Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

172's unilateral deletion of a vote closure unusual
these admins consider it questionable

172s unilateral deletion of a vote closure is deceptive
This vote had been closed and all other sep 23 votes had been close

172 exploited this deception to defeat the supermajority protections
his single party campaign

172 further exploited this deception
by using the questionable deletion as justification for a speedy deletion of the article by the same name

172's lack of qualms about committing abuses is analogous to his apologia for abusers (dictators and other authoritarian regimes)
His ends justify his means, including means others would consider uncivil, deceptive and abusive.

It is no coincidence, that the category he vandalized the voting process on was "Totalitarian dictators", and that he is territorial about keeping the List of dictators article as a redirect. He describes these as inherently POV, while he has no problem making distinctions in areas with far less of a body of historical, political and academic literature, such as Neoconservatism in the United States. A distinction that is pejorative, and not self descriptive in all but a few cases.

csloat makes personal attacks and does not assume good faith
Csloat repeatedly strays from comments on content to instead imply intent and make personal attacks, alleging deception, etc. His whole style even when he is addressing substance is a running personal diatribe against other editors. He can't stick to the substance:

At 22:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC) he makes these personal, and non-substantiative statements:


 * ''"Stop distorting what I am saying...As I said, if you really thought there was something to this, you would raise it on the appropriate pages...You don't do that at all and I suspect it is because you know this is just a ludicrous argument...It's just absurd, the lengths you guys want to go to in order to justify a conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly debunked.

At 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * '"Ron this has nothing to do with this article and you know it... I notice you don't bother the people who edit those pages with your garbage because you probably realize it's garbage and you only assert it to advance your political POV. Everyone who reads this (except apparently Silverback) knows you are wrong here, so please stop insisting on adding nonsense to this page."

At 23:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "I see - so now that you admit that Able Danger is not related to Atta in Prague you want to support another version of the entry that does not even mention a Saddam link at all. And you refuse to even articulate a reason this time; you just announce that you want to support that version. And you conveniently ignore the arguments agaist that version above."

At 04:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Mr. Cram, for heaven's sake, at the very least finish figuring out what your reckless speculation is going to be before you insist on including it in an encyclopedia. As for the other bit, that's real nice that you think something you admit has no relevance still belongs here for some reason."

At 20:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * " This is typical of your argument style here - always avoiding the real issues, but stomping your foot and insisting you're right anyway. ... As it is, you're just fantasizing. That's fine, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia"

At 21:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC) he characterizes contributions as "silly", and at 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC) as "ludicrous".

At 08:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "You can't be that dense... I suspect it is because you're more interested in asserting a particular political POV than you are in actually having an accurate encyclopedia entry"

At 09:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "it is silly to think...This whole thing is becoming tedious. I realize I say that a lot but look - if you guys think this is really important let's bring others into the discussion...."

At 04:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "IMHO it shows that you are grasping at straws...Also, stop being deceptive about the arguments here -- there are several arguments above on this issue that have simply been ignored by you and Mr. Cram. Instead of responding, you create a new heading and repeat the assertion you made before. This assertion has been responded to over and over."

Note that he is accusing me of being deceptive, still not sticking to the substance.

At 05:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC) he questions our good faith again:


 * "I realize you guys want to rewrite the entire article so it appears to establish a link that did not exist ... what you are advocating is an article to prove the existence of angels...you guys keep calling them "links" but that is really a catechresis...Silverback your motivation here is particularly in question...What I am not willing to do is support the spreading of disinformation through this article..."

At 19:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC) the running diatribe continues, he personalizes everything:


 * "On to your points - there is no "evidence of collaboration" that stands up under scrutiny and you know it. You are just repeating the same stuff you've been repeating for months, ignoring the arguments against it...you have BS from unreliable INC sources...do you think that means he collaborated with Iran too? Your conspiracy theory is completely paranoid...You're just asserting bogus points now. You are the one bringing in original research with your able danger garbage and you have not responded to the arguments above; you have just repeated yourself and pretended that you have responded. Why are you wasting my time with this? You say I want to pretend Able Danger isn't in the media but you know damn well that is not what I said;...you have repeated several assertions that you have already repeated over and over again but you have not responded to the actual arguments here. The worst thing about all this is that by your actions you have acknowledged that you are not interested in the truth here; you are just interested in promoting your little conspiracy theory. Personally I would rather see a page that is accurate than a page that just promotes your bizarre jumps to untenable conclusions based on bizarre strings of disputed so-called "evidence"

At 17:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "I'm sorry Ron - I am trying to assume good faith but you have shown again and again that your agenda is to make the article into a platform for your conspiracy theory even when the evidence does not support that...but you know that is BS...please stop repeating yourself; I am sick of repeating myself in response...I beg you to stop repeating that it does like a little kid who wants candy at the grocery store"

At 08:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Silverback are you just checking to see if I'm awake?...of responding to those arguments you are just reverting. And please actually respond rather than simply repeating yourself"

At 10:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC) I believe I make my FIRST personal remark

 * "You overestimate how well you have "dealt" with the able danger thing."

