Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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, not different disputes. 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: 16:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

Silverback ( talk · contribs) is exceedingly argumentative on talk pages. He makes it tedious to keep arguing with him, as he offers weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the overwhelming evidence brought to his attention by other editors.

He repeatedly engages in revert wars and disruptive arguments on talk pages while ignoring the three revert rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Most disruptively, he insults fellow editors who disagree with his opinions, often implying that they are "immoral," "unethical," or engaging in "abuses of power" with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over his personal issues with other editors. Silverback does not play well with others.

Description

User:Silverback is a longtime Wikipedia editor, having made his first edit on 07:04, 30 September 2004. [1]Thus, this RfC can make no pretense to being a complete overview of his nearly 13 months of activity on Wikipedia. Instead, it is just a collection of evidence concerning ongoing disputes, only looking back at episodes dating back before September 2005 to sheld light on current disputes.

In recent weeks, Silverback's most aggressive behavior has coincided with the deletion of Category:Totalitarian dictators. Silverback staunchly opposed deletion of this category, despite established consensus against similiar categories (e.g., Category:Dictators).

On 14:20, 30 September 2005 User:Kbdank71 closed the discussion on Category:Totalitarian dictators CfD, claiming that there was no consensus to delete. [2] Shortly afterwards, 172 disagreed and removed the closure tag, thereby extending the time period for the discussion. [3] 172 then stated on multiple pages, including Kbdank71's, that since the "deletes" already had a overwhelming majority, with the vote strongly trending toward "delete" in the final two or three days of voting, it was appropriate to give editors more time to add more feedback and perspective to the discussion, thus establishing in the end a more clear consensus one way or another. On 02:56, 3 October 2005, User:Who closed the extended debate, with the consensus being delete. He decided to let the category remain unlisted for a short period before ultimately deleting the category. [4]

Since the deletion of the category, Silverback been making accusations of "immorality," "deceit," 'unethical behavior', "abuses of power" against 172 for extending the discussion on the CfD on multiple pages in a manner some editors consider harassment and disruptive. These charges can be found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators (a deletion discussion pertaining to an article created by Silverback containing the contents of the deleted category) and later the Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion discussion following the AfD debate.

In response to the substance of the said charges posted in Wikipedia:Votes for Undeletion, on 17:01, 13 October 2005 Michael Snow wrote:

Silverback apparently is arguing that the deletion debate regarding the category was closed without consensus; however, this was not the final result of the discussion. The attempted closure Silverback points [the one reversed by 172] to was improper, especially in such a close case, because it was performed by one of the partisans for the "keep" side. [5]

However, despite the room for legitimate disagreement over policy regarding the reopening of discussion on CfD noted above, Silverback's denouncements of 172's action only become more vehiment, even to the point of abuse, according to some editors. Silverback's pattern personal attacks and incivility was clearly articulated by User:Bishonen, who relayed to Silverback on 00:12, 15 October 2005, "You've made it clear that you dislike not only his editing, but his ideology, himself, and what you guess or believe about his private life. So what, really? You're an experienced editor, you know Wikipedia is no place for airing opinions about those things. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." [6] When the advise apparently fell on deaf ears, Bishonen stated to Silverback on 00:12, 15 October 2005, "I don't know him, but I don't see anything in your specific accusations to warrant any attacks on his 'character' whatsoever. I don't see why he should put up with continuous abuse from you, either. Just stop it." [7]

Concurrently, Silverback remains involved in a POV war on pages unrelated to the Categroy:Totalitarian dictators dispute. On 18:08, 13 October 2005, Csloat noted on that his conduct has been shown similar patterns on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda: "[H]e's doing the same sort of thing on Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and has been for several weeks now. It's tedious to keep arguing with him and he steamrolls edits of the page itself (and reversions) with deceptive edit summaries, offering weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the most significant edits he makes. [8]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Disruption, incivility, and harassment in discussions regarding Category:Totalitarian dicators

Silverback on User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

See also: User_talk:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters/Silverback_and_172_talk_about_Totalitarian_dictators_on_my_talk_page

  1. Silverback makes a bad-faith accusation of "vandalism" against Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. — 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    Edit summary and subject heading read, "stop vandalizing Category:Totalitarian dictators" (in current page, LotLE took out argumentative part of subject heading)
  2. Silverback comments on 172's "fanaticism." — 20:52, 11 October 2005
    I think my improvements would address the concerns that 172 raised. Probably not enough to satisfy his fanaticism, but enough to make his arguments seem hollow.
  3. After Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters rejects Silverback's description of 172 as a 'fanatic', writing, "I don't think caring about neutral point of view is 'fanaticism', but YMMV," Silverback retorts by comparing 172, whose family was largely perished in the Holocaust, to 'Holocaust deniers', 'deniers of Stalin's purges', and Castro's 'brutal repression of attempts to emigrate'. — 21:50, 11 October 2005
    Just because there are holocaust deniers, for instance, doesn't mean you should give up. Perhaps there are deniers of Stalin's purges or Castro's brutal repression of attempts to emmigrate, but most people can agree that these are facts and use reason to apply the definition.
  4. Silverback defends his claim that 172 is an apologist for dictators and a supporter of the Soviet Union. 11:17, 12 October 2005
    You certainly don't think the apologist for dictators accusation was bizzare do you? You should go back and look at the evidence. Yours is some of the most glowing writing about Kruschev I've ever seen in the english language.
  5. I don't know anything else (and don't really care to) about the rest of the dispute, but I noticed silverback blanking stuff from LuLu's talk page [9] Fawcett5 17:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC) On further examination and explaination from Silverback, I believe this was caused by a database cache latency glitch and was not intentional. Fawcett5 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Silverback on User talk:Bishonen
  1. Silverback mischaracterizes 172's work on Soviet and Russian history, which has been determined to meet Wikipedia standards of NPOV in that it has resulted in a handful of Featured Articles, in order to imply that he supported the Soviet Union. — 13:43, 14 October 2005
    "[172] was territorial about certain articles in which he largely painted post Stalin soviet leaders as reformers, and barely documented the continued oppressive nature of the regimes."
  2. Silverback continues to 'extrapolate into 172's personal life', as he puts it. — [10]
    The part where I extrapolate to his possible personal life, is of course, speculative. I admit that it is entirely possible that in his personal life he is a complete Milquetoast, and would never cross any questionable lines, and his behavior here is just a manifestation of the breakdown in of moral restraint that occurs under the cloak of anonimity. But by speculating in this way, I hoped to convict his conscience with what others might conclude from his behavior. He seems to be immune to this however.
  3. Bishonen attempts to moderate Silverback's tone, and advise him to avoid personal remarks. — 19:36, 14 October 2005
    But for my part I can't believe anybody's conscience was ever convicted by one-eyed and unfair attacks like those you level against 172 on WP:VFU and continue to level here on my page. In any case his conscience is not your business. You've made it clear that you dislike not only his editing, but his ideology, himself, and what you guess or believe about his private life. So what, really? You're an experienced editor, you know Wikipedia is no place for airing opinions about those things. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If a fellow editor were to suffer, in your opinion, a "breakdown in moral restraint" (not that I've seen any sign of it), it's not something you have to fix.
  4. Silverback continues to bait 172 for his 'abuse' on Bishonen's talk page. — 19:27, 14 October 2005
    Don't you [172] wonder why it is repeatedly you that is unable to resist the temptation to abuse?
  5. Silverback is again admonished to follow Wikipedia:No personal attacksBishonen states, "Please don't post on my page if you can't do it without insulting 172": 00:12, 15 October 2005
    "I suspect that 172's character will probably remain what it ever was". This is outrageous. Kindly do not post on my page again if it's impossible for you to do it without snide insinuations against 172 personally. Please follow this link to see where "Comment on content, not on the contributor" comes from, in case you think it's something I made up. Are 172's hypothetical flaws of "character" in some sense content, in your opinion? And incidentally, I don't know him, but I don't see anything in your specific accusations to warrant any attacks on his "character" whatsoever. I don't see why he should put up with continuous abuse from you, either. Just stop it.
Silverback on VfU
  1. Silverback accuses User:Dmcdevit of lying when he stated that "[the Cfd] was a valid closing." — 06:51, 13 October 2005
    You must be afraid of the truth since you are lying. Other voters should examine the evidence themselves.
  2. In the same post, Silverback accuses 172 of "vandalism" — 06:51, 13 October 2005
    ...failure and closing of the previous CFD before User:172 vandalized the process.
  3. Aaron Brenneman removes Silverback's personal attack on Dmcdevit — 07:07, 13 October 2005
  4. Dmcdevit responds to Silverback's 'allegations' — 07:10, 13 October 2005
  5. Silverback reverts Aaron Brenneman's removal of his attack on Dmcdevit and reiterates his unsubstantiated allegations. — 07:51, 13 October 2005
    I restore my original text. When a sysop lies, it shouldn't be brushed under the rug, and it isn't an attack when it is a fact. His statements were an attack on the truth. Far more serious.
  6. Silverback makes five sequential postings stating unsubstantiated allegations against 172 regarding 'vandalism,' "deceptively deleting evidence," and 'misconduct' — 07:14, 13 October 2005 -- 07:42, 13 October 2005
    The original "category" that this "article" is supposed to be a repeat of, survived a vote for deletion, that was closed until that vote was vandalized [by 172].
    the previous page should not have been deleted, and was only because of misconduct by 172.
    But unlike User:172, I am not deceptively deleting the evidence of the previous hasty action.
  7. Though Silverback apologizes to Dmcdevit, he reiterates his accusation that 172 "vandalized" the CfD process. — 08:32, 13 October 2005
  8. Further incivility, with caps used to connote shouting (at whom it is unclear). — 11:37, 13 October 2005
    THIS IS THE CLOSED VOTE THAT 172 REOPENED
  9. Silverback baits 172 for his 'abuse of power' — 11:37, 13 October 2005
    You abuse edit powers just as you did admin powers.
  10. Silverback continues to bait 172 for "unethical behavior," "abuse of trusts," 'hubris that knows no limits', and his 'unworthiness to be justified with any powers, including editing'. — 11:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    No, it is your unethical behavior and abuse of trusts placed in you that I find offensive, and the fact, others apparently go along with it, in effect rewarding your behavior...
    Much to my surprise, you had been allowed to unethically and unilaterally open a closed vote, and then lobbied certain people for votes without notifying the whole community and the vote was closed again, all within three days...
    Your hubris knows no limits. Your ends justify any means. You are unworthy to be trusted with any powers, apparently even editing.
  11. Silverback continues to attack what he perceives to be 172's ideology, insinuating that he is analogous to a "criminal" and was a supporter of the Soviet Union. — 12:39, 13 October 2005
    Blame to cop for the crime because he didn't catch the criminal. I think you wrote some similar language about Khrushchev and the Berlin wall, blaming Kennedy for the wall because Khrushchev would have backed off if Kennedy had resisted. Why don't you take responsibility for your actions instead of blaming others for allowing you to get away with it.
  12. For the next four hours, Silverback's personal remarks charges are either ignored or refuted by other editors on VfU. — 19:59, 13 October 2005 - 23:57, 13 October 2005
    Tito states in reference to Silverback's charges regarding 172's reopening of the vote on the CfD for Category:Totalitarian dictators: Yeah [to Silverback], I do see something wrong with the CFD: the fact that someone who voted keep closed it as no consensus, when there was a consensus, but not for keeping...
  13. Silverback continues to restate charges of 'vandalizing process' against 172 — 12:46, 13 October 2005
  14. An administrator once again removes Silverback's personal attacks. Edit summary was "Personal attacks by Silverback removed." — 01:07, 14 October 2005
    Bishonen note on the removal of the attacks stated the following: I have (conservatively) removed personal attacks by Silverback in the places indicated above. Silverback, you are urgently requested to stop commenting personally and insultingly on other editors. Please comment on contributions, not contributors.
  15. Silverback objects to the removal of his ad hominem comments. — 04:28, 14 October 2005
  16. Silverback disrupts Wikipedia to make a point by putting his contentious comments in brackets in order to make them into headings to make appear larger than the rest of the text. Other comments are put in bold or italics in order to connote shouting. — 04:37, 14 October 2005
    Special emphasis is now placed on the following You [172] abuse edit powers just as you did admin powers and But unlike User:172, I am not deceptively deleting the evidence of the previous hasty action
  17. Silverback starts inserting the Template:Dubious in VfU. The "dubious" template, however, is intended for accuracy disputes in articles, not discussions on talk pages. Silverback inserts the templates to express his disagreement with the removal of his ad hominem remarks. — 04:55, 14 October 2005
  18. Titoxd removes the improperly inserted "dubious" templates and informs Silverback about a note he posted on his talk page explaining the proper use for the template. — 04:58, 14 October 2005
    rv - see note on your talk page
  19. Silverback refusal to remove the dubious templates results in a revert war. No edit summary or explantion of the revert is provided. — 04:58, 14 October 2005
  20. Titoxd again removes the templates, admonishing Silverback to "stop misusing templates, and read my note on your talk page." — 05:03, 14 October 2005
  21. Silverback again reverts back to the dubious template yet again. Tito would not attempt to remove the template another time, perhaps out of consideration of the 3RR. — 05:14, 14 October 2005
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators

Evidence to be inserted

Other pages
  1. Harassment on 172's talk page in response to RfC -- [11]
  2. Disruption (Silverback reports 172 on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for making edits to this RfC)-- 16:38, 16 October 2005
    IP/172 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Vandalizing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback. 172 is materially changing the statement of dispute over the signatures of other people and after the respondent (myself) has respond to certain points. See the warnings on his and Lulu of the Lotus Eaters talk pages, and well as the discussion on the RfC talk page. Please assist quickly.-- Silverback 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Baits 172 over an edit summary concerning the removal of his spurious "severe vandalism" charges related to this RfC. Silverback characterizes his "severe vandalism" WP:VFI altert not as harassment but as "a notice required by the rules." -- 19:45, 16 October 2005

Revert warring and incivility on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

  1. csloat made the following post on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR on 18:37, 3 October 2005
    Silverback "constantly steamrolls this page with edits that have been refuted over and over in talk. The two edits he has specifically made here in these reversions have been refuted; he only bothers to defend one of them in talk (he ignores the arguments about the second but keeps reverting anyway) and he doesn't respond to the arguments against it. Instead, he plays dumb and keeps repeating himself. His edit summaries are also deceptive; the first revert is disguised as adding something to the page even though he knows well that he was reverting these two main changes -- see for example his revert from a few days earlier here. I do not want to have to have this article protected, but if the edit warring does not stop it may need to be. The two changes that he wants to put in the page have been discussed and he has refused to respond to the arguments against them. One of them is original research in violation of Wikipedia policy; the other one is a misleading interpretation of a quotation that already appears elsewhere on the page. He continues to misrepresent the latter change as putting the full quote in there when he knows that the quote is already in there. I think this user's conduct is a significant problem on wikipedia -- his changes should be reverted and he should be blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR. If his behavior continues, I will file an RfC so that more editors and administrators can evaluate his destructive behavior.
  2. Csloat later made the following posts concerning Silverback's misleading edit summaries on 19:12, 3 October 2005:
    ...Silverback's first edit summary was misleading; I provided an example of an earlier edit that was substantively the same to show that he was actually reverting. Another user had made some minor changes to a different section in the interim but if you compare this to this you can see his changes are fundamentally the same, making his first edit a revert. Does that make sense? Sorry if I am doing that wrong -- this is my first time complaining about this (although this user has done this before). I've been trying to address this user in talk but he refuses to engage in the discussion other than to engage in personal attacks and to assert that he has already addressed my concerns. It is very frustrating :(
  3. User:Fvw verified the above account by Csloat and then blocked Silverback:
    I count four reverts too: blocked. But in future please get some outside commentary before you get this far. -- fvw * 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. (the following from csloat 01:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC) - I don't know if it is appropriate for me to add material here; if not please move it). After Silverback was blocked by Fvw he returned to the page and immediately began reverting again; I reported him a second time after four reverts. Silverback debated the meaning of revert and called the process "immoral" because he claimed the software had blocked him for an extra 7 hours. The second incident was not commented on by administrators.-- csloat 01:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Further examples of Silverback's abusive behavior include the following:
    • Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda: the user has made many reversions and deletions on this page with cryptic explanations at best. The example linked here shows him blanking some 80% of the page, including most of the relevant information, in order to make some kind of point about the significance of Able Danger. He's been pushing this point over and over, despite it being refuted, and sometimes engages in bizarre edits of unrelated material in order to make a point. See his edit summaries in for October 3-5 along with the edits (and reversions by myself and others) for more evidence of this sort of behavior. More recently, see this edit and this one and note the edit summaries -- in both cases he deceptively only addresses one word of the article in his edit summaries, while his edits delete the information in a whole sentence. My reversions of those edits point this out in the summaries and I discussed this in talk at this location.-- csloat 06:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Here he makes a revert to an earlier version, eliminating rewrites that had been discussed and justified in talk (see here) as a result of an argument between myself and another user. Silverback stepped into this debate by reverting to the other user without addressing these arguments.

