottom of the edit box (below the buttons SAVE PAGE, etc.) there is a quick link to insert your sig (~~~~). There are also some other useful functions as well. In fact if you highlight some text, and then click one of the wiki markups (blockquote, etc.) the editor will place the markup tags on either side of the text. /Blaxthos 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request on Fox News Channel[edit]

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

Please, Please[edit]

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. Cbuhl79 20:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Cbuhl--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. If the primary reason for your RfArb was another editor's behavior, it should be so stated in the request. It is apparent to all who read the request that your RfArb is a content dispute. If it is not about a content dispute, then please take it down immediately. Also, if you believe, (or are beginnning to believe) RfARb is not the appropriate place to seek remedy for whatever your problem is, remove your request. Don't keep it up because of Blaxthos's post or behavior. Doing so, can be seen as making a point. I'm sure you don't want the ArbCom seeing you in that light. Ramsquire 20:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blaxthos' behavior was the primary reason that I believed that I had to submit an RfARB instead of continuing the discussion, because it appeared to be completely impossible to discuss anything with him. I had thought that the arbitration committee could rule on the content AND on the behavior of two of the editors involved. Cbuhl79 16:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. My jaw is on the floor. Now you openly admit violating WP:POINT as well as misrepresenting facts to the Arbitration Committee. First off, I think you have no place on wikipedia if you base your actions on your personal feelings towards another editor. Wikipedia is not an adversarial system, and that sort of animosity is clearly not appropriate here. Secondly, please keep in mind that I am, by far, not the only person who has engaged your position. I can list probably four editors off the top of my head, and another half dozen if I start digging through the content thus far. I may be the most dilligant at ensuring that wiki policies aren't abused and changes made unilaterally, but don't you dare characterize this as victim cbuhl versus big bad blaxthos. Everyone has told you you're wrong on almost every point -- wiki policy interpretations, continual discusson on moot/decided issues, and the actions you've undertaken to try and force your point. If our attitude seems arrogant, it may simply be because we're probably correct. It really sounds like you just don't like to be wrong. It should be noted that some good faith is being issued by believing you're just really confused about what wikipedia is and how it works, instead of calling for punative action based on your behavior. /Blaxthos 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for stating your high-horse position again. I am aware that several editors disagreed with me. Two were extremely rude, and one was visibly frustrated, but never rude. I suppose the third-party editor who read the entire debate and thought that I was acting in good faith and only wanted to discuss the issue was completely wrong as well. Again, you continue to state that I have violated policies without backing it up. You've made numerous rude and hostile statements to several editors, always on the basis that you can back it up. I've gone through my comments many times, and I can't find any outright hostile comments, or any indications that I'm only interested in anything other than discussing the issue, I can't find any indications that I've made attempts to effect "unilateral" change in the article. I may have been incorrect in going to Arbitration to seek resolution for the CONTENT dispute. I may not have been aware of other remedies for seeking resolution for the BEHAVIOR of another editor, but I am looking into them now. Cbuhl79 16:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you requesting citations for each violation? I can easily provide them if so, but this has far since past rediculous. After two failed RfC bids, one rejected RfARB, and more than half a dozen editors taking exception to your position (and patiently explaining why) I think it's about time for you to give up the ghost. Every statement I've made about your reasoning and your behavior can be substantiated -- please let this die. The next step is going to be asking for punative action regarding your behavior. /Blaxthos 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NPA:
"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."
I have submitted a NPA warning on your talk page. Clearly, I should have done a better job of looking for remedies much earlier, and perhaps much of this could have been avoided. I will let my complaints about your behavior die now if you will. Cbuhl79 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA Template[edit]

You applied a WP:NPA template to my userspace, and then to my talkspace, accusing me of personal attacks.

I believe this was in bad faith, and motivated by spite -- you're mad that your RfC's turned out in a manner you don't agree with, and your RfArb was summarily rejected.

I will initiate a request for arbitration regarding your conduct. Please be prepared to explain why you applied this template. /Blaxthos 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Entry Request For Your Comments[edit]

Hi. I agreed with your comment in the Fox News entry about the inclusion of criticisms in the lead. While I don't think it is possible to build a consensus to get the info moved down into a separate section or get all the weasel words out of it, I am currently building a consensus to at least have the "other side's" POV (critics that think Fox is relatively balanced) included with the current POV included in the lead to make the lead less one sided. I am not a fan of Fox News or of any particular media outlet, but the lead strikes me as very one-sided, and wikipedia should not be like that. If you want to, you can now go to the Fox News entry's talk page and "cast your vote" in the Request For Comment at the bottom of the page. It seems like the numbers are starting to favor the more balanced version of the lead I have proposed. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cbuhl79&oldid=1141249934"