Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172 (talk | contribs) at 20:01, 16 October 2005 (→Other pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

• (Silverback | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

Silverback (talk · contribs) is exceedingly argumentative on talk pages. He makes it tedious to keep arguing with him, as he offers weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the overwhelming evidence brought to his attention by other editors.

He repeatedly engages in revert wars and disruptive arguments on talk pages while ignoring the three revert rule, Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:Harassment, and Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Most disruptively, he insults fellow editors who disagree with his opinions, often implying that they are "immoral," "unethical," or engaging in "abuses of power" with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over his personal issues with other editors. Silverback does not play well with others.

Description

User:Silverback is a longtime Misplaced Pages editor, having made his first edit on 07:04, 30 September 2004. Thus, this RfC can make no pretense to being a complete overview of his nearly 13 months of activity on Misplaced Pages. Instead, it is just a collection of evidence concerning ongoing disputes, only looking back at episodes dating back before September 2005 to sheld light on current disputes.

In recent weeks, Silverback's most aggressive behavior has coincided with the deletion of Category:Totalitarian dictators. Silverback staunchly opposed deletion of this category, despite established consensus against similiar categories (e.g., Category:Dictators).

On 14:20, 30 September 2005 User:Kbdank71 closed the discussion on Category:Totalitarian dictators CfD, claiming that there was no consensus to delete. Shortly afterwards, 172 disagreed and removed the closure tag, thereby extending the time period for the discussion. 172 then stated on multiple pages, including Kbdank71's, that since the "deletes" already had a overwhelming majority, with the vote strongly trending toward "delete" in the final two or three days of voting, it was appropriate to give editors more time to add more feedback and perspective to the discussion, thus establishing in the end a more clear consensus one way or another. On 02:56, 3 October 2005, User:Who closed the extended debate, with the consensus being delete. He decided to let the category remain unlisted for a short period before ultimately deleting the category.

Since the deletion of the category, Silverback been making accusations of "immorality," "deceit," 'unethical behavior', "abuses of power" against 172 for extending the discussion on the CfD on multiple pages in a manner some editors consider harassment and disruptive. These charges can be found in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators (a deletion discussion pertaining to an article created by Silverback containing the contents of the deleted category) and later the Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion discussion following the AfD debate. Silverback 'fought' the deletion the spin-off article totalitarian dictators not because he expected success but "in order to increase awareness of behavior, and the injustice of using an incorrectly deleted article as an excuse to speedy delete another."

In response to the comments on the deletion of the Category:Totalitarian dictators in Misplaced Pages:Votes for Undeletion, on 17:01, 13 October 2005 Michael Snow wrote:

Silverback apparently is arguing that the deletion debate regarding the category was closed without consensus; however, this was not the final result of the discussion. The attempted closure Silverback points to was improper, especially in such a close case, because it was performed by one of the partisans for the "keep" side.

However, despite the room for legitimate disagreement over policy regarding the reopening of discussion on CfD noted above, Silverback's denouncements of 172's action only become more vehiment, even to the point of abuse, according to some editors. Silverback's pattern personal attacks and incivility was clearly articulated by User:Bishonen, who relayed to Silverback on 00:12, 15 October 2005, "You've made it clear that you dislike not only his editing, but his ideology, himself, and what you guess or believe about his private life. So what, really? You're an experienced editor, you know Misplaced Pages is no place for airing opinions about those things. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." When the advise apparently fell on deaf ears, Bishonen stated to Silverback on 00:12, 15 October 2005, "I don't know him, but I don't see anything in your specific accusations to warrant any attacks on his 'character' whatsoever. I don't see why he should put up with continuous abuse from you, either. Just stop it."

Concurrently, Silverback remains involved in a POV war on pages unrelated to the Categroy:Totalitarian dictators dispute. On 18:08, 13 October 2005, Csloat noted on that his conduct has been shown similar patterns on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda: "e's doing the same sort of thing on Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and has been for several weeks now. It's tedious to keep arguing with him and he steamrolls edits of the page itself (and reversions) with deceptive edit summaries, offering weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the most significant edits he makes.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Disruption, incivility, and harassment in discussions regarding Category:Totalitarian dicators

Silverback on User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

1. Silverback makes a bad-faith accusation of "vandalism" against Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. — 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   Edit summary and subject heading read, "stop vandalizing Category:Totalitarian dictators" (in current page, LotLE took out argumentative part of subject heading)

2. Silverback comments on 172's "fanaticism." — 20:52, 11 October 2005

   I think my improvements would address the concerns that 172 raised. Probably not enough to satisfy his fanaticism, but enough to make his arguments seem hollow.