Longtime pattern of bad-faith accusations

El C sockpuppet accusations

Silverback has a long history of making false accusations against other editors; the most vehement ones relate to 172.

On 18 Jan 2005, Silverback accused User:El C of being a sockpuppet of 172 merely for having responded on his talk page, which is on El C's watchlist. El C answered it with humor, but "was nonetheless deeply troubled as to what this conduct could lead to if left uncheked." [12] At the time both El C and 172 displayed body of works on their respective user pages. Silverback could have easily compared between some of the lengthy articles that both 172 and El had written to verify that they are indeed not the same person.

Pertinent passages pointed out by El C read (note that these are excerpts, but the order of the discussion is consistent; see diff):

BTW, I'm surprised that you are the one responding, as if you are 172, are you his sock puppet?-- Silverback 06:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, you found out. Please don't tell anyone. 172 06:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, I take exception to that, Silverback. I'm –not– writing, as you say, as if I am 172, I am writing as if I am El_C, a sockpuppet of 172. Regardless though, I find (the non-comedic part of) your response to be highly lacking and flawed, but I'm writing in haste, so more on that later. E172_C 12:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was a bit of a mystery to me how you stumbled onto the subject and took the same position as 172 even though you hadn't appeared to edit or follow the page recently. I look forward to flaws being pointed out however. -- thanx in advance, -- Silverback 07:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All easily demystifable. 172 is on my watchlist, so I noticed the comment. It took me little time to compare the pertinent edits through the article's revision history El_C 22:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) [13]

172 and Snowspinner sockpuppet accusations

At the time, the above seemed relatively minor until a pattern in similar accusations became evident when Silverback made postings on many meta and Wikipedia pages asking for help in establishing a link between 172 and User:KingOfAllPaperboys in March 2005.

Silverback started a discussion thread on 26 Mar 2005 under the heading Has 172 returned to harass and disrupt?, under which he called for "investigations" on the possibility that 172 "assumed a harassing and disruptive alter ego," specifically User:KingOfAllPaperboys, an account that was "harassing, mocking and haranguing poor User:Netoholic."

In doing so, User:El C noted that Silverback was making "empirically-ungrounded notices in front of 400+ admins in an official page." [14] In response to the long series of postings by Silverback, Micahel Snow wrote:

This is pure speculation that mostly reveals ignorance of 172's practices and body of work. Besides the fact that 172 has never been known to use sockpuppets, I can't easily imagine him doing much work on Harry Potter or Kelly Clarkson. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are controversial subjects involving many editors, so doesn't really do anything to show these two are the same. Nor is KingOfAllPaperboys' recent behavior consistent with 172's style. All the timing amounts to is a very mild coincidence of no significance whatsoever. KingOfAllPaperboys may be somebody, but he isn't 172. -- Michael Snow 22:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When 172 was ruled out as a possible sockpuppet, Silverback then added: User:Snowspinner is also a candidate to be KingOfAllPaperboys... -- Silverback 20:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) He then started a long series of posts under the heading User:Snowspinner possible sockpuppet evidence

Looking back at the both past sockpuppet accusations against 172 by Silverback, El C commented, "I am of the opinion that certain restrictions be placed, or at least a warning issued to User:Silverback against making such charges against other editors without substantive evidence." [15]

Silverback, however, rejected the El C's criticism and never apologized for accusations against 172 and El, maintaining on 00:10, 30 Mar 2005 that "just because they are false does not mean they were groundless."

~20 mailing list posts following 23:22, 16 October 2005 block

On 23:22 16 October 2005 User:Redwolf24 blocked "User:Silverback" with an expiry time of 24 hours, adding the following summary: "[Silverback] reverts incessantly, removing information from his RfC, has been attacking 172 a lot lately, hasn't been too civil, hopefully this block will turn him around." [16] The block stemmed from his 3RR violation appearing [17] as of the most recent version at the moment (14:25, 17 October 2005). The five reverts reported included the following: [18], [19], [20] , [21] , [22], [23].

Since the 23:22 16 October 2005 block, as of now, Silverback has posted no fewer than 20 postings on the mailing list, including posts under the heading I've been blocked by an involved admin (making a series of accusations against Redwolf24] and Karmosin: "172 has baggage", which makes a long 13 paragraph case that because 172 "disrupted" the CfD on Category:Totalitarian dictators it should be clear that he is an "apologist for dictators."

Silverback implies that 172 is a 'Marxist', and thus has "baggage," writing: Marxism is purposely frustratingly elusive and deceptive. Calling dictatorships and oligarchies "peoples republics" or "dictatorships of the proletariat", and if for some reason these terrible transitional means of getting to the ends that justify them, i.e. the nirvana of the stateless classless, communally held property society, then they still are not called totalitarian dictatorships, but instead "permanent proletarian revolutions", or are said to be in a "permanent revolutionary state". 172 considers the characterization of his views and work ridiculous; and he extends the offer of providing evidence to anyone interested that he has never proposed using Communist jargon to describe the regimes Silverback calls "totalitarian dicatorships."

Subsequently, David Gerard put Silverback on mailing list moderation, writing in his Mon Oct 17 13:58:23 post, "I've put Silverback on moderation unless and until he ceases this habit of putting the names of people he's in a dispute with in the subject line." [24] David Gerard later agreed to remove moderation upon Silverback's pledge to moderate his language on the mailing list. [25] In reponse, Silverback has been posting under a modified heading, e.g., [username]: "[username] has baggage" [26] 172 | Talk 15:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Full content of Silverback's Karmosin: "172 has baggage"

Arbitration does, as far as I know, consider comments on the mailing list in their cases. However, this post provides insight in to the underpinnings of Silverback's recent behavior. Below in code is the full text, edited only for formatting. I will gladly provide evidence, unless it goes without saying, that the following is a systematic mischaracterization of my views and work. 172 | Talk 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

  • While under the 24 hour block, on 18:57, 17 October 2005 Silverback posted the same letter on his user talk page upon finding out that editors can edit their talk pages during a block. [27] 172 | Talk 20:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Karmosin,

You left this message on my talk page while I am blocked, so I am responding here: 

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ASilverback&diff=25718620&oldid=25697995

I apologize, I probably should have said that "wikipedia has baggage in dealing with 172". However, you don't provide any evidence of your characterizations.

Ask yourself why, you are considering a long ban, for "off-topic accusations in the form of insulting political guilt by association." Considering the amount of personal attacks, name calling and vitriol on wikipedia, I am being singled out for a few comments in one running battle with 172.

Note, I am not condemning wikipedia as a whole, the quantity of these occurances can be large, but the percentage managable because wikipedia has become quite large. I admit that I look for connections and underlying principles, and my focus in my degree in philosophy was basicly anti-marxism.

But it does not take a stretch of the imagination to see the relation to someone who disrupted the vote for deletion of "Category: totalitarian dicatators", and who routinely battles against negative information on Fidel Castro, Khruschev, etc. as a POV warrior. Except that instead of just calling him a POV warrior, I actually label what that POV is, by referring to him as an "apologist for dictators". There is no way this particular "personal attack" can be considered off topic. Given all the personal attacks on wikipedia, with people getting mild or no rebukes for dozens, is that theirs were just heated emotional outbursts instead of carefully considered and apropo labels.

It is interesting that you label my editing warring as "frustratingly elusive", of course, you could have said "patient and clever" just as easily. Perhaps you just pass territorial editors by and concede articles.

While I am sure that comment relates to my editing with csloat on Saddam and al Qaeda, it is also appropriate to the 172 behavior. Marxism is purposely frustratingly elusive and deceptive. Calling dictatorships and oligarchies "peoples republics" or "dictatorships of the proletariat", and if for some reason these terrible transitional means of getting to the ends that justify them, i.e. the nirvana of the stateless classless, communally held property society, then they still are not called totalitarian dictatorships, but instead "permanent proletarian revolutions", or are said to be in a "permanent revolutionary state".

Current "progressives" openly embrace mass-action "democracy" as a form of disrupting events through mob behavior by a small minority willing to misbehave under the cloak of anonymity. Marxist influence on our culture has been considerable is probably partially responsible for the postmodern denial of truth and morality that is so popular among the weak minded. 172 harkens to this when he argues for deletion of totalitarian dictator, because there is NO WAY it can be NPOV. However, as we do in science, it can be defined for out purposes, and then applied to factual circumstance, if we are intellectually honest and really do have "good faith". The reality is that 172 does not want it to be NPOV, it is too dangerous and possible true a term.

I am trying to keep this brief, but rest assured, provide sufficient evidence that he is an apologist for dictators.

Given this, and your statement that I made "off-topic" accusations, I believe we come down to you proposing a "long ban" for only two concepts that I put forward, one is the speculation that 172s line crossing behavior may carry forward into his personal life, and the other is that his line crossing behavior may be due to the cloak of anonymity, and not translate to his personal life where he may actually be a milquetoast.

Yes, negative characterizations that hit close to home "hurt", so don't assert that these were "off-topic", I am being persecuted because, my comparatively miniscule number of "offenses" were too close to the truth.

So, what is wikipedia's baggage in relation to 172? The arbcom gave him only a mild rebuke for his first abuse of admin powers, the arbcom did not review his second even more serious abuse of admin powers, because he "left", although it did shutdown his admin powers and not restore them despite his defiant and unapologetic protest, and then wikipedia just winked at his disruption of the VfD on the totalitarian category.

Why single out 172 for "abuse"? He is not really any worse person than the others in the progressive or marixts cliques, in fact, he is actually a sympathetic figure, actually likable. He gets singled out because of his lack of self control, and impulsive line-crossing disruptive outbursts. The sad thing is, he doesn't realize that wikipedia, with its respect for consensus, is actually a friendly place to the collaborative efforts of collectivist thinking. There is critical mass here of progressives that, united, could get anything they want, so is outbursts are completely unnecessary. He needs to be patient and clever like the rest of them (or should it be called "frustratingly elusive"), but instead he misbehaves and becomes vulnerable, like the slowest antelope in the herd.

It is customary, in these circumstances, to point to all the valuable contributions to wikipedia as extenuating circumstances. I think I have contributed to a lot of balance on both scientific and political topics, including much that is well sourced to peer review literature. However, I would not want to be judged on my record of the last couple months, I've been on a bit of a wiki-vacation watching the scientific literature for interesting new developments, and as far as wiki goes, just monitoring the watch list and occassionally be stirred to action by something particularly outrageous, such as csloats monomanic territorialism and 172s "bold" disruption of the deletion vote. 

                             -- Silverbackz

24-hour 3RR blocks [October 2005 only]

  1. Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blocked by Fvw 3 October 2005

Relevant discussions have been archived at

According to csloat, the above incident is not the first time Silverback violated the 3RR on this page, though it the past the rule was not enforced on him. [28]

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 23:22 16 October 2005 User:Redwolf24 blocked "User:Silverback" with an expiry time of 24 hours, adding the following summary: "[Silverback] reverts incessantly, removing information from his RfC, has been attacking 172 a lot lately, hasn't been too civil, hopefully this block will turn him around." [29] The block stemmed from his 3RR violation appearing here in the latest (as of this time of writing) version of the page. The report can be read below in code text.

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Silverback ( talk · contribs):

Reported by: 172 | Talk 20:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments:

  • Silverback is a revert war on his own RfC-- effectively declaring that the cosigners are not allowed to edit it now that he has made his response. 5 reverts in less than 5 hours.
  • The anon User:68.35.159.18 making one of the reverts is Silverback. He admits that fact in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Silverback in his 15:55, 16 October 2005 posting.
    • Yes that IP is me. There is no 3RR on vandalism. 172 has been reported for vandalism of the certified text. He has had notice, on his talk page, and on the talk page of the WfC he is vandalizing. Furthermore I have discussed this on wicken-l. He has a legitimate way to make his edits yet he refuses to do it. If he really thought I was getting close to a 3RR violation, he should have warned me.-- Silverback 20:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Silverback's reverts are related to a spurious "severe vandalism" warnings on WP:VIP in retaliation for his work on the RfC. See the discussion talk page of the RfC. [30] [31] 172 | Talk 20:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

They are not spurious, and you showed lack of good faith by reporting this as a 3RR without disclosing the vandalism report. -- Silverback 20:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The vandalism charges are dubious. It is vandalism to modify other users' statements, your own when you are a cosigner of an RfC updating the page as new information comes in. That was explained to you by multiple people on the talk page of your RfC. The fact that our edits weren't vandalism was even explained to you on the mailing list. [32] That is my final word on this matter to you, as there's nothing else left to say. 172 | Talk 21:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
If you are editing in good faith, why won't you respect the integrity of the certified statement and respond elsewhere. Frankly, by the time the community has spoken, I think my interpretation will be upheld. There is no other way it can reasonably work.-- Silverback 21:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Regarding Silverback's claim that the 3RR does not apply to him because he is reverting "vandalism," see: 22:08, 16 October 2005 comments by Redwolf24 Note: Silverback has added 172 to 'Severe' at Vandalism in Progress. This is abusing the system if I've ever seen it. [33] 172 | Talk 23:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply


I've been blocked by an involved admin This is **much worse** than any of Silverback's attacks earlier listed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback. Redwolf24 is obviously a completely involved, uninterested party who probably wasn't even aware of or interested in my past disputes with Silverback. There's a problem when someone can be blocked for making around a half dozen reversions on his own RfC but still case just as much disruption by attacking administrators on the mailing list. 172 | Talk 01:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  3. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
  4. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  5. Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule
  6. Wikipedia:Harassment

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Section to be expounded

Resolution attempt by Bishonen

I'm a bystander in this dispute. I've never interacted with either 172 or Silverback before yesterday, when I fortuituously noticed an appeal from 172 to have personal attacks by Silverback removed by an admin, went look, considered them to be indeed personal attacks, nasty ones, and did remove them. This diff shows exactly what I removed. Silverback disagreed with my actions, and we had a short but, I initially thought, hopeful discussion on my talkpage (some salient quotations from it are set out in the section "Silverback on User talk:Bishonen" above). S was polite to myself, acknowledging my good faith, and therefore I had hopes of getting through on the specific 172 issue also, but I kept being frustrated by his inappropriate insinuations and speculations about 172 personally — in real life, even. My exhortations to "comment on content, not on the contributor" were ignored, and after four posts from S (some of them to 172, who joined in to defend himself) I gave up and rather impatiently asked S to either stop making these personal attacks or stop posting on my page. He stopped posting. Bishonen | talk 23:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. 172 | Talk 16:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. csloat 01:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Geogre 14:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Note that my signing indicates that I believe the facts to be presented, above. However, this is not stand on what actions should be taken. reply
  2. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC) - Silverback's actions are frankly unacceptable. reply
  3. El_C 21:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. RyanFreisling @ 03:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mr. Tibbs 07:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Derex @ 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC) — an incivil, intransigent, and aggressive user from his first edit on. this rfc documents only the latest of his unacceptable behavior. reply
    A strange comment from the only person, whose post to my talk page was so uncivil, it is the only post (other that pure vandalism), I ever deleted from my talk page. You've never seen such incivility from me.-- Silverback 08:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    first, indeed i have. second, 'what the fuck was i supposed to do?' may use a word that offends your tender sensibilities, but it is in common colloquial use and was in no way an attack or assault on you. it was an expression of frustration at your actions ... remove "the fuck" and the complaint has the same substance. unless you are a member of the FCC, civility is about substance & you have been incivil in spades. i have long thought that you were one of the most problematic editors here for you absolutely aggressive POV pushing. several times over the past year, i have found simply factually incorrect assertions you have included in articles in furtherance of your POV which could have been disproven with a simple google check. starting with your assertion last year that john kerry endorsed conscription & most recently, your assertion that "no one" has formally contested that the Iraq invasion was illegal under international law. Derex @ 22:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    You misread, try to understand that no one has "formally" contested that the Iraq invasion was illegal. I will of course, admit I was wrong if you find such a formal charge. On Kerry, I correctly reported that he advocated mandatory public service for high school graduation, and that he thought that public service was a "duty", and that his friend Ted Kennedy, had at one time advocated mandatory public service for all back in the 70s. I think you just don't read text carefully, you make claims lightly without being sure you can back them with evidence, and you are uncivil.-- Silverback 09:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    Go look in the edit history. I added a reference there (2nd google hit) as I reverted your factually incorrect statement. From your response, I assume that you again have inserted falsehoods with no attempts to factcheck and ignoring the reference provided. I'll have to watchlist that article now I suppose, probably some others too. As to conscription, I very carefully read your edits back then, and you clearly & purposefully left the impression that Kerry was promoting conscription despite other editors pointing out the false impression. Derex @ 23:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    It is Kerry's support for mandatory public service and talk of duty that give the impression that his barrier to conscription is low. I leave it to the reader to decide whether the impression is false or not. Some editors did not like the impression the positions gave, and in fact, the Kerry campaign did not like the impression they gave, and eventually removed those positions from his site. But it is tough to take back such impressions. -- Silverback 09:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  8. From what I've read of the relevant information, it seems to be a wholly accurate summation. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  9. Scïmïłar parley 22:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Response

I acknowledge receipt of the notification of this RfC. I intend a careful response in time, but hasten to let the community know that I do not intend a full court defense, so would desire that noone expend more effort than myself, just because they sense the injustice. After all, I am the one most familiar with the evidence, so it would be wasteful for others to go to that effort without my assistance.

