User:Blaxthos/RfARB Cbuhl79

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

User

Status

  • Current Status: Failed to Accept - Date passed without action. Final: 4 accept, 2 reject, 0 recuse

Members

Position User
Coordinator User:blaxthos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Advocate User:Imaglang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Interested Witness Add Yourself!
Interested Party Add Yourself

Specific charges

Lies & bad faith

  1. Cbuhl79 has made claims of being personally attacked and persecuted.[1]. There have been no personal attacks -- it seems that Cbuhl79 mistakes losing the good faith issued to him as a personal attack.
  2. Cbuhl79 has called several procedures in bad faith. Two hours after the successful completion of an RfC (with all editors agreeing except him) cbuhl79 initiated a second RfC on the same issue[2], trying other avenues to effect the same change (see WP:LAWYER).
  3. Cbuhl79 called a malformed RfARB on the content dispute[citation needed] after the bad-faith RfC he called failed to garner any support for his position. The RfARB was summarily rejected.
  4. Cbuhl79 admitted that his only purpose in "continuing the conflict" was that he didn't like another editor or his actions.[citation needed] Very clear violations of WP:AGF and total disregard of the Wikipedia community norms, practices, and policies.
  5. Cbuhl79 misrepresented facts in a falsified claim to the NPA Admin Noticeboard.[citation needed]
  6. Cbuhl79 inappropriately applied warning templates to user Blaxthos' userspace and talkspace.[citation needed]
  7. Cbuhl79 makes renegade edits[3] that completely violated the consensus reached.
  8. Cbuhl79 solicits support[4] from uninvolved editors and unrelated pages (may want to remove this point)
  9. Cbuhl79 makes repeated claims that he is victim of a massive conspiracy to stifle his point of view, despite everyone trying to explain why he's mistaken. From Cbuhl79's original RfARB complaint[5]:

My attempts to discuss this change were met with repeated hostility centering around arguments that consensus had already been reached. The user Blaxthos decreed here[6] that consensus had been reached on his version. AuburnPilot then removed the RfC[7] despite my continued objection. ...Subsequently Blaxthos and to a lesser extent AuburnPilot have been openly hostile to any continued discussion of the matter on the basis that consensus has been reached, and that I am only trying to keep the sentence out of the introduction. ... The user Ramsquire has consistently strongly agreed with the other editors that consensus has been reached ...

Notepad and interesting facts

  • It seems Cbuhl79 confuses someone no longer assuming good faith as a personal attack.
  • Judging from actions only, it seems that Cbuhl79 exhibits behavior associated with persons who have Asperger's syndrome -- may be important to note in choosing how to handle this case, and also why it's important to deal with this now.

To-do list

  • Someone suggested possible sockpuppetry regarding the supporting editors (otherwise uninvolved).
Will look further, but I think at least one editor (KevinBass IIRC) later backed off his support after reading the previous RfC's'

Relevant Policy & Best Practice Quotes

WP:LAWYER

Breaking the spirit of a policy or guideline through sticking to a too-literal interpretation of the letter thereof. Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express. Hiding behind misinterpretations or technicalities of policy to justify inappropriate actions.

It is also said that newer users tend to believe nuanced complex policy (particularly WP:NPOV) conforms to their point of view, and will repeatedly refer to policy rather than providing rationale for their edits.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case

in general, the ArbCom has looked unfavorably on people who are using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy, and people who allege a conspiracy to suppress their point of view. Instead of arguing that somebody is advancing a nutty conspiracy theory with no credibility, find statements on talk pages where they express a desire to advocate a cause, instances of them removing well-sourced information, instances of them accusing those who disagree with them of conspiracy, and other more concrete and self-explanatory things.

Cross Examination

Claim 1

Also note that I only made content changes after several other editors agreed[1].[8]

"Several other editors" did not participate in either RfC consensus reached. The passive agreement of two users who did not particiate in the lengthy disucssion where a consensus was reached do not give justification to completely overhaul the finished product. This is a perfect example of how Cbuhl79 just keeps repeating the same misinformed argument until the meat of the discussion is buried and some editors come along and try to help (out of good faith). Several of the editors Cbuhl79 cites as giving him good faith retreat publically after digging deeper.[9] Careful examination of the diff he cites[10] shows the two comments Cbuhl79 uses to justify his edits were added in the same edit.

References

  1. ^ cbuhl79 claims persecution on a commenting editor's talkpage.
  2. ^ Second RfC called in bad faith by Cbuhl79.
  3. ^ Cbuhl79 removes statement reached by consensus because he still disagrees.
  4. ^ cbuhl79 tries to get passively-involved editors to join the fray.
  5. ^ cbuhl79's original (rejected) request for arbitration on content dispute.
  6. ^ Blaxthos thanks participants for successful RfC.
  7. ^ AuburnPilot closes successful RfC.
  8. ^ RfARB Statement by Cbuhl79.
  9. ^ KevinBass retreats from his position.
  10. ^ Suspicious evidence - sock puppet?.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/a/User%7EBlaxthos_RfARB_Cbuhl79_503d.html"