Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback

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: 13:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Silverback | talk | contributions)

---

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

1. Silverback makes a bad-faith accusation of "vandalism" against Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. — 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   Edit summary reads, "stop vandalizing Category:Totalitarian dictators"

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.

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. — [9]

   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

Evidence to be inserted

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)

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)

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." [10] 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) [11]

---

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." [12] 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." [13]

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."

24-hour 3RR block [this month only]

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blocked by Fvw 3 October 2005

Relevant discussions have been archived at

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
• Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

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. [14]

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

• 172's responses to Silverback's allegations on Wikipedia:Votes for Undeletion
• "" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators
• 172's decision stated on User talk:Bishonen to extradite himself from the discussion, even at the expense of not being able to respond to Silverback's attacks
• Numerous attempts by csloat to reason with Silverback on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as well as pleas posted to his user page. User Silverback attempts to appear reasonable at first and then quickly degenerates into personal attacks. He always demands the last word yet he refuses to answer substantive arguments (but still keeps making his changes anyway even after they are disputed).(last item added by csloat 01:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

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)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

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

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Longtime pattern of bad-faith accusations?

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

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)

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 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)

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.

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

1. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

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