There is another reason to not expend much effort, the "dispute" is basicly over. I have no intention of bringing up 172s past behavior again, unless he seeks adminship or repeats similar behavior again in the future.

I also am morally obligated to prevent anyone else from certifying the dispute without notifying them that they would be certifying several false statements. I am not sure to what extent I am required to assume good faith by those that signed it. Part of me wants to assume that some of the certifiers are guilty of no more than placing trust in others, who violated that trust. It would perhaps be more gracious of me to assume that all just made mistakes, or forgot, or were blinded by the emotions of the moment.

One obvious false statement is

  • Silverback, however, rejected the El C's criticism and never apologized for accusations against 172 and El, maintaining on 00:10, 30 Mar 2005 that "just because they are false does not mean they were groundless.".

Not only did I apologize to El C, with this statement on that very same page:

  • I sincerely apologize for any harm that careless question may have caused you. --Silverback 00:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He also, accepted that apology right afterwards with this statement:

  • I owe you no apology, Silverback, no apology whatsoever — but I do accept your apology (which, you will notice, I did not say is "owed" to me). Still, I see nothing of substance to retract from my abovestated position.

Some things about El_C remind me of myself, which is, of course, scary.

I also apologized to 172, on Lulu of the Lotus Eaters's talk page here:

  • Well, I was mistaken in the sockpuppet accusation, we never did find that admin. I apologize. But that isn't a long history. You certainly don't think the apologist for dictators accusation was bizzare do you? You should go back and look at the evidence. Yours is some of the most glowing writing about Kruschev I've ever seen in the english language.--Silverback 11:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC

I believe I had apologized and even better, exhonerated 172, previously, but evidently, not in a way that gets preserved by the search engines. I was and am truly sorry and embarrassed by that incident.

There are other false statements, which I can get to later. -- Silverback 12:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Dispute with csloat on Saddam and al Qaeda

Let me briefly comment that this dipute unlike the other one, is still ongoing. I state categorically, that I have never knowingly violated 3RR. However, I was cited for a violation, and based on what was interpretated as the first revert in that violation, I believe that csloat is correct that I have violated 3RR at least once earlier on that page. He also tried to get a 3RR block after that in a circumstance that was quite a stretch and the administrators apparently found without merit.

csloat is rather territorial on that page, and is prone to make accusations of personal attacks where none are intended, although often he seems to be trying to provoke them. We are currently having a dispute on when it is appropriate or not to question the credibility of a source. We often end up with compromise text, although he has rejected several compromise attempts on other issues. The talk page pretty much speaks for itself, if one also reads the archives.

In an attempt to resolve this dispute, I offer to agree to limit myself to one revert per day on that page, if he will agree to the same.-- Silverback 13:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Csloat's response to: Dispute with csloat on Saddam and al Qaeda

This is not the place to propose such agreements, nor does this proposal have anything to do with the dispute on the page. Anyone familiar with the ongoing discussion on that page can see that Silverback has made numerous personal attacks, which he usually resorts to when he cannot reply to the arguments against a particular edit. He often goes ahead and makes the edit anyway. The dispute he is referring to above is not about "when it is appropriate or not to question the credibility of a source" - as anyone can see by looking at the discussion page, the dispute is over whether information not directly relevant to the page is appropriate on the page. I refer readers to the discussion page itself to review the issues there.-- csloat 03:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Frankly I think you are both (reflexively?) framing the issue to slant it your own way. It is about 'when it is appropriate to question a source' as well as about whether or not the information is directly relevant to the page. He wants to include a mention of the Able Danger issue, as it tends to impeach the credibility of the Commission which is used repeatedly as a source on the page. You've argued that such information should be kept off the page unless it impeaches their credibility "on this particular issue." So, again, I can see how in your mind the issue is "whether [to include] information not directly relevant." Two ways of framing the same issue, and neither one necessarily made in bad faith. But you seem to argue past each other, each either unwilling or unable to see the others point, and then it gets personal... and frankly, if I were you, I wouldn't be so eager to pull uninvolved third parties in to review this, because it doesn't make you look any better than him. Arker 01:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Silverback staunchly opposed deletion of this category, despite established consensus against similiar categories (e.g., Category:Dictators).

With personal knowledge, I can state that I was not staunchly opposed to the deletion of this category. I voted and argued against its deletion, and understood why there was a majority in favor. But my opposition was quite ordinary, and I accepted what I thought would be the consensus. What I "staunchly" opposed was the irregular and abusive way in which it was deleted. I oppose the hubris of those who ride roughshod over the process when things don't go their way.

Despite this violation of due process, I was prepared to just let it go, and agreed to wait a month or so for it to be reconsidered, here are the relevant quotes from User talk:who:

  • Take your own advice and give it a month or so, and see if you can clarify a NPOV version. ∞Who?¿? 21:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That is what I'll do. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't against the rules because of required time distance. I think due to the irregularities of the deletion, there will be support for letting me make a fair go of it.--Silverback 21:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I then started an ordinary Totalitarian dictators article which I thought would be much less offensive because it doesn't try to intrude on other talk pages like the categories do. I thought this would be a good way to preserve the previous Category work, and to try to address the objections stated during the votes. Then immediately without giving the article a chance 172 put it up for RfD and further when others suggested that it might be a candidate for speedy delete he compounded his previous abuse of the process by not objecting to the use of the tainted category deletion as a justification for a speedy deletion.

I then resolved to fight the speedy delete and to apply for undeletion, in order to increase awareness of his behavior, and the injustice of using an incorrectly deleted article as an excuse to speedy delete another. Note, while I would have been pleasantly surprised if these processes had succeeded, I didn't really expect success. My ultimate goal was that people will be more sensitive to such issues in the future. 172 was of great assistance in increasing awareness of these issues. -- Silverback 14:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Personal attacks

What the certifiers are calling personal attacks, are not much different than their statements of dispute above, except that by doing it in a statement of dispute, they are allowed a long string of personal attacks, negative characterizations and negative opinions in a format in which it would be inappropriate for me to interleave my responses. My, so called, "personal attacks" were done in give and take forum where the context was more apparent. And responses could be interleaved. -- Silverback 14:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Longtime pattern of bad-faith accusations?

More "two incidents long ago", both regretted and apologized for.-- Silverback 14:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Outside view by McClenon

I would suggest that mediation be tried.

I have seen Silverback's editing style. He has a strong, clearly held point of view, and can be abrasive. I seldom agree with Silverback on anything having political implications. However, I think that he is a constructive and valuable member of the Wikipedia community, largely as a forceful exponent of a libertarian outlook. He is sometimes guilty of breaches of civility, but he is respectful of the concept of POV and NPOV, as too many Wikipedians are not. In the Ted Kennedy edit wars, which have now resulted in an ArbCom case, Silverback was initially contentious, but did not engage in trolling or taunting, and was a constructive editor who helped contribute to a consensus.

In the particular case in point, it does appear that Silverback has been uncivil, and has engaged in personal attacks. At the same time, Lulu is also sometimes a contentious editor. This looks like the sort of case where mediation might work.

  1. Robert McClenon 22:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. bainer ( talk) 04:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Susvolans ⇔ 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

I have clashed with Silverback on a number of topics, in particular on Global Warming and related pages. I agree that Silverback is respectful of NPOV in theory. However, he obviously has a number of strongly held beliefs, and I doubt that he is always able to distinguish these from "the objective truth". As a result, sometimes is less than civil, and working with him requires a lot of patience. On the other hand, he usually is open to rational discussion, and he can be moved (very, very, VERY slowly). Mediation might be useful. -- Stephan Schulz 23:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Schulz, I have enjoyed working with you and believe you edit in good faith, but I am surprised that you don't acknowledge that I have supplied most of the references and summaries that provide proper perspective on the importance and effects of solar variation and of climate commitment effects, and it has been good enough evidence that WMC has had to acknowledge.-- Silverback 05:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fair is fair. Silverback has indeed provided a number of useful references on solar variation and climate commitment. In my opinion, he has nearly always misinterpreted them, but as the result of the discussion, the article is stronger. He is a valuable (if sometimes infuriating) contributor. Silverback, I think our philosophy/personality type discussion on your talk page explains some of this. Just because you think you are right does not mean you are (or even if you are, that everybody agrees). If you blindly act as if your POV is the only valid one, you piss people off. Take a step back and try to look at it from a bigger picture occasionally. One example is you reporting of 172 as a "severe vandal" for something that is apparently normal and expected behaviour on RfCs (editing his own text, even after it has been signed by others - note that as far as I have noted, he made no substantial edits to other people's text). On a different note, I really prefer to be called "Stephan", or, if you want to be formal, Dr. Schulz. This is not a barracks. If it were, I wouldn't be here. -- Stephan Schulz 07:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hmm, I'm coming to this rather late, but I would say that Sb has been an unreasonable proponent of solar forcing and has pushed it too hard, unbalancing the various pages. Ditto his version of climate commitment, in which he overemphasises solar effects. I don't accept his versions, he is wrong to state that I acknowledge them. Left to himself, he would have unbalanced the articles even further: fortunately he wasn't left quite to himself. William M. Connolley 22:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC). reply

Outside view by Redwolf24

I've seen this editor around making attacks and he seems to never assume good faith. I believe he has attacked 172, and I believe he baits 172 to attack him. I'd probably prefer this user be blocked for a short period of time, enforce a break, but he's not quite a troll.

Note: Silverback has added 172 to 'Severe' at Vandalism in Progress. This is abusing the system if I've ever seen it.

Note: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Silverback Silverback has broken the.. 5RR at this very page.

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

  1. R e dwolf24 ( talk— How's my driving?) 23:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Peter Isotalo 22:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Accusing people of supporting dictatorship due to political disagreements is really virulant incivility. Silverback deserves a personal attack parole probation. reply
    You mean probation? R e dwolf24 ( talk— How's my driving?) 22:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. I'm not personally familar with the specific case that this RfC deals with, but I have had run-ins with Silverback in the past, and it certainly sounds like him. See the talk archives for Fox News. At one point I was this close to RfCing him myself, but he apparently decided to take a multiple month vacation from the Fox News article. Since that was basically the punishment I was going to ask for, I let it slide. IMO, Silverback is not a troll, but he only misses it by a gnat's whisker. He is certainly incivil and does not play well with others. His attitude often hurts his own POV. Probation sounds about right. crazyeddie 06:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    Crazyeddie, do you forget that you refused to work with me, but that I continued to work with slimvirgin and Baas, and that while you were trying to form a consensus, we ended up probably understanding the statistical strengths and weaknesses of the PIPA study than anybody outside PIPA itself. You were trying to form a consensus, we were trying to get the statistics right, and in the end I think we did reach consensus. I think you were the one that insisted on the redundant and pejorative "right wing conservative" labels and you were quite obstinate about it. You didn't convince me it wasn't pejorative, you just outnumbered me. And then I went on vacation to Europe.-- Silverback 05:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    Which is precisely why I am voting for probation instead of an outright ban. You do raise the occasional good point, but it isn't worth dealing with the rest of it. I don't mind you defending your POV, but I don't like how you do it. I may have said "I can't work with this guy", but I believe an independent investigation of the archives would show that I made every attempt to, even after saying that. If you spent less time insisting that you are right and more time attempting to persuade people that you are right, I think we would all be better off, including you.
    For example of what I mean, I didn't insist on the "right-wing conservative" language, in fact, I disagreed with it myself. I merely presented the best argument I could for it (partially on behalf of people who dislike Fox News even more than I do). As it happened, others persuaded me that another course was better, consensus was reached, and we all went on with our lives. crazyeddie 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. But not making a comment one way or another on the 'troll' point. 172 | Talk 15:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. It seems to me from reading all the evidence related to this case, that Silverback, does severely lack communication skills. I don't think that . "crazyeddie" is correct in asking for punishment, as that word smacks of severe crime, but Silverback is indeed guilty of incivility, and should be given the opportunity of a period of self-reflection through non editing in order to have the space to find a solution to redress these shortcomings. Wikipedia is a community project and we must all learn the value of compromise and mutual respect in our dealings with each other. I'm sure Silverback will agree with this. Giano | talk 21:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. I also have had editing run-ins with Silverback, and feel that he often writes text on the fly without any substantial research or proper consideration of the consequences. Some mild administrative sanction would hbe constructive. Cberlet 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Agreed. Linuxbeak | Talk 03:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  8. Concur. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  9. Agreed, although as others above say, I'm not sure that he isn't a troll. -- Scïmïłar parley 22:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Geogre

I do not believe that it is the place of an RfC to necessarily attribute blame, although some outside views will, nor to specify which course of action should be taken, although, again, some outside views will do so. The facts stated in the summary above are established with diffs that we may all check, and there is not much doubt about them. Whatever history each user has is irrelevant to the findings of fact, here, as there is no proper provocation for listing someone on WP:VIP, for example.

We all get frustrated. I hope that we all similarly believe in what we are doing here. However, we can't let our passion for what we are doing ever tempt us into disrupting the function of the site to express our frustration, and this includes pursuing each other through unrelated pages, discussing the person instead of the edits, or trying to get each other kicked off for content and formatting disputes. Geogre 14:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

If you agree, go ahead and sign, I guess.

Specific Silverback point 1

In this statement from the Statement of the Dispute:

  • After Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters rejects Silverback's description of 172 as a 'fanatic', writing, "I don't think caring about neutral point of view is 'fanaticism', but YMMV," Silverback retorts by comparing 172, whose family was largely perished in the Holocaust, to 'Holocaust deniers', 'deniers of Stalin's purges', and Castro's 'brutal repression of attempts to emigrate'. — 21:50, 11 October 2005

The certifiers deceptively mischaracterized Silverbacks statement by calling it a comparison regarding 172, when it doesn't mention 172, and 172 was informed afterwards that it wasn't directed at him. [34]-- Silverback 01:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

  1. 64.154.26.251 03:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (aka 216.119.etc. series) reply

Specific Silverback point 2

There two signed comments by csloat and bishonen in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section are not for the same dispute. Furthermore, Bishonens comment does not represent a failure as required by the 48 hour rule, therefore this RfC page should be deleted, because two people did not show that they tried to resolve the same dispute with this user and have failed. -- Silverback 01:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

  1. 64.154.26.251 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (aka 216.119.etc. series) 172 even admits it's not the same dispute in this section of this page. Concur. reply

SB response to 172 stating he has never proposed using Communist jargon

under construction

I never said 172 did. I gave examples of marxist deceptive characterizations in order to obscure the true nature of such regimes. Marxists use other deceptions too, such as "property is theft". Marism is essentially a faith without a god, with its subjective articles of faith such as dialectical materialism and historial determinism.

Where 172 showed similar deception was in his stated reasons for opposing the totalitarian dictatorship category and in his dismissive reversions of attempts to note that certain regimes violently suppress emigration.

In his opposition to "Category:Totalitarian dictator", 172 states it is "Inherently POV.", but later notes that "political scientists always disgree on what totalitarianism is, when to apply it, and even on whether or not it's a useful concept". Wikipedia covers many subjects in which the experts disagree. 172 essentially admits that there are expects that classify regimes as totalitarian and consider it a useful concept, so it is not inherently POV, it is just controversial. If this academic discipline is like others, how to apply any particular definition is not that controversial and such application is probably survives peer review. There are probably competing definitions, that result in different categorizations.

