Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Silverback's additions

I think someone may want to take a look at these edits by Silverback, which propose sanctions on Csloat. He is not the subject of this RfRa. 172 | Talk 09:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the ARBCOM process, they can look at all the parties and do. That is the risk you took. You are the one who claimed there was a dispute and wanted this process. I wasn't interested in it and offered mediation several times. But if you thought csloat had a real case, well you chose the wrong co-certifier. The guy has a personal attack diatribe for a style. I am sorry I got sucked into it. Do you think you are going to come out of this scott free? You evidently did not realize you were making a suicide attack. You are fair game in the arbcom too. You refused mediation, you short circuited the RfC process instead of completing it. And now you are here. I am still willing to engage in mediation. All this for a dispute that was over before the RfC had even been filed. You wanted revenge, well it ain't going to be painless.

I am still not interested in this arbcom process and only intend to help it progress to the extent that you and csloat make an effort at it. I am more interested in reform of the community to reduce the tolerance for admin abuses and vote abuses such as you committed. You know me 172, I am a challenging editor, but I am reasonable when I am not confronted with abuse. Then I may get a bit persistent and insistent (possibly an understatement?). I have no problem editing with you in other circumstances. Did you really think I was the party at fault in the csloat case? I just wasn't into making all the personal attacks, charges and allegations that he was. But here we are all subject to scrutiny, so if I have to I will defend myself. I saw jtkiefer presuming he knew what direction the sanctions would go in, so I had to document csloats personal attacks, which frankly are nearly innumerable.--Silverback 09:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)