At 10:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC) csloat starts up again:


 * "I am not overestimating anything -- you haven't answered my arguments against the Able Danger thing, ever. It is original research...Why should I keep repeating this?...again you ignore these responses...All you can come up with...Anyway I'm reverting your nonsense. Again, don't revert back without actually answering the arguments here - simply reasserting your original points is bogus."

At 12:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) I make another personal remark

 * "Let me lay it out for you reeeeeally sloooooow. Bush admin lying about WMD is not as relevant to the credibility of Bush admin cites in this article about links to al Qaeda, as 9/11 commission's incomplete investigation of alpha-dangers knowledge of links to al Qaeda is to the commisions credibility about links to al Qaeda. Your analogy was NOT VERY ANALOGOUS. Got it? How many ways do I have to say it?"

At 19:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC) csloat continues his diatribe:


 * "And let me lay it out for you: (1) this is the first time you've responded to that particular argument, so stop your silly posturing "how many ways do I have to say it." You're confused. I'm the one who is getting exasperated by being forced to respond to the same points again and again. ...Do not make changes if you feel it is too hard to respond to the arguments against them. That may be because those arguments are correct"

At 22:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC) I have once again got sucked into this personal stuff

 * "Excuse me, I responded to that argument immediately when you raised it, and then repeatedly referred to the credibility issue, because your argument was so weak and had not been reinforced. Search on "Whether it is relevant or not, depends on the area of credibility that is impacted", I just laid it out a little more sloooowly here. "

At 00:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC) csloats diatribe continues, we are not on the substance anymore:


 * "LOL. Yes I looked at that exchange, and I responded to your comments in that place too, and again you left me hanging,...Face it, you are grasping at straws here -- trying to pull in a barely tangential piece of information that barely refutes one of the many sources of information on this page ... what is surprising is that you appear to really believe that this piece of information is both relevant and decisive here. Bizarre. "

At least he seems to accept that I am acting in good faith here although he labels it bizzare.

At 11:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC) csloat continues, questioning good faith again:


 * "It feels like you're intentionally being dense...And again this is all speculation - original research on your part. You again make the baseless charge that this article has too much about 9/11 - point to specifics here. Also this is an irrelevant point to the issue at hand - you have not justified reverting this article! There are also other changes you are reverting without justifying those reversions at all. This is practically vandalism and you are just wasting my time.--"

Note, he is not addressing my contributions, just characterizing and making assertions about them. He should discuss the substance.

On 12:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC) I get sucked into the personal stuff again, defending myself from these attacks

 * "Only you can waste your time. I don't put my conclusion about the meeting into the article either. I am not trying to do original research here. As cited, the 9/11 commission spokesman, is the one who stated that the timeline is in conflict. Why don't you just leave this factual stuff in, until after the congressional hearings which begin shortly. We should know then more about the evidence. This way you avoid wasting your time. Articles are dynamic, you shouldn't panic over something that rather inoccuously conflicts with your POV. It ain't the end of the world, and since I am a reasonable good faith editor, it may be only temporary, if the credibility of the 9/11 commission and the timeline you prefer, survives the hearings"

At 18:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC) csloat continues his dismissive characterizations instead of sticking to the substance:


 * "...That is ludicrous! Why not include an entry on Hurricane Katrina, just in case someone comes out in the next few weeks and articulates a connection? I am trying to believe that you are a "reasonable good faith editor" but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. You posture in talk and then make sweeping changes in the article, many of which you don't even try to justify. You continually revert things that have been debated to death here, and you don't even try to respond to the arguments against your position. Now you are declaring that we should include irrelevant material on the off chance that a future investigation determines that this entry is relevant."