172 knows full well that totalitarian dictators is a legitimate, if controversial, distinction, yet deceptively labels it inherantly POV, because he doesn't like this being applied to regimes that he is an apologist for, while in the meantime he is perfectly happy to make equally controversial distinctions such as those involved in imperialism and colonialism, cultural relativism, etc.

SB point: Csloat makes accusations and attacks that do not assume good faith

This example, is part of a regular pattern of personal attacks, whining, and false characterizations of both my actions and my intent. He was supporting text that was both false and that went way beyond what his sources could justify, and then made accusations and impuned my intent before finally agreeing that I was right.

and that was in response to these edits:

Note his accusations, characterizations and whining in the edit summaries also. Note also that the edit summaries are also part of a running "collaboration", that ended in my acceptance of the final better supported text, which FYI, someone later improved further. With running summaries such as this, it is easy for csloat to produce the false impression that they were misleading or deceptive. I never thought for a moment that I could put something over on him. He is an ever vigilant watch dog on this page. Note also that his exagerations, accusations and whining also spill over onto my talk page and that I generally just call them what they were and move on intead of escalating to mutual accusations and recriminations.

Another thing to notice about the edit sequence, is that at no point is the text that I propose false. Each of csloats texts is false until the last one. Perhaps I am obstinate and frustrating, at what point should I have "given up"?

Perhaps, I would have "evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" on this talk page also, if I had engaged in similarly whining and attacks, but I generally just stick to the points I am trying to make. In the 172 case, it just so happens, the point I was trying to make was one of character and following and not abusing and vandalizing the process. Note also above that I have proposed a 1RR limit resolution to the "dispute". -- Silverback 17:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Note, if you endorse this please also note whether you have read csloat's response below, so that he can know that your decision was fully informed.-- Silverback 20:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~,

Csloat response to: Csloat makes accusations and attacks that do not assume good faith

Silverback's characterization of the dispute above is entirely false. He was posting edit summaries that ignored the most significant change he kept making on the page, in order to obscure those edits. I don't think my responses to those summaries can be called "whining" but whatever you like. The material I posted to his talk page was about another matter, where I asked him to stop his personal attacks and steamrolling edits. He claims my edits were false but provides no evidence of that; I'm not sure what he's talking about. If you read the links he's provided above you'll see that at no point did I agree with him. Another user posed a compromise text that I did not revert, but I stated clearly on the talk page that I did not agree with Silverback at all and that the compromise text was not to my liking, but I left it in in good faith. The text Silverback proposed edited out information questioning the reliability of sources of the specific information presented here; he wanted to remove relevant information in order to make certain claims appear more credible. It is not a question of whether the text was "false" but rather about whether information about its reliability would be included. In any case, if you follow the links he himself has provided you can judge for yourself.-- csloat 19:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

  1. I'm not a party to the dispute, but it sounds like many of my experiences. 172 | Talk 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. I can concur and have witnessed this pattern of behavior on Silverback's part. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

SB point: 172s history of unapologetic and defiant abuse

Under construction

I helped document the evidence of the abuse of admin powers for the second arbitration case. User:172 abused his admin powers on the Global warming in apparent collaboration with User:Stirling Newberry and two sock puppets. The group collaborated on Intelligent design shortly before, and then showed up with edits immediately followed by 172 protecting the page. 172 has achieved the distinction of being one of only 5 cases of involuntary revocation of adminship [39]-- Silverback 22:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Upon 172s return, and protestations agains the loss of his adminship without due process, I made this statement, note, I have never seen such abuses of admin powers before or since:

  • You should read the record, and you will see how the decision was made. As a repeat abuser of admin privileges, it was pretty clear the decision would have gone against you had you chosen to participate. The praise of your abilities as an author and authority on your talk page were irrelevant to these issues of abuse of power. As an apologist for other regimes which abused power, it perhaps should be no suprise that you viewed adminship as a right rather than a public trust.--Silverback 19:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) [40]

which apparently he found disgusting in this post:

  • This is disgusting, and for me the last straw. [41] May I ask for your help in requesting arbitration against this user? 172 20:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) [42]



Evidence to be inserted

SB point: 172s latest abuse

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

  • First, I did not change the closure. User:172 removed the closure tag here, which I did not see....I agree, the tag should not have been removed. However since it was, and the debate stayed open longer, it allowed the consensus to reach delete. If I would have seen its removal, I would have immediately reverted it, however to revert it now, would be a bit late, as users have seen the closure as such. --[User talk:Who] [43]
  • ... Although I have some concerns about the original processology of extending a CfD and stuff, I don't feel moved to reverse my deletion, particularly as VfU is upholding it without too much trouble and there is also a perfectly decent stub now in place. ... - Splash talk 11:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply

[44]

172 unilaterally depopulated a category while the VfD was still going on. Evidently he was trying to make the point that the category was inherently POV. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. He was warned about his behavior:

  • Until the discussion concludes, would you mind repopulating the category? Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – please do not depopulate the category before the community has made a decision. Thanks. --Kbdank71 19:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [45]

non-contiguous excerpts from [User talk:Kbdank71]

I wouldn't waste my time. User 172 is going to do whatever pleases him, regardless of whether he has a consensus or not. He's already proven this to be the case. It's funny how he wants a second opinion on the cfd discussion, when he unilaterally made the choice to empty the category. Great knowledge or not, if this is how he handles himself, I can't say I'm glad he came back. -- Kbdank71 15:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I did not realize that 172 had removed the CFD tag, so the debate stayed open longer, which resulted in the delete consensus. I did not mean to change your original closure, as I did not know it was closed, I should have checked history. However, it staying open for longer than normal is not against any policy, though the tag removal was. I just deleted this category, after letting it stay unlisted for deletion to allow for any objections. Sorry Kris, I did not mean to squish your closure decision :) ∞ Who ?¿? 20:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No need to apologize for something 172 caused. Besides, if we kept it around, we'd have had to listen to him about it further. -- Kbdank71 21:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply

After the people who disagree with 172 have been led to believe the vote is closed

172 starts a campaign for more delete votes. It is the type of one party "campaign" he recommends for dictators. First he contacts User:John Kenney

Note, that he considers the supermajority protections that wikipedia uses to assure consensus, diversity and minority representation, as mere technicalities to be overcome:

  • Thanks for the quick reply. I put the CfD back up, making the case that we need a second opinion given the trend in voting. With a few more delete votes, the ~75% threshold will be surpassed, meaning that it won't be able to survive by technicality. 172 | Talk 23:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC) [47] reply

Here he contacts User:Willmcw, he is "on the prowl":

Here he contacts User:El_C:

  • I hope all is better now. I remember that the last time we were in touch you were sick... I'm on the prowl for competent editors who are coming up on recent changes to take a look at the CfD for a nightmare category. If you have time, please take a look. Thanks. 172 | Talk 23:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC) [49] reply

Here he contacts Zscout730:

He similarly contacts User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Evidence to be inserted

SB point: 172 is POV warrior, apologist for regimes that also abuse

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

The cultural relativism apologia:

  • Thus, I’m not an apologist for dictators, but a proponent of good analysis of history. In that sense, I’d find an article about someone like Robert Mugabe intolerable if his actions are criticized on the basis of values-laden judgments rather than explain in the context of the material, political, and cultural realities of HIS society. [50]

Two years ago, 172 was more revealing of his inner feelings, perhaps he has discovered the joys of multiparty systems with respect for supermajority protections for minority rights since then?:

  • I’ll be honest. Mugabe shouldn’t have abandoned the single-party state in the first place. That’s what left Zimbabwe open to outside interference, which has really been destabilizing the country. I want Mugabe to subvert the self-serving, neocolonial opposition as much as he can in order to offset their funding advantage provided by greedy, greedy colonialists. ... I wish sell-out Mandela and Mbeki and their ANC had the courage and resolve of Mugabe and his ZANU-PF.

He goes to the trouble of accumulating diplomatic praise apologia (I assume 172 was joking?):

  • Kim Jong Il is rapidly gaining the reputation as a master of world politics. China's Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan calls Kim "quick-witted." Outgoing South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his 2000 summit with Kim Jong Il, praises him as a "man of insight." And Kim impressed former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as "very decisive and practical and serious." [51]

It's really the fault of the United States, others aren't responsible for their behavior, and its not "true" maoism apologia:

  • US action in Indochina might have led to over two million deaths in Cambodia alone [52]

Another user evidently has noticed the same pattern:

  • 172 has a long history of aggressive point of view editing which he covers up with a smokescreen of "academic authority". He is especially active with edits which whitewash left-wing totalitarian governments, leaders and actions. Fred Bauder 11:01, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC) [53]


Wow, Chinese communists finally got it right!!:

  • Divergences between the development levels, levels of state ownership, and economic structures between the five Communist states of China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea or whether or not China is "capitalist" and has betrayed its Marxist-Leninist philosphy thus don't matter to this discussion (I personally think that they haven't and that they've finally found a workable model of socialism worth revisiting, but that doesn't matter either). [54]

The great losses apologia for oppression, btw, I believe the removal of the references to holocaust was an accident. Note that Soviet excuses are being repeated uncritically here. There was no regard for life by the Soviet leadership, the starvation caused by their scorched earth strategy and the failure to evacuate Leningrad were largely responsible for the civilian casualties, and divisions that could easily have been saved were not responsibly evacuated, in decisions every bit as callous and stupid as Hitlers throwing away of his troops at Stalingrad.:

  • As mentioned, the Soviets bore the heaviest casualties of World War II. These war causalities can explain much of Russia's behavior after the war. The Soviet Union defended its occupation of Eastern Europe as "buffer zone" to protect Russia from another invasion from the West. Russia had been invaded three times past 150 years before the Cold War during the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II, suffering tens of millions of causalities. [55]

Evidence to be inserted

Response

This "SB point" is laughable already. Cherry-picking my comments made over two years ago and presenting them out of context (in order to misrepresent my edits and views) is no defense for Silverback's behavior over the past couple of weeks. 172 | Talk 05:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This RfC mooted by Redwolf24

Redwolf24, an official wikipedia admin, handled most of the matters that were being addressed against Silverback by this RfC, with a 24 hour block. Here is the text, note that it is rather broad in the alleged offenses that it summarily handled.

On 23:22 16 October 2005 User:Redwolf24 blocked "User:Silverback" with an expiry time of 24 hours, adding the following summary: "[Silverback] reverts incessantly, removing information from his RfC, has been attacking 172 a lot lately, hasn't been too civil, hopefully this block will turn him around."

Wikipedia should perhaps be more careful in selection of admins, if it wants things handled by RfCs, or some due process instead of summarily by administrators.

Since the issues against Silverback have already been handled, by an official of wikipedia. This RfC is now moot. Those in the community that disagree with this should address this issue with rules or with better choices of officials.-- Silverback 04:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

BTW, since seeing this 172 and Redwolf24 have changed their tune and are trying to call this a 3RR block. But the intent was clear even to others First off, we need get the facts straight here. See discussion on this talk page.-- Silverback 09:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply


Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Re "Specific Silverback point 2"

Yeah, I see the above note about "a vote or endorsement", but this still seems a better place for a direct reply to a specific point made on this page. My resolution attempt certainly did fail. :-( That seems a curious thing for me to have to prove, as if I was proud of it: I certainly am not. I made the attempt in good faith, but without enough skill or patience. And I wasn't addressing a dispute between you and me, we had none. Did we? Surely not? I'm a stranger to you, and the only subject I've ever spoken to you about is the dispute between you and 172--well, the RfC template calls it a "dispute", for myself I would call it a conduct issue. I tried to get you to stop making personal remarks to and about 172, his motives, his character. That was my attempt, and my failure, as you've kept right on doing it. You and I stopped arguing, yes. We fell silent, I warned you off my page, you left. That represents miserable shared failure. You failed to modify the conduct in question, I failed to keep communication lines open: nothing for either of us to be proud of. Our dialogue, first promising and then unfortunately faltering, can be followed, for anybody who's interested, on WP:VFU and my talk page. Bishonen | talk 02:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you can clear up which dispute you were attempting to resolve, because signed statements and evidence is supposed to be supplied of two attempts to resolve the same dispute. The only other signed statement is by csloat, and it does not appear to be an attempt to resolve the same dispute. In addition, how did you try to resolve the dispute, other than to tell me to stop, did you try to broker a compromise, such as asking 172 to withdraw his RfD for the article in light of his misconduct on the voting for the RfC? Or was you attempt to resolve the dispute one sided?-- Silverback 04:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Clear it up a third time? Fine, but that's it. My attempt was indeed onesided. Before you take issue with that, please note that I was an uninvolved party, an outsider, with no brief for either of you. The only conflict visible to me was between your insistence on "describing" 172 personally, his supposed character and motives (rather than his writing and actions), and his insistence that you don't. Compromise was hardly relevant. Personal remarks are anti-policy and anti-Wikipedia even if they aren't insulting—"Comment on content, not the contributor"—and when they are it's a lot worse. I can't believe you really require to have that principle elucidated over and over again. That principle is the conduct issue I tried to resolve, and it's the issue at the heart of this RfC, it's why the RfC was brought. I would advise you to address it more head-on in your responses, instead of focusing on the RfC outworks. You say above that "I intend a careful response in time", and offer to "get to" "false statements" in the description and evidence people have offered. Good, please do, I think people would be interested in that. Bishonen | talk 10:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Part of the unfairness of the process of allowing editing of certified text, even if one put the text in oneself, is that you have to look at this history for the lies, some of which I have already identified above, about the apologies for instance. Another of the lies, was about their inference of the intent behind my actions, when I corrected them on that, of course they remove that evidence and correct it. I think a process that doesn't protect the original text, even though it is saved in the history, places too great a demand on the voters. For instance, you yourself, assumed that I hadn't already addressed the false statements. I think you had good intent, especially since you are one of the few that seems to have actually read what I have written, and to have even noted that I have not really responded yet. When I am involved in processes, I tend to analyze them and try to improve them. In the long run, the creation of fair processes and an ethic of compliance with them will do more to improve wikipedia than the result on any individual RfC/user.-- Silverback 17:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No, I wasn't assuming anything, I was referring to your claim "There are other false statements, which I can get to later." It's still up there. Bishonen | talk 09:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
They've changed a lot of them. I have to see if they are still there. I am working on a different part right now.-- Silverback 09:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Outside View by Karmafist

Hi, I was editing Michael Savage tonight and saw an edit made by a user with the name of Silverbackman0076 ( talk · contribs), which seemed like a Meatpuppet considering his political beliefs. Karmafist 03:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with the term "meatpuppet" and the wikilink didn't help. Perhaps this is a coincidence, but that username is also used here note the yahoo ID-- Silverback 08:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Further evidence of Silverback's incivility and malfeasance

Silverback has already been taken to task by others for removing their words on discussion pages as well as on this page. I noticed he did this to my response to him recently in order to make it seem like I had not responded to him and that I was responding to another user. Here he deleted my comments and then he "restored" them here, in a place where they do not make any sense and where I seem to be responding to another user's comments (I notice he specifically chose a user who had proposed an "agreement" which my first sentence seems to refer to after Silverback's changes). This is an obvious attempt to undermine the RfC process by creating confusion and by making it seem as if his "agreement" proposal was ignored.-- csloat 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Evidently you are unfamiliar with how evidence pages work. You are not supposed to respond in my section, but in a separate section. You are going to lose credibility with your whining and insinuations. You accused me of removing something from my own talk page a couple weeks back insinuating I was trying to hide a criticism. I never remove anything from my talk page unless it is vandalism or a vulgarity. The case you objected to was a vulgarity. And I did didn't hide the "criticsm", I transferred it to the posters talk page, since he was comfortable with such language and I responded to it there. You should also try to reduce your personal attacks before you become notorious. Now please transfer your original comment out of my response section. You can pick where to put it yourself, if you don't like where I put it.-- Silverback 01:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
As is typical of Silverback's argumentation style, he makes condescending comments about his concern for my reputation. This is not the first time he's done so. I think people can judge for themselves why he is moving other editors' text around -- the case outlined in the links above seems pretty clear to me. His changes made it look like I was replying to another user instead of to him. I'll leave aside the question of his motives though it seems pretty obvious. The problem is that this behavior is disruptive, no matter what his motives.-- csloat 02:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Ta bu shi da yu

Only briefly, my first encounter with this user was on Wikipedia:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive2. I suggest that a brief read be made - I leave it up to editors to work out what happened here. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Seeking Help

I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just lauched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct. [56] I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's. Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks!-- Mr j galt 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Silverback&oldid=1142569529"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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, not different disputes. 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: 16:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

Silverback ( talk · contribs) is exceedingly argumentative on talk pages. He makes it tedious to keep arguing with him, as he offers weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the overwhelming evidence brought to his attention by other editors.

