Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Silverback

message: Some of today's edits are still lost in the page history following the last of his five reverts today.  I'd appreciate it if someone fixed it. I'd do it myself; but I don't want to have to approach the 3RR. The rest of the discussion is at the 3RR noticeboard.  172 | Talk 23:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Silverback's reverts

message: Unfortunately, Silverback has continually modified the comments provided by certifying and outside editors out of a misguided sense of which comments he decides are "allowed".  This in itself is strong evidence of violation of WP editing standards, and the generally failure of WP:FAITH the RfC subject exhibits throughout his edit history. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no objection to the information you want to insert, just don't put in in the certified text.  I'll allow minor corrections, but not changes to things I have already responded to.  We could have been making progress, if you had been willing to follow a fair process.  I don't think you want to resolve this dispute, but want to go to arbitration. I am willing to get this dispute resolved.  You haven't indicated any possible resolution yet.--Silverback 23:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of RfC multiply changing comments by others 

message: [WikiEN-l I've been blocked by an involved admin ]
Silverback has unearted yet another scandal. Sigh. If I even have to respond to it, I only happened to stumble across the votes for bureaucratship page because there's a huge link for it on Redwolf's page. This time it wasn't the vast conspiracy against Silverback I worked out with all the administrators. 172 | Talk 01:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Silverback attacking Redwolf on the mailing list

message: Out of Silverback's roughly 20 mailing list posts this one makes matters most clear in particular that the only solution to this disruption is arbitration. To anyone interested in supporting the case, please let me know. 172 | Talk 16:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Silverback#This_RfC_mooted_by_Redwolf24
Ha! I'm such a bastard admin, blocking someone for 3RR while they had an RfC going. I'd be an ass of an admin if I didn't, and you're hiding behind this RfC as a reason to not block you. Well if you're so interested in your RfC, you'll realize for the time being that the leading view on the RfC is to enforce a week or so long block to turn you around, but lately you've just gone around attacking people, and I think I can safely stop assuming good faith now.(Striking, I was annoyed when I typed that when I see comments like the wiki should be more careful in choosing administrators...) Cheers. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many people older than you that still lack the intellectual honesty to admit their mistakes.  Don't try to CYA, people have already relied upon your representations.  See First off, we need get the facts straight here. The block log shows not a 3RR violation, but something else.  You did not handle this like a 3RR, there is no indication that you even read or analyzed the 3RR report.  You stated your reasons on the block and now you are stuck with them.  Next time don't act so impulsively.  You had already voted, early before I had a chance for much response, and while the certified text was still being updated.  You voted almost as early as the 4 certifiers.  So don't pretend you are not involved and prejudiced.  I still have only begun to address the issues. You have a position of responsibility now, and your actions have consequences.  You took the matters before the RfC into your own hands and mooted the RfC.--Silverback 01:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not prejudiced. I recommended a short block, yes, as nothing else seemed to be working, but that does not make me prejudiced. I have not been involved at all, notice it's an 'outside view' still, as I have never interacted with you before. As for "voting" (not really a term I like to use at RfC's) soon after the certifiers, yes, it's because I watch the RfC page, as it's where admin abuse is posted, which is something I normally want to see. I had observed you and 172 at war at pages, and it looked a lot like you were baiting him, but I doubt you're a troll, so you're obviously fixable. I blocked for the 3RR (yes, I did read, 172 left me a note of it) and for the attacks, but a 24 hour block isn't very much, you can still easily comment on the RfC, just a day later. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once, I've had a chance to respond, I hope you'll reconsider your vote.--Silverback 01:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Redwolf24 has mooted this RfC"

message: This RfC is a clear failure in making matters less disruptive. I am requesting arbitration against Silverback. To those writing responses and signing summaries here-- please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and consider writing a statement there. 172 | Talk 07:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration against Silverback