3. After Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters rejects Silverback's description of 172 as a 'fanatic', writing, "I don't think caring about neutral point of view is 'fanaticism', but YMMV," Silverback retorts by comparing 172, whose family was largely perished in the Holocaust, to 'Holocaust deniers', 'deniers of Stalin's purges', and Castro's 'brutal repression of attempts to emigrate'. — 21:50, 11 October 2005

   Just because there are holocaust deniers, for instance, doesn't mean you should give up. Perhaps there are deniers of Stalin's purges or Castro's brutal repression of attempts to emmigrate, but most people can agree that these are facts and use reason to apply the definition.

4. Silverback defends his claim that 172 is an apologist for dictators and a supporter of the Soviet Union. 11:17, 12 October 2005

   You certainly don't think the apologist for dictators accusation was bizzare do you? You should go back and look at the evidence. Yours is some of the most glowing writing about Kruschev I've ever seen in the english language.

5. I don't know anything else (and don't really care to) about the rest of the dispute, but I noticed silverback blanking stuff from LuLu's talk page Fawcett5 17:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC) On further examination and explaination from Silverback, I believe this was caused by a database cache latency glitch and was not intentional. Fawcett5 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback on User talk:Bishonen

1. Silverback mischaracterizes 172's work on Soviet and Russian history, which has been determined to meet Misplaced Pages standards of NPOV in that it has resulted in a handful of Featured Articles, in order to imply that he supported the Soviet Union. — 13:43, 14 October 2005

   " was territorial about certain articles in which he largely painted post Stalin soviet leaders as reformers, and barely documented the continued oppressive nature of the regimes."

2. Silverback continues to 'extrapolate into 172's personal life', as he puts it. —

   The part where I extrapolate to his possible personal life, is of course, speculative. I admit that it is entirely possible that in his personal life he is a complete Milquetoast, and would never cross any questionable lines, and his behavior here is just a manifestation of the breakdown in of moral restraint that occurs under the cloak of anonimity. But by speculating in this way, I hoped to convict his conscience with what others might conclude from his behavior. He seems to be immune to this however.

3. Bishonen attempts to moderate Silverback's tone, and advise him to avoid personal remarks. — 19:36, 14 October 2005

   But for my part I can't believe anybody's conscience was ever convicted by one-eyed and unfair attacks like those you level against 172 on WP:VFU and continue to level here on my page. In any case his conscience is not your business. You've made it clear that you dislike not only his editing, but his ideology, himself, and what you guess or believe about his private life. So what, really? You're an experienced editor, you know Misplaced Pages is no place for airing opinions about those things. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If a fellow editor were to suffer, in your opinion, a "breakdown in moral restraint" (not that I've seen any sign of it), it's not something you have to fix.

4. Silverback continues to bait 172 for his 'abuse' on Bishonen's talk page. — 19:27, 14 October 2005

   Don't you wonder why it is repeatedly you that is unable to resist the temptation to abuse?

5. Silverback is again admonished to follow Misplaced Pages:No personal attacksBishonen states, "Please don't post on my page if you can't do it without insulting 172": 00:12, 15 October 2005

   "I suspect that 172's character will probably remain what it ever was". This is outrageous. Kindly do not post on my page again if it's impossible for you to do it without snide insinuations against 172 personally. Please follow this link to see where "Comment on content, not on the contributor" comes from, in case you think it's something I made up. Are 172's hypothetical flaws of "character" in some sense content, in your opinion? And incidentally, I don't know him, but I don't see anything in your specific accusations to warrant any attacks on his "character" whatsoever. I don't see why he should put up with continuous abuse from you, either. Just stop it.

Silverback on VfU

1. Silverback accuses User:Dmcdevit of lying when he stated that " was a valid closing." — 06:51, 13 October 2005

   You must be afraid of the truth since you are lying. Other voters should examine the evidence themselves.

2. In the same post, Silverback accuses 172 of "vandalism" — 06:51, 13 October 2005

   ...failure and closing of the previous CFD before User:172 vandalized the process.

3. Aaron Brenneman removes Silverback's personal attack on Dmcdevit — 07:07, 13 October 2005
4. Dmcdevit responds to Silverback's 'allegations' — 07:10, 13 October 2005
5. Silverback reverts Aaron Brenneman's removal of his attack on Dmcdevit and reiterates his unsubstantiated allegations. — 07:51, 13 October 2005

   I restore my original text. When a sysop lies, it shouldn't be brushed under the rug, and it isn't an attack when it is a fact. His statements were an attack on the truth. Far more serious.