He repeatedly engages in revert wars and disruptive arguments on talk pages while ignoring the three revert rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Most disruptively, he insults fellow editors who disagree with his opinions, often implying that they are "immoral," "unethical," or engaging in "abuses of power" with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over his personal issues with other editors. Silverback does not play well with others.

Description

User:Silverback is a longtime Wikipedia editor, having made his first edit on 07:04, 30 September 2004. [1]Thus, this RfC can make no pretense to being a complete overview of his nearly 13 months of activity on Wikipedia. Instead, it is just a collection of evidence concerning ongoing disputes, only looking back at episodes dating back before September 2005 to sheld light on current disputes.

In recent weeks, Silverback's most aggressive behavior has coincided with the deletion of Category:Totalitarian dictators. Silverback staunchly opposed deletion of this category, despite established consensus against similiar categories (e.g., Category:Dictators).

On 14:20, 30 September 2005 User:Kbdank71 closed the discussion on Category:Totalitarian dictators CfD, claiming that there was no consensus to delete. [2] Shortly afterwards, 172 disagreed and removed the closure tag, thereby extending the time period for the discussion. [3] 172 then stated on multiple pages, including Kbdank71's, that since the "deletes" already had a overwhelming majority, with the vote strongly trending toward "delete" in the final two or three days of voting, it was appropriate to give editors more time to add more feedback and perspective to the discussion, thus establishing in the end a more clear consensus one way or another. On 02:56, 3 October 2005, User:Who closed the extended debate, with the consensus being delete. He decided to let the category remain unlisted for a short period before ultimately deleting the category. [4]

Since the deletion of the category, Silverback been making accusations of "immorality," "deceit," 'unethical behavior', "abuses of power" against 172 for extending the discussion on the CfD on multiple pages in a manner some editors consider harassment and disruptive. These charges can be found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators (a deletion discussion pertaining to an article created by Silverback containing the contents of the deleted category) and later the Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion discussion following the AfD debate.

In response to the substance of the said charges posted in Wikipedia:Votes for Undeletion, on 17:01, 13 October 2005 Michael Snow wrote:

Silverback apparently is arguing that the deletion debate regarding the category was closed without consensus; however, this was not the final result of the discussion. The attempted closure Silverback points [the one reversed by 172] to was improper, especially in such a close case, because it was performed by one of the partisans for the "keep" side. [5]

However, despite the room for legitimate disagreement over policy regarding the reopening of discussion on CfD noted above, Silverback's denouncements of 172's action only become more vehiment, even to the point of abuse, according to some editors. Silverback's pattern personal attacks and incivility was clearly articulated by User:Bishonen, who relayed to Silverback on 00:12, 15 October 2005, "You've made it clear that you dislike not only his editing, but his ideology, himself, and what you guess or believe about his private life. So what, really? You're an experienced editor, you know Wikipedia is no place for airing opinions about those things. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." [6] When the advise apparently fell on deaf ears, Bishonen stated to Silverback on 00:12, 15 October 2005, "I don't know him, but I don't see anything in your specific accusations to warrant any attacks on his 'character' whatsoever. I don't see why he should put up with continuous abuse from you, either. Just stop it." [7]

Concurrently, Silverback remains involved in a POV war on pages unrelated to the Categroy:Totalitarian dictators dispute. On 18:08, 13 October 2005, Csloat noted on that his conduct has been shown similar patterns on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda: "[H]e's doing the same sort of thing on Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and has been for several weeks now. It's tedious to keep arguing with him and he steamrolls edits of the page itself (and reversions) with deceptive edit summaries, offering weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the most significant edits he makes. [8]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Disruption, incivility, and harassment in discussions regarding Category:Totalitarian dicators

Silverback on User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

See also: User_talk:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters/Silverback_and_172_talk_about_Totalitarian_dictators_on_my_talk_page

  1. Silverback makes a bad-faith accusation of "vandalism" against Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. — 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    Edit summary and subject heading read, "stop vandalizing Category:Totalitarian dictators" (in current page, LotLE took out argumentative part of subject heading)
  2. Silverback comments on 172's "fanaticism." — 20:52, 11 October 2005
    I think my improvements would address the concerns that 172 raised. Probably not enough to satisfy his fanaticism, but enough to make his arguments seem hollow.
  3. After Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters rejects Silverback's description of 172 as a 'fanatic', writing, "I don't think caring about neutral point of view is 'fanaticism', but YMMV," Silverback retorts by comparing 172, whose family was largely perished in the Holocaust, to 'Holocaust deniers', 'deniers of Stalin's purges', and Castro's 'brutal repression of attempts to emigrate'. — 21:50, 11 October 2005
    Just because there are holocaust deniers, for instance, doesn't mean you should give up. Perhaps there are deniers of Stalin's purges or Castro's brutal repression of attempts to emmigrate, but most people can agree that these are facts and use reason to apply the definition.
  4. Silverback defends his claim that 172 is an apologist for dictators and a supporter of the Soviet Union. 11:17, 12 October 2005
    You certainly don't think the apologist for dictators accusation was bizzare do you? You should go back and look at the evidence. Yours is some of the most glowing writing about Kruschev I've ever seen in the english language.
  5. I don't know anything else (and don't really care to) about the rest of the dispute, but I noticed silverback blanking stuff from LuLu's talk page [9] Fawcett5 17:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC) On further examination and explaination from Silverback, I believe this was caused by a database cache latency glitch and was not intentional. Fawcett5 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Silverback on User talk:Bishonen
  1. Silverback mischaracterizes 172's work on Soviet and Russian history, which has been determined to meet Wikipedia standards of NPOV in that it has resulted in a handful of Featured Articles, in order to imply that he supported the Soviet Union. — 13:43, 14 October 2005
    "[172] was territorial about certain articles in which he largely painted post Stalin soviet leaders as reformers, and barely documented the continued oppressive nature of the regimes."
  2. Silverback continues to 'extrapolate into 172's personal life', as he puts it. — [10]
    The part where I extrapolate to his possible personal life, is of course, speculative. I admit that it is entirely possible that in his personal life he is a complete Milquetoast, and would never cross any questionable lines, and his behavior here is just a manifestation of the breakdown in of moral restraint that occurs under the cloak of anonimity. But by speculating in this way, I hoped to convict his conscience with what others might conclude from his behavior. He seems to be immune to this however.
  3. Bishonen attempts to moderate Silverback's tone, and advise him to avoid personal remarks. — 19:36, 14 October 2005
    But for my part I can't believe anybody's conscience was ever convicted by one-eyed and unfair attacks like those you level against 172 on WP:VFU and continue to level here on my page. In any case his conscience is not your business. You've made it clear that you dislike not only his editing, but his ideology, himself, and what you guess or believe about his private life. So what, really? You're an experienced editor, you know Wikipedia is no place for airing opinions about those things. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If a fellow editor were to suffer, in your opinion, a "breakdown in moral restraint" (not that I've seen any sign of it), it's not something you have to fix.
  4. Silverback continues to bait 172 for his 'abuse' on Bishonen's talk page. — 19:27, 14 October 2005
    Don't you [172] wonder why it is repeatedly you that is unable to resist the temptation to abuse?
  5. Silverback is again admonished to follow Wikipedia:No personal attacksBishonen states, "Please don't post on my page if you can't do it without insulting 172": 00:12, 15 October 2005
    "I suspect that 172's character will probably remain what it ever was". This is outrageous. Kindly do not post on my page again if it's impossible for you to do it without snide insinuations against 172 personally. Please follow this link to see where "Comment on content, not on the contributor" comes from, in case you think it's something I made up. Are 172's hypothetical flaws of "character" in some sense content, in your opinion? And incidentally, I don't know him, but I don't see anything in your specific accusations to warrant any attacks on his "character" whatsoever. I don't see why he should put up with continuous abuse from you, either. Just stop it.
Silverback on VfU
  1. Silverback accuses User:Dmcdevit of lying when he stated that "[the Cfd] was a valid closing." — 06:51, 13 October 2005
    You must be afraid of the truth since you are lying. Other voters should examine the evidence themselves.
  2. In the same post, Silverback accuses 172 of "vandalism" — 06:51, 13 October 2005
    ...failure and closing of the previous CFD before User:172 vandalized the process.
  3. Aaron Brenneman removes Silverback's personal attack on Dmcdevit — 07:07, 13 October 2005
  4. Dmcdevit responds to Silverback's 'allegations' — 07:10, 13 October 2005
  5. Silverback reverts Aaron Brenneman's removal of his attack on Dmcdevit and reiterates his unsubstantiated allegations. — 07:51, 13 October 2005
    I restore my original text. When a sysop lies, it shouldn't be brushed under the rug, and it isn't an attack when it is a fact. His statements were an attack on the truth. Far more serious.
  6. Silverback makes five sequential postings stating unsubstantiated allegations against 172 regarding 'vandalism,' "deceptively deleting evidence," and 'misconduct' — 07:14, 13 October 2005 -- 07:42, 13 October 2005
    The original "category" that this "article" is supposed to be a repeat of, survived a vote for deletion, that was closed until that vote was vandalized [by 172].
    the previous page should not have been deleted, and was only because of misconduct by 172.
    But unlike User:172, I am not deceptively deleting the evidence of the previous hasty action.
  7. Though Silverback apologizes to Dmcdevit, he reiterates his accusation that 172 "vandalized" the CfD process. — 08:32, 13 October 2005
  8. Further incivility, with caps used to connote shouting (at whom it is unclear). — 11:37, 13 October 2005
    THIS IS THE CLOSED VOTE THAT 172 REOPENED
  9. Silverback baits 172 for his 'abuse of power' — 11:37, 13 October 2005
    You abuse edit powers just as you did admin powers.
  10. Silverback continues to bait 172 for "unethical behavior," "abuse of trusts," 'hubris that knows no limits', and his 'unworthiness to be justified with any powers, including editing'. — 11:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    No, it is your unethical behavior and abuse of trusts placed in you that I find offensive, and the fact, others apparently go along with it, in effect rewarding your behavior...
    Much to my surprise, you had been allowed to unethically and unilaterally open a closed vote, and then lobbied certain people for votes without notifying the whole community and the vote was closed again, all within three days...
    Your hubris knows no limits. Your ends justify any means. You are unworthy to be trusted with any powers, apparently even editing.
  11. Silverback continues to attack what he perceives to be 172's ideology, insinuating that he is analogous to a "criminal" and was a supporter of the Soviet Union. — 12:39, 13 October 2005
    Blame to cop for the crime because he didn't catch the criminal. I think you wrote some similar language about Khrushchev and the Berlin wall, blaming Kennedy for the wall because Khrushchev would have backed off if Kennedy had resisted. Why don't you take responsibility for your actions instead of blaming others for allowing you to get away with it.
  12. For the next four hours, Silverback's personal remarks charges are either ignored or refuted by other editors on VfU. — 19:59, 13 October 2005 - 23:57, 13 October 2005
    Tito states in reference to Silverback's charges regarding 172's reopening of the vote on the CfD for Category:Totalitarian dictators: Yeah [to Silverback], I do see something wrong with the CFD: the fact that someone who voted keep closed it as no consensus, when there was a consensus, but not for keeping...
  13. Silverback continues to restate charges of 'vandalizing process' against 172 — 12:46, 13 October 2005
  14. An administrator once again removes Silverback's personal attacks. Edit summary was "Personal attacks by Silverback removed." — 01:07, 14 October 2005
    Bishonen note on the removal of the attacks stated the following: I have (conservatively) removed personal attacks by Silverback in the places indicated above. Silverback, you are urgently requested to stop commenting personally and insultingly on other editors. Please comment on contributions, not contributors.
  15. Silverback objects to the removal of his ad hominem comments. — 04:28, 14 October 2005
  16. Silverback disrupts Wikipedia to make a point by putting his contentious comments in brackets in order to make them into headings to make appear larger than the rest of the text. Other comments are put in bold or italics in order to connote shouting. — 04:37, 14 October 2005
    Special emphasis is now placed on the following You [172] abuse edit powers just as you did admin powers and But unlike User:172, I am not deceptively deleting the evidence of the previous hasty action
  17. Silverback starts inserting the Template:Dubious in VfU. The "dubious" template, however, is intended for accuracy disputes in articles, not discussions on talk pages. Silverback inserts the templates to express his disagreement with the removal of his ad hominem remarks. — 04:55, 14 October 2005
  18. Titoxd removes the improperly inserted "dubious" templates and informs Silverback about a note he posted on his talk page explaining the proper use for the template. — 04:58, 14 October 2005
    rv - see note on your talk page
  19. Silverback refusal to remove the dubious templates results in a revert war. No edit summary or explantion of the revert is provided. — 04:58, 14 October 2005
  20. Titoxd again removes the templates, admonishing Silverback to "stop misusing templates, and read my note on your talk page." — 05:03, 14 October 2005
  21. Silverback again reverts back to the dubious template yet again. Tito would not attempt to remove the template another time, perhaps out of consideration of the 3RR. — 05:14, 14 October 2005
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators

Evidence to be inserted

Other pages
  1. Harassment on 172's talk page in response to RfC -- [11]
  2. Disruption (Silverback reports 172 on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for making edits to this RfC)-- 16:38, 16 October 2005
    IP/172 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Vandalizing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback. 172 is materially changing the statement of dispute over the signatures of other people and after the respondent (myself) has respond to certain points. See the warnings on his and Lulu of the Lotus Eaters talk pages, and well as the discussion on the RfC talk page. Please assist quickly.-- Silverback 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Baits 172 over an edit summary concerning the removal of his spurious "severe vandalism" charges related to this RfC. Silverback characterizes his "severe vandalism" WP:VFI altert not as harassment but as "a notice required by the rules." -- 19:45, 16 October 2005

Revert warring and incivility on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

  1. csloat made the following post on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR on 18:37, 3 October 2005
    Silverback "constantly steamrolls this page with edits that have been refuted over and over in talk. The two edits he has specifically made here in these reversions have been refuted; he only bothers to defend one of them in talk (he ignores the arguments about the second but keeps reverting anyway) and he doesn't respond to the arguments against it. Instead, he plays dumb and keeps repeating himself. His edit summaries are also deceptive; the first revert is disguised as adding something to the page even though he knows well that he was reverting these two main changes -- see for example his revert from a few days earlier here. I do not want to have to have this article protected, but if the edit warring does not stop it may need to be. The two changes that he wants to put in the page have been discussed and he has refused to respond to the arguments against them. One of them is original research in violation of Wikipedia policy; the other one is a misleading interpretation of a quotation that already appears elsewhere on the page. He continues to misrepresent the latter change as putting the full quote in there when he knows that the quote is already in there. I think this user's conduct is a significant problem on wikipedia -- his changes should be reverted and he should be blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR. If his behavior continues, I will file an RfC so that more editors and administrators can evaluate his destructive behavior.
  2. Csloat later made the following posts concerning Silverback's misleading edit summaries on 19:12, 3 October 2005:
    ...Silverback's first edit summary was misleading; I provided an example of an earlier edit that was substantively the same to show that he was actually reverting. Another user had made some minor changes to a different section in the interim but if you compare this to this you can see his changes are fundamentally the same, making his first edit a revert. Does that make sense? Sorry if I am doing that wrong -- this is my first time complaining about this (although this user has done this before). I've been trying to address this user in talk but he refuses to engage in the discussion other than to engage in personal attacks and to assert that he has already addressed my concerns. It is very frustrating :(
  3. User:Fvw verified the above account by Csloat and then blocked Silverback:
    I count four reverts too: blocked. But in future please get some outside commentary before you get this far. -- fvw * 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. (the following from csloat 01:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC) - I don't know if it is appropriate for me to add material here; if not please move it). After Silverback was blocked by Fvw he returned to the page and immediately began reverting again; I reported him a second time after four reverts. Silverback debated the meaning of revert and called the process "immoral" because he claimed the software had blocked him for an extra 7 hours. The second incident was not commented on by administrators.-- csloat 01:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Further examples of Silverback's abusive behavior include the following:
    • Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda: the user has made many reversions and deletions on this page with cryptic explanations at best. The example linked here shows him blanking some 80% of the page, including most of the relevant information, in order to make some kind of point about the significance of Able Danger. He's been pushing this point over and over, despite it being refuted, and sometimes engages in bizarre edits of unrelated material in order to make a point. See his edit summaries in for October 3-5 along with the edits (and reversions by myself and others) for more evidence of this sort of behavior. More recently, see this edit and this one and note the edit summaries -- in both cases he deceptively only addresses one word of the article in his edit summaries, while his edits delete the information in a whole sentence. My reversions of those edits point this out in the summaries and I discussed this in talk at this location.-- csloat 06:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Here he makes a revert to an earlier version, eliminating rewrites that had been discussed and justified in talk (see here) as a result of an argument between myself and another user. Silverback stepped into this debate by reverting to the other user without addressing these arguments.

