Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Silverback

makeing changes to certified statements
It doesn't seem proper to me to make changes to text over the certification of others, and which the respondent has already responded to. I don't think the certifiers have given others a blank check to produce anything they want over their signatures. If corrections need to be made, in response someone, they should be made in a separate section that preserves the context of the respondents remarks. I suggest something akin to the custom on the ARBCOMs evidence pages.--Silverback 15:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any rules and norms precluding cosigners from modifying the contents of an RfC. While that would be a given for a paper document, this is a Wiki. The timing of all the changes can be traced in the page history. If modifications are unsatisfactory, they can be reverted by other cosigners. For now I'm under the impression that updates to RfCs are expected. But if I am wrong, I'd appreciate being directed to the relevant policy pages. 172 | Talk 15:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoops that last revert was me. I got logged out somehow.  Modifying information above someone elses signature is wrong, I presume you wouldn't modify someone elses comment on a talk page, and it would be an even more serious violation on an RfC where you are doing it over several persons signatures.  Those certifying the RfC are vouching for all the information in it, how can they do that if you go change it again after they've signed it?  Furthermore, once I have responded you are changing the context of my response, and making it look like I was lying.  The proper thing to do is to correct or amend the RfC in a separate section, and then who ever wants to can certify that.  I don't know if there is a specific policy, it is basic civility and fairness. I don't care if policy allows such behavior, I wouldn't do it and wouldn't tolerate it.


 * If there is a policy against it, I would guess that it is the vandalism policy, that is what I would report the violation as.--Silverback 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Every RfC I have ever been involved in, even peripherally, included modification and elaboration of statements by involved parties during the course of the discussion. An RfC is not something to be set in stone once, but something that evolves as more research is done and/or in response to additional/modified statements by involved (or outside) parties. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some may have allowed adding of evidence, but they should not have allowed any modification of the charges, and no deletion of evidence that had been discussed by the respondent already. Any major changes should would have to be approved by all signatories, and the respondent, or else made in a new RfC. --Silverback 16:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Thanks for clearing up the matter. That's what I thought, as this is a wiki. Silverback would, of course, have a point if we were working with paper medium. 172 | Talk 16:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No it is vandalism. . "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia " and "Changing people's comments Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself)"--Silverback 16:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Silverback, please don't insist on preserving minor errors in amber and preventing minor updates. Cosigners can be assumed to keep an eye through the convenient watchlist feature. Your policy quotes don't fit the case very well: "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia"...? "substantially change their meaning, like in turning someone's vote around...? Here's a quote for you: Wikipedia is not a system of law. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. [...] Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you classify removing a charge that you got wrong, and that I have already responded to as "minor"? --Silverback 16:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The apology thing was hardly a 'charge that I got wrong' in the first place. Technically you might have apologized for the March sockpuppet allegations this month before the RfC; but you did so in a post that went on to continue to bait me for being 'an apologist for dictators.' So it hardly does much to change the tone. 172 | Talk 16:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Leave it in there and defend it then. You can argue that what your really meant was that it wasn't the right kind of apology, you didn't find it satisfactory, or that you demand more apologies before you accept any.  And it wasn't just you that got it wrong.  Each "certifier" got it wrong. --Silverback 17:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is also the matter of the charge that I didn't even apologize to El_C. What was wrong with that apology?  He accepted it then, is he taking back that acceptance now?--Silverback 17:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I invited El C to take a look. If it's the content is incorrect, El C can let me know. Then I'll change it. For now I think the two of us should keep our distance on this RfC. I'm not interested in more disruption, like this "severe vandalism" report of yours on WP:VIP. 172 | Talk 17:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You told me to go ahead. Changing the meaning puts it in the severe category.--Silverback 17:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The level of minutiae above scares me a little. I will reply fully to Silverback's direct question to me, but here's notice that I'm not coming back to this talkpage, I've nothing more to say on it. Silverback, I call the apologies in question a minor matter because I think they are. They're a tiny, minute, microscopic part of the whole, they make no difference to the case because they're churlish words of form. I might as well quote them and be done with it:


 * I sincerely apologize for any harm that careless question may have caused you". --Silverback 00:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) [Very nice, except for the next post three minutes later:] "BTW, I also intend to apologize for which ever of the suspicions I expressed which turn out to be false. But just because they are false does not mean they were groundless".--Silverback 00:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And this:"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?" I don't think I've seen the words "I apologize" offered in a less apologetic way. Does that really pass for an expression of regret, in your view?

Anyway, don't you want these details corrected? I don't understand why you seem to prefer them to be misstated. Modifying your own statement accordingly, for example to insert I see you have changed it now, but here's what you said to begin with surely wouldn't have been one tenth of the trouble of all these reverts and threats for the purpose of preserving them. Bishonen | talk 17:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The apology was to El_C, the groundless statement was in regard to a different issue. And was a technical point.  I think you are certifying a whole lot of stuff you know nothing about.--Silverback 17:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And I think you're divorcing the first half of my post from my sig, please don't do that. If somebody should in turn respond to yours, it'll become impossible to see what I said (that very thing happened with your interlined post on my talkpage). I've moved your reply down from its interlined position, I hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I find that disciplined indenting keeps things straight and allows comments closer to the relevant text. However, indented quotes can make it problematic sometimes.--Silverback 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I am hoping to stimulate a discussion of this issue on wikien-l email list, to increase awareness of what is going on. --Silverback 19:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I have reinserted my comments, and I certainly don't approve of you removing them in the first place, even though they were struck. DO NOT remove them again. They were neither "Illegal" or "vandalism" - editors "certifying" the Rfc were people who tried to mediate a solution before the Rfc, there is nothing "certified" about the text of the Rfc per se. The only thing innappropriate going on there is the subject of an Rfc removing comments from the Rfc page. THAT is vandalism, and if you keep it up, I'll block you myself. Fawcett5 22:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's reverts
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)

Subject of RfC multiply changing comments by others
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)

I can't even restore the rest of the content deemed unallowed by Silverback, as I'd be approaching the 3RR myself. 172 | Talk 23:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Silverback attacking Redwolf on the mailing list
[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)

Arbitration
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)

"Redwolf24 has mooted this RfC"
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. R e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 23:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Once, I've had a chance to respond, I hope you'll reconsider your vote.--Silverback 01:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration against Silverback
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 Requests for arbitration and consider writing a statement there. 172 | Talk 07:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)