At 06:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) I make a personal response again, this really isn't normally my way
I present the interchange whole here, instead of just excerpts


 * "I admit that I haven't evaluated the issues other than the AD stuff, but based on the quality of your arguments on the AD stuff and your sweeping reverts of it despite your failure to make your case on the AD stuff, why should I consider you as having any credibility on that other stuff? Are your arguments any better there? And if they aren't any better there are you any more likely to be intellectually honest enough yield? Frankly, I don't want to get into the minutia of the other issues, but you haven't demonstrated any credibility with your mischaracterization of my arguments and evidence and with your sweeping reverts. Remember that you are the one being deletionist here.--Silverback 06:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)"


 * "Great. You won't respond to things in talk but you will revert them. Now you won't even justify the AD additions any more; you just want to keep adding them. I have more than bent over backwards again and again trying to explain this stuff, and trying to assume good faith, and you simply keep repeating yourself, ignoring the responses (except to vaguely ridicule them like you do above). Now you admit you have been reverting stuff without even reading it. Please stop playing games. What you're doing is at this point almost indistinguishable from vandalism. --csloat 08:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC) "


 * "Once again you mischaracterize my position, I am more than happy to justify the AD addition, as I have many times. I propose a compromise, we keep the AD stuff in, and abandon the other changes. This was implicit in my statement above. You, who claim to be editing in good faith, have you proposed any compromises? If the credibility of the 9/11 commission is not an issue here, are you willing to remove all references to it? Do you even know what the terms you throw around mean, such as "original research"? There is a cite from someone associated with the 9/11 commision to support the timeline conflict, etc. Do you have a cite for the position that AD is not relevant to the timeline or "original research"? As you see, I am more than willing to defend the AD insert. Let's try to make this decision based on the evidence.--Silverback 08:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC) "


 * "We don't compromise by letting people put stuff into wikipedia that does not belong there. This is original research. The credibility of the 9/11 Commission has not been questioned with regard to connections between Saddam and al Qaeda. You may speculate that the AD stuff may impact their credibility in other areas all you like but it is original research to put it here. Stop playing around - the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence connecting AD to this article, not on me to provide evidence that they are not connected. If you don't understand what I mean by "original research" in this context, you should not be editing wikipedia this aggressively.--csloat 08:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC) "

Later on after some exchange with some of the usual personal elements to them, csloat goes on this diatribe:


 * "Are you on drugs? It's crazy you keep pressing me to explain this to you over and over. The only connection to Atta worth mentioning on this page is the April thing in the timeline. Able Danger has nothing to do with that. Able Danger does not say anything about the Commission's credibility with regard to this issue, and any attempt to claim that it does is original research, pure and simple. The "Bush lies" analogy was not my main argument against this position as you are well aware; it was an attempt to make you understand because you were being so obtuse about it. Just stop toying with this page, please. It's getting tedious and ridiculous. You're making a fool of yourself and you are trying to make this page incoherent by adding irrelevant information. Also is there anyone else following this discussion besides myself and silverback? I ask because I am completely blown away by how ridiculous his position is here - do other people agree or is there something I am missing here? --csloat 06:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)"

At 19:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC) csloat continues to stay personal:


 * "As usual I will be correcting your bogus edits..."

I respond with a "You are quite wrong, ..." and at 19:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC) csloat states:


 * "Your edits are basically vandalism and do not conform to your point at all. ..."

One of my eventual responses is personal:


 * "Why don't you read the introduction if you want to know what the page is about?--Silverback 20:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC) "

Csloats personal attacks continue, at this point he starts a new subsection entitled "Silverback's vandalism"

Here I change the title to "Silverback's vandalism and csloats mischaracterizations" and respond.

From then on csloat is constanting making accusations and mischaracterizations on that talk page and my talk page, and I probably respond occasionally.--Silverback 09:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

when his personal attacks are labeled, mischaracterizations
he then labels these personal attacks

Silverback response to User:El C
I must apologize the El C. I mistakenly accused him of being a sock puppet again. My memory failed me, it was not El C, but Bishonen and that lotus eaters person that agreed to be sock puppets. 172 and csloat did make changes above El C's signature, but I see no evidence that El_C gave explicit permission for them to do so. Apologies again, I noticed the mistake when I reviewed the evidence. Are there any other erroneous allegations is the post? I will be happy to review the evidence and correct those too.--Silverback 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.

September-October 2005

 * 23:23, 22 September 2005
 * this example shows the user 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.


 * 13:36, 29 September 2005
 * deceptive edit summary -- summary states that "the most recently discussed quote appears to be properly attributed" yet the dispute there was not about attribution of the quote at all, but its propriety to a particular section of the article.


 * 18:17, 30 September 2005
 * 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.


 * 20:26, 12 October 2005 and 00:18, 13 October 2005
 * More deceptive summaries -- look here and here 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.


 * 03:10, 22 October 2005
 * These edits show the user abusing the RfC process by moving my statement on the page to 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 seems to be an attempt to undermine the RfC process by creating confusion and by making it seem as if his "agreement" proposal was ignored.

Evidence from Quadell
I have encountered Silverback on numerous occasions and have found that he has an abrasive personality, he tends to revert too much, and he states his positions in ways certain to invite controversy. However, whenever I have striven to work with him and have stubbornly refused to take the bait to get in a shouting match, I have found that Silverback is capable of being quite reasonable.