Longtime pattern of bad-faith accusations

El C sockpuppet accusations

Silverback has a long history of making false accusations against other editors; the most vehement ones relate to 172.

On 18 Jan 2005, Silverback accused User:El C of being a sockpuppet of 172 merely for having responded on his talk page, which is on El C's watchlist. El C answered it with humor, but "was nonetheless deeply troubled as to what this conduct could lead to if left uncheked." [12] At the time both El C and 172 displayed body of works on their respective user pages. Silverback could have easily compared between some of the lengthy articles that both 172 and El had written to verify that they are indeed not the same person.

Pertinent passages pointed out by El C read (note that these are excerpts, but the order of the discussion is consistent; see diff):

BTW, I'm surprised that you are the one responding, as if you are 172, are you his sock puppet?-- Silverback 06:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, you found out. Please don't tell anyone. 172 06:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, I take exception to that, Silverback. I'm –not– writing, as you say, as if I am 172, I am writing as if I am El_C, a sockpuppet of 172. Regardless though, I find (the non-comedic part of) your response to be highly lacking and flawed, but I'm writing in haste, so more on that later. E172_C 12:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was a bit of a mystery to me how you stumbled onto the subject and took the same position as 172 even though you hadn't appeared to edit or follow the page recently. I look forward to flaws being pointed out however. -- thanx in advance, -- Silverback 07:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All easily demystifable. 172 is on my watchlist, so I noticed the comment. It took me little time to compare the pertinent edits through the article's revision history El_C 22:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) [13]

172 and Snowspinner sockpuppet accusations

At the time, the above seemed relatively minor until a pattern in similar accusations became evident when Silverback made postings on many meta and Wikipedia pages asking for help in establishing a link between 172 and User:KingOfAllPaperboys in March 2005.

Silverback started a discussion thread on 26 Mar 2005 under the heading Has 172 returned to harass and disrupt?, under which he called for "investigations" on the possibility that 172 "assumed a harassing and disruptive alter ego," specifically User:KingOfAllPaperboys, an account that was "harassing, mocking and haranguing poor User:Netoholic."

In doing so, User:El C noted that Silverback was making "empirically-ungrounded notices in front of 400+ admins in an official page." [14] In response to the long series of postings by Silverback, Micahel Snow wrote:

This is pure speculation that mostly reveals ignorance of 172's practices and body of work. Besides the fact that 172 has never been known to use sockpuppets, I can't easily imagine him doing much work on Harry Potter or Kelly Clarkson. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are controversial subjects involving many editors, so doesn't really do anything to show these two are the same. Nor is KingOfAllPaperboys' recent behavior consistent with 172's style. All the timing amounts to is a very mild coincidence of no significance whatsoever. KingOfAllPaperboys may be somebody, but he isn't 172. -- Michael Snow 22:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When 172 was ruled out as a possible sockpuppet, Silverback then added: User:Snowspinner is also a candidate to be KingOfAllPaperboys... -- Silverback 20:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) He then started a long series of posts under the heading User:Snowspinner possible sockpuppet evidence

Looking back at the both past sockpuppet accusations against 172 by Silverback, El C commented, "I am of the opinion that certain restrictions be placed, or at least a warning issued to User:Silverback against making such charges against other editors without substantive evidence." [15]

Silverback, however, rejected the El C's criticism and never apologized for accusations against 172 and El, maintaining on 00:10, 30 Mar 2005 that "just because they are false does not mean they were groundless."

~20 mailing list posts following 23:22, 16 October 2005 block

On 23:22 16 October 2005 User:Redwolf24 blocked "User:Silverback" with an expiry time of 24 hours, adding the following summary: "[Silverback] reverts incessantly, removing information from his RfC, has been attacking 172 a lot lately, hasn't been too civil, hopefully this block will turn him around." [16] The block stemmed from his 3RR violation appearing [17] as of the most recent version at the moment (14:25, 17 October 2005). The five reverts reported included the following: [18], [19], [20] , [21] , [22], [23].

Since the 23:22 16 October 2005 block, as of now, Silverback has posted no fewer than 20 postings on the mailing list, including posts under the heading I've been blocked by an involved admin (making a series of accusations against Redwolf24] and Karmosin: "172 has baggage", which makes a long 13 paragraph case that because 172 "disrupted" the CfD on Category:Totalitarian dictators it should be clear that he is an "apologist for dictators."

Silverback implies that 172 is a 'Marxist', and thus has "baggage," writing: Marxism is purposely frustratingly elusive and deceptive. Calling dictatorships and oligarchies "peoples republics" or "dictatorships of the proletariat", and if for some reason these terrible transitional means of getting to the ends that justify them, i.e. the nirvana of the stateless classless, communally held property society, then they still are not called totalitarian dictatorships, but instead "permanent proletarian revolutions", or are said to be in a "permanent revolutionary state". 172 considers the characterization of his views and work ridiculous; and he extends the offer of providing evidence to anyone interested that he has never proposed using Communist jargon to describe the regimes Silverback calls "totalitarian dicatorships."

Subsequently, David Gerard put Silverback on mailing list moderation, writing in his Mon Oct 17 13:58:23 post, "I've put Silverback on moderation unless and until he ceases this habit of putting the names of people he's in a dispute with in the subject line." [24] David Gerard later agreed to remove moderation upon Silverback's pledge to moderate his language on the mailing list. [25] In reponse, Silverback has been posting under a modified heading, e.g., [username]: "[username] has baggage" [26] 172 | Talk 15:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Full content of Silverback's Karmosin: "172 has baggage"

Arbitration does, as far as I know, consider comments on the mailing list in their cases. However, this post provides insight in to the underpinnings of Silverback's recent behavior. Below in code is the full text, edited only for formatting. I will gladly provide evidence, unless it goes without saying, that the following is a systematic mischaracterization of my views and work. 172 | Talk 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

  • While under the 24 hour block, on 18:57, 17 October 2005 Silverback posted the same letter on his user talk page upon finding out that editors can edit their talk pages during a block. [27] 172 | Talk 20:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Karmosin,

You left this message on my talk page while I am blocked, so I am responding here: 

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ASilverback&diff=25718620&oldid=25697995

I apologize, I probably should have said that "wikipedia has baggage in dealing with 172". However, you don't provide any evidence of your characterizations.

Ask yourself why, you are considering a long ban, for "off-topic accusations in the form of insulting political guilt by association." Considering the amount of personal attacks, name calling and vitriol on wikipedia, I am being singled out for a few comments in one running battle with 172.

Note, I am not condemning wikipedia as a whole, the quantity of these occurances can be large, but the percentage managable because wikipedia has become quite large. I admit that I look for connections and underlying principles, and my focus in my degree in philosophy was basicly anti-marxism.

But it does not take a stretch of the imagination to see the relation to someone who disrupted the vote for deletion of "Category: totalitarian dicatators", and who routinely battles against negative information on Fidel Castro, Khruschev, etc. as a POV warrior. Except that instead of just calling him a POV warrior, I actually label what that POV is, by referring to him as an "apologist for dictators". There is no way this particular "personal attack" can be considered off topic. Given all the personal attacks on wikipedia, with people getting mild or no rebukes for dozens, is that theirs were just heated emotional outbursts instead of carefully considered and apropo labels.

It is interesting that you label my editing warring as "frustratingly elusive", of course, you could have said "patient and clever" just as easily. Perhaps you just pass territorial editors by and concede articles.

While I am sure that comment relates to my editing with csloat on Saddam and al Qaeda, it is also appropriate to the 172 behavior. Marxism is purposely frustratingly elusive and deceptive. Calling dictatorships and oligarchies "peoples republics" or "dictatorships of the proletariat", and if for some reason these terrible transitional means of getting to the ends that justify them, i.e. the nirvana of the stateless classless, communally held property society, then they still are not called totalitarian dictatorships, but instead "permanent proletarian revolutions", or are said to be in a "permanent revolutionary state".

Current "progressives" openly embrace mass-action "democracy" as a form of disrupting events through mob behavior by a small minority willing to misbehave under the cloak of anonymity. Marxist influence on our culture has been considerable is probably partially responsible for the postmodern denial of truth and morality that is so popular among the weak minded. 172 harkens to this when he argues for deletion of totalitarian dictator, because there is NO WAY it can be NPOV. However, as we do in science, it can be defined for out purposes, and then applied to factual circumstance, if we are intellectually honest and really do have "good faith". The reality is that 172 does not want it to be NPOV, it is too dangerous and possible true a term.

I am trying to keep this brief, but rest assured, provide sufficient evidence that he is an apologist for dictators.

Given this, and your statement that I made "off-topic" accusations, I believe we come down to you proposing a "long ban" for only two concepts that I put forward, one is the speculation that 172s line crossing behavior may carry forward into his personal life, and the other is that his line crossing behavior may be due to the cloak of anonymity, and not translate to his personal life where he may actually be a milquetoast.

Yes, negative characterizations that hit close to home "hurt", so don't assert that these were "off-topic", I am being persecuted because, my comparatively miniscule number of "offenses" were too close to the truth.

So, what is wikipedia's baggage in relation to 172? The arbcom gave him only a mild rebuke for his first abuse of admin powers, the arbcom did not review his second even more serious abuse of admin powers, because he "left", although it did shutdown his admin powers and not restore them despite his defiant and unapologetic protest, and then wikipedia just winked at his disruption of the VfD on the totalitarian category.

Why single out 172 for "abuse"? He is not really any worse person than the others in the progressive or marixts cliques, in fact, he is actually a sympathetic figure, actually likable. He gets singled out because of his lack of self control, and impulsive line-crossing disruptive outbursts. The sad thing is, he doesn't realize that wikipedia, with its respect for consensus, is actually a friendly place to the collaborative efforts of collectivist thinking. There is critical mass here of progressives that, united, could get anything they want, so is outbursts are completely unnecessary. He needs to be patient and clever like the rest of them (or should it be called "frustratingly elusive"), but instead he misbehaves and becomes vulnerable, like the slowest antelope in the herd.

It is customary, in these circumstances, to point to all the valuable contributions to wikipedia as extenuating circumstances. I think I have contributed to a lot of balance on both scientific and political topics, including much that is well sourced to peer review literature. However, I would not want to be judged on my record of the last couple months, I've been on a bit of a wiki-vacation watching the scientific literature for interesting new developments, and as far as wiki goes, just monitoring the watch list and occassionally be stirred to action by something particularly outrageous, such as csloats monomanic territorialism and 172s "bold" disruption of the deletion vote. 

                             -- Silverbackz

24-hour 3RR blocks [October 2005 only]

  1. Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blocked by Fvw 3 October 2005

Relevant discussions have been archived at

According to csloat, the above incident is not the first time Silverback violated the 3RR on this page, though it the past the rule was not enforced on him. [28]

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 23:22 16 October 2005 User:Redwolf24 blocked "User:Silverback" with an expiry time of 24 hours, adding the following summary: "[Silverback] reverts incessantly, removing information from his RfC, has been attacking 172 a lot lately, hasn't been too civil, hopefully this block will turn him around." [29] The block stemmed from his 3RR violation appearing here in the latest (as of this time of writing) version of the page. The report can be read below in code text.

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Silverback ( talk · contribs):

Reported by: 172 | Talk 20:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments:

  • Silverback is a revert war on his own RfC-- effectively declaring that the cosigners are not allowed to edit it now that he has made his response. 5 reverts in less than 5 hours.
  • The anon User:68.35.159.18 making one of the reverts is Silverback. He admits that fact in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Silverback in his 15:55, 16 October 2005 posting.
    • Yes that IP is me. There is no 3RR on vandalism. 172 has been reported for vandalism of the certified text. He has had notice, on his talk page, and on the talk page of the WfC he is vandalizing. Furthermore I have discussed this on wicken-l. He has a legitimate way to make his edits yet he refuses to do it. If he really thought I was getting close to a 3RR violation, he should have warned me.-- Silverback 20:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Silverback's reverts are related to a spurious "severe vandalism" warnings on WP:VIP in retaliation for his work on the RfC. See the discussion talk page of the RfC. [30] [31] 172 | Talk 20:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

They are not spurious, and you showed lack of good faith by reporting this as a 3RR without disclosing the vandalism report. -- Silverback 20:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The vandalism charges are dubious. It is vandalism to modify other users' statements, your own when you are a cosigner of an RfC updating the page as new information comes in. That was explained to you by multiple people on the talk page of your RfC. The fact that our edits weren't vandalism was even explained to you on the mailing list. [32] That is my final word on this matter to you, as there's nothing else left to say. 172 | Talk 21:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
If you are editing in good faith, why won't you respect the integrity of the certified statement and respond elsewhere. Frankly, by the time the community has spoken, I think my interpretation will be upheld. There is no other way it can reasonably work.-- Silverback 21:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Regarding Silverback's claim that the 3RR does not apply to him because he is reverting "vandalism," see: 22:08, 16 October 2005 comments by Redwolf24 Note: Silverback has added 172 to 'Severe' at Vandalism in Progress. This is abusing the system if I've ever seen it. [33] 172 | Talk 23:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply


I've been blocked by an involved admin This is **much worse** than any of Silverback's attacks earlier listed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback. Redwolf24 is obviously a completely involved, uninterested party who probably wasn't even aware of or interested in my past disputes with Silverback. There's a problem when someone can be blocked for making around a half dozen reversions on his own RfC but still case just as much disruption by attacking administrators on the mailing list. 172 | Talk 01:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  3. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
  4. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  5. Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule
  6. Wikipedia:Harassment

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Section to be expounded

Resolution attempt by Bishonen

I'm a bystander in this dispute. I've never interacted with either 172 or Silverback before yesterday, when I fortuituously noticed an appeal from 172 to have personal attacks by Silverback removed by an admin, went look, considered them to be indeed personal attacks, nasty ones, and did remove them. This diff shows exactly what I removed. Silverback disagreed with my actions, and we had a short but, I initially thought, hopeful discussion on my talkpage (some salient quotations from it are set out in the section "Silverback on User talk:Bishonen" above). S was polite to myself, acknowledging my good faith, and therefore I had hopes of getting through on the specific 172 issue also, but I kept being frustrated by his inappropriate insinuations and speculations about 172 personally — in real life, even. My exhortations to "comment on content, not on the contributor" were ignored, and after four posts from S (some of them to 172, who joined in to defend himself) I gave up and rather impatiently asked S to either stop making these personal attacks or stop posting on my page. He stopped posting. Bishonen | talk 23:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. 172 | Talk 16:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. csloat 01:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Geogre 14:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Note that my signing indicates that I believe the facts to be presented, above. However, this is not stand on what actions should be taken. reply
  2. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC) - Silverback's actions are frankly unacceptable. reply
  3. El_C 21:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. RyanFreisling @ 03:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mr. Tibbs 07:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Derex @ 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC) — an incivil, intransigent, and aggressive user from his first edit on. this rfc documents only the latest of his unacceptable behavior. reply
    A strange comment from the only person, whose post to my talk page was so uncivil, it is the only post (other that pure vandalism), I ever deleted from my talk page. You've never seen such incivility from me.-- Silverback 08:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    first, indeed i have. second, 'what the fuck was i supposed to do?' may use a word that offends your tender sensibilities, but it is in common colloquial use and was in no way an attack or assault on you. it was an expression of frustration at your actions ... remove "the fuck" and the complaint has the same substance. unless you are a member of the FCC, civility is about substance & you have been incivil in spades. i have long thought that you were one of the most problematic editors here for you absolutely aggressive POV pushing. several times over the past year, i have found simply factually incorrect assertions you have included in articles in furtherance of your POV which could have been disproven with a simple google check. starting with your assertion last year that john kerry endorsed conscription & most recently, your assertion that "no one" has formally contested that the Iraq invasion was illegal under international law. Derex @ 22:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    You misread, try to understand that no one has "formally" contested that the Iraq invasion was illegal. I will of course, admit I was wrong if you find such a formal charge. On Kerry, I correctly reported that he advocated mandatory public service for high school graduation, and that he thought that public service was a "duty", and that his friend Ted Kennedy, had at one time advocated mandatory public service for all back in the 70s. I think you just don't read text carefully, you make claims lightly without being sure you can back them with evidence, and you are uncivil.-- Silverback 09:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    Go look in the edit history. I added a reference there (2nd google hit) as I reverted your factually incorrect statement. From your response, I assume that you again have inserted falsehoods with no attempts to factcheck and ignoring the reference provided. I'll have to watchlist that article now I suppose, probably some others too. As to conscription, I very carefully read your edits back then, and you clearly & purposefully left the impression that Kerry was promoting conscription despite other editors pointing out the false impression. Derex @ 23:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    It is Kerry's support for mandatory public service and talk of duty that give the impression that his barrier to conscription is low. I leave it to the reader to decide whether the impression is false or not. Some editors did not like the impression the positions gave, and in fact, the Kerry campaign did not like the impression they gave, and eventually removed those positions from his site. But it is tough to take back such impressions. -- Silverback 09:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  8. From what I've read of the relevant information, it seems to be a wholly accurate summation. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  9. Scïmïłar parley 22:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Response

I acknowledge receipt of the notification of this RfC. I intend a careful response in time, but hasten to let the community know that I do not intend a full court defense, so would desire that noone expend more effort than myself, just because they sense the injustice. After all, I am the one most familiar with the evidence, so it would be wasteful for others to go to that effort without my assistance.