6. Silverback makes five sequential postings stating unsubstantiated allegations against 172 regarding 'vandalism,' "deceptively deleting evidence," and 'misconduct' — 07:14, 13 October 2005 -- 07:42, 13 October 2005

   The original "category" that this "article" is supposed to be a repeat of, survived a vote for deletion, that was closed until that vote was vandalized .

   the previous page should not have been deleted, and was only because of misconduct by 172.

   But unlike User:172, I am not deceptively deleting the evidence of the previous hasty action.

7. Though Silverback apologizes to Dmcdevit, he reiterates his accusation that 172 "vandalized" the CfD process. — 08:32, 13 October 2005
8. Further incivility, with caps used to connote shouting (at whom it is unclear). — 11:37, 13 October 2005

   THIS IS THE CLOSED VOTE THAT 172 REOPENED

9. Silverback baits 172 for his 'abuse of power' — 11:37, 13 October 2005

   You abuse edit powers just as you did admin powers.

10. Silverback continues to bait 172 for "unethical behavior," "abuse of trusts," 'hubris that knows no limits', and his 'unworthiness to be justified with any powers, including editing'. — 11:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    No, it is your unethical behavior and abuse of trusts placed in you that I find offensive, and the fact, others apparently go along with it, in effect rewarding your behavior...

    Much to my surprise, you had been allowed to unethically and unilaterally open a closed vote, and then lobbied certain people for votes without notifying the whole community and the vote was closed again, all within three days...

    Your hubris knows no limits. Your ends justify any means. You are unworthy to be trusted with any powers, apparently even editing.

11. Silverback continues to attack what he perceives to be 172's ideology, insinuating that he is analogous to a "criminal" and was a supporter of the Soviet Union. — 12:39, 13 October 2005

    Blame to cop for the crime because he didn't catch the criminal. I think you wrote some similar language about Khrushchev and the Berlin wall, blaming Kennedy for the wall because Khrushchev would have backed off if Kennedy had resisted. Why don't you take responsibility for your actions instead of blaming others for allowing you to get away with it.

12. For the next four hours, Silverback's personal remarks charges are either ignored or refuted by other editors on VfU. — 19:59, 13 October 2005 - 23:57, 13 October 2005

    Tito states in reference to Silverback's charges regarding 172's reopening of the vote on the CfD for Category:Totalitarian dictators: Yeah , I do see something wrong with the CFD: the fact that someone who voted keep closed it as no consensus, when there was a consensus, but not for keeping...

13. Silverback continues to restate charges of 'vandalizing process' against 172 — 12:46, 13 October 2005
14. An administrator once again removes Silverback's personal attacks. Edit summary was "Personal attacks by Silverback removed." —01:07, 14 October 2005

    Bishonen note on the removal of the attacks stated the following: I have (conservatively) removed personal attacks by Silverback in the places indicated above. Silverback, you are urgently requested to stop commenting personally and insultingly on other editors. Please comment on contributions, not contributors.

15. Silverback objects to the removal of his ad hominem comments. — 04:28, 14 October 2005
16. Silverback disrupts Misplaced Pages to make a point by putting his contentious comments in brackets in order to make them into headings to make appear larger than the rest of the text. Other comments are put in bold or italics in order to connote shouting. — 04:37, 14 October 2005

    Special emphasis is now placed on the following You abuse edit powers just as you did admin powers and But unlike User:172, I am not deceptively deleting the evidence of the previous hasty action

17. Silverback starts inserting the Template:Dubious in VfU. The "dubious" template, however, is intended for accuracy disputes in articles, not discussions on talk pages. Silverback inserts the templates to express his disagreement with the removal of his ad hominem remarks. — 04:55, 14 October 2005
18. Titoxd removes the improperly inserted "dubious" templates and informs Silverback about a note he posted on his talk page explaining the proper use for the template. — 04:58, 14 October 2005

    rv - see note on your talk page

19. Silverback refusal to remove the dubious templates results in a revert war. No edit summary or explantion of the revert is provided. —04:58, 14 October 2005
20. Titoxd again removes the templates, admonishing Silverback to "stop misusing templates, and read my note on your talk page." —05:03, 14 October 2005
21. Silverback again reverts back to the dubious template yet again. Tito would not attempt to remove the template another time, perhaps out of consideration of the 3RR. — 05:14, 14 October 2005

