Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Evidence

message: I did not put this on the evidence page as that page is not for discussion, but I do believe that Silverback's selective quotation of our months-long dispute over his attempted additions to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda is further evidence of his incivility and disruption of wikipedia.  This page is not about an arbitration against either csloat or 172 and thus should not be on this page at all.  His quotations from his dispute with me are selected out of context to put my comments in the worst possible light -- if you look at those discussions in context you will see that my exasperation followed a long period of civil discussion, which some users even characterized as "bending over backwards" given Silverback's incivility throughout the discussion. It became frustrating to have Silverback continue making the same edits without responding to the arguments in talk.  He would keep repeating himself without refuting the arguments I made, then would drop out of the discussion but make his changes anyway.  I apologize if he was offended by any of my comments but my main goal throughout was to keep the article factual and to keep original research out of it.  As you can see, Silverback eventually conceded that I was right about this, or at least, he stopped insisting on imposing his original research on the article, so I presume that he finally understood what was so exasperating about his behavior there, which makes his selective quotation of that dispute here all the more curious.  In any case, all of that should probably be ignored since this page is about evidence against silverback, not csloat.--csloat 20:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again you mischaracterize.  You set the tone with your constant vitriol.  You don't understand the arbcom process, they look at you and 172 as well, there is no favoritism there.  I don't concede anything on the texts I was inserting.  You were only exasperated because you were so busy spewing vitriol that you missed the arguments, and your focus was not on the merits of the arguments.  I still think your analogies were not analogous.  Perhaps you will be banned from that article for your territorialism, after all, there would still be errors and exagerations in that article if I hadn't not weathered your attacks, and that is what encyclopedias are about.--Silverback 04:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unclear to me what you're characterizing as "vitriol."  This isn't about favoritism.  I am at a loss to see what arguments you believe I missed.  If you read the discussion between us in context, it's pretty obvious why I was exasperated and it's even clear that I went out of my way to explain and re-explain patiently even when you continued your bizarre behavior.  My focus on the merits of the arguments is clear throughout (even in my moments of exasperation).  Anyone else who looks at the discussion will see that.--csloat 04:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't respond without making a personal attack, can you?  Discuss the subject matter instead of characterizing my behavior.  Go back an analyze your own posts.--Silverback 05:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Silverback attacks on csloat and 172 in improper forum

message: I hesitate to write something again here; as the above shows, SB seems incapable of discussing something without demanding the last word.  I'm sure he'll call this a personal attack but here is what I want to know: he writes, in a personal note on the evidence page, that myself and 172 changed something above El_C's name without permission.  Can someone explain what the heck he is talking about?  Thanks.--csloat 20:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the RfC, you were changing text above the signatures of your co-certifiers.  lotus and bishonen gave explicit consent, El_C did not give explicity consent to be your sock puppet, at least as far as I can find.  If he has given consent in some other medium, please provide it.--Silverback 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a diff?  I do not recall editing anyone else's text, ever, and it is simply not my practice to do so at all.--csloat 01:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to this link you will see the signatures of Bishonen and lotus  already certifying the basis for the dispute.  You have yet to even edit the page. Almost every edit you did to the page after that, was above their signatures.  Note on the talk page, lotus agrees to be a sock puppet 
*:::"I hereby give blanket authorization for 172 (or any other WP editor) to make whatever changes they wish to the statement(s) I have certified or endorsed in this RfC. If I come to feel a statement is no longer accurate and/or feel external circumstances have changed, I reserve the right to withdraw my endorsement by placing it under strikeout. This authorization is exactly what everyone gives by default by participating in an RfC, FWIW. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Bishonen, also essentially although not as explicitly agreed.  I doubt he has done a thorough review and accepted everything above his signature throughout the history of the article.  If he does assent to those, then he is assenting to some lies.--Silverback 10:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In all that stuff you wrote I guess I missed where you provided a diff of me changing other people's words.  The link above is not a diff and I do not see any evidence of malfeasance on my part at all there.  It's odd that you accuse me of random things and can't seem to back it up, then you ramble about other editors agreeing to be sockpuppets.  Anyway I'm sure Bishonen and Lulu will let us know if they think you are right.  I can tell you with certainty that I have no sockpuppets on any wikipedia pages and you can check the ips I post from to confirm it.--csloat 11:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You inserted this into the basis that they certified .--Silverback 14:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying that makes me a sockpuppet?  I clearly signed that statement.  I understand what you mean now, but it is hardly "sockpuppetry."  Besides, what is it in those paragraphs that you find untrue?  It was likely an oversight; I don't remember, but I certainly never went onto the page to distort someone else's words, and you state the case as if I actually changed their words (something you have done several times, BTW).  And of course the time stamps on all the signatures would clear up any misconceptions about what they certified when they signed the article (not to mention, the authors you are talking about both seem to be still alive, so they could have themselves indicated any problems with the paragraphs.  Anyway, thanks for clarifying, it confirms to me that you are making something out of nothing here.--csloat 19:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Most of the false statements inserted were by 172, some he later took out, he did most of the work over the signatures of others.  BTw, this particularly sockpuppetry accusation, is aimed more at those who don't take more seriously what is done in their name over their signatures, rather than those users who exploit them.   For an example of good behavior consider Ultramarine's certification.  I had carefully limited the certification statement, in order to make it more easily affirmed by someone who is really more of a witness, than a co-party of my attempt to reform the system.  Ultramarine is so careful of preserving the integrity of his signature, that he further qualified his statement, see .  I don't understand what you have in mind when you state "something you have done several times", can you be more specific?--Silverback 15:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The incidents I am aware of are listed in the Evidence section.  But I don't think it's the same thing you're talking about here either.--csloat 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More Silverback Attacks