QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 26th March 2009, 9:21pm)
Why this is so hard for so many people to understand? X makes a personal comment about Y that Y takes exception to. Y, not being a god-like creature, merely another human being, responds in kind. A little bit of argey-bargey ensues, but nobody dies and it's soon forgotten. Or at least it ought to be.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Oh, that's easy. If it were just an exchange of words that the parties took exception to, you'd have hit the nail on the head. But this is different. He says Iridescent lied and that torpedoed his RFA. That's a lot more than just a personal comment.
I've been reading
the RFA just now. Actually, I doubt that the particular assertions by Iridescent that Shalom objects to actually did torpedo the RFA. It seems to me that it was the overall circumstances -- Shalom's past wasn't something that other editors were ready to discount enough, despite his statements that he'd reformed and a period of time showing reform. I think if the RFA had been postponed longer, Shalom would have been in a much stronger position, but perhaps not.
Shalom, there's an irony in this. In the RfA, you wanted Wikipedia editors to forgive you for past wrongs (admittedly, after you had shown regret, decided to change and did change). Now you're saying you can't forgive and put it behind you after all these months. I understand that feeling, but you also understand the irony, don't you? Incidentally, I think you looked better in that RfA than Iridescent did. Iridescent did make a seemingly reasonable case that you shouldn't be trusted, others made a reasonable case that you should.
Given the mercurial, unfair, often irrational nature of Wikipedia, I don't think it's a good idea to put a lot of stock in seeking any kind of sign there of community approval for anything.