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators

Evidence to be inserted

Other pages

Evidence to be inserted

1. Harassment on 172's talk page in response to RfC --
2. Disruption (Silverback reports 172 on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress for making edits to this RfC)-- 16:38, 16 October 2005

   IP/172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Vandalizing Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Silverback. 172 is materially changing the statement of dispute over the signatures of other people and after the respondent (myself) has respond to certain points. See the warnings on his and Lulu of the Lotus Eaters talk pages, and well as the discussion on the RfC talk page. Please assist quickly.--Silverback 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

   Baits 172 over an edit summary concerning the removal of his spurious "severe vandalism" charges related to this RfC. Silverback characterizes his "severe vandalism" WP:VFI altert not as harassment but as "a notice required by the rules." -- 19:45, 16 October 2005

Revert warring and incivility on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

1. csloat made the following post on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR on 18:37, 3 October 2005

   Silverback "constantly steamrolls this page with edits that have been refuted over and over in talk. The two edits he has specifically made here in these reversions have been refuted; he only bothers to defend one of them in talk (he ignores the arguments about the second but keeps reverting anyway) and he doesn't respond to the arguments against it. Instead, he plays dumb and keeps repeating himself. His edit summaries are also deceptive; the first revert is disguised as adding something to the page even though he knows well that he was reverting these two main changes -- see for example his revert from a few days earlier here. I do not want to have to have this article protected, but if the edit warring does not stop it may need to be. The two changes that he wants to put in the page have been discussed and he has refused to respond to the arguments against them. One of them is original research in violation of Misplaced Pages policy; the other one is a misleading interpretation of a quotation that already appears elsewhere on the page. He continues to misrepresent the latter change as putting the full quote in there when he knows that the quote is already in there. I think this user's conduct is a significant problem on wikipedia -- his changes should be reverted and he should be blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR. If his behavior continues, I will file an RfC so that more editors and administrators can evaluate his destructive behavior.

2. Csloat later made the following posts concerning Silverback's misleading edit summaries on 19:12, 3 October 2005:

   ...Silverback's first edit summary was misleading; I provided an example of an earlier edit that was substantively the same to show that he was actually reverting. Another user had made some minor changes to a different section in the interim but if you compare this to this you can see his changes are fundamentally the same, making his first edit a revert. Does that make sense? Sorry if I am doing that wrong -- this is my first time complaining about this (although this user has done this before). I've been trying to address this user in talk but he refuses to engage in the discussion other than to engage in personal attacks and to assert that he has already addressed my concerns. It is very frustrating :(

3. User:Fvw verified the above account by Csloat and then blocked Silverback:

   I count four reverts too: blocked. But in future please get some outside commentary before you get this far. --fvw* 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

4. (the following from csloat 01:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC) - I don't know if it is appropriate for me to add material here; if not please move it). After Silverback was blocked by Fvw he returned to the page and immediately began reverting again; I reported him a second time after four reverts. Silverback debated the meaning of revert and called the process "immoral" because he claimed the software had blocked him for an extra 7 hours. The second incident was not commented on by administrators.--csloat 01:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Longtime pattern of bad-faith accusations

El C sockpuppet accusations

Silverback has a long history of making false accusations against other editors; the most vehement ones relate to 172.

On 18 Jan 2005, Silverback accused User:El C of being a sockpuppet of 172 merely for having responded on his talk page, which is on El C's watchlist. El C answered it with humor, but "was nonetheless deeply troubled as to what this conduct could lead to if left uncheked." At the time both El C and 172 displayed body of works on their respective user pages. Silverback could have easily compared between some of the lengthy articles that both 172 and El had written to verify that they are indeed not the same person.

Pertinent passages pointed out by El C read (note that these are excerpts, but the order of the discussion is consistent; see diff):

BTW, I'm surprised that you are the one responding, as if you are 172, are you his sock puppet?--Silverback 06:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, you found out. Please don't tell anyone. 172 06:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, I take exception to that, Silverback. I'm –not– writing, as you say, as if I am 172, I am writing as if I am El_C, a sockpuppet of 172. Regardless though, I find (the non-comedic part of) your response to be highly lacking and flawed, but I'm writing in haste, so more on that later. E172_C 12:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was a bit of a mystery to me how you stumbled onto the subject and took the same position as 172 even though you hadn't appeared to edit or follow the page recently. I look forward to flaws being pointed out however. -- thanx in advance, --Silverback 07:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All easily demystifable. 172 is on my watchlist, so I noticed the comment. It took me little time to compare the pertinent edits through the article's revision history El_C 22:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)