There is another reason to not expend much effort, the "dispute" is basicly over. I have no intention of bringing up 172s past behavior again, unless he seeks adminship or repeats similar behavior again in the future.

I also am morally obligated to prevent anyone else from certifying the dispute without notifying them that they would be certifying several false statements. I am not sure to what extent I am required to assume good faith by those that signed it. Part of me wants to assume that some of the certifiers are guilty of no more than placing trust in others, who violated that trust. It would perhaps be more gracious of me to assume that all just made mistakes, or forgot, or were blinded by the emotions of the moment.

One obvious false statement is

  • Silverback, however, rejected the El C's criticism and never apologized for accusations against 172 and El, maintaining on 00:10, 30 Mar 2005 that "just because they are false does not mean they were groundless.".

Not only did I apologize to El C, with this statement on that very same page:

  • I sincerely apologize for any harm that careless question may have caused you. --Silverback 00:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He also, accepted that apology right afterwards with this statement:

  • I owe you no apology, Silverback, no apology whatsoever — but I do accept your apology (which, you will notice, I did not say is "owed" to me). Still, I see nothing of substance to retract from my abovestated position.

Some things about El_C remind me of myself, which is, of course, scary.

I also apologized to 172, on Lulu of the Lotus Eaters's talk page here:

  • Well, I was mistaken in the sockpuppet accusation, we never did find that admin. I apologize. But that isn't a long history. You certainly don't think the apologist for dictators accusation was bizzare do you? You should go back and look at the evidence. Yours is some of the most glowing writing about Kruschev I've ever seen in the english language.--Silverback 11:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC

I believe I had apologized and even better, exhonerated 172, previously, but evidently, not in a way that gets preserved by the search engines. I was and am truly sorry and embarrassed by that incident.

There are other false statements, which I can get to later. -- Silverback 12:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Dispute with csloat on Saddam and al Qaeda

Let me briefly comment that this dipute unlike the other one, is still ongoing. I state categorically, that I have never knowingly violated 3RR. However, I was cited for a violation, and based on what was interpretated as the first revert in that violation, I believe that csloat is correct that I have violated 3RR at least once earlier on that page. He also tried to get a 3RR block after that in a circumstance that was quite a stretch and the administrators apparently found without merit.

csloat is rather territorial on that page, and is prone to make accusations of personal attacks where none are intended, although often he seems to be trying to provoke them. We are currently having a dispute on when it is appropriate or not to question the credibility of a source. We often end up with compromise text, although he has rejected several compromise attempts on other issues. The talk page pretty much speaks for itself, if one also reads the archives.

In an attempt to resolve this dispute, I offer to agree to limit myself to one revert per day on that page, if he will agree to the same.-- Silverback 13:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Csloat's response to: Dispute with csloat on Saddam and al Qaeda

This is not the place to propose such agreements, nor does this proposal have anything to do with the dispute on the page. Anyone familiar with the ongoing discussion on that page can see that Silverback has made numerous personal attacks, which he usually resorts to when he cannot reply to the arguments against a particular edit. He often goes ahead and makes the edit anyway. The dispute he is referring to above is not about "when it is appropriate or not to question the credibility of a source" - as anyone can see by looking at the discussion page, the dispute is over whether information not directly relevant to the page is appropriate on the page. I refer readers to the discussion page itself to review the issues there.-- csloat 03:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Frankly I think you are both (reflexively?) framing the issue to slant it your own way. It is about 'when it is appropriate to question a source' as well as about whether or not the information is directly relevant to the page. He wants to include a mention of the Able Danger issue, as it tends to impeach the credibility of the Commission which is used repeatedly as a source on the page. You've argued that such information should be kept off the page unless it impeaches their credibility "on this particular issue." So, again, I can see how in your mind the issue is "whether [to include] information not directly relevant." Two ways of framing the same issue, and neither one necessarily made in bad faith. But you seem to argue past each other, each either unwilling or unable to see the others point, and then it gets personal... and frankly, if I were you, I wouldn't be so eager to pull uninvolved third parties in to review this, because it doesn't make you look any better than him. Arker 01:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Silverback staunchly opposed deletion of this category, despite established consensus against similiar categories (e.g., Category:Dictators).

With personal knowledge, I can state that I was not staunchly opposed to the deletion of this category. I voted and argued against its deletion, and understood why there was a majority in favor. But my opposition was quite ordinary, and I accepted what I thought would be the consensus. What I "staunchly" opposed was the irregular and abusive way in which it was deleted. I oppose the hubris of those who ride roughshod over the process when things don't go their way.

Despite this violation of due process, I was prepared to just let it go, and agreed to wait a month or so for it to be reconsidered, here are the relevant quotes from User talk:who:

  • Take your own advice and give it a month or so, and see if you can clarify a NPOV version. ∞Who?¿? 21:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That is what I'll do. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't against the rules because of required time distance. I think due to the irregularities of the deletion, there will be support for letting me make a fair go of it.--Silverback 21:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I then started an ordinary Totalitarian dictators article which I thought would be much less offensive because it doesn't try to intrude on other talk pages like the categories do. I thought this would be a good way to preserve the previous Category work, and to try to address the objections stated during the votes. Then immediately without giving the article a chance 172 put it up for RfD and further when others suggested that it might be a candidate for speedy delete he compounded his previous abuse of the process by not objecting to the use of the tainted category deletion as a justification for a speedy deletion.

I then resolved to fight the speedy delete and to apply for undeletion, in order to increase awareness of his behavior, and the injustice of using an incorrectly deleted article as an excuse to speedy delete another. Note, while I would have been pleasantly surprised if these processes had succeeded, I didn't really expect success. My ultimate goal was that people will be more sensitive to such issues in the future. 172 was of great assistance in increasing awareness of these issues. -- Silverback 14:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Personal attacks

What the certifiers are calling personal attacks, are not much different than their statements of dispute above, except that by doing it in a statement of dispute, they are allowed a long string of personal attacks, negative characterizations and negative opinions in a format in which it would be inappropriate for me to interleave my responses. My, so called, "personal attacks" were done in give and take forum where the context was more apparent. And responses could be interleaved. -- Silverback 14:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Longtime pattern of bad-faith accusations?

More "two incidents long ago", both regretted and apologized for.-- Silverback 14:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Outside view by McClenon

I would suggest that mediation be tried.

I have seen Silverback's editing style. He has a strong, clearly held point of view, and can be abrasive. I seldom agree with Silverback on anything having political implications. However, I think that he is a constructive and valuable member of the Wikipedia community, largely as a forceful exponent of a libertarian outlook. He is sometimes guilty of breaches of civility, but he is respectful of the concept of POV and NPOV, as too many Wikipedians are not. In the Ted Kennedy edit wars, which have now resulted in an ArbCom case, Silverback was initially contentious, but did not engage in trolling or taunting, and was a constructive editor who helped contribute to a consensus.

In the particular case in point, it does appear that Silverback has been uncivil, and has engaged in personal attacks. At the same time, Lulu is also sometimes a contentious editor. This looks like the sort of case where mediation might work.

  1. Robert McClenon 22:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. bainer ( talk) 04:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Susvolans ⇔ 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

I have clashed with Silverback on a number of topics, in particular on Global Warming and related pages. I agree that Silverback is respectful of NPOV in theory. However, he obviously has a number of strongly held beliefs, and I doubt that he is always able to distinguish these from "the objective truth". As a result, sometimes is less than civil, and working with him requires a lot of patience. On the other hand, he usually is open to rational discussion, and he can be moved (very, very, VERY slowly). Mediation might be useful. -- Stephan Schulz 23:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Schulz, I have enjoyed working with you and believe you edit in good faith, but I am surprised that you don't acknowledge that I have supplied most of the references and summaries that provide proper perspective on the importance and effects of solar variation and of climate commitment effects, and it has been good enough evidence that WMC has had to acknowledge.-- Silverback 05:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fair is fair. Silverback has indeed provided a number of useful references on solar variation and climate commitment. In my opinion, he has nearly always misinterpreted them, but as the result of the discussion, the article is stronger. He is a valuable (if sometimes infuriating) contributor. Silverback, I think our philosophy/personality type discussion on your talk page explains some of this. Just because you think you are right does not mean you are (or even if you are, that everybody agrees). If you blindly act as if your POV is the only valid one, you piss people off. Take a step back and try to look at it from a bigger picture occasionally. One example is you reporting of 172 as a "severe vandal" for something that is apparently normal and expected behaviour on RfCs (editing his own text, even after it has been signed by others - note that as far as I have noted, he made no substantial edits to other people's text). On a different note, I really prefer to be called "Stephan", or, if you want to be formal, Dr. Schulz. This is not a barracks. If it were, I wouldn't be here. -- Stephan Schulz 07:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hmm, I'm coming to this rather late, but I would say that Sb has been an unreasonable proponent of solar forcing and has pushed it too hard, unbalancing the various pages. Ditto his version of climate commitment, in which he overemphasises solar effects. I don't accept his versions, he is wrong to state that I acknowledge them. Left to himself, he would have unbalanced the articles even further: fortunately he wasn't left quite to himself. William M. Connolley 22:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC). reply

Outside view by Redwolf24

I've seen this editor around making attacks and he seems to never assume good faith. I believe he has attacked 172, and I believe he baits 172 to attack him. I'd probably prefer this user be blocked for a short period of time, enforce a break, but he's not quite a troll.

Note: Silverback has added 172 to 'Severe' at Vandalism in Progress. This is abusing the system if I've ever seen it.

Note: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Silverback Silverback has broken the.. 5RR at this very page.

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

  1. R e dwolf24 ( talk— How's my driving?) 23:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Peter Isotalo 22:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Accusing people of supporting dictatorship due to political disagreements is really virulant incivility. Silverback deserves a personal attack parole probation. reply
    You mean probation? R e dwolf24 ( talk— How's my driving?) 22:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. I'm not personally familar with the specific case that this RfC deals with, but I have had run-ins with Silverback in the past, and it certainly sounds like him. See the talk archives for Fox News. At one point I was this close to RfCing him myself, but he apparently decided to take a multiple month vacation from the Fox News article. Since that was basically the punishment I was going to ask for, I let it slide. IMO, Silverback is not a troll, but he only misses it by a gnat's whisker. He is certainly incivil and does not play well with others. His attitude often hurts his own POV. Probation sounds about right. crazyeddie 06:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    Crazyeddie, do you forget that you refused to work with me, but that I continued to work with slimvirgin and Baas, and that while you were trying to form a consensus, we ended up probably understanding the statistical strengths and weaknesses of the PIPA study than anybody outside PIPA itself. You were trying to form a consensus, we were trying to get the statistics right, and in the end I think we did reach consensus. I think you were the one that insisted on the redundant and pejorative "right wing conservative" labels and you were quite obstinate about it. You didn't convince me it wasn't pejorative, you just outnumbered me. And then I went on vacation to Europe.-- Silverback 05:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    Which is precisely why I am voting for probation instead of an outright ban. You do raise the occasional good point, but it isn't worth dealing with the rest of it. I don't mind you defending your POV, but I don't like how you do it. I may have said "I can't work with this guy", but I believe an independent investigation of the archives would show that I made every attempt to, even after saying that. If you spent less time insisting that you are right and more time attempting to persuade people that you are right, I think we would all be better off, including you.
    For example of what I mean, I didn't insist on the "right-wing conservative" language, in fact, I disagreed with it myself. I merely presented the best argument I could for it (partially on behalf of people who dislike Fox News even more than I do). As it happened, others persuaded me that another course was better, consensus was reached, and we all went on with our lives. crazyeddie 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. But not making a comment one way or another on the 'troll' point. 172 | Talk 15:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. It seems to me from reading all the evidence related to this case, that Silverback, does severely lack communication skills. I don't think that . "crazyeddie" is correct in asking for punishment, as that word smacks of severe crime, but Silverback is indeed guilty of incivility, and should be given the opportunity of a period of self-reflection through non editing in order to have the space to find a solution to redress these shortcomings. Wikipedia is a community project and we must all learn the value of compromise and mutual respect in our dealings with each other. I'm sure Silverback will agree with this. Giano | talk 21:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. I also have had editing run-ins with Silverback, and feel that he often writes text on the fly without any substantial research or proper consideration of the consequences. Some mild administrative sanction would hbe constructive. Cberlet 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Agreed. Linuxbeak | Talk 03:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  8. Concur. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  9. Agreed, although as others above say, I'm not sure that he isn't a troll. -- Scïmïłar parley 22:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Geogre

I do not believe that it is the place of an RfC to necessarily attribute blame, although some outside views will, nor to specify which course of action should be taken, although, again, some outside views will do so. The facts stated in the summary above are established with diffs that we may all check, and there is not much doubt about them. Whatever history each user has is irrelevant to the findings of fact, here, as there is no proper provocation for listing someone on WP:VIP, for example.

We all get frustrated. I hope that we all similarly believe in what we are doing here. However, we can't let our passion for what we are doing ever tempt us into disrupting the function of the site to express our frustration, and this includes pursuing each other through unrelated pages, discussing the person instead of the edits, or trying to get each other kicked off for content and formatting disputes. Geogre 14:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

If you agree, go ahead and sign, I guess.

Specific Silverback point 1

In this statement from the Statement of the Dispute:

  • After Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters rejects Silverback's description of 172 as a 'fanatic', writing, "I don't think caring about neutral point of view is 'fanaticism', but YMMV," Silverback retorts by comparing 172, whose family was largely perished in the Holocaust, to 'Holocaust deniers', 'deniers of Stalin's purges', and Castro's 'brutal repression of attempts to emigrate'. — 21:50, 11 October 2005

The certifiers deceptively mischaracterized Silverbacks statement by calling it a comparison regarding 172, when it doesn't mention 172, and 172 was informed afterwards that it wasn't directed at him. [34]-- Silverback 01:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

  1. 64.154.26.251 03:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (aka 216.119.etc. series) reply

Specific Silverback point 2

There two signed comments by csloat and bishonen in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section are not for the same dispute. Furthermore, Bishonens comment does not represent a failure as required by the 48 hour rule, therefore this RfC page should be deleted, because two people did not show that they tried to resolve the same dispute with this user and have failed. -- Silverback 01:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

  1. 64.154.26.251 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (aka 216.119.etc. series) 172 even admits it's not the same dispute in this section of this page. Concur. reply

SB response to 172 stating he has never proposed using Communist jargon

under construction

I never said 172 did. I gave examples of marxist deceptive characterizations in order to obscure the true nature of such regimes. Marxists use other deceptions too, such as "property is theft". Marism is essentially a faith without a god, with its subjective articles of faith such as dialectical materialism and historial determinism.

Where 172 showed similar deception was in his stated reasons for opposing the totalitarian dictatorship category and in his dismissive reversions of attempts to note that certain regimes violently suppress emigration.

In his opposition to "Category:Totalitarian dictator", 172 states it is "Inherently POV.", but later notes that "political scientists always disgree on what totalitarianism is, when to apply it, and even on whether or not it's a useful concept". Wikipedia covers many subjects in which the experts disagree. 172 essentially admits that there are expects that classify regimes as totalitarian and consider it a useful concept, so it is not inherently POV, it is just controversial. If this academic discipline is like others, how to apply any particular definition is not that controversial and such application is probably survives peer review. There are probably competing definitions, that result in different categorizations.

