[WikiEN-l] Silverback, indefinite block in order?

Mon Oct 17 17:35:12 UTC 2005

On 10/16/05, Mattwolf Binder <matt_binder at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am not involved, and 172 supporting my RfB has nothing to do with it. In
> fact if you check the arbcom pages you'll see I opposed 172. But after
> seeing all this crap he puts up with I think that I'll end up supporting.
> Silverback has been attacking 172, trolling, being a level 19 revert
> warrior, and is all around raising the stress for everyone involved. In fact
> he'll probably end up in front of the arbcom, and I'm tempted to
> indefinitely block just to save them work. He's turning into another Tern, a
> user who I block for a short period of time, whines on the mailing list,
> doesn't seem to let up anything, and will probably end up blocked
> indefinitely. I'm also really tired of the political hatred and right wing
> POV pushing by Silverback. Would anyone object to indefinitely blocking him?
>
> --Redwolf24

I don't think that Silverback's conduct yet reaches the level at which
we should be talking about a life ban.  I haven't looked at the full
history yet, but I doubt that the ArbCom would ban him for a year (the
longest time ArbCom is permitted to ban a user) based on what I have
seen; a shorter ban of perhaps a week, a personal attack parole, and
perhaps some other remedies are more likely to be imposed.  Perhaps we
should just skip the circus and ban him straightaway, but I think
doing so circumvents a process that we hope, perhaps naively, will
remediate the conduct of problem users without requiring a permanent
ban.

If you want to keep this off ArbCom's docket, try actually talk to him
to find out what his grouse is, and then address whatever that might
be.  This might be futile, but I would think that you, as acting chair
of MedCom, would be more willing to talk an issue through than lay
down the hard and heavy on the guy.

Kelly