Examples of bad behaviour
General abrasiveness, and provokative statements:
 * 17:16, August 19, 2005
 * 04:26, October 13, 2005
 * 05:09, October 26, 2005

Reverting liberally:
 * Numerous. See his contributions.

However:

Examples of reasonableness

 * On 16:24, August 19, 2005, Silverback reverted to adjust the POV.
 * At 16:52, I essentially reverted his edit, making other changes as well.
 * Instead of reverting back, he (somewhat abrasively) asked on my talk page why I had done this.
 * I ignored the rhetoric, considered his point, and altered my change to reflect his concerns.
 * He did not revert. Reasonableness acheived.
 * On 22:50, February 8, 2005, Silverback reverted SlimVirgin's change.
 * SlimVirgin asked him on the talk page to not do so, and to discuss on talk instead.
 * In response, instead of reverting, Silverback replied on the talk page.
 * Discussion followed, and a compromise was reached. Like grown-ups.

Although I disagree vehemently with Silverback's political POV, and although he frequently edits to ensure that articles don't stray too far from his POV, I have to say that, on the whole, the majority of his edits are positive contributions to Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bishonen
My involvement in the dispute between 172 and Silverback is limited to events on October 14, plus some subsequent evidence and chit-chat about that episode on Requests for comment/Silverback. I had not previously interacted with either of them.

October 14: Personal attacks
I noticed an appeal from 172 to have personal attacks by Silverback removed by an admin, went look, and considered them to be indeed personal attacks. For instance:
 * your hubris knows no limits. Your ends justify any means. You are unworthy to be trusted with any powers, apparently even editing....
 * You should know that character matters, and your lack of morality in small matters like this, does not speak well for how you probably behave in the rest of your life where the tempting spoils of immorality and deceit are greater. No wonder you favor authoritarian regimes, you only know how to take what you want, you don't know how to earn it.

I removed them (this link shows all the removed text). Silverback disagreed with my actions, and we had a short but, I initially thought, hopeful discussion on my talkpage. Silverback argued that his comments and insinuations about 172's "morals" and even personal life were appropriate because he hoped to "convict his conscience" by making them, while I argued that 172's "conscience", "character" and the like were not his business, and that policy doesn't allow for any remarks on them, let alone insults. Silverback's argument itself contained continuing offensive remarks about 172's character and motives:
 *  ...his behavior here is just a manifestation of the breakdown of moral restraint that occurs under the cloak of anonimity.
 * I suspect that 172s character will probably remain what it ever was, but perhaps his behavior will change if he realizes that it may be exposed to the light of day.

I soon lost patience with this (I'll never make a mediator, I guess) and asked him to either stop it with the ad hominem remarks or stop posting on my page. He chose the second.

October 15—November 5: Silverback's responses in his RFC
On the Requests for comment/Silverback brought by 172 on October 15, Silverback has engaged little with the conduct concerns raised by many users, focusing instead on a) what a bad man 172 is             , and b) the outworks and formalia of the process. He has accused users of vandalism for editing "certified comments", removing their edits ,, , , , posted the RFC on Vandalism in progress , got himself blocked for violating 3RR on it (reported here by 172 on WP:AN/3RR) and deluged the Mailing List with complaints about the RFC process while he was blocked.

November 5
I have no idea whether this is exculpatory or damning, but it is evidence I suppose. Silverback filed the following RFC: Requests for comment/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse

November 7
Revert war over an AFD tag on an RFC.

(Background info: I deleted the RFC mentioned above because it didn't have two certifications within 48 hours, per RFC policy. Silverback copy/paste recreated it, and found a second certifier. Nlu thought that was an invalid action, and nominated the RFC for deletion. Then, this revert war ensued) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

November 9
In Silverback's defense, I find this is a rather civil and mature response. 

Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

November 11
SB repeatedly demands that Ryan Delaney be blocked for protecting a page in The wrong version.
 * - First notice on ANI
 * - Related note at RFPP
 * - Related note at AMA
 * Requests for comment/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse - the whole RFC accuses Ryan for protecting, and accuses other admins of not blocking Ryan
 * - second notice on ANI

Bases his RFA voting on whether the candidate will "stand up to abusive admins"
 * 

November 8
Please review closely the following exchange in which Silverback has directed an attack and insinuations against myself: diff Please pay especial attention to Silverback's following modifications to the original exchange. . Thanks. El_C 13:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Sam Spade
I submit that this is an invalid arbcom case until such time as Kelly Martin recuses herself from the matter. Evidence regarding her conflict of interest can be found @ Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Silverback. I suggest that such a conflict of interest is particularly egregious in the case of an appointed arbiter, lacking a mandate from the community. Sam Spade 19:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)