172 knows full well that totalitarian dictators is a legitimate, if controversial, distinction, yet deceptively labels it inherantly POV, because he doesn't like this being applied to regimes that he is an apologist for, while in the meantime he is perfectly happy to make equally controversial distinctions such as those involved in imperialism and colonialism, cultural relativism, etc.

SB point: Csloat makes accusations and attacks that do not assume good faith

This example, is part of a regular pattern of personal attacks, whining, and false characterizations of both my actions and my intent. He was supporting text that was both false and that went way beyond what his sources could justify, and then made accusations and impuned my intent before finally agreeing that I was right.

and that was in response to these edits:

Note his accusations, characterizations and whining in the edit summaries also. Note also that the edit summaries are also part of a running "collaboration", that ended in my acceptance of the final better supported text, which FYI, someone later improved further. With running summaries such as this, it is easy for csloat to produce the false impression that they were misleading or deceptive. I never thought for a moment that I could put something over on him. He is an ever vigilant watch dog on this page. Note also that his exagerations, accusations and whining also spill over onto my talk page and that I generally just call them what they were and move on intead of escalating to mutual accusations and recriminations.

Another thing to notice about the edit sequence, is that at no point is the text that I propose false. Each of csloats texts is false until the last one. Perhaps I am obstinate and frustrating, at what point should I have "given up"?

Perhaps, I would have "evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" on this talk page also, if I had engaged in similarly whining and attacks, but I generally just stick to the points I am trying to make. In the 172 case, it just so happens, the point I was trying to make was one of character and following and not abusing and vandalizing the process. Note also above that I have proposed a 1RR limit resolution to the "dispute". -- Silverback 17:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Note, if you endorse this please also note whether you have read csloat's response below, so that he can know that your decision was fully informed.-- Silverback 20:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~,

Csloat response to: Csloat makes accusations and attacks that do not assume good faith

Silverback's characterization of the dispute above is entirely false. He was posting edit summaries that ignored the most significant change he kept making on the page, in order to obscure those edits. I don't think my responses to those summaries can be called "whining" but whatever you like. The material I posted to his talk page was about another matter, where I asked him to stop his personal attacks and steamrolling edits. He claims my edits were false but provides no evidence of that; I'm not sure what he's talking about. If you read the links he's provided above you'll see that at no point did I agree with him. Another user posed a compromise text that I did not revert, but I stated clearly on the talk page that I did not agree with Silverback at all and that the compromise text was not to my liking, but I left it in in good faith. The text Silverback proposed edited out information questioning the reliability of sources of the specific information presented here; he wanted to remove relevant information in order to make certain claims appear more credible. It is not a question of whether the text was "false" but rather about whether information about its reliability would be included. In any case, if you follow the links he himself has provided you can judge for yourself.-- csloat 19:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

  1. I'm not a party to the dispute, but it sounds like many of my experiences. 172 | Talk 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. I can concur and have witnessed this pattern of behavior on Silverback's part. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

SB point: 172s history of unapologetic and defiant abuse

Under construction

I helped document the evidence of the abuse of admin powers for the second arbitration case. User:172 abused his admin powers on the Global warming in apparent collaboration with User:Stirling Newberry and two sock puppets. The group collaborated on Intelligent design shortly before, and then showed up with edits immediately followed by 172 protecting the page. 172 has achieved the distinction of being one of only 5 cases of involuntary revocation of adminship [39]-- Silverback 22:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Upon 172s return, and protestations agains the loss of his adminship without due process, I made this statement, note, I have never seen such abuses of admin powers before or since:

  • You should read the record, and you will see how the decision was made. As a repeat abuser of admin privileges, it was pretty clear the decision would have gone against you had you chosen to participate. The praise of your abilities as an author and authority on your talk page were irrelevant to these issues of abuse of power. As an apologist for other regimes which abused power, it perhaps should be no suprise that you viewed adminship as a right rather than a public trust.--Silverback 19:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) [40]

which apparently he found disgusting in this post:

  • This is disgusting, and for me the last straw. [41] May I ask for your help in requesting arbitration against this user? 172 20:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) [42]



Evidence to be inserted

SB point: 172s latest abuse

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

  • First, I did not change the closure. User:172 removed the closure tag here, which I did not see....I agree, the tag should not have been removed. However since it was, and the debate stayed open longer, it allowed the consensus to reach delete. If I would have seen its removal, I would have immediately reverted it, however to revert it now, would be a bit late, as users have seen the closure as such. --[User talk:Who] [43]
  • ... Although I have some concerns about the original processology of extending a CfD and stuff, I don't feel moved to reverse my deletion, particularly as VfU is upholding it without too much trouble and there is also a perfectly decent stub now in place. ... - Splash talk 11:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply

[44]

172 unilaterally depopulated a category while the VfD was still going on. Evidently he was trying to make the point that the category was inherently POV. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. He was warned about his behavior:

  • Until the discussion concludes, would you mind repopulating the category? Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – please do not depopulate the category before the community has made a decision. Thanks. --Kbdank71 19:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [45]

non-contiguous excerpts from [User talk:Kbdank71]

I wouldn't waste my time. User 172 is going to do whatever pleases him, regardless of whether he has a consensus or not. He's already proven this to be the case. It's funny how he wants a second opinion on the cfd discussion, when he unilaterally made the choice to empty the category. Great knowledge or not, if this is how he handles himself, I can't say I'm glad he came back. -- Kbdank71 15:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I did not realize that 172 had removed the CFD tag, so the debate stayed open longer, which resulted in the delete consensus. I did not mean to change your original closure, as I did not know it was closed, I should have checked history. However, it staying open for longer than normal is not against any policy, though the tag removal was. I just deleted this category, after letting it stay unlisted for deletion to allow for any objections. Sorry Kris, I did not mean to squish your closure decision :) ∞ Who ?¿? 20:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No need to apologize for something 172 caused. Besides, if we kept it around, we'd have had to listen to him about it further. -- Kbdank71 21:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply

After the people who disagree with 172 have been led to believe the vote is closed

172 starts a campaign for more delete votes. It is the type of one party "campaign" he recommends for dictators. First he contacts User:John Kenney

Note, that he considers the supermajority protections that wikipedia uses to assure consensus, diversity and minority representation, as mere technicalities to be overcome:

  • Thanks for the quick reply. I put the CfD back up, making the case that we need a second opinion given the trend in voting. With a few more delete votes, the ~75% threshold will be surpassed, meaning that it won't be able to survive by technicality. 172 | Talk 23:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC) [47] reply

Here he contacts User:Willmcw, he is "on the prowl":

Here he contacts User:El_C:

  • I hope all is better now. I remember that the last time we were in touch you were sick... I'm on the prowl for competent editors who are coming up on recent changes to take a look at the CfD for a nightmare category. If you have time, please take a look. Thanks. 172 | Talk 23:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC) [49] reply

Here he contacts Zscout730:

He similarly contacts User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Evidence to be inserted

SB point: 172 is POV warrior, apologist for regimes that also abuse

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

The cultural relativism apologia:

  • Thus, I’m not an apologist for dictators, but a proponent of good analysis of history. In that sense, I’d find an article about someone like Robert Mugabe intolerable if his actions are criticized on the basis of values-laden judgments rather than explain in the context of the material, political, and cultural realities of HIS society. [50]

Two years ago, 172 was more revealing of his inner feelings, perhaps he has discovered the joys of multiparty systems with respect for supermajority protections for minority rights since then?:

  • I’ll be honest. Mugabe shouldn’t have abandoned the single-party state in the first place. That’s what left Zimbabwe open to outside interference, which has really been destabilizing the country. I want Mugabe to subvert the self-serving, neocolonial opposition as much as he can in order to offset their funding advantage provided by greedy, greedy colonialists. ... I wish sell-out Mandela and Mbeki and their ANC had the courage and resolve of Mugabe and his ZANU-PF.

He goes to the trouble of accumulating diplomatic praise apologia (I assume 172 was joking?):

  • Kim Jong Il is rapidly gaining the reputation as a master of world politics. China's Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan calls Kim "quick-witted." Outgoing South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his 2000 summit with Kim Jong Il, praises him as a "man of insight." And Kim impressed former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as "very decisive and practical and serious." [51]

It's really the fault of the United States, others aren't responsible for their behavior, and its not "true" maoism apologia:

  • US action in Indochina might have led to over two million deaths in Cambodia alone [52]

Another user evidently has noticed the same pattern:

  • 172 has a long history of aggressive point of view editing which he covers up with a smokescreen of "academic authority". He is especially active with edits which whitewash left-wing totalitarian governments, leaders and actions. Fred Bauder 11:01, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC) [53]


Wow, Chinese communists finally got it right!!:

  • Divergences between the development levels, levels of state ownership, and economic structures between the five Communist states of China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea or whether or not China is "capitalist" and has betrayed its Marxist-Leninist philosphy thus don't matter to this discussion (I personally think that they haven't and that they've finally found a workable model of socialism worth revisiting, but that doesn't matter either). [54]

The great losses apologia for oppression, btw, I believe the removal of the references to holocaust was an accident. Note that Soviet excuses are being repeated uncritically here. There was no regard for life by the Soviet leadership, the starvation caused by their scorched earth strategy and the failure to evacuate Leningrad were largely responsible for the civilian casualties, and divisions that could easily have been saved were not responsibly evacuated, in decisions every bit as callous and stupid as Hitlers throwing away of his troops at Stalingrad.:

  • As mentioned, the Soviets bore the heaviest casualties of World War II. These war causalities can explain much of Russia's behavior after the war. The Soviet Union defended its occupation of Eastern Europe as "buffer zone" to protect Russia from another invasion from the West. Russia had been invaded three times past 150 years before the Cold War during the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II, suffering tens of millions of causalities. [55]

Evidence to be inserted

Response

This "SB point" is laughable already. Cherry-picking my comments made over two years ago and presenting them out of context (in order to misrepresent my edits and views) is no defense for Silverback's behavior over the past couple of weeks. 172 | Talk 05:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This RfC mooted by Redwolf24

Redwolf24, an official wikipedia admin, handled most of the matters that were being addressed against Silverback by this RfC, with a 24 hour block. Here is the text, note that it is rather broad in the alleged offenses that it summarily handled.

On 23:22 16 October 2005 User:Redwolf24 blocked "User:Silverback" with an expiry time of 24 hours, adding the following summary: "[Silverback] reverts incessantly, removing information from his RfC, has been attacking 172 a lot lately, hasn't been too civil, hopefully this block will turn him around."

Wikipedia should perhaps be more careful in selection of admins, if it wants things handled by RfCs, or some due process instead of summarily by administrators.

Since the issues against Silverback have already been handled, by an official of wikipedia. This RfC is now moot. Those in the community that disagree with this should address this issue with rules or with better choices of officials.-- Silverback 04:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

BTW, since seeing this 172 and Redwolf24 have changed their tune and are trying to call this a 3RR block. But the intent was clear even to others First off, we need get the facts straight here. See discussion on this talk page.-- Silverback 09:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply


Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Re "Specific Silverback point 2"

Yeah, I see the above note about "a vote or endorsement", but this still seems a better place for a direct reply to a specific point made on this page. My resolution attempt certainly did fail. :-( That seems a curious thing for me to have to prove, as if I was proud of it: I certainly am not. I made the attempt in good faith, but without enough skill or patience. And I wasn't addressing a dispute between you and me, we had none. Did we? Surely not? I'm a stranger to you, and the only subject I've ever spoken to you about is the dispute between you and 172--well, the RfC template calls it a "dispute", for myself I would call it a conduct issue. I tried to get you to stop making personal remarks to and about 172, his motives, his character. That was my attempt, and my failure, as you've kept right on doing it. You and I stopped arguing, yes. We fell silent, I warned you off my page, you left. That represents miserable shared failure. You failed to modify the conduct in question, I failed to keep communication lines open: nothing for either of us to be proud of. Our dialogue, first promising and then unfortunately faltering, can be followed, for anybody who's interested, on WP:VFU and my talk page. Bishonen | talk 02:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you can clear up which dispute you were attempting to resolve, because signed statements and evidence is supposed to be supplied of two attempts to resolve the same dispute. The only other signed statement is by csloat, and it does not appear to be an attempt to resolve the same dispute. In addition, how did you try to resolve the dispute, other than to tell me to stop, did you try to broker a compromise, such as asking 172 to withdraw his RfD for the article in light of his misconduct on the voting for the RfC? Or was you attempt to resolve the dispute one sided?-- Silverback 04:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Clear it up a third time? Fine, but that's it. My attempt was indeed onesided. Before you take issue with that, please note that I was an uninvolved party, an outsider, with no brief for either of you. The only conflict visible to me was between your insistence on "describing" 172 personally, his supposed character and motives (rather than his writing and actions), and his insistence that you don't. Compromise was hardly relevant. Personal remarks are anti-policy and anti-Wikipedia even if they aren't insulting—"Comment on content, not the contributor"—and when they are it's a lot worse. I can't believe you really require to have that principle elucidated over and over again. That principle is the conduct issue I tried to resolve, and it's the issue at the heart of this RfC, it's why the RfC was brought. I would advise you to address it more head-on in your responses, instead of focusing on the RfC outworks. You say above that "I intend a careful response in time", and offer to "get to" "false statements" in the description and evidence people have offered. Good, please do, I think people would be interested in that. Bishonen | talk 10:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Part of the unfairness of the process of allowing editing of certified text, even if one put the text in oneself, is that you have to look at this history for the lies, some of which I have already identified above, about the apologies for instance. Another of the lies, was about their inference of the intent behind my actions, when I corrected them on that, of course they remove that evidence and correct it. I think a process that doesn't protect the original text, even though it is saved in the history, places too great a demand on the voters. For instance, you yourself, assumed that I hadn't already addressed the false statements. I think you had good intent, especially since you are one of the few that seems to have actually read what I have written, and to have even noted that I have not really responded yet. When I am involved in processes, I tend to analyze them and try to improve them. In the long run, the creation of fair processes and an ethic of compliance with them will do more to improve wikipedia than the result on any individual RfC/user.-- Silverback 17:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No, I wasn't assuming anything, I was referring to your claim "There are other false statements, which I can get to later." It's still up there. Bishonen | talk 09:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
They've changed a lot of them. I have to see if they are still there. I am working on a different part right now.-- Silverback 09:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Outside View by Karmafist

Hi, I was editing Michael Savage tonight and saw an edit made by a user with the name of Silverbackman0076 ( talk · contribs), which seemed like a Meatpuppet considering his political beliefs. Karmafist 03:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with the term "meatpuppet" and the wikilink didn't help. Perhaps this is a coincidence, but that username is also used here note the yahoo ID-- Silverback 08:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Further evidence of Silverback's incivility and malfeasance

Silverback has already been taken to task by others for removing their words on discussion pages as well as on this page. I noticed he did this to my response to him recently in order to make it seem like I had not responded to him and that I was responding to another user. Here he deleted my comments and then he "restored" them here, in a place where they do not make any sense and where I seem to be responding to another user's comments (I notice he specifically chose a user who had proposed an "agreement" which my first sentence seems to refer to after Silverback's changes). This is an obvious attempt to undermine the RfC process by creating confusion and by making it seem as if his "agreement" proposal was ignored.-- csloat 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Evidently you are unfamiliar with how evidence pages work. You are not supposed to respond in my section, but in a separate section. You are going to lose credibility with your whining and insinuations. You accused me of removing something from my own talk page a couple weeks back insinuating I was trying to hide a criticism. I never remove anything from my talk page unless it is vandalism or a vulgarity. The case you objected to was a vulgarity. And I did didn't hide the "criticsm", I transferred it to the posters talk page, since he was comfortable with such language and I responded to it there. You should also try to reduce your personal attacks before you become notorious. Now please transfer your original comment out of my response section. You can pick where to put it yourself, if you don't like where I put it.-- Silverback 01:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
As is typical of Silverback's argumentation style, he makes condescending comments about his concern for my reputation. This is not the first time he's done so. I think people can judge for themselves why he is moving other editors' text around -- the case outlined in the links above seems pretty clear to me. His changes made it look like I was replying to another user instead of to him. I'll leave aside the question of his motives though it seems pretty obvious. The problem is that this behavior is disruptive, no matter what his motives.-- csloat 02:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Ta bu shi da yu

Only briefly, my first encounter with this user was on Wikipedia:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive2. I suggest that a brief read be made - I leave it up to editors to work out what happened here. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Seeking Help

I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just lauched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct. [56] I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's. Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks!-- Mr j galt 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Silverback&oldid